1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,680 --> 00:00:14,720
Speaker 1: Boeing is under fire, facing investigations by the Federal Aviation Administration,

3
00:00:15,240 --> 00:00:20,040
Speaker 1: the Justice Department, and the National Transportation Safety Board. What's more,

4
00:00:20,480 --> 00:00:24,320
Speaker 1: Justice could tear up a controversial twenty twenty one deferred

5
00:00:24,360 --> 00:00:29,120
Speaker 1: prosecution agreement that allowed Boeing to escape criminal charges over

6
00:00:29,280 --> 00:00:33,280
Speaker 1: crashes in twenty eighteen and twenty nineteen that killed three

7
00:00:33,360 --> 00:00:36,800
Speaker 1: hundred and forty six people. And the testimony before Congress

8
00:00:36,840 --> 00:00:41,440
Speaker 1: two weeks ago of whistleblower Sam Salapor, a Boeing engineer,

9
00:00:41,680 --> 00:00:45,120
Speaker 1: could illustrate a reason for the Justice Department to tear

10
00:00:45,200 --> 00:00:47,400
Speaker 1: up that deferred prosecution agreement.

11
00:00:47,680 --> 00:00:50,959
Speaker 2: The NTSB chair reiterated Congress last week that Boeing has

12
00:00:50,960 --> 00:00:54,040
Speaker 2: said there are no records documenting the removal of the

13
00:00:54,120 --> 00:00:57,160
Speaker 2: last airline store. I'm not going to sugarcoat this. This

14
00:00:57,240 --> 00:01:00,000
Speaker 2: is a criminal cover up. Records do in fact exist.

15
00:01:00,880 --> 00:01:03,480
Speaker 2: I know this because I've personally passed them to the FBI.

16
00:01:04,160 --> 00:01:07,399
Speaker 1: Joining me, is Bloomberg Legal reporter Greg Farrell. Greg tell

17
00:01:07,480 --> 00:01:10,160
Speaker 1: us about the deferred prosecution agreement with Boeing.

18
00:01:10,800 --> 00:01:14,280
Speaker 3: This deferred prosecution agreement has turned out to be controversial

19
00:01:15,040 --> 00:01:18,200
Speaker 3: insofar as it was struck in the winning days of

20
00:01:18,240 --> 00:01:20,480
Speaker 3: the Trump administration, and in fact it was signed on

21
00:01:20,520 --> 00:01:24,000
Speaker 3: January sixth, twenty twenty one. You know, most news covers

22
00:01:24,000 --> 00:01:27,119
Speaker 3: that day focused on other events in Washington, DC rather

23
00:01:27,200 --> 00:01:30,360
Speaker 3: than on the Boeing TPA. It got almost no coverage

24
00:01:30,360 --> 00:01:34,760
Speaker 3: at the time, but essentially following two horrific crashes that

25
00:01:34,840 --> 00:01:37,000
Speaker 3: took the lives of three hundred and forty six people

26
00:01:37,480 --> 00:01:41,560
Speaker 3: and a two year Justice Department investigation, ended up with

27
00:01:41,600 --> 00:01:43,560
Speaker 3: a fine at the low end of two hundred and

28
00:01:43,560 --> 00:01:47,720
Speaker 3: forty three million dollars and acknowledgment that Boeing didn't cooperate

29
00:01:47,720 --> 00:01:50,480
Speaker 3: with the investigation for several months at the beginning. So

30
00:01:50,520 --> 00:01:53,280
Speaker 3: they got a good deal despite not cooperating very much.

31
00:01:53,280 --> 00:01:55,800
Speaker 3: They got a deferred prosecution agreement instead of an actual

32
00:01:55,880 --> 00:01:57,040
Speaker 3: criminal charge.

33
00:01:57,560 --> 00:02:01,440
Speaker 1: The families of the people that are killed, were they

34
00:02:01,760 --> 00:02:04,640
Speaker 1: not happy about that Boeing agreement.

35
00:02:05,120 --> 00:02:08,040
Speaker 3: Absolutely. First of all, they were blindsided by this settlement.

36
00:02:08,480 --> 00:02:12,160
Speaker 3: They suddenly just announced, you know, on January seventh. They

37
00:02:12,200 --> 00:02:15,360
Speaker 3: had asked the Justice Department on several occasions, you know,

38
00:02:15,440 --> 00:02:18,160
Speaker 3: throughout twenty nineteen and twenty twenty. You know, if they're

39
00:02:18,280 --> 00:02:20,639
Speaker 3: investigating Boeing and how's the criminal investigation going. And we're

40
00:02:20,680 --> 00:02:23,560
Speaker 3: told in twenty twenty that there was no criminal investigation,

41
00:02:23,960 --> 00:02:26,320
Speaker 3: so you know, they were not happy with that, but

42
00:02:26,600 --> 00:02:28,160
Speaker 3: they sort of had to deal with that and move on.

43
00:02:28,200 --> 00:02:30,080
Speaker 3: And then suddenly to find out that there was a

44
00:02:30,080 --> 00:02:32,799
Speaker 3: criminal investigation that they weren't informed of that it ended

45
00:02:32,840 --> 00:02:35,919
Speaker 3: up being very favorable to Boeing, and they weren't even consulted.

46
00:02:36,280 --> 00:02:39,280
Speaker 3: They were just shocked and blindsided by that. That really

47
00:02:39,720 --> 00:02:42,200
Speaker 3: like there was sault in the wound. And then the

48
00:02:42,320 --> 00:02:46,200
Speaker 3: charge that to which Boeing acknowledged its misconduct but didn't

49
00:02:46,240 --> 00:02:49,760
Speaker 3: have to plead guilty too as of then was defrauding

50
00:02:49,760 --> 00:02:52,919
Speaker 3: the US government by being dishonest with the FAA over

51
00:02:53,200 --> 00:02:56,560
Speaker 3: the need for extra training because of this this new

52
00:02:56,919 --> 00:03:00,760
Speaker 3: software program that would be an automated steering system under

53
00:03:00,760 --> 00:03:04,840
Speaker 3: certain circumstances, and eventually, you know, it was blamed for

54
00:03:05,160 --> 00:03:08,960
Speaker 3: you know, both of these failed crashes. The government focused

55
00:03:09,000 --> 00:03:12,960
Speaker 3: only on misleading the FAA, But what they did not

56
00:03:13,040 --> 00:03:16,720
Speaker 3: pay any attention to was the fact that boeinghead insisted

57
00:03:16,760 --> 00:03:19,079
Speaker 3: that the plane was safe even after the first crash.

58
00:03:19,160 --> 00:03:22,800
Speaker 3: The material has emerged in various congressional investigations that the

59
00:03:22,800 --> 00:03:25,680
Speaker 3: top executives were aware and trying to fix you a

60
00:03:25,800 --> 00:03:28,880
Speaker 3: possible problem with the steering during a period of time,

61
00:03:29,080 --> 00:03:31,800
Speaker 3: but the Justice Department did not bring any action against

62
00:03:31,840 --> 00:03:35,080
Speaker 3: senior executives at all. Instead, the only criminal charge for

63
00:03:35,120 --> 00:03:38,600
Speaker 3: an individual was this mid level technical pilot, a guy

64
00:03:38,640 --> 00:03:42,760
Speaker 3: named Mark Folkner, who was tried and acquitted in like

65
00:03:42,760 --> 00:03:45,440
Speaker 3: two hours. It was clearly viewed as a scapegoat by

66
00:03:45,480 --> 00:03:49,400
Speaker 3: the jury and even the FAA witnesses who were called

67
00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:52,200
Speaker 3: to testify, the ones who were deceived that felt the

68
00:03:52,200 --> 00:03:54,200
Speaker 3: same thing, even though this guy is just being set

69
00:03:54,280 --> 00:03:56,640
Speaker 3: up by the company. That's the sign of a weak

70
00:03:56,840 --> 00:04:00,360
Speaker 3: DPA is that you're blaming the death of three forty

71
00:04:00,400 --> 00:04:04,240
Speaker 3: six people, two horrific crashes on this controversial system that

72
00:04:04,320 --> 00:04:06,640
Speaker 3: was not disclosed through the FA, all on one guy,

73
00:04:06,720 --> 00:04:09,000
Speaker 3: as if no one above him knew about this.

74
00:04:09,720 --> 00:04:12,200
Speaker 1: So, you know, we all know about that recent Boeing

75
00:04:12,480 --> 00:04:15,480
Speaker 1: mid air blowout of the door plug, so bad luck

76
00:04:15,520 --> 00:04:20,240
Speaker 1: for Boeing. That was just days before this deferred prosecution agreement,

77
00:04:20,720 --> 00:04:21,200
Speaker 1: and we.

78
00:04:21,040 --> 00:04:23,599
Speaker 3: Were the first to report that that it came just

79
00:04:23,600 --> 00:04:27,440
Speaker 3: two days before the three year term expired and shortly thereafter,

80
00:04:27,680 --> 00:04:30,440
Speaker 3: the Justice Department did start looking into that two parts

81
00:04:30,480 --> 00:04:34,400
Speaker 3: of criminal investigation into any whether any laws were broken

82
00:04:34,839 --> 00:04:37,680
Speaker 3: in terms of how this door plug came off, did

83
00:04:37,800 --> 00:04:40,560
Speaker 3: going again hide records or not disclosed things they should

84
00:04:40,600 --> 00:04:43,800
Speaker 3: have disclosed, And you know, concurrently with that, part of

85
00:04:43,839 --> 00:04:45,719
Speaker 3: the terms of the DPA is that you've got to

86
00:04:45,760 --> 00:04:48,920
Speaker 3: be good for three years, improve your disclosure system so

87
00:04:48,960 --> 00:04:52,599
Speaker 3: that you never deceive regulators again and don't commit any ponies.

88
00:04:52,839 --> 00:04:55,320
Speaker 3: And if it turns out that there was a felony

89
00:04:55,360 --> 00:04:59,960
Speaker 3: associated some evidence of criminal activity in either hiding or concealing,

90
00:05:00,080 --> 00:05:02,880
Speaker 3: are not doing the proper work or disclosing it about

91
00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:05,560
Speaker 3: the door plug? And that would be adequate grounds for

92
00:05:05,640 --> 00:05:06,960
Speaker 3: the government to tear up the DPA.

93
00:05:07,720 --> 00:05:11,239
Speaker 1: And there was congressional testimony that Boeing was not cooperating

94
00:05:11,279 --> 00:05:13,760
Speaker 1: and wouldn't give over the list of people who'd worked

95
00:05:13,800 --> 00:05:17,039
Speaker 1: on the door and said records had apparently disappeared, and

96
00:05:17,080 --> 00:05:20,239
Speaker 1: all this was hampering the government's investigation into the incident.

97
00:05:20,320 --> 00:05:22,400
Speaker 3: There should be like, you know, some kind of a

98
00:05:22,400 --> 00:05:24,560
Speaker 3: work review exactly over who did what and who would

99
00:05:24,520 --> 00:05:26,120
Speaker 3: the last people to look at the door plug, And

100
00:05:26,120 --> 00:05:28,000
Speaker 3: there was a there was a gap or at least

101
00:05:28,279 --> 00:05:31,240
Speaker 3: Boeing didn't have anything. And there was a whistleblower who

102
00:05:31,279 --> 00:05:34,400
Speaker 3: testified in Congress, you know, like two weeks ago, saying

103
00:05:34,400 --> 00:05:36,400
Speaker 3: that he was aware of paperwork and he had handed

104
00:05:36,400 --> 00:05:39,800
Speaker 3: it over to the FBI. So, yes, we have whistleblowers,

105
00:05:39,839 --> 00:05:43,600
Speaker 3: current and former who stay pluggedn't no pun intended to

106
00:05:43,640 --> 00:05:47,120
Speaker 3: what's going on at Boeing, you know, also calling attention

107
00:05:47,160 --> 00:05:47,680
Speaker 3: to this stuff.

108
00:05:47,800 --> 00:05:52,520
Speaker 1: So the victims' families have certain rights under the crime victims'

109
00:05:52,760 --> 00:05:55,880
Speaker 1: rights laws, and tell us about the attorney who's working

110
00:05:55,920 --> 00:05:58,800
Speaker 1: for them on this deferred prosecution agreement.

111
00:05:59,480 --> 00:06:02,760
Speaker 3: Hey, former federal judge a laury named Paul Cassel, based

112
00:06:02,800 --> 00:06:06,800
Speaker 3: in Utah took up the cause of trying to attack

113
00:06:06,839 --> 00:06:10,279
Speaker 3: the DPA intervene in the district in Texas where this

114
00:06:10,360 --> 00:06:14,120
Speaker 3: case was brought, and he was shot out Initially. The

115
00:06:14,200 --> 00:06:17,320
Speaker 3: judge eventually recognized that the families were victims and that

116
00:06:17,360 --> 00:06:20,320
Speaker 3: they were improperly shut out by the Just Department from

117
00:06:20,560 --> 00:06:24,640
Speaker 3: proper consultation before reaching this determination in the DPA. It

118
00:06:24,640 --> 00:06:27,200
Speaker 3: doesn't mean that the victims get a veal power over

119
00:06:27,200 --> 00:06:30,599
Speaker 3: what the prosecutors are going to decide, but it does

120
00:06:31,080 --> 00:06:33,920
Speaker 3: force the government to make sure they keep victims' families

121
00:06:33,920 --> 00:06:35,400
Speaker 3: surprised of what they're doing.

122
00:06:35,400 --> 00:06:37,839
Speaker 1: And the families of the victims had a meeting with

123
00:06:37,880 --> 00:06:39,400
Speaker 1: the Justice Department last week.

124
00:06:39,560 --> 00:06:41,400
Speaker 3: Just from this time wants to do right by the

125
00:06:41,480 --> 00:06:43,000
Speaker 3: victims in so far as to make sure they do

126
00:06:43,120 --> 00:06:46,640
Speaker 3: not repeat the mistakes of three years ago. So the

127
00:06:46,680 --> 00:06:49,000
Speaker 3: government they have six months to determine whether or not

128
00:06:49,040 --> 00:06:52,080
Speaker 3: the company complied with the elements of the DPA, and

129
00:06:52,160 --> 00:06:55,160
Speaker 3: six months from January seventh to July seventh. So as

130
00:06:55,200 --> 00:06:58,400
Speaker 3: that date is approaching, the family's gotten more concerned. The

131
00:06:58,400 --> 00:07:00,599
Speaker 3: government decided to bring them in to let them know

132
00:07:00,640 --> 00:07:03,000
Speaker 3: what was going on, also give them an opportunity if

133
00:07:03,000 --> 00:07:06,400
Speaker 3: they had any evidence to indicate that Boeing had violated

134
00:07:06,440 --> 00:07:08,880
Speaker 3: the terms of the DPA, they should bring it there.

135
00:07:09,080 --> 00:07:11,640
Speaker 3: Although that's unrealistic. It's not up to the families to

136
00:07:11,680 --> 00:07:14,320
Speaker 3: do an investigation. It's actually the Justice Department's job. But

137
00:07:15,200 --> 00:07:17,520
Speaker 3: they did at least do what they did not do

138
00:07:17,640 --> 00:07:20,720
Speaker 3: four years ago and keep them apprized. They went a

139
00:07:20,760 --> 00:07:23,480
Speaker 3: little further and gave them some information about how this

140
00:07:23,600 --> 00:07:26,480
Speaker 3: is going to go down. They told the victims' families

141
00:07:26,520 --> 00:07:28,720
Speaker 3: and their lawyers if they hadn't made a decision yet

142
00:07:28,760 --> 00:07:31,680
Speaker 3: on what to do, whether not to tear up the

143
00:07:31,760 --> 00:07:35,320
Speaker 3: DPA or withdraw the true charge that was lodged three

144
00:07:35,360 --> 00:07:38,320
Speaker 3: years ago. Because they haven't made that decision, they expect

145
00:07:38,360 --> 00:07:40,720
Speaker 3: and hope to make it by the end of May

146
00:07:40,760 --> 00:07:44,720
Speaker 3: early June, in other words, and they said that if

147
00:07:44,760 --> 00:07:48,440
Speaker 3: they decide to withdraw the charge, the families will be

148
00:07:48,480 --> 00:07:50,440
Speaker 3: the first to know. They won't have to learn about

149
00:07:50,480 --> 00:07:53,160
Speaker 3: in the media the way they did three years ago. However,

150
00:07:53,200 --> 00:07:55,520
Speaker 3: if they do decide to tare up the DPA, they

151
00:07:55,600 --> 00:07:58,280
Speaker 3: want to give Boeing at least thirty days noticed so

152
00:07:58,360 --> 00:08:01,560
Speaker 3: they can appeal or argue against it, et cetera. So

153
00:08:01,640 --> 00:08:04,960
Speaker 3: that was the message from the Justice Department to the families.

154
00:08:05,040 --> 00:08:07,960
Speaker 1: Last week you mentioned Paul Cassell. He said, we have

155
00:08:08,080 --> 00:08:11,240
Speaker 1: no idea what the Justice Department will do, which leads

156
00:08:11,280 --> 00:08:13,680
Speaker 1: us to believe they're still in bed with Boeing, and

157
00:08:13,840 --> 00:08:16,600
Speaker 1: if they move to dismiss, we'll fight that motion vigorously.

158
00:08:17,200 --> 00:08:19,880
Speaker 1: Do you really think they'll dismiss when there's this criminal

159
00:08:19,880 --> 00:08:25,120
Speaker 1: investigation and other investigations into the Alaska air incident. I mean,

160
00:08:25,160 --> 00:08:28,000
Speaker 1: it would be controversial if they let Boeing off the hook.

161
00:08:27,880 --> 00:08:31,080
Speaker 3: Right, So politically, the optics of this for the Justice

162
00:08:31,120 --> 00:08:33,040
Speaker 3: Partment would not be good. If they determined that Boeing

163
00:08:33,240 --> 00:08:35,280
Speaker 3: as in fact not violated any term of it, they

164
00:08:35,320 --> 00:08:37,840
Speaker 3: would draw the charge. They might be able to justify

165
00:08:37,880 --> 00:08:40,040
Speaker 3: that legally, but it will look bad. It'll just be

166
00:08:40,080 --> 00:08:42,200
Speaker 3: another set of news cycles. At the same time, you

167
00:08:42,200 --> 00:08:44,760
Speaker 3: should not bring a charge because you don't want to

168
00:08:44,760 --> 00:08:47,480
Speaker 3: look bad. And clearly there's enough here because of this

169
00:08:47,960 --> 00:08:51,160
Speaker 3: Alaska Air incident. The Alaska Air incident really did trigger

170
00:08:51,200 --> 00:08:53,559
Speaker 3: this investigation. I think if it weren't for that incident,

171
00:08:54,000 --> 00:08:56,600
Speaker 3: that would be well on our way to a withdrawal.

172
00:08:56,600 --> 00:08:59,000
Speaker 3: But I think it's clear that the government is taking

173
00:08:59,000 --> 00:09:02,080
Speaker 3: this seriously. Paul. I think that's a default position because

174
00:09:02,080 --> 00:09:03,920
Speaker 3: of what happened a few years ago and that the

175
00:09:03,960 --> 00:09:07,480
Speaker 3: Justice Department has been unhelpful to the families. But at

176
00:09:07,520 --> 00:09:09,640
Speaker 3: the same time, it's not up to the Justice Department

177
00:09:09,679 --> 00:09:11,840
Speaker 3: to show their cards, you know, and if we take

178
00:09:11,880 --> 00:09:13,679
Speaker 3: them at their word that they haven't decided yet, right,

179
00:09:13,720 --> 00:09:15,440
Speaker 3: it would be improper for them to show their card.

180
00:09:15,559 --> 00:09:18,320
Speaker 3: So if the just Go Barnment does move to withdraw

181
00:09:18,400 --> 00:09:21,280
Speaker 3: this charge, then Paul Cassell does plan to litigate it

182
00:09:21,320 --> 00:09:23,679
Speaker 3: in the in Fort Worth. And this is far more

183
00:09:23,760 --> 00:09:26,760
Speaker 3: legal detail than you know, most people want to know,

184
00:09:27,160 --> 00:09:30,440
Speaker 3: but there's precedent. There have been several decisions going up

185
00:09:30,480 --> 00:09:34,520
Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court in recent years about judicial challenges

186
00:09:34,800 --> 00:09:38,360
Speaker 3: to defer prosecution agreements. When just a deferred prosecution agreement,

187
00:09:38,640 --> 00:09:41,120
Speaker 3: it's not legal until it comes in and then you know,

188
00:09:41,120 --> 00:09:43,000
Speaker 3: you get a judge to sign off on it. And

189
00:09:43,080 --> 00:09:45,320
Speaker 3: most of the time judges are fine with it. But

190
00:09:45,400 --> 00:09:47,520
Speaker 3: there have been a few cases, particularly in Washington, d C.

191
00:09:47,720 --> 00:09:51,600
Speaker 3: Federal judges where they've challenged the government on why you

192
00:09:51,640 --> 00:09:53,240
Speaker 3: give them, you know, these guys such a good deal.

193
00:09:53,280 --> 00:09:56,320
Speaker 3: In other cases and one of them, the judge you know,

194
00:09:56,600 --> 00:09:58,760
Speaker 3: didn't want to approve the DPA because he felt that

195
00:09:58,840 --> 00:10:01,640
Speaker 3: the prosecutors were too lenient on this foreign company that

196
00:10:01,640 --> 00:10:04,679
Speaker 3: had you know, facilitated weapons transferred to Iran. And then

197
00:10:04,679 --> 00:10:06,439
Speaker 3: it went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court

198
00:10:06,480 --> 00:10:09,920
Speaker 3: decided that in a different prosecution agreement, is beyond the

199
00:10:09,960 --> 00:10:12,960
Speaker 3: purview of the judicial branch of the government to question

200
00:10:13,160 --> 00:10:17,880
Speaker 3: prosecutorial decisions by the executive branch unless there's some evidence

201
00:10:17,880 --> 00:10:21,280
Speaker 3: of corruption or some wrongful conduct. But it's not up

202
00:10:21,280 --> 00:10:23,079
Speaker 3: to the juici branch to decide, you know, this is

203
00:10:23,080 --> 00:10:26,160
Speaker 3: a bad deal, you should go redo it. So the default,

204
00:10:26,280 --> 00:10:29,360
Speaker 3: particularly for this judge until now in Fort Worth, has

205
00:10:29,440 --> 00:10:31,240
Speaker 3: been like, you know, even if I want to, my

206
00:10:31,280 --> 00:10:34,360
Speaker 3: hands are tired. It can't do anything. However, the Fifth

207
00:10:34,360 --> 00:10:37,520
Speaker 3: Circuit last year, you know, ruled on the Crime Victims

208
00:10:37,559 --> 00:10:41,440
Speaker 3: Rights Act, et cetera, and allowed, in a message directly

209
00:10:41,480 --> 00:10:43,400
Speaker 3: to the judge it's involved in this case, said that

210
00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:45,360
Speaker 3: you only need to approve this if you think it's

211
00:10:45,360 --> 00:10:47,560
Speaker 3: in the public interest. In other words, if the government

212
00:10:47,559 --> 00:10:51,040
Speaker 3: decides to withdraw the charge, then the Fifth Circuit gave

213
00:10:51,720 --> 00:10:54,560
Speaker 3: the federal judge and Fort Worth the elbow room to

214
00:10:54,600 --> 00:10:57,200
Speaker 3: decide whether or not that would be in the public interest.

215
00:10:57,640 --> 00:11:01,800
Speaker 1: So Fifth Circuit once again out on a limb.

216
00:11:01,840 --> 00:11:05,160
Speaker 3: Yes exactly. That's component of this. If the government does

217
00:11:05,200 --> 00:11:08,559
Speaker 3: decide to basically withdraw the charge and bowen, can you

218
00:11:09,080 --> 00:11:11,880
Speaker 3: go in peace after the events of five years ago,

219
00:11:12,200 --> 00:11:13,920
Speaker 3: that needs to be approved by the judge and there'll

220
00:11:13,960 --> 00:11:15,240
Speaker 3: be vigorous argument about it.

221
00:11:15,440 --> 00:11:17,800
Speaker 1: So we may find out by the first week of June,

222
00:11:17,840 --> 00:11:22,000
Speaker 1: but certainly by July. Thanks so much, Greg. That's Bloomberg

223
00:11:22,120 --> 00:11:25,200
Speaker 1: Legal Reporter Greg Ferrell coming up next on the Bloomberg

224
00:11:25,280 --> 00:11:29,120
Speaker 1: Law Show. The EPA has some tough new power plant rules,

225
00:11:29,200 --> 00:11:34,360
Speaker 1: and there's sure to be litigation. This is Bloomberg. The

226
00:11:34,440 --> 00:11:38,720
Speaker 1: Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new regulations that would force

227
00:11:38,840 --> 00:11:42,760
Speaker 1: coal fired power plants to capture smoke stack emissions or

228
00:11:42,800 --> 00:11:47,320
Speaker 1: shut down, the Biden administration's most ambitious effort yet to

229
00:11:47,520 --> 00:11:51,000
Speaker 1: roll back planet warming pollution from the power sector, the

230
00:11:51,080 --> 00:11:56,320
Speaker 1: nation's second largest contributor to climate change, environmental legal experts

231
00:11:56,360 --> 00:11:59,800
Speaker 1: and advocates so the administration checked all the right boxes

232
00:12:00,200 --> 00:12:04,600
Speaker 1: to avoid the pitfalls that characterize the EPA's twenty twenty

233
00:12:04,640 --> 00:12:08,600
Speaker 1: two defeat in the Supreme Court. But West Virginia's attorney

234
00:12:08,640 --> 00:12:12,800
Speaker 1: general has already promised a lawsuit, and other Republican leaning

235
00:12:12,840 --> 00:12:16,600
Speaker 1: states and industry groups are likely to follow, joining Me's

236
00:12:16,679 --> 00:12:20,480
Speaker 1: environmental law expert Pat Parento, a professor at the Vermont

237
00:12:20,559 --> 00:12:24,080
Speaker 1: Law and Graduate School. What do these new EPA rules do?

238
00:12:24,920 --> 00:12:27,440
Speaker 4: So, there are four of them, and they're all aimed

239
00:12:27,480 --> 00:12:30,880
Speaker 4: at coal fired power plants, although one of them also

240
00:12:30,920 --> 00:12:35,600
Speaker 4: includes gas fire plants. But three of the rules deal

241
00:12:35,920 --> 00:12:40,840
Speaker 4: with conventional what I would call conventional regulation of coal plants.

242
00:12:40,960 --> 00:12:44,440
Speaker 4: One of them deals with mercury emissions. It's closing a

243
00:12:44,640 --> 00:12:50,240
Speaker 4: loophole for plants that burn lignite, which is the lowest

244
00:12:50,480 --> 00:12:56,480
Speaker 4: grade of coal and the dirtiest three times more mercury emissions,

245
00:12:56,640 --> 00:12:59,760
Speaker 4: which of course are neurotoxins dangerous to children and fish

246
00:12:59,800 --> 00:13:04,240
Speaker 4: and other things. And so the first rule just closes

247
00:13:04,320 --> 00:13:10,560
Speaker 4: this loophole that exempted these lignite plants from regulation under

248
00:13:10,559 --> 00:13:13,800
Speaker 4: the Clean Air Act. That's rule number one. Rule number

249
00:13:13,840 --> 00:13:20,600
Speaker 4: two deals with toxic discharges from coal plants, which also

250
00:13:20,640 --> 00:13:26,040
Speaker 4: include mercury, but in addition arsenic and some other toxic pollutants.

251
00:13:26,559 --> 00:13:30,160
Speaker 4: And that rule is under the Clean Water Act, and

252
00:13:30,400 --> 00:13:35,080
Speaker 4: it simply updates rules that should have been updated many

253
00:13:35,160 --> 00:13:38,240
Speaker 4: years ago. In fact, they were updated by Obama, but

254
00:13:38,320 --> 00:13:40,920
Speaker 4: of course then they were repealed by Trump, and so

255
00:13:41,080 --> 00:13:45,760
Speaker 4: now they're being reinstated by Biden. So the second rule

256
00:13:46,760 --> 00:13:51,520
Speaker 4: toxic discharges from coal fired power plants. The third rule

257
00:13:52,000 --> 00:13:57,600
Speaker 4: deals with the disposal of coal ash, which is also

258
00:13:58,000 --> 00:14:05,520
Speaker 4: hazardous and contains heavy metals again, mercury, cadmium, selenium, lots

259
00:14:05,520 --> 00:14:10,120
Speaker 4: of nasty stuff. So the third rule is frankly just

260
00:14:10,600 --> 00:14:17,000
Speaker 4: closing another loophole that didn't require cleanup of abandoned coal

261
00:14:17,240 --> 00:14:20,520
Speaker 4: ash pits and ponds, and these are the things that

262
00:14:20,880 --> 00:14:25,800
Speaker 4: sometimes fail and overflow. We had a huge disaster in

263
00:14:25,800 --> 00:14:30,080
Speaker 4: two thousand and eight at the Kingston coal plant run

264
00:14:30,120 --> 00:14:33,920
Speaker 4: by TVA in Tennessee. We had a more recent one

265
00:14:33,920 --> 00:14:37,600
Speaker 4: in two thousand and eighteen where there was a spill

266
00:14:37,640 --> 00:14:41,080
Speaker 4: of coal ash into the Dan River in North Carolina.

267
00:14:41,360 --> 00:14:45,360
Speaker 4: So the third rule is just another closing of a

268
00:14:45,360 --> 00:14:51,080
Speaker 4: loophole requiring cleanup of these abandoned ash pits. The fourth

269
00:14:51,160 --> 00:14:54,320
Speaker 4: rule is the big one and the one that's most controversial,

270
00:14:54,760 --> 00:14:58,800
Speaker 4: and that's the rule that replaces the Clean Power Plan

271
00:14:59,000 --> 00:15:04,280
Speaker 4: that Obama had adopted and the Supreme Court of course killed. First,

272
00:15:04,400 --> 00:15:07,680
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court put a stay on the Clean Power

273
00:15:07,680 --> 00:15:11,520
Speaker 4: Plan so it never took effect. And secondly, it issued

274
00:15:11,560 --> 00:15:17,800
Speaker 4: this infamous decision West Virginia versus EPA, which not only

275
00:15:17,920 --> 00:15:21,440
Speaker 4: invalidated the Clean Power Plan, which, by the way, EPA

276
00:15:22,000 --> 00:15:25,320
Speaker 4: had said it had no intention of reinstituting, it was

277
00:15:25,360 --> 00:15:28,560
Speaker 4: moving on to a different approach. But nevertheless, the Supreme

278
00:15:28,600 --> 00:15:31,960
Speaker 4: Court struck it down and adopted what we now know

279
00:15:32,800 --> 00:15:37,720
Speaker 4: as the Major Question Doctrine. The fourth rule is called

280
00:15:38,480 --> 00:15:47,760
Speaker 4: greenhouse Gas regulation of existing coal fired power plants and

281
00:15:48,040 --> 00:15:54,880
Speaker 4: new gas fired power plants. EPA's original proposal was to

282
00:15:54,960 --> 00:15:59,640
Speaker 4: regulate both new and existing gas plants, but in the

283
00:15:59,680 --> 00:16:06,280
Speaker 4: final rule, EPA opted not to regulate existing power plants.

284
00:16:06,400 --> 00:16:11,880
Speaker 4: That's through an awful lot of criticism from the environmental

285
00:16:11,880 --> 00:16:17,200
Speaker 4: community and from people concerned about climate change. But EPA

286
00:16:17,560 --> 00:16:24,480
Speaker 4: is counting on dealing with existing gas plants. Should President

287
00:16:24,600 --> 00:16:27,880
Speaker 4: Biden get a second term A big question mark, of course,

288
00:16:28,160 --> 00:16:31,480
Speaker 4: but that's what EPA decided. They're going to postpone dealing

289
00:16:31,520 --> 00:16:34,920
Speaker 4: with existing gas plants to the future.

290
00:16:35,880 --> 00:16:37,840
Speaker 1: And pat Most people who listen to the show have

291
00:16:38,000 --> 00:16:42,080
Speaker 1: heard about the Major Questions doctrine, but explain it for us.

292
00:16:43,560 --> 00:16:47,960
Speaker 4: It's a new way of interpreting agencies authority under statutes

293
00:16:48,000 --> 00:16:52,520
Speaker 4: that aren't crystal clear, and that doctrine says, if a

294
00:16:52,640 --> 00:16:59,640
Speaker 4: rule would have quote vast political and economic consequences, then

295
00:17:00,080 --> 00:17:04,760
Speaker 4: Congress must have explicitly in the text of the law

296
00:17:05,560 --> 00:17:11,200
Speaker 4: authorize EPA or any other agency to undertake that kind

297
00:17:11,240 --> 00:17:16,600
Speaker 4: of regulation. It means no deference to the agency's interpretation,

298
00:17:17,320 --> 00:17:24,320
Speaker 4: regardless of policy considerations, regardless of the agency's expertise, regardless

299
00:17:24,359 --> 00:17:29,760
Speaker 4: of the fact that Congress oftentimes delegates broad authority the

300
00:17:29,920 --> 00:17:35,720
Speaker 4: agencies to implement incredibly complex laws like the Clean Air Act,

301
00:17:36,080 --> 00:17:42,560
Speaker 4: dealing with incredibly difficult problems like the climate crisis climate disruption.

302
00:17:43,400 --> 00:17:46,800
Speaker 4: Regardless of all of that that the Supreme Court in

303
00:17:46,840 --> 00:17:50,720
Speaker 4: the West Virginia case, the Court will decide, which means

304
00:17:51,119 --> 00:17:55,200
Speaker 4: five members of the Court will decide what the law

305
00:17:55,320 --> 00:17:59,399
Speaker 4: means and what the agency's authority is.

306
00:18:00,359 --> 00:18:03,359
Speaker 1: I've read that this new rule could require the power

307
00:18:03,359 --> 00:18:08,919
Speaker 1: industry to install billions of dollars worth of emissions control technologies.

308
00:18:09,119 --> 00:18:15,040
Speaker 4: It's a complicated rule. It's staggered. Okay, So what the

309
00:18:15,160 --> 00:18:22,320
Speaker 4: rule says. If you plan to close your coal plant

310
00:18:23,119 --> 00:18:26,760
Speaker 4: by twenty thirty two, you don't have to do anything.

311
00:18:27,400 --> 00:18:35,440
Speaker 4: If you plan to operate your coal plant beyond twenty

312
00:18:35,560 --> 00:18:43,520
Speaker 4: thirty nine, you have to install carbon capture and sequestration

313
00:18:44,320 --> 00:18:51,479
Speaker 4: technology CCS that will achieve ninety percent removal of the

314
00:18:51,520 --> 00:18:56,560
Speaker 4: carbon by twenty thirty two. So you can see how

315
00:18:56,680 --> 00:19:01,840
Speaker 4: complicated this is. It's designed, you could say, to encourage

316
00:19:02,600 --> 00:19:08,160
Speaker 4: owners of coal plants to retire them early, or if

317
00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:11,679
Speaker 4: you want to take the pejorative, you can say it's

318
00:19:11,720 --> 00:19:16,960
Speaker 4: forcing premature closure of coal plants. You see what I mean.

319
00:19:17,560 --> 00:19:20,720
Speaker 1: So it's not just future coal plants, then it's affecting

320
00:19:20,760 --> 00:19:21,880
Speaker 1: coal plants today.

321
00:19:22,359 --> 00:19:25,200
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, it's existing. There will be no new coal plants.

322
00:19:25,280 --> 00:19:27,199
Speaker 4: There haven't been for ten years. There won't ever be

323
00:19:27,240 --> 00:19:30,720
Speaker 4: another new coal plant. That's not my prediction. That's the

324
00:19:30,840 --> 00:19:34,400
Speaker 4: Energy and Information Agency of does as that there isn't

325
00:19:34,440 --> 00:19:36,879
Speaker 4: going to be any more new coal plants. So this

326
00:19:37,000 --> 00:19:40,119
Speaker 4: is all about and there are two hundred coal plants

327
00:19:40,119 --> 00:19:43,440
Speaker 4: in the country, so this is all about existing coal plants.

328
00:19:43,840 --> 00:19:48,240
Speaker 1: So what's West Virginia and other Republican leaning states going

329
00:19:48,240 --> 00:19:50,320
Speaker 1: to argue to get this rule shut down.

330
00:19:50,480 --> 00:19:53,280
Speaker 4: They're worried about closing the coal plants that exist now,

331
00:19:54,160 --> 00:19:57,560
Speaker 4: and they have three arguments. One, they think that this

332
00:19:57,720 --> 00:20:02,359
Speaker 4: is just a repeat of what happened in the West

333
00:20:02,440 --> 00:20:06,160
Speaker 4: Virginia versus EPA case. And they're arguing that the major

334
00:20:06,240 --> 00:20:11,240
Speaker 4: question doctrine means EPA doesn't have the authority to impose

335
00:20:11,760 --> 00:20:20,600
Speaker 4: these kinds of high costs with the clear intent to

336
00:20:20,640 --> 00:20:24,040
Speaker 4: put coal out of business. That's number one. So they're

337
00:20:24,040 --> 00:20:26,320
Speaker 4: going to try to get this case back before the

338
00:20:26,359 --> 00:20:29,480
Speaker 4: Supreme Court and get the Supreme Court to rules that, oh,

339
00:20:29,520 --> 00:20:33,160
Speaker 4: this is just like what we struck down before in

340
00:20:33,200 --> 00:20:36,560
Speaker 4: West Virginia versus EPA. That's not true, and I can

341
00:20:36,600 --> 00:20:38,600
Speaker 4: come back to that, but that's going to be their argument.

342
00:20:39,320 --> 00:20:42,040
Speaker 4: The second argument they're going to make is that this

343
00:20:42,240 --> 00:20:48,040
Speaker 4: technology you're talking about, this CCS carbon capture and sequestrations.

344
00:20:48,080 --> 00:20:53,720
Speaker 4: While it's true it has been demonstrated at a pilot

345
00:20:53,840 --> 00:21:00,560
Speaker 4: level or a small scale level, it's not adequately demonstrated

346
00:21:01,520 --> 00:21:06,359
Speaker 4: to scale up to a ninety percent removal rate in

347
00:21:06,440 --> 00:21:11,200
Speaker 4: the timeframe. You're talking about complicated system. It requires capturing

348
00:21:11,920 --> 00:21:17,680
Speaker 4: the emissions at the plant, liquefying them, putting them into

349
00:21:17,680 --> 00:21:21,080
Speaker 4: a pipeline, and taking them to an area where you

350
00:21:21,119 --> 00:21:26,560
Speaker 4: can inject the carbon into a formation that will hold

351
00:21:26,600 --> 00:21:34,440
Speaker 4: it basically forever. So it's this big, complex, very expensive system,

352
00:21:35,000 --> 00:21:40,119
Speaker 4: and it's not been demonstrated to the point where coal

353
00:21:40,280 --> 00:21:46,040
Speaker 4: plant operators can achieve it in the timeframe you've provided,

354
00:21:46,160 --> 00:21:49,480
Speaker 4: even though the timeframe is lengthy. I mean, they have

355
00:21:49,720 --> 00:21:53,720
Speaker 4: at least eight years to install these systems. But they're

356
00:21:53,720 --> 00:21:56,119
Speaker 4: making an argument, we can't do it, we won't be

357
00:21:56,160 --> 00:21:58,520
Speaker 4: able to do it, and your rule is simply going

358
00:21:58,600 --> 00:22:02,120
Speaker 4: to shut us down. You can't do that, and then

359
00:22:02,160 --> 00:22:06,719
Speaker 4: the third thing they're arguing is that as you begin

360
00:22:06,880 --> 00:22:11,640
Speaker 4: to force the closure of these coal plants, which are

361
00:22:12,160 --> 00:22:18,040
Speaker 4: baseload plants that can operate even when the sun isn't

362
00:22:18,080 --> 00:22:21,760
Speaker 4: shining and the wind isn't blowing to make up for

363
00:22:22,320 --> 00:22:27,879
Speaker 4: the intermittency of renewable energy systems which are coming online

364
00:22:28,280 --> 00:22:32,320
Speaker 4: more and more. If you take these base load plants

365
00:22:32,920 --> 00:22:36,840
Speaker 4: out of the system, you're going to have reliability problems

366
00:22:36,920 --> 00:22:40,719
Speaker 4: big time. So the third big argument is you're going

367
00:22:40,760 --> 00:22:45,280
Speaker 4: to destabilize our grid and you're going to cause people

368
00:22:45,320 --> 00:22:50,440
Speaker 4: to have blackouts and interruptions in power service in many

369
00:22:50,520 --> 00:22:53,240
Speaker 4: areas of the country. So those are their three big arguments.

370
00:22:53,520 --> 00:22:56,080
Speaker 1: So tell me why this Supreme Court and that West

371
00:22:56,160 --> 00:23:01,400
Speaker 1: Virginia decision was six to three down ideological lines. Why

372
00:23:01,400 --> 00:23:04,439
Speaker 1: wouldn't this Supreme Court agree with them? I mean, this

373
00:23:04,480 --> 00:23:07,399
Speaker 1: is not the most environmentally friendly Supreme Court.

374
00:23:08,760 --> 00:23:12,080
Speaker 4: Oh that's true. And we won't know, of course, and

375
00:23:12,240 --> 00:23:15,399
Speaker 4: listen until we see what the Supreme Court does with this.

376
00:23:15,560 --> 00:23:18,920
Speaker 4: But here's how the rule differs. The thing that troubled

377
00:23:19,760 --> 00:23:22,439
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the

378
00:23:22,480 --> 00:23:27,640
Speaker 4: opinion in West Virginia, was that EPA was taking a

379
00:23:27,840 --> 00:23:33,960
Speaker 4: system wide approach to regulating the power plant sector, and

380
00:23:34,160 --> 00:23:39,159
Speaker 4: that it was forcing what it called generation shifting from

381
00:23:39,480 --> 00:23:44,920
Speaker 4: fossil fuel based plants gas and coal to renewable sources

382
00:23:45,080 --> 00:23:49,480
Speaker 4: wind and solar, and Justice Roberts felt that went too far.

383
00:23:49,920 --> 00:23:54,119
Speaker 4: That was an overreach Congress could not possibly have intended

384
00:23:54,359 --> 00:23:57,679
Speaker 4: in the nineteen seventy Clean Air Act, which is what

385
00:23:57,840 --> 00:24:02,240
Speaker 4: was being interpreted to give EPA that kind of broad

386
00:24:02,600 --> 00:24:08,280
Speaker 4: energy policy authority. That's what bothered Justice Roberts. He thought

387
00:24:08,520 --> 00:24:11,800
Speaker 4: the rule was unlike any rule EPA had ever adopted.

388
00:24:11,880 --> 00:24:14,960
Speaker 4: That's arguable, but that's what he thought. Thought it was novel.

389
00:24:15,160 --> 00:24:18,679
Speaker 4: He thought it was based on an obscure provision of

390
00:24:18,720 --> 00:24:22,280
Speaker 4: the Clean Air Act Section one eleven, which isn't obscure

391
00:24:22,280 --> 00:24:24,600
Speaker 4: at all. It's been there from the beginning, and it

392
00:24:24,680 --> 00:24:27,520
Speaker 4: was there for a very specific purpose. But nevertheless, he

393
00:24:27,600 --> 00:24:31,560
Speaker 4: thought it was an obscure provision, and so he characterized

394
00:24:31,600 --> 00:24:36,159
Speaker 4: this as Congress wouldn't hide an elephant in a mousehole.

395
00:24:36,400 --> 00:24:37,600
Speaker 4: So that's the metaphor.

396
00:24:37,960 --> 00:24:41,400
Speaker 1: I remembered that hard you forget, right.

397
00:24:41,440 --> 00:24:44,720
Speaker 4: How could you forget? So that's the idea of this great,

398
00:24:44,800 --> 00:24:50,119
Speaker 4: big authority with vast economic consequences hidden in this little

399
00:24:50,160 --> 00:24:53,120
Speaker 4: mousehole of a provision. That's the way he viewed it.

400
00:24:53,960 --> 00:24:58,480
Speaker 4: This time around, EPA has gone to great legs. I mean,

401
00:24:58,680 --> 00:25:03,320
Speaker 4: there's one hundred pages, by the way in EPA's justification

402
00:25:03,440 --> 00:25:08,080
Speaker 4: and explanation for this new rule talking about West Virginia,

403
00:25:08,320 --> 00:25:11,680
Speaker 4: talking about how this rule differs from the Clean power Plant,

404
00:25:11,520 --> 00:25:15,239
Speaker 4: et cetera. And it really is different. This rule is

405
00:25:15,280 --> 00:25:22,120
Speaker 4: a very traditional use of EPA authority to require technology

406
00:25:22,680 --> 00:25:32,280
Speaker 4: based requirements to reduce emissions pausing public health and environmental damage.

407
00:25:32,400 --> 00:25:38,960
Speaker 4: That's what CCS is. It's a technology, it's a system

408
00:25:39,119 --> 00:25:44,119
Speaker 4: of technologies because it's capturing the emissions and it's putting

409
00:25:44,160 --> 00:25:47,200
Speaker 4: them in this pipeline and taking them for disposal in

410
00:25:47,280 --> 00:25:50,840
Speaker 4: a safe underground location. So it is a system in

411
00:25:50,840 --> 00:25:55,200
Speaker 4: that sense, but it's source specific. It isn't looking at

412
00:25:55,240 --> 00:26:00,520
Speaker 4: the entire energy system as a whole, looking at the grid,

413
00:26:00,800 --> 00:26:03,840
Speaker 4: the integrated grid as a whole, which EPA did do

414
00:26:04,520 --> 00:26:08,160
Speaker 4: in the Clean Power Plant. So it's very much tailored

415
00:26:08,160 --> 00:26:12,200
Speaker 4: to individual sources and it's telling them, if you install

416
00:26:12,400 --> 00:26:16,960
Speaker 4: this technology, which we believe is commercially available. EPA is

417
00:26:17,040 --> 00:26:22,080
Speaker 4: pointing the two plants that are currently operating and capturing

418
00:26:22,520 --> 00:26:26,119
Speaker 4: emissions at ninety percent rate. One of them, the Petra

419
00:26:26,240 --> 00:26:31,720
Speaker 4: Nova plant in Texas, was out of operation for a

420
00:26:31,720 --> 00:26:34,600
Speaker 4: few years, but it's back in operation and it is

421
00:26:34,720 --> 00:26:39,840
Speaker 4: shown that it can capture ninety two percent actually of emissions.

422
00:26:39,880 --> 00:26:42,640
Speaker 4: There's another one being built in North Dakota and so on.

423
00:26:42,720 --> 00:26:46,560
Speaker 4: So EPA is saying, all we're doing here is what

424
00:26:46,600 --> 00:26:51,600
Speaker 4: we've always done in implementing the Clean Air Act, requiring

425
00:26:52,000 --> 00:26:56,639
Speaker 4: proven technology that will make your plants run cleaner and

426
00:26:56,760 --> 00:27:00,960
Speaker 4: protect public health and the environment. They've also built in

427
00:27:02,000 --> 00:27:07,359
Speaker 4: safeguards for reliability. They've given these coal plant operators eight

428
00:27:07,560 --> 00:27:12,159
Speaker 4: years to install ccs. That I mean eight years is

429
00:27:12,200 --> 00:27:16,399
Speaker 4: a long time, right, So they've given them adequate time.

430
00:27:16,680 --> 00:27:20,960
Speaker 4: EPA believes to install technology as I say, is being

431
00:27:21,000 --> 00:27:25,960
Speaker 4: installed and operated even now. Secondly, they've said, if there

432
00:27:26,040 --> 00:27:32,479
Speaker 4: really is a problem with retiring a particular coal plant

433
00:27:33,160 --> 00:27:38,840
Speaker 4: in a particular area of the country that threatens reliability,

434
00:27:39,359 --> 00:27:43,280
Speaker 4: they're going to give that coal plant an extra year

435
00:27:44,080 --> 00:27:49,520
Speaker 4: to meet its requirement. Plus, the Biden administration is investing

436
00:27:50,680 --> 00:27:55,000
Speaker 4: billions of dollars in upgrading the grid and these two

437
00:27:55,520 --> 00:27:59,480
Speaker 4: there are two integrated grids in the United States. Texas

438
00:27:59,480 --> 00:28:02,199
Speaker 4: has its own, but there are two grids that connect

439
00:28:02,280 --> 00:28:09,160
Speaker 4: the United States together, and it is improving the operation

440
00:28:10,000 --> 00:28:13,679
Speaker 4: of the grid system that we have, and it's adopting

441
00:28:14,119 --> 00:28:19,239
Speaker 4: streamline procedures to expand the grid faster than it's been

442
00:28:19,280 --> 00:28:24,119
Speaker 4: able to do. So my point is EPA is addressing

443
00:28:25,000 --> 00:28:28,480
Speaker 4: each and every one of the contentions against the rule,

444
00:28:29,240 --> 00:28:33,320
Speaker 4: and it's specifically addressing why this rule is not the

445
00:28:33,359 --> 00:28:36,600
Speaker 4: same as the rule that the Supreme Court struck down

446
00:28:37,080 --> 00:28:40,160
Speaker 4: in West Virginia. Of course, we're going to have to

447
00:28:40,200 --> 00:28:43,840
Speaker 4: wait to see how this all plays out in the

448
00:28:43,880 --> 00:28:47,520
Speaker 4: litigation that will start very soon as soon as these

449
00:28:47,600 --> 00:28:51,360
Speaker 4: rules are published in the Federal Register, which could occur

450
00:28:52,360 --> 00:28:56,560
Speaker 4: later in May or perhaps June. Then the fund begins,

451
00:28:56,600 --> 00:28:59,600
Speaker 4: Then the lawsuits get filed, and we'll see what happens

452
00:28:59,600 --> 00:29:00,080
Speaker 4: after that.

453
00:29:00,760 --> 00:29:03,080
Speaker 1: Stay with me, Pat, coming up, We're going to continue

454
00:29:03,080 --> 00:29:06,480
Speaker 1: this conversation, and this is Bloomberg. I've been talking to

455
00:29:06,480 --> 00:29:10,320
Speaker 1: Professor Pat Parento of the Vermont Lawn Graduate School about

456
00:29:10,320 --> 00:29:14,800
Speaker 1: the Environmental Protection Agencies proposed new rules for coal fired

457
00:29:14,880 --> 00:29:20,040
Speaker 1: power plants. The major questions doctrine. They just sort of

458
00:29:20,080 --> 00:29:22,560
Speaker 1: made that up out of whole cloth. And now it

459
00:29:22,640 --> 00:29:24,800
Speaker 1: hangs over everything we talk about.

460
00:29:25,920 --> 00:29:32,360
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's based on some earlier cases that did acknowledge

461
00:29:32,360 --> 00:29:36,840
Speaker 4: that where you have a rule, the source of this idea,

462
00:29:37,160 --> 00:29:40,040
Speaker 4: people call it a doctrine. I would just call it

463
00:29:40,080 --> 00:29:44,960
Speaker 4: an idea. But the source of this major question idea

464
00:29:45,000 --> 00:29:49,600
Speaker 4: was an opinion by Justice O'Connor in Brown and Williamson

465
00:29:49,640 --> 00:29:53,840
Speaker 4: Tobacco versus FDA. This is when FDA, for the first

466
00:29:53,920 --> 00:29:59,080
Speaker 4: time in its history, decided to regulate cigarettes and even

467
00:29:59,120 --> 00:30:03,640
Speaker 4: to suggest a band on cigarettes. And the Supreme Court

468
00:30:03,640 --> 00:30:06,320
Speaker 4: in that case said, wait a minute. You know cigarettes

469
00:30:06,360 --> 00:30:11,000
Speaker 4: aren't identified in the Drug and Cosmetic Act, and FDA

470
00:30:11,120 --> 00:30:14,200
Speaker 4: has never regulated cigarettes, and all of a sudden, now,

471
00:30:14,200 --> 00:30:17,360
Speaker 4: out of the blue, you've decided to do that. Well,

472
00:30:17,360 --> 00:30:20,680
Speaker 4: this is going to have tremendous implications, probably both good

473
00:30:20,680 --> 00:30:23,880
Speaker 4: and bad, as we know, but certainly tremendous implications. So

474
00:30:24,000 --> 00:30:27,200
Speaker 4: we don't think Congress have that in mind. All right,

475
00:30:27,440 --> 00:30:30,920
Speaker 4: So I wouldn't go so far as to say the

476
00:30:31,000 --> 00:30:34,040
Speaker 4: major Question doctrine is made out of whole cloth, But

477
00:30:34,320 --> 00:30:39,600
Speaker 4: certainly the way it was fashioned in the West Virginia

478
00:30:39,720 --> 00:30:44,680
Speaker 4: case is unlike anything that had been done by the

479
00:30:44,720 --> 00:30:50,600
Speaker 4: Supreme Court before this whole idea that you can completely

480
00:30:50,640 --> 00:30:57,760
Speaker 4: disregard Congress's ability to delegate broad authority to an expert

481
00:30:57,760 --> 00:31:01,920
Speaker 4: agency like EPA to deal with problems that Congress could

482
00:31:01,920 --> 00:31:05,280
Speaker 4: not have foreseen, and that Congress could not have had

483
00:31:05,280 --> 00:31:13,640
Speaker 4: the expertise even to legislate about. That's new, And you're right.

484
00:31:14,680 --> 00:31:18,280
Speaker 4: The doctrine, I mean, Justice Robertson in the West Virginia

485
00:31:18,320 --> 00:31:23,719
Speaker 4: case said, this is an extraordinary doctrine or idea, meaning

486
00:31:24,320 --> 00:31:31,320
Speaker 4: this shouldn't be a routine reason to reject an agency's interpretation.

487
00:31:31,920 --> 00:31:35,520
Speaker 4: But what has happened, of course, in the lower courts

488
00:31:36,040 --> 00:31:40,680
Speaker 4: is there's been an explosion of cases being brought based

489
00:31:40,760 --> 00:31:44,920
Speaker 4: on the major question doctrine, many of which are succeeding.

490
00:31:45,600 --> 00:31:49,360
Speaker 4: And guess where the most successful cases are. They're in

491
00:31:49,400 --> 00:31:53,360
Speaker 4: the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the most

492
00:31:53,880 --> 00:31:56,560
Speaker 4: conservative court in the land.

493
00:31:56,760 --> 00:31:59,120
Speaker 1: What a surprise, What a surprise.

494
00:31:59,720 --> 00:32:04,120
Speaker 4: And it's the court the industry and the Republican Attorneys

495
00:32:04,120 --> 00:32:09,720
Speaker 4: General run to all the time to try to get

496
00:32:10,600 --> 00:32:14,320
Speaker 4: decisions in their favor, and they've been successful in many cases.

497
00:32:14,880 --> 00:32:21,720
Speaker 4: The trick with the rule regulating power plant emissions is

498
00:32:22,440 --> 00:32:25,040
Speaker 4: they have to go to the DC Circuit the law

499
00:32:25,160 --> 00:32:29,640
Speaker 4: is clear that the DC Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over

500
00:32:29,840 --> 00:32:32,240
Speaker 4: all of the major rules under the Clean Air Act,

501
00:32:32,680 --> 00:32:36,959
Speaker 4: and the DC Circuit I won't say they rubber stamp

502
00:32:37,040 --> 00:32:40,560
Speaker 4: EPA because they don't, but the DC Circuit is very

503
00:32:40,720 --> 00:32:46,800
Speaker 4: expert at evaluating these really high complex rules, and they

504
00:32:46,880 --> 00:32:52,640
Speaker 4: have been more favorable to EPA's interpretation over the years

505
00:32:52,960 --> 00:32:57,240
Speaker 4: than any other circuit. That doesn't mean that the Supreme

506
00:32:57,280 --> 00:33:02,040
Speaker 4: Court is going to adopt the DC circuits decision, No,

507
00:33:02,240 --> 00:33:04,760
Speaker 4: far from it. But it does mean that at least

508
00:33:04,760 --> 00:33:10,080
Speaker 4: at this first level of litigation, EPA is in the

509
00:33:10,200 --> 00:33:13,600
Speaker 4: right court. If it's going to win this argument, it's

510
00:33:13,600 --> 00:33:15,600
Speaker 4: in the right court to do so.

511
00:33:15,960 --> 00:33:20,680
Speaker 1: The EPA's enforcement activity has been accelerating. In December, the

512
00:33:20,720 --> 00:33:23,200
Speaker 1: agency said it opened one hundred and ninety nine criminal

513
00:33:23,240 --> 00:33:27,680
Speaker 1: investigations in twenty twenty three, a seventy percent increase over

514
00:33:27,760 --> 00:33:32,080
Speaker 1: the previous year, and it concluded settlements in one thy

515
00:33:32,200 --> 00:33:34,440
Speaker 1: seven hundred and eighty nine, which is one hundred and

516
00:33:34,440 --> 00:33:37,719
Speaker 1: fifty over fiscal twenty twenty two. I mean, is there

517
00:33:37,720 --> 00:33:39,400
Speaker 1: a reason why these are stepping up?

518
00:33:39,920 --> 00:33:43,040
Speaker 4: Well, several reasons. They're getting an awful lot of pressure

519
00:33:43,960 --> 00:33:49,680
Speaker 4: to step them up. Number two, the Biden administration has

520
00:33:49,680 --> 00:33:55,040
Speaker 4: put a lot more resources into EPA's environmental justice program

521
00:33:56,160 --> 00:34:00,360
Speaker 4: to increase the level of attention on in four horsemen

522
00:34:00,440 --> 00:34:06,480
Speaker 4: in communities that are disproportionately affected. And I guess number

523
00:34:06,480 --> 00:34:13,200
Speaker 4: three would be the election and the need for the

524
00:34:13,239 --> 00:34:20,760
Speaker 4: Biden administration to show that it's really responding to what

525
00:34:21,719 --> 00:34:26,000
Speaker 4: communities are demanding, not only in terms of environmental justice issues,

526
00:34:26,440 --> 00:34:32,160
Speaker 4: but climate issues, environmental quality issues writ large. And obviously

527
00:34:32,200 --> 00:34:39,360
Speaker 4: the president is involved in an incredible battle for re election.

528
00:34:39,520 --> 00:34:42,680
Speaker 4: This is a game of inches where thousands of votes

529
00:34:43,440 --> 00:34:46,120
Speaker 4: are going to make the difference in these battleground states

530
00:34:46,239 --> 00:34:50,560
Speaker 4: literally in terms of the electoral College, and Biden needs

531
00:34:50,600 --> 00:34:56,320
Speaker 4: to turn out every single Democrat and certainly every single

532
00:34:56,440 --> 00:35:02,360
Speaker 4: environmentalist in the country the win. So he's one of

533
00:35:02,360 --> 00:35:05,800
Speaker 4: the reasons I think we're seeing all these rules coming

534
00:35:05,800 --> 00:35:10,640
Speaker 4: out and all this activity around enforcement and cleanup is

535
00:35:11,560 --> 00:35:14,839
Speaker 4: partly because the administration has been committed to that from

536
00:35:14,880 --> 00:35:17,560
Speaker 4: the beginning, but also because they realize they're in the

537
00:35:17,560 --> 00:35:21,800
Speaker 4: fight of their life for re election. That's my best

538
00:35:21,840 --> 00:35:22,440
Speaker 4: guess at.

539
00:35:22,280 --> 00:35:25,120
Speaker 1: It sounds like a good guest to me. Thanks so much, Pat.

540
00:35:25,520 --> 00:35:29,120
Speaker 1: That's Professor Pat Parento of the Vermont Law and Graduate School.

541
00:35:29,520 --> 00:35:32,160
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

542
00:35:32,520 --> 00:35:34,879
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by

543
00:35:34,920 --> 00:35:38,759
Speaker 1: subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

544
00:35:39,040 --> 00:35:42,879
Speaker 1: and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law. I'm

545
00:35:42,960 --> 00:35:45,400
Speaker 1: June Grosso and this is Bloomberg