WEBVTT - Trump Revokes California’s Power Over Emissions

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you inside an analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.480
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. President Trump tweeted

0:00:20.520 --> 0:00:25.439
<v Speaker 1>that his administration is revoking California's federal waiver on emissions,

0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:29.159
<v Speaker 1>confirming a widely anticipated move that will lead to a

0:00:29.280 --> 0:00:31.760
<v Speaker 1>major legal battle, perhaps that could make it to the

0:00:31.800 --> 0:00:35.720
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court. At a news conference, California's governor and attorney

0:00:35.760 --> 0:00:40.360
<v Speaker 1>general vow to fight the Trump administration in court. Joining

0:00:40.440 --> 0:00:43.360
<v Speaker 1>me now is Michael Gerard, Professor Columbia Law School and

0:00:43.400 --> 0:00:48.040
<v Speaker 1>director of the Saventh Center for Climate Change Law. Professor,

0:00:48.120 --> 0:00:51.440
<v Speaker 1>California has been setting a stricter standard for emissions for

0:00:51.640 --> 0:00:55.040
<v Speaker 1>many years. Will you explain the waiver they're operating under

0:00:55.080 --> 0:00:57.960
<v Speaker 1>and what's at stake here? So? The Clean Air Act

0:00:58.000 --> 0:01:03.600
<v Speaker 1>of ural government sets the vehicle emission standards and greenhouse

0:01:03.640 --> 0:01:08.479
<v Speaker 1>gas standards nationwide. But they Congress let California set its

0:01:08.480 --> 0:01:11.800
<v Speaker 1>own um tougher standard if E p. A gave him

0:01:11.800 --> 0:01:14.360
<v Speaker 1>a waiver to do that. So E p A has

0:01:14.360 --> 0:01:17.560
<v Speaker 1>always given a waiver to California until now. Now they're

0:01:17.560 --> 0:01:20.600
<v Speaker 1>taking it away for the first time. So the A. G.

0:01:21.280 --> 0:01:24.800
<v Speaker 1>Javier bass Era has said that they will sue nothing

0:01:24.840 --> 0:01:29.560
<v Speaker 1>new for his office suing over Obama era environmental regulations,

0:01:29.600 --> 0:01:32.759
<v Speaker 1>but can you envision what the grounds for their lawsuit

0:01:32.800 --> 0:01:36.759
<v Speaker 1>would be. Well, the Trump administration so far has compiled

0:01:36.760 --> 0:01:39.200
<v Speaker 1>a pretty poor record in the way it goes about

0:01:39.600 --> 0:01:42.520
<v Speaker 1>trying to provoke regulations, and many of the attempts that

0:01:42.600 --> 0:01:46.880
<v Speaker 1>they have made have failed. Um, there is no precedent

0:01:46.959 --> 0:01:50.120
<v Speaker 1>for revoking a waiver. The reasons that they seem to

0:01:50.160 --> 0:01:53.800
<v Speaker 1>be given are that they have recalculated the costs and

0:01:53.880 --> 0:01:57.560
<v Speaker 1>benefits of greenhouse gasses UM and there are a whole

0:01:57.600 --> 0:01:59.800
<v Speaker 1>lot of technical questions about the way that they have

0:02:00.000 --> 0:02:05.040
<v Speaker 1>on that. It's also clear that one impact of this revocation,

0:02:05.160 --> 0:02:09.400
<v Speaker 1>if it survives in court, is very is much higher

0:02:09.520 --> 0:02:13.160
<v Speaker 1>not only greenhouse gas emissions, but also much higher fuel

0:02:13.160 --> 0:02:16.160
<v Speaker 1>expenditures for drivers because it's going to mean that the

0:02:16.280 --> 0:02:18.880
<v Speaker 1>cars are going to be driving will be consuming a

0:02:18.880 --> 0:02:23.160
<v Speaker 1>lot more gasoline per gallant per per mile. Well, at

0:02:23.160 --> 0:02:26.200
<v Speaker 1>the press conference, that was one thing that they seemed

0:02:26.240 --> 0:02:29.600
<v Speaker 1>to be hitting on that this was a better choice

0:02:29.680 --> 0:02:33.680
<v Speaker 1>for consumers, and also that the car industry was on

0:02:33.760 --> 0:02:40.040
<v Speaker 1>board with it. Well. Ford, Honda, Lukswagen, and BMW have

0:02:40.200 --> 0:02:43.440
<v Speaker 1>all signed in agreement with the state of California saying

0:02:43.520 --> 0:02:46.840
<v Speaker 1>that regardless of what the federal government does, they're going

0:02:46.880 --> 0:02:50.639
<v Speaker 1>to go ahead and uh and sell the cleaner, more

0:02:50.760 --> 0:02:53.880
<v Speaker 1>fuel efficient cars. One of the things that they said

0:02:54.120 --> 0:02:57.200
<v Speaker 1>is that they didn't have to bend twist arms to

0:02:57.280 --> 0:03:00.440
<v Speaker 1>get the automakers that you mentioned to come on board,

0:03:00.480 --> 0:03:04.040
<v Speaker 1>that they were looking to the future and what they

0:03:04.080 --> 0:03:08.639
<v Speaker 1>saw ahead. That's right. The auto industry is very eager

0:03:08.720 --> 0:03:11.680
<v Speaker 1>to have to just make one kind of car. Um

0:03:11.800 --> 0:03:14.519
<v Speaker 1>They don't like the idea of having to make different

0:03:14.520 --> 0:03:18.680
<v Speaker 1>cars for different states. And they realize that stricter fuel

0:03:18.680 --> 0:03:21.920
<v Speaker 1>economy standards are are coming down the road. We know

0:03:22.040 --> 0:03:26.000
<v Speaker 1>that if the administration changes after the next election, the

0:03:26.040 --> 0:03:30.000
<v Speaker 1>next administration will call for stronger standards. So these these

0:03:30.000 --> 0:03:33.800
<v Speaker 1>four companies, as I said, want the cleaner car standards.

0:03:33.840 --> 0:03:38.560
<v Speaker 1>And what's your opinion of the antitrust investigation that the

0:03:38.680 --> 0:03:42.840
<v Speaker 1>Justice Department recently opened into that deal between California and

0:03:42.880 --> 0:03:47.880
<v Speaker 1>the four automakers. It's hard to envision that as being

0:03:48.280 --> 0:03:53.600
<v Speaker 1>anything other than the President's annoyance at California, UM I

0:03:53.640 --> 0:03:57.560
<v Speaker 1>haven't seen any coherent anti trust theory for what why

0:03:57.640 --> 0:04:01.760
<v Speaker 1>what they're doing is a violation of anything and the

0:04:01.840 --> 0:04:04.200
<v Speaker 1>uh they're they're doing it with an agreement with the

0:04:04.280 --> 0:04:08.840
<v Speaker 1>government and that makes them enjoy certain immunities. The California

0:04:08.920 --> 0:04:12.560
<v Speaker 1>a g said the lawsuit would depend on what they're

0:04:12.600 --> 0:04:15.520
<v Speaker 1>actually doing. At the e p A, they're going to

0:04:15.560 --> 0:04:18.240
<v Speaker 1>revoke their waiver, and it also is their involvement of

0:04:18.279 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 1>the Transportation Authority as well. It's really confusing. Yeah, The

0:04:24.000 --> 0:04:29.120
<v Speaker 1>Environmental Protection Agency says the greenhouse gas emission standards. The

0:04:29.200 --> 0:04:32.120
<v Speaker 1>National Highway Transportation Safety Board, which is part of the

0:04:32.160 --> 0:04:35.960
<v Speaker 1>Department of Transportation, says that full economy standards. They're very

0:04:35.960 --> 0:04:39.440
<v Speaker 1>closely linked and they were tied together. So the only

0:04:39.480 --> 0:04:42.880
<v Speaker 1>thing official we have so far is the president's tweet

0:04:43.400 --> 0:04:46.200
<v Speaker 1>when they published the formal notice in the Federal Register.

0:04:46.520 --> 0:04:49.040
<v Speaker 1>Will see exactly what they're doing, But it sounds like

0:04:49.480 --> 0:04:53.560
<v Speaker 1>that both these agencies, the Transportation Department and EPA, are

0:04:53.560 --> 0:04:57.240
<v Speaker 1>going to be taking action. Mary Nichols, who's the head

0:04:57.240 --> 0:05:01.040
<v Speaker 1>of California's Air Resources Board, said at this is more

0:05:01.080 --> 0:05:04.719
<v Speaker 1>than just about setting emission standards. It's also about the

0:05:04.800 --> 0:05:08.920
<v Speaker 1>health of California's residents and that this is not taking

0:05:08.960 --> 0:05:11.839
<v Speaker 1>that into consideration, that it's more than just climate change.

0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:17.359
<v Speaker 1>That's exactly right, because the same combustion of gasoline that

0:05:17.400 --> 0:05:22.120
<v Speaker 1>generates greenhouse gases also generates carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides

0:05:22.120 --> 0:05:25.760
<v Speaker 1>and other plutents that are unhealthy. So Andrew Wheeler and

0:05:25.800 --> 0:05:28.960
<v Speaker 1>the e p A said that what they want to

0:05:29.000 --> 0:05:33.680
<v Speaker 1>have is one national standard for all tail pipe pollution.

0:05:34.360 --> 0:05:37.159
<v Speaker 1>Is that something that would actually be good for the

0:05:37.200 --> 0:05:40.920
<v Speaker 1>country to have one standard? Yes, and that is exactly

0:05:40.920 --> 0:05:43.839
<v Speaker 1>what we have now. The agreement that was struck between

0:05:43.880 --> 0:05:46.800
<v Speaker 1>the auto industry and e p A and also with

0:05:46.920 --> 0:05:49.880
<v Speaker 1>California on board in two thousand and ten, was for

0:05:50.320 --> 0:05:56.880
<v Speaker 1>one national standard that would aggressively tighten through. The administration

0:05:57.480 --> 0:06:01.480
<v Speaker 1>is now also talking about trying to kill that deal,

0:06:01.560 --> 0:06:05.520
<v Speaker 1>but just a continuation of the of the existing rules

0:06:05.560 --> 0:06:09.800
<v Speaker 1>would be one national standard. And again at the press conference,

0:06:09.960 --> 0:06:14.240
<v Speaker 1>the governor of California query, what is this for. It's

0:06:14.279 --> 0:06:16.800
<v Speaker 1>not good for consumers, that the automakers don't want it.

0:06:17.000 --> 0:06:20.359
<v Speaker 1>Who wants it? So that's my question to you, what's

0:06:20.400 --> 0:06:24.960
<v Speaker 1>the reason for going backward? In time. Basically, well, the

0:06:25.000 --> 0:06:29.359
<v Speaker 1>only clear beneficiaries the oil industry, because if you have

0:06:30.320 --> 0:06:33.440
<v Speaker 1>more gas guzzline cars, that means they buy more gasoline.

0:06:34.600 --> 0:06:39.159
<v Speaker 1>This is pitting California once again against the Trump administration.

0:06:39.440 --> 0:06:43.120
<v Speaker 1>They have sued the Trump administration more than fifty times.

0:06:43.160 --> 0:06:45.320
<v Speaker 1>That's more than any other states. Certainly a lot of

0:06:45.360 --> 0:06:50.080
<v Speaker 1>the times on environmental issues. Is there also and did

0:06:50.120 --> 0:06:52.640
<v Speaker 1>we see this in the antitrust suit that was brought?

0:06:53.000 --> 0:06:56.360
<v Speaker 1>Is there also just this conflict between the Trump administration

0:06:56.440 --> 0:07:02.320
<v Speaker 1>and California that persists. I yes, but it's not only California. UM.

0:07:03.080 --> 0:07:06.599
<v Speaker 1>Twelve other states, for example, have joined with California and

0:07:06.960 --> 0:07:11.760
<v Speaker 1>uh historically in getting using the waiver and having more

0:07:12.200 --> 0:07:16.240
<v Speaker 1>fuel efficient cars. Uh. Several of those states, maybe all

0:07:16.280 --> 0:07:19.120
<v Speaker 1>of them are going to join with California. There are

0:07:19.200 --> 0:07:23.520
<v Speaker 1>many other states that are frequently joining with California or

0:07:23.640 --> 0:07:27.120
<v Speaker 1>on their own UM suing the Trump administration. So it's

0:07:27.120 --> 0:07:29.840
<v Speaker 1>not just that one state. So I want to read

0:07:29.880 --> 0:07:33.720
<v Speaker 1>you President Trump's tweet and get your reaction. The Trump

0:07:33.760 --> 0:07:37.480
<v Speaker 1>administration is revoking California's federal waiver on emissions in order

0:07:37.480 --> 0:07:41.000
<v Speaker 1>to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer. While

0:07:41.040 --> 0:07:44.160
<v Speaker 1>at the same time making the cars substantially safer. This

0:07:44.200 --> 0:07:47.840
<v Speaker 1>will lead to more production because of this pricing and safety.

0:07:48.080 --> 0:07:51.480
<v Speaker 1>Is that factually true? No? I mean the safety argument

0:07:51.640 --> 0:07:56.160
<v Speaker 1>is really um is really focus and that has been

0:07:56.520 --> 0:07:59.680
<v Speaker 1>refuted several times when they first floated it. And as

0:07:59.680 --> 0:08:02.560
<v Speaker 1>I said, that's not good for consumers either because in

0:08:02.600 --> 0:08:05.520
<v Speaker 1>the long terminal means that it'll mean that the operation

0:08:05.560 --> 0:08:09.240
<v Speaker 1>of the car costs much more. The California A G said,

0:08:09.240 --> 0:08:12.120
<v Speaker 1>we want to see the facts and the science together

0:08:12.360 --> 0:08:14.920
<v Speaker 1>with their change and the rules here with the Trump

0:08:14.920 --> 0:08:19.120
<v Speaker 1>administration change has that been one of the winning arguments

0:08:19.240 --> 0:08:22.280
<v Speaker 1>for California and some of these environmental suits that the

0:08:22.320 --> 0:08:26.760
<v Speaker 1>science doesn't support what the Trump administration is doing. Yeah.

0:08:26.840 --> 0:08:32.560
<v Speaker 1>The Trump administration, of course denies that climate change is

0:08:32.679 --> 0:08:35.959
<v Speaker 1>mostly caused by humans and as having very adverse effects.

0:08:36.040 --> 0:08:39.000
<v Speaker 1>The courts are not buying it. Not a single court

0:08:39.160 --> 0:08:43.160
<v Speaker 1>has embraced the climate denial that we hear from the

0:08:43.160 --> 0:08:46.760
<v Speaker 1>Trump administration. And the administration also has not been very

0:08:46.800 --> 0:08:50.440
<v Speaker 1>careful about following the necessary administered procedures. Who on both

0:08:50.559 --> 0:08:53.520
<v Speaker 1>counts that they usually lose. Thank you so much for

0:08:53.600 --> 0:08:56.240
<v Speaker 1>coming on today, professor. That's Michael Gerard is a professor

0:08:56.360 --> 0:08:58.600
<v Speaker 1>Columbia Law School and director of the SAVEN Center for

0:08:58.720 --> 0:09:01.920
<v Speaker 1>Climate Change Law. We hook you'll join us again. Thanks

0:09:01.920 --> 0:09:05.240
<v Speaker 1>for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe

0:09:05.240 --> 0:09:08.480
<v Speaker 1>and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and

0:09:08.559 --> 0:09:13.000
<v Speaker 1>on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This

0:09:13.360 --> 0:09:14.080
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg