Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you inside an analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. President Trump tweeted
Speaker 1: that his administration is revoking California's federal waiver on emissions,
Speaker 1: confirming a widely anticipated move that will lead to a
Speaker 1: major legal battle, perhaps that could make it to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. At a news conference, California's governor and attorney
Speaker 1: general vow to fight the Trump administration in court. Joining
Speaker 1: me now is Michael Gerard, Professor Columbia Law School and
Speaker 1: director of the Saventh Center for Climate Change Law. Professor,
Speaker 1: California has been setting a stricter standard for emissions for
Speaker 1: many years. Will you explain the waiver they're operating under
Speaker 1: and what's at stake here? So? The Clean Air Act
Speaker 1: of ural government sets the vehicle emission standards and greenhouse
Speaker 1: gas standards nationwide. But they Congress let California set its
Speaker 1: own um tougher standard if E p. A gave him
Speaker 1: a waiver to do that. So E p A has
Speaker 1: always given a waiver to California until now. Now they're
Speaker 1: taking it away for the first time. So the A. G.
Speaker 1: Javier bass Era has said that they will sue nothing
Speaker 1: new for his office suing over Obama era environmental regulations,
Speaker 1: but can you envision what the grounds for their lawsuit
Speaker 1: would be. Well, the Trump administration so far has compiled
Speaker 1: a pretty poor record in the way it goes about
Speaker 1: trying to provoke regulations, and many of the attempts that
Speaker 1: they have made have failed. Um, there is no precedent
Speaker 1: for revoking a waiver. The reasons that they seem to
Speaker 1: be given are that they have recalculated the costs and
Speaker 1: benefits of greenhouse gasses UM and there are a whole
Speaker 1: lot of technical questions about the way that they have
Speaker 1: on that. It's also clear that one impact of this revocation,
Speaker 1: if it survives in court, is very is much higher
Speaker 1: not only greenhouse gas emissions, but also much higher fuel
Speaker 1: expenditures for drivers because it's going to mean that the
Speaker 1: cars are going to be driving will be consuming a
Speaker 1: lot more gasoline per gallant per per mile. Well, at
Speaker 1: the press conference, that was one thing that they seemed
Speaker 1: to be hitting on that this was a better choice
Speaker 1: for consumers, and also that the car industry was on
Speaker 1: board with it. Well. Ford, Honda, Lukswagen, and BMW have
Speaker 1: all signed in agreement with the state of California saying
Speaker 1: that regardless of what the federal government does, they're going
Speaker 1: to go ahead and uh and sell the cleaner, more
Speaker 1: fuel efficient cars. One of the things that they said
Speaker 1: is that they didn't have to bend twist arms to
Speaker 1: get the automakers that you mentioned to come on board,
Speaker 1: that they were looking to the future and what they
Speaker 1: saw ahead. That's right. The auto industry is very eager
Speaker 1: to have to just make one kind of car. Um
Speaker 1: They don't like the idea of having to make different
Speaker 1: cars for different states. And they realize that stricter fuel
Speaker 1: economy standards are are coming down the road. We know
Speaker 1: that if the administration changes after the next election, the
Speaker 1: next administration will call for stronger standards. So these these
Speaker 1: four companies, as I said, want the cleaner car standards.
Speaker 1: And what's your opinion of the antitrust investigation that the
Speaker 1: Justice Department recently opened into that deal between California and
Speaker 1: the four automakers. It's hard to envision that as being
Speaker 1: anything other than the President's annoyance at California, UM I
Speaker 1: haven't seen any coherent anti trust theory for what why
Speaker 1: what they're doing is a violation of anything and the
Speaker 1: uh they're they're doing it with an agreement with the
Speaker 1: government and that makes them enjoy certain immunities. The California
Speaker 1: a g said the lawsuit would depend on what they're
Speaker 1: actually doing. At the e p A, they're going to
Speaker 1: revoke their waiver, and it also is their involvement of
Speaker 1: the Transportation Authority as well. It's really confusing. Yeah, The
Speaker 1: Environmental Protection Agency says the greenhouse gas emission standards. The
Speaker 1: National Highway Transportation Safety Board, which is part of the
Speaker 1: Department of Transportation, says that full economy standards. They're very
Speaker 1: closely linked and they were tied together. So the only
Speaker 1: thing official we have so far is the president's tweet
Speaker 1: when they published the formal notice in the Federal Register.
Speaker 1: Will see exactly what they're doing, But it sounds like
Speaker 1: that both these agencies, the Transportation Department and EPA, are
Speaker 1: going to be taking action. Mary Nichols, who's the head
Speaker 1: of California's Air Resources Board, said at this is more
Speaker 1: than just about setting emission standards. It's also about the
Speaker 1: health of California's residents and that this is not taking
Speaker 1: that into consideration, that it's more than just climate change.
Speaker 1: That's exactly right, because the same combustion of gasoline that
Speaker 1: generates greenhouse gases also generates carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides
Speaker 1: and other plutents that are unhealthy. So Andrew Wheeler and
Speaker 1: the e p A said that what they want to
Speaker 1: have is one national standard for all tail pipe pollution.
Speaker 1: Is that something that would actually be good for the
Speaker 1: country to have one standard? Yes, and that is exactly
Speaker 1: what we have now. The agreement that was struck between
Speaker 1: the auto industry and e p A and also with
Speaker 1: California on board in two thousand and ten, was for
Speaker 1: one national standard that would aggressively tighten through. The administration
Speaker 1: is now also talking about trying to kill that deal,
Speaker 1: but just a continuation of the of the existing rules
Speaker 1: would be one national standard. And again at the press conference,
Speaker 1: the governor of California query, what is this for. It's
Speaker 1: not good for consumers, that the automakers don't want it.
Speaker 1: Who wants it? So that's my question to you, what's
Speaker 1: the reason for going backward? In time. Basically, well, the
Speaker 1: only clear beneficiaries the oil industry, because if you have
Speaker 1: more gas guzzline cars, that means they buy more gasoline.
Speaker 1: This is pitting California once again against the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: They have sued the Trump administration more than fifty times.
Speaker 1: That's more than any other states. Certainly a lot of
Speaker 1: the times on environmental issues. Is there also and did
Speaker 1: we see this in the antitrust suit that was brought?
Speaker 1: Is there also just this conflict between the Trump administration
Speaker 1: and California that persists. I yes, but it's not only California. UM.
Speaker 1: Twelve other states, for example, have joined with California and
Speaker 1: uh historically in getting using the waiver and having more
Speaker 1: fuel efficient cars. Uh. Several of those states, maybe all
Speaker 1: of them are going to join with California. There are
Speaker 1: many other states that are frequently joining with California or
Speaker 1: on their own UM suing the Trump administration. So it's
Speaker 1: not just that one state. So I want to read
Speaker 1: you President Trump's tweet and get your reaction. The Trump
Speaker 1: administration is revoking California's federal waiver on emissions in order
Speaker 1: to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer. While
Speaker 1: at the same time making the cars substantially safer. This
Speaker 1: will lead to more production because of this pricing and safety.
Speaker 1: Is that factually true? No? I mean the safety argument
Speaker 1: is really um is really focus and that has been
Speaker 1: refuted several times when they first floated it. And as
Speaker 1: I said, that's not good for consumers either because in
Speaker 1: the long terminal means that it'll mean that the operation
Speaker 1: of the car costs much more. The California A G said,
Speaker 1: we want to see the facts and the science together
Speaker 1: with their change and the rules here with the Trump
Speaker 1: administration change has that been one of the winning arguments
Speaker 1: for California and some of these environmental suits that the
Speaker 1: science doesn't support what the Trump administration is doing. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration, of course denies that climate change is
Speaker 1: mostly caused by humans and as having very adverse effects.
Speaker 1: The courts are not buying it. Not a single court
Speaker 1: has embraced the climate denial that we hear from the
Speaker 1: Trump administration. And the administration also has not been very
Speaker 1: careful about following the necessary administered procedures. Who on both
Speaker 1: counts that they usually lose. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: coming on today, professor. That's Michael Gerard is a professor
Speaker 1: Columbia Law School and director of the SAVEN Center for
Speaker 1: Climate Change Law. We hook you'll join us again. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and
Speaker 1: on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg