WEBVTT - Trump EPA Setting Precedent by Easing Up on Coal

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.439
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. In its latest

0:00:22.480 --> 0:00:26.759
<v Speaker 1>move to reverse Obama era environmental policies, the Trump administration

0:00:26.840 --> 0:00:29.400
<v Speaker 1>is proposing a dramatic shift in the way it measures

0:00:29.400 --> 0:00:33.560
<v Speaker 1>the benefits of limiting mercury pollution from power plants. Joining

0:00:33.600 --> 0:00:35.640
<v Speaker 1>me to discuss the moves as Charles Warren, head of

0:00:35.640 --> 0:00:39.040
<v Speaker 1>the environmental practice at Cramer Levin and former regional administrator

0:00:39.120 --> 0:00:42.000
<v Speaker 1>of the e p A Chuck. The e p A

0:00:42.440 --> 0:00:46.279
<v Speaker 1>is now assessing that mercury mandates cost far more than

0:00:46.320 --> 0:00:49.760
<v Speaker 1>the potential benefits, and they say the health benefits of

0:00:49.800 --> 0:00:53.480
<v Speaker 1>cutting mercury range from about four million to six million annually.

0:00:53.560 --> 0:00:57.840
<v Speaker 1>The Obama administration had an additional eighty billion dollars a year.

0:00:58.520 --> 0:01:03.840
<v Speaker 1>Why the disparity, Well, June, the cost benefit analysis is

0:01:03.840 --> 0:01:07.840
<v Speaker 1>always a tricky thing. And the reason there's a disparity

0:01:08.040 --> 0:01:11.120
<v Speaker 1>in what they're saying and what the Obama administration is

0:01:11.160 --> 0:01:15.200
<v Speaker 1>saying is that the Obama administration took in all the benefits,

0:01:15.720 --> 0:01:20.160
<v Speaker 1>the health benefits that were related to putting controls on

0:01:20.720 --> 0:01:24.000
<v Speaker 1>for mercury, and what it was was, you get a

0:01:24.040 --> 0:01:27.479
<v Speaker 1>control of mercury, which has certain health benefits which are lower,

0:01:27.920 --> 0:01:31.720
<v Speaker 1>but you also get control of particulate matter, which are

0:01:31.760 --> 0:01:35.200
<v Speaker 1>these bits that float around in the air and that

0:01:35.360 --> 0:01:39.360
<v Speaker 1>caused respiratory and lung problems, and that adds up to

0:01:40.240 --> 0:01:45.680
<v Speaker 1>many more billions, and that gives you a cost benefit.

0:01:46.640 --> 0:01:49.480
<v Speaker 1>That's where the benefits are greater than the costs. And

0:01:50.080 --> 0:01:52.920
<v Speaker 1>the Trump administrations saying no, you can't look at those

0:01:53.000 --> 0:01:56.240
<v Speaker 1>what they call cod benefits. You can only look at

0:01:56.240 --> 0:01:59.840
<v Speaker 1>the benefits of controlling mercury itself. And that's where there's

0:01:59.840 --> 0:02:03.400
<v Speaker 1>a big, the big disparity here. And I think what

0:02:03.480 --> 0:02:06.520
<v Speaker 1>they're really trying to do here is set a precedent

0:02:06.680 --> 0:02:11.520
<v Speaker 1>for further analysis of these kinds of regulations so they

0:02:11.560 --> 0:02:15.680
<v Speaker 1>can just use the benefits that are directly attributable to

0:02:15.720 --> 0:02:20.360
<v Speaker 1>the polluting they're controlling by the particular regulation. Well, Chuck,

0:02:20.480 --> 0:02:23.320
<v Speaker 1>which kind of analysis do you think is more on

0:02:23.400 --> 0:02:28.160
<v Speaker 1>the mark? Well, I guess if you're saying you here's

0:02:28.240 --> 0:02:32.920
<v Speaker 1>regulation A that it happens to regulate mercury, but it

0:02:33.000 --> 0:02:38.080
<v Speaker 1>also results because of the technology that's required to be

0:02:38.160 --> 0:02:41.440
<v Speaker 1>put on, you know, for the on the on the plants.

0:02:41.760 --> 0:02:44.280
<v Speaker 1>It also regulates other things, And so why shouldn't you

0:02:44.320 --> 0:02:49.639
<v Speaker 1>take into account all the health benefits that come from

0:02:49.639 --> 0:02:52.720
<v Speaker 1>the fact that you've issued this regulation. It seems to

0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:54.720
<v Speaker 1>me it doesn't make sense to say, well, you may

0:02:54.760 --> 0:02:57.320
<v Speaker 1>have all these other health benefits, but the fact that

0:02:57.360 --> 0:03:01.200
<v Speaker 1>you're not have an issue the regulation just cifically regulate

0:03:01.280 --> 0:03:04.960
<v Speaker 1>them but only for mercury, that you shouldn't count them

0:03:05.000 --> 0:03:06.839
<v Speaker 1>makes no sense to me, because you have to look

0:03:06.840 --> 0:03:09.600
<v Speaker 1>at the overall health picture, because the idea of these

0:03:09.639 --> 0:03:13.440
<v Speaker 1>regulations is to improve public health. How far does it

0:03:14.000 --> 0:03:18.440
<v Speaker 1>have to go before this actually changes the way they

0:03:18.480 --> 0:03:21.280
<v Speaker 1>assess the benefits? Is it proposal? Is it going to

0:03:21.280 --> 0:03:23.880
<v Speaker 1>have to go through a rule change. Yes. What they're

0:03:23.880 --> 0:03:29.000
<v Speaker 1>doing is they're not seeking two actually repeal the regulation

0:03:29.280 --> 0:03:32.560
<v Speaker 1>at this time, because, first of all, the utilities don't

0:03:32.600 --> 0:03:34.880
<v Speaker 1>want it repealed. They've already spent the money the regulation

0:03:34.960 --> 0:03:38.560
<v Speaker 1>was enacted in, they've spent the money to comply, they've

0:03:38.560 --> 0:03:41.200
<v Speaker 1>already put on the control equipment, so it makes no

0:03:41.280 --> 0:03:44.320
<v Speaker 1>sense to repeal it now. They put out a proposal.

0:03:44.920 --> 0:03:47.760
<v Speaker 1>If it when final, they would like to use that,

0:03:48.240 --> 0:03:51.200
<v Speaker 1>as I indicated before, as a precedent for new regulations.

0:03:51.280 --> 0:03:53.840
<v Speaker 1>And so that so obviously the final regulation is going

0:03:53.840 --> 0:03:57.000
<v Speaker 1>to be challenged on the basis that they did not

0:03:57.360 --> 0:04:02.720
<v Speaker 1>calculate the health benefits adequately. The federal rules to limit

0:04:02.920 --> 0:04:06.640
<v Speaker 1>mercury are one of the signature environmental achievements by the

0:04:06.680 --> 0:04:09.240
<v Speaker 1>Obama administration. Let's take a look back at the last

0:04:09.280 --> 0:04:12.360
<v Speaker 1>two years and what's coming up, because the New York

0:04:12.360 --> 0:04:15.320
<v Speaker 1>Times that a study in reports that something like seventy

0:04:15.360 --> 0:04:19.839
<v Speaker 1>eight environmental rules are going to be changed due to

0:04:19.920 --> 0:04:25.600
<v Speaker 1>Trump's deregulation. Yeah, they Well, I think when you look

0:04:25.600 --> 0:04:27.400
<v Speaker 1>at the study, you have to say, Okay, these are

0:04:27.920 --> 0:04:32.240
<v Speaker 1>what the Trump administration has proposed, and the question is

0:04:32.520 --> 0:04:34.760
<v Speaker 1>how many of those are actually going to go into effects,

0:04:34.839 --> 0:04:36.960
<v Speaker 1>And many of them are challenged and and and as

0:04:37.000 --> 0:04:40.960
<v Speaker 1>we've seen, I mean, they don't necessarily pass muster because

0:04:41.680 --> 0:04:44.560
<v Speaker 1>in order to change regulations, you have to have a

0:04:44.640 --> 0:04:49.520
<v Speaker 1>real basis to change it and show that the evidence

0:04:49.560 --> 0:04:53.440
<v Speaker 1>that you have proves your case. And usually a lot

0:04:53.480 --> 0:04:56.040
<v Speaker 1>of times it hasn't happened that way. Because the Trump

0:04:56.040 --> 0:05:00.680
<v Speaker 1>administration has offered fairly thin evidence to replay the some

0:05:00.760 --> 0:05:04.120
<v Speaker 1>of these regulations, but they're still trying and and and

0:05:04.160 --> 0:05:07.359
<v Speaker 1>I think as we look ahead, they're going to be

0:05:08.760 --> 0:05:11.560
<v Speaker 1>pushing further ahead on some of the initiatives that they

0:05:11.640 --> 0:05:17.039
<v Speaker 1>have started on now. So Chuck, looking ahead, what is

0:05:17.160 --> 0:05:22.800
<v Speaker 1>the biggest environmental rollback that the Trump administration has actually

0:05:22.839 --> 0:05:26.720
<v Speaker 1>been able to accomplish. Well, let's see the biggest. I

0:05:26.760 --> 0:05:30.680
<v Speaker 1>think the biggest rollback so far is that they stopped

0:05:30.839 --> 0:05:33.680
<v Speaker 1>the Clean Power Plan. They haven't actually replaced it yet,

0:05:33.720 --> 0:05:36.200
<v Speaker 1>but they really stopped it. And that was, you know,

0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:42.400
<v Speaker 1>a major initiative of the Obama administration and uh and

0:05:42.480 --> 0:05:48.919
<v Speaker 1>it has wide ranging effects on greenhouse gases for power plans.

0:05:49.279 --> 0:05:52.520
<v Speaker 1>And so that's been in limbo now for several years.

0:05:52.839 --> 0:05:58.480
<v Speaker 1>And I think that's setting the effort to control greenhouse

0:05:58.520 --> 0:06:01.479
<v Speaker 1>gases back by that at a time. So so that's

0:06:01.520 --> 0:06:04.960
<v Speaker 1>been That's That's what I would say is the greatest

0:06:05.000 --> 0:06:07.520
<v Speaker 1>impact that they've had. That's Charles Warren, head of the

0:06:07.560 --> 0:06:10.880
<v Speaker 1>environmental practice at Kramer Levin. Thanks for listening to the

0:06:10.880 --> 0:06:14.279
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the

0:06:14.320 --> 0:06:18.200
<v Speaker 1>show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg dot com

0:06:18.279 --> 0:06:25.080
<v Speaker 1>Slash Podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg. Yeah,