1
00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:03,840
Speaker 1: After years of legal and political arguing over the Keystone

2
00:00:03,960 --> 00:00:08,080
Speaker 1: Xcel pipeline, the Obama administration denied a permit to construct it,

3
00:00:08,760 --> 00:00:11,520
Speaker 1: but last week President Trump reversed that decision and said

4
00:00:11,560 --> 00:00:15,720
Speaker 1: the pipeline could proceed. The president's decision, however, did not

5
00:00:15,920 --> 00:00:19,079
Speaker 1: end the fight over the pipeline. First, several Native American

6
00:00:19,120 --> 00:00:21,960
Speaker 1: groups filed suit in federal court in Montana, and now

7
00:00:22,000 --> 00:00:25,120
Speaker 1: the Sierra Club and other environmental advocacy groups have filed

8
00:00:25,160 --> 00:00:28,000
Speaker 1: a lawsuit in the same court. Here to talk with

9
00:00:28,080 --> 00:00:31,440
Speaker 1: us about the litigation to stop the pipeline are Receivers,

10
00:00:31,560 --> 00:00:35,320
Speaker 1: director of the Environmental Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law

11
00:00:35,360 --> 00:00:38,159
Speaker 1: School and Evan's old and a professor at the University

12
00:00:38,200 --> 00:00:43,520
Speaker 1: of Toledo College of Law. Debora tell us what the

13
00:00:43,840 --> 00:00:47,960
Speaker 1: Sierra Club and these other plaintiffs are alleging uh in

14
00:00:48,080 --> 00:00:51,080
Speaker 1: order to try to stop the President's decision to allow

15
00:00:51,200 --> 00:00:55,320
Speaker 1: the pipeline to go into effect. Sure, the complaint that

16
00:00:55,360 --> 00:00:58,720
Speaker 1: was filed on Thursday by the environmental groups really focuses

17
00:00:58,800 --> 00:01:02,760
Speaker 1: on the claims under the National Environmental Policy Act and

18
00:01:03,040 --> 00:01:05,560
Speaker 1: under the sort of general Administrative Procedure Act, and what

19
00:01:05,600 --> 00:01:08,680
Speaker 1: they're alleging is that UM there has not been enough

20
00:01:08,920 --> 00:01:13,200
Speaker 1: review of of the environmental impacts from the pipeline. There

21
00:01:13,319 --> 00:01:16,479
Speaker 1: is an environmental review that was done a while back,

22
00:01:16,560 --> 00:01:21,039
Speaker 1: but they're alleging that there's new information about the dangers

23
00:01:21,080 --> 00:01:25,000
Speaker 1: posed by the particular kind of oil coming out of Alberta, UM,

24
00:01:25,080 --> 00:01:28,039
Speaker 1: and new information about the price of oil and how

25
00:01:28,080 --> 00:01:33,200
Speaker 1: that might affect whether UM this pipeline would facilitate UH

26
00:01:33,520 --> 00:01:35,559
Speaker 1: more getting more oil out of the ground than would

27
00:01:35,560 --> 00:01:38,520
Speaker 1: otherwise happen. So they're alleging that those those things have

28
00:01:38,600 --> 00:01:42,160
Speaker 1: not been adequately considered in the State Department's approval, and

29
00:01:42,240 --> 00:01:46,279
Speaker 1: also that the State Department has not articulated a reason

30
00:01:46,360 --> 00:01:51,160
Speaker 1: for a legitimate reason for reversing the Obama administration decision. Evan.

31
00:01:51,240 --> 00:01:55,080
Speaker 1: Are there any differences between the suits by the two groups,

32
00:01:55,160 --> 00:01:59,120
Speaker 1: the environmental groups and the Native American groups. There are

33
00:01:59,120 --> 00:02:01,720
Speaker 1: a couple of differences. The arguments are basically the same,

34
00:02:01,760 --> 00:02:04,920
Speaker 1: the claims are basically the same. UM. The UH the

35
00:02:04,960 --> 00:02:07,720
Speaker 1: complete was filed earlier in the week, has a little

36
00:02:07,720 --> 00:02:13,680
Speaker 1: more detail, has more detail about UM the environmental risks

37
00:02:13,760 --> 00:02:17,120
Speaker 1: associated with the the pipeline, and as a little bit

38
00:02:17,120 --> 00:02:20,080
Speaker 1: of legal arguments, neither one of which is necessary or

39
00:02:20,120 --> 00:02:22,760
Speaker 1: even typical at this stage in the federal case. So

40
00:02:22,760 --> 00:02:25,440
Speaker 1: I would say that even though they do look different,

41
00:02:25,800 --> 00:02:30,320
Speaker 1: they are essentially making the same claims. Bro the what

42
00:02:30,400 --> 00:02:34,440
Speaker 1: are the arguments that's getting made here is that the

43
00:02:34,480 --> 00:02:37,480
Speaker 1: old and the environmental impact statement is from two thousand fourteen.

44
00:02:38,200 --> 00:02:41,720
Speaker 1: Um it's the planeffs are arguing it's stale. They should

45
00:02:41,800 --> 00:02:44,120
Speaker 1: you know that it And it also doesn't take into

46
00:02:44,120 --> 00:02:47,400
Speaker 1: account a lot of the information that you mentioned. What

47
00:02:47,720 --> 00:02:51,880
Speaker 1: is the law in terms of how recent an environmental

48
00:02:51,919 --> 00:02:54,360
Speaker 1: impact statement has to be in order for it to

49
00:02:54,360 --> 00:02:58,760
Speaker 1: be valid. Yeah, there's no clear bright line about when

50
00:02:58,840 --> 00:03:02,520
Speaker 1: an EI ask like that goes stale. But um so

51
00:03:02,600 --> 00:03:05,480
Speaker 1: it depends on what evidence the plaintiffs will bring forward

52
00:03:05,520 --> 00:03:08,400
Speaker 1: to support their claim that there's new information that should

53
00:03:08,400 --> 00:03:11,840
Speaker 1: have been considered. And I think in particularly environmental groups

54
00:03:11,880 --> 00:03:15,600
Speaker 1: are focusing on a study by the National Academy of

55
00:03:15,600 --> 00:03:18,799
Speaker 1: Sciences that was released a year or so ago that

56
00:03:19,000 --> 00:03:22,600
Speaker 1: um uh, that really talks in more detail about the

57
00:03:23,080 --> 00:03:26,200
Speaker 1: specific dangers of this kind of oil and how it's

58
00:03:26,200 --> 00:03:29,280
Speaker 1: it's more difficult to react to a spill of oil.

59
00:03:29,320 --> 00:03:31,880
Speaker 1: You know, we have spills from pipelines and and other

60
00:03:31,919 --> 00:03:34,400
Speaker 1: oil facilities and so they want so part of what

61
00:03:34,440 --> 00:03:37,520
Speaker 1: they're arguing is that that that that the e I

62
00:03:37,640 --> 00:03:40,640
Speaker 1: S needs to be updated in order to incorporate that

63
00:03:40,760 --> 00:03:44,000
Speaker 1: new information. So again there's no bright line. It depends

64
00:03:44,040 --> 00:03:47,320
Speaker 1: if they can put forward enough information to convince the

65
00:03:47,400 --> 00:03:51,120
Speaker 1: court that the that that the the e I S

66
00:03:51,160 --> 00:03:54,920
Speaker 1: needs to be updated. Evan, can you anticipate what the

67
00:03:55,000 --> 00:03:58,240
Speaker 1: government's response is likely to be? It can't just be

68
00:03:58,480 --> 00:04:03,240
Speaker 1: new president, new order, right, Well, so the first thing

69
00:04:03,240 --> 00:04:06,200
Speaker 1: to keep in mind is that at this stage there

70
00:04:06,280 --> 00:04:09,520
Speaker 1: is not really going to be um an argument about

71
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:11,680
Speaker 1: the underlying merits, and so the first thing is going

72
00:04:11,720 --> 00:04:14,240
Speaker 1: to happen is the government is going to move to

73
00:04:14,320 --> 00:04:16,960
Speaker 1: dismiss and the complaints and at this point there's not

74
00:04:17,000 --> 00:04:22,039
Speaker 1: going to be a lot of argument about the underlying facts.

75
00:04:22,040 --> 00:04:24,440
Speaker 1: So at this first stage, when the government moves to dismiss,

76
00:04:24,480 --> 00:04:28,760
Speaker 1: it's going to um accept the purposes of the of

77
00:04:28,800 --> 00:04:31,280
Speaker 1: its motion. These facts as they are stated. It's going

78
00:04:31,360 --> 00:04:35,000
Speaker 1: to make legal arts mentioned. So what what the court

79
00:04:35,080 --> 00:04:36,680
Speaker 1: is going to have to decide in the first instance

80
00:04:36,800 --> 00:04:40,320
Speaker 1: is just say the legal question of whether the plaintes

81
00:04:40,400 --> 00:04:43,400
Speaker 1: have stated a claim, that is, whether they have UH

82
00:04:44,440 --> 00:04:47,599
Speaker 1: noted any facts for which the law provides legal redress.

83
00:04:47,680 --> 00:04:50,120
Speaker 1: So we're not gonna see a lot of uh doaking

84
00:04:50,400 --> 00:04:52,120
Speaker 1: doking it out on the facts of this stage in

85
00:04:52,160 --> 00:04:56,440
Speaker 1: the litigation. Deborah, do you think there will be some

86
00:04:57,080 --> 00:04:58,680
Speaker 1: we have about thirty seconds here. Do you think, well,

87
00:04:58,839 --> 00:05:02,599
Speaker 1: there will be a motion for an injunction or is

88
00:05:02,640 --> 00:05:04,279
Speaker 1: this just going to play out over a longer period

89
00:05:04,320 --> 00:05:08,520
Speaker 1: of time. I'm not sure about that because there's as

90
00:05:08,520 --> 00:05:10,640
Speaker 1: you probably know, that this is not the end of

91
00:05:10,640 --> 00:05:14,080
Speaker 1: the line. So in particular for this particular segment, which

92
00:05:14,080 --> 00:05:16,880
Speaker 1: is kind of the hypot news of a triangle um,

93
00:05:17,400 --> 00:05:20,640
Speaker 1: the pipeline would have to go go through Nebraska, and

94
00:05:20,640 --> 00:05:22,760
Speaker 1: there is a whole another state process that's going on

95
00:05:22,800 --> 00:05:26,080
Speaker 1: in Nebraska. So I'm not sure whether the plaintiffs will

96
00:05:26,120 --> 00:05:28,360
Speaker 1: ask for an injunction. It might be kind of hard

97
00:05:28,400 --> 00:05:31,159
Speaker 1: to get at this point because there's no imminent harm

98
00:05:31,279 --> 00:05:33,760
Speaker 1: that the pipeline is going to be built um in

99
00:05:33,800 --> 00:05:36,479
Speaker 1: these early early times. And I do agree that I

100
00:05:36,480 --> 00:05:39,800
Speaker 1: think the government's going to move to dismiss primarily or

101
00:05:39,800 --> 00:05:42,719
Speaker 1: at least one of the claims, being that it doesn't

102
00:05:42,720 --> 00:05:45,479
Speaker 1: even have to do an e I S for this project.

103
00:05:45,680 --> 00:05:48,440
Speaker 1: I think they're taking a position that these permits are

104
00:05:48,520 --> 00:05:51,720
Speaker 1: fully discretionary and although the State Department did did an

105
00:05:51,720 --> 00:05:53,640
Speaker 1: e I S, it didn't have to. Al Right, Well,

106
00:05:53,640 --> 00:05:56,479
Speaker 1: we're going to talk more about the ongoing fight, which

107
00:05:56,480 --> 00:05:59,479
Speaker 1: who knows when it will end over the Keystone XCEL pipeline.

108
00:06:00,000 --> 00:06:03,240
Speaker 1: In a reversal of one of the prior administration's major decisions,

109
00:06:03,600 --> 00:06:07,160
Speaker 1: President Trump last week approved construction of the Keystone XL

110
00:06:07,240 --> 00:06:12,520
Speaker 1: pipeline that will run from Canada to Nebraska. But environmental

111
00:06:12,520 --> 00:06:14,719
Speaker 1: and Native American groups are now suing to prevent the

112
00:06:14,760 --> 00:06:18,400
Speaker 1: pipeline going forward. And so the many years of controversy

113
00:06:18,520 --> 00:06:21,120
Speaker 1: over this pipeline did not come to a close with

114
00:06:21,160 --> 00:06:24,320
Speaker 1: the president's decision last week. We are talking about the

115
00:06:24,320 --> 00:06:27,120
Speaker 1: new litigation with deb Receives, the director of the Environmental

116
00:06:27,160 --> 00:06:30,320
Speaker 1: Law Clinic at Stanford University, and Evans Old and professor

117
00:06:30,360 --> 00:06:35,440
Speaker 1: at the University of Toledo College of Law. Evan, you

118
00:06:35,480 --> 00:06:38,719
Speaker 1: had one president's administration say that the pipeline would not

119
00:06:38,760 --> 00:06:40,920
Speaker 1: be allowed to go forward, they wouldn't get a permit

120
00:06:40,960 --> 00:06:44,520
Speaker 1: to come across from Canada. Now you have a new president.

121
00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:47,919
Speaker 1: New administration came in with different policies and they with

122
00:06:48,040 --> 00:06:50,760
Speaker 1: the same background of information reverse the decision and say

123
00:06:50,760 --> 00:06:54,320
Speaker 1: that the pipeline can proceed. Is that does that cause

124
00:06:54,360 --> 00:06:56,960
Speaker 1: any legal issues? Is it okay for an administration to

125
00:06:57,040 --> 00:07:01,680
Speaker 1: just reverse what the prior administration did. That's a great question.

126
00:07:01,880 --> 00:07:07,839
Speaker 1: So there is a a long tradition UH, including a

127
00:07:08,040 --> 00:07:12,040
Speaker 1: statut cult the Administrative Procedure Act, that is quite skeptical

128
00:07:12,200 --> 00:07:17,520
Speaker 1: of the agency changes of um UH policy just based

129
00:07:17,560 --> 00:07:21,880
Speaker 1: on the change of administration. And so the question that

130
00:07:21,920 --> 00:07:23,960
Speaker 1: the court is going to ask is is this change

131
00:07:23,960 --> 00:07:28,080
Speaker 1: in policy arbitrary or capricious? Now it's not a it's

132
00:07:28,080 --> 00:07:30,600
Speaker 1: not a clear cut question because there definitely his authority,

133
00:07:30,640 --> 00:07:35,600
Speaker 1: including Supreme Court UM at times has upheld changes in policy.

134
00:07:36,040 --> 00:07:38,440
Speaker 1: It seemed to be supported by nothing more than the

135
00:07:38,480 --> 00:07:41,400
Speaker 1: fact that the administration changed. On the other hand, sometimes

136
00:07:41,440 --> 00:07:45,280
Speaker 1: courts say, well, now you need to provide more information

137
00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:47,920
Speaker 1: than just that was and this is now in order

138
00:07:47,960 --> 00:07:50,680
Speaker 1: to justify a change in policy. And I'll tell you

139
00:07:50,720 --> 00:07:52,760
Speaker 1: the one thing that's very interesting about this is that

140
00:07:53,440 --> 00:07:56,600
Speaker 1: UM A court is more likely to defer to the

141
00:07:56,640 --> 00:08:00,920
Speaker 1: agency to the extent that the court UM is going

142
00:08:00,960 --> 00:08:04,080
Speaker 1: to apply what's called Chevron deference. And Chevron is the

143
00:08:04,120 --> 00:08:07,840
Speaker 1: name of the Supreme Court case that um that directs

144
00:08:08,400 --> 00:08:12,000
Speaker 1: courts to defer to agency determinations. And what's interesting about

145
00:08:12,040 --> 00:08:16,200
Speaker 1: that is that in general the Republicans and Congress, particularly

146
00:08:16,240 --> 00:08:20,040
Speaker 1: in the House, have been very opposed to a strong

147
00:08:20,960 --> 00:08:23,880
Speaker 1: Chevron deference. And so if they have their way and

148
00:08:23,960 --> 00:08:29,200
Speaker 1: are able to, either through legislation or through the confirmation

149
00:08:29,360 --> 00:08:35,559
Speaker 1: of Judge Gorcium, restrained the power of Chevron deference, it

150
00:08:35,600 --> 00:08:38,480
Speaker 1: would mean that it is less likely that changes in

151
00:08:38,559 --> 00:08:40,439
Speaker 1: policy like the woman we just saw are going to

152
00:08:40,480 --> 00:08:45,680
Speaker 1: be upheld by courts on review. Which side has the

153
00:08:45,720 --> 00:08:51,240
Speaker 1: stronger argument? Um, Well, yeah, I think it's it's a

154
00:08:51,280 --> 00:08:54,240
Speaker 1: bit of a toss up here because there is a

155
00:08:54,320 --> 00:08:58,280
Speaker 1: document when the State Department reversed this recent reverseless a

156
00:08:58,280 --> 00:09:02,120
Speaker 1: few days ago. Uh. They they put out of documents

157
00:09:02,240 --> 00:09:05,480
Speaker 1: like thirty pages long. That kind of is their explanation.

158
00:09:05,640 --> 00:09:08,080
Speaker 1: So just as we were saying, they have to at

159
00:09:08,160 --> 00:09:11,720
Speaker 1: least give some explanation to make the decision not arbitrary

160
00:09:11,720 --> 00:09:14,800
Speaker 1: and capricious and and and you know, so it's hard

161
00:09:14,840 --> 00:09:17,880
Speaker 1: to handicap because there are some legitimate arguments that there's

162
00:09:17,920 --> 00:09:20,880
Speaker 1: new information that should have been considered and that it

163
00:09:20,920 --> 00:09:23,840
Speaker 1: was arbitrary to simply reverse the decision. On the other hand,

164
00:09:24,240 --> 00:09:27,439
Speaker 1: as uh, as we just heard, the there is deference

165
00:09:27,520 --> 00:09:31,199
Speaker 1: to the agency, especially UM in this arena where it's

166
00:09:31,200 --> 00:09:34,000
Speaker 1: a kind of a for the reason there's a presidential

167
00:09:34,040 --> 00:09:37,280
Speaker 1: permit is that it's it's the pipeline goes across borders,

168
00:09:37,280 --> 00:09:39,040
Speaker 1: and so it's kind of a foreign affairs issue, which

169
00:09:39,160 --> 00:09:43,040
Speaker 1: is even more deference to the at the presidential level.

170
00:09:43,080 --> 00:09:46,280
Speaker 1: So I I don't know, um uh, you know who

171
00:09:46,360 --> 00:09:49,240
Speaker 1: ultimately might might win out on this one. I think

172
00:09:49,280 --> 00:09:50,920
Speaker 1: it's kind of a toss up, and it all depends

173
00:09:50,960 --> 00:09:55,840
Speaker 1: on whether the judge thinks there's enough um explanation uh

174
00:09:55,880 --> 00:09:59,360
Speaker 1: for for why the State Department reverse course? Well, Evan

175
00:10:00,280 --> 00:10:02,640
Speaker 1: environmental litigation can often take up a lot of time,

176
00:10:02,960 --> 00:10:06,960
Speaker 1: and the this is not an environmental impact statement that

177
00:10:07,080 --> 00:10:09,080
Speaker 1: has really ever been looked at by a court because

178
00:10:09,280 --> 00:10:12,680
Speaker 1: the prior administration denied the permit, so you didn't have

179
00:10:12,760 --> 00:10:15,319
Speaker 1: litigation about where the I E I S was sufficient.

180
00:10:16,280 --> 00:10:17,840
Speaker 1: What is the court going to do when it looks

181
00:10:17,880 --> 00:10:19,679
Speaker 1: at the E I s now, how searching an inquiry

182
00:10:19,679 --> 00:10:23,679
Speaker 1: will it do? Well? The inquiry the court is going

183
00:10:23,720 --> 00:10:27,040
Speaker 1: to make is um is when they're gonna ask how

184
00:10:27,200 --> 00:10:30,640
Speaker 1: how hard of a look did the agency take at

185
00:10:30,840 --> 00:10:34,360
Speaker 1: the UM the underlying policy decision. And so they're going

186
00:10:34,400 --> 00:10:40,640
Speaker 1: to ask did the State Department UM comply with the

187
00:10:40,240 --> 00:10:43,720
Speaker 1: the law, the National Environmental Policy Act and putting together

188
00:10:44,559 --> 00:10:48,240
Speaker 1: uh the environmental Impact Statement. They're going to ask whether

189
00:10:48,320 --> 00:10:53,840
Speaker 1: or not UM they complied with the regulations about asking

190
00:10:53,840 --> 00:10:56,960
Speaker 1: for comment from the public UM. And then the court

191
00:10:57,000 --> 00:11:01,240
Speaker 1: is going to evaluate whether, given the the way that

192
00:11:01,320 --> 00:11:05,640
Speaker 1: the environmental environmental impacts they WOS put together, whether the

193
00:11:05,679 --> 00:11:10,400
Speaker 1: agency took a hard look at the at the facts

194
00:11:10,400 --> 00:11:13,959
Speaker 1: that have collected before it made its policy decisions. Debra,

195
00:11:14,360 --> 00:11:16,760
Speaker 1: one last thing, how long given all that, do you

196
00:11:16,800 --> 00:11:20,920
Speaker 1: think this will go on for? I think these cases

197
00:11:20,960 --> 00:11:24,040
Speaker 1: don't move super quickly. I mean, as we talked about earlier,

198
00:11:24,040 --> 00:11:26,599
Speaker 1: there might be a request for some kind of injunction

199
00:11:26,679 --> 00:11:29,480
Speaker 1: but and there's probably going to be a motion to dismiss.

200
00:11:29,520 --> 00:11:31,920
Speaker 1: But but if neither of those things happen, then you

201
00:11:31,960 --> 00:11:33,640
Speaker 1: know you kind of are in for the long haul.

202
00:11:33,760 --> 00:11:36,840
Speaker 1: There's a record the agency would produce, and they would

203
00:11:36,880 --> 00:11:40,360
Speaker 1: they would set briefing schedule and argument and that that

204
00:11:40,400 --> 00:11:44,400
Speaker 1: could take quite a while. UM. Typically these cases go

205
00:11:44,440 --> 00:11:47,439
Speaker 1: on for a year or more. Well, our thanks to

206
00:11:47,760 --> 00:11:50,240
Speaker 1: receive us the director of the Environmental Law Clinic at

207
00:11:50,280 --> 00:11:53,360
Speaker 1: Stanford University Law School, and Evans Aldawn, a professor at

208
00:11:53,400 --> 00:11:56,160
Speaker 1: the University of Toledo College of Law, for being here

209
00:11:56,160 --> 00:11:59,040
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Law to talk about new litigation over the

210
00:11:59,120 --> 00:12:03,200
Speaker 1: Keystone XL pipeline. Coming up on Bloomberg Law, we're gonna

211
00:12:03,200 --> 00:12:06,480
Speaker 1: be talking about Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. He was

212
00:12:06,520 --> 00:12:08,880
Speaker 1: once the scourge of the Obama administration, or at least

213
00:12:08,880 --> 00:12:10,440
Speaker 1: one of them, took them to court on everything, but

214
00:12:10,480 --> 00:12:14,640
Speaker 1: now he is facing UH securities fraud charges in Texas

215
00:12:14,760 --> 00:12:17,760
Speaker 1: and he lost a couple of key rulings in court.

216
00:12:18,200 --> 00:12:23,239
Speaker 1: That's coming up on Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg