WEBVTT - Schneiderman Takes on EPA for Clean Air Delay (Audio)

0:00:00.200 --> 0:00:03.880
<v Speaker 1>In two thousand fifteen, under President Obama, the Environmental Protection

0:00:03.960 --> 0:00:07.920
<v Speaker 1>Agency adopted National Ambient Air Quality standards that reduced the

0:00:07.920 --> 0:00:11.119
<v Speaker 1>permissible amount of ozone in the air. But as under

0:00:11.160 --> 0:00:13.520
<v Speaker 1>President Trump, the e p A has now extended the

0:00:13.520 --> 0:00:15.880
<v Speaker 1>deadline for states to comply with the standards by at

0:00:15.960 --> 0:00:18.760
<v Speaker 1>least a year, and now a group of fifteen states

0:00:18.760 --> 0:00:21.279
<v Speaker 1>on the District of Columbia, led by New York Attorney

0:00:21.280 --> 0:00:24.319
<v Speaker 1>General Eric Schneiderman, have brought a legal action seeking to

0:00:24.400 --> 0:00:28.400
<v Speaker 1>overrule the e PAS delay. To talk with us today

0:00:28.560 --> 0:00:31.680
<v Speaker 1>about the the e PAS delay and what of this

0:00:31.800 --> 0:00:34.120
<v Speaker 1>rule and what this law, how this lawsuit is going

0:00:34.159 --> 0:00:36.400
<v Speaker 1>to effect whether the e p A can do it?

0:00:36.560 --> 0:00:39.720
<v Speaker 1>Are Charles Warren, a partner at Kramer Levin NF Talas

0:00:39.800 --> 0:00:43.720
<v Speaker 1>and Frankel and Diane Cott's senior research fellow in regulatory

0:00:43.760 --> 0:00:48.279
<v Speaker 1>policy at the Heritage Foundation. Chuck, let's start with what

0:00:48.360 --> 0:00:51.400
<v Speaker 1>the e p A actually did here. What have they

0:00:51.440 --> 0:00:56.120
<v Speaker 1>announced about this rule? Well, the only way the really

0:00:56.400 --> 0:01:05.440
<v Speaker 1>announced was that they were delaying the designations of non

0:01:05.520 --> 0:01:10.520
<v Speaker 1>attainment areas really for ozone when they were supposed to

0:01:10.600 --> 0:01:15.920
<v Speaker 1>be done by October. They were putting it off for

0:01:16.000 --> 0:01:20.800
<v Speaker 1>a year. To and I think you have to really

0:01:20.840 --> 0:01:24.120
<v Speaker 1>just look at this a little bit. And what happens

0:01:24.200 --> 0:01:26.600
<v Speaker 1>is that there was a new ozone standard set by

0:01:26.600 --> 0:01:34.200
<v Speaker 1>the regulation in October where they lowered the standard for ozone.

0:01:34.520 --> 0:01:37.319
<v Speaker 1>And what's supposed to happen then is that the states

0:01:37.480 --> 0:01:41.840
<v Speaker 1>are supposed to designate areas that aren't attaining those standards,

0:01:41.880 --> 0:01:44.319
<v Speaker 1>and then they have to take steps to make sure

0:01:44.440 --> 0:01:47.920
<v Speaker 1>they can attain those standards. And so what the e

0:01:48.080 --> 0:01:52.680
<v Speaker 1>p A did here was to say, instead of having

0:01:52.720 --> 0:01:56.080
<v Speaker 1>to submit those plans by this October, they're delaying it

0:01:56.120 --> 0:01:59.920
<v Speaker 1>for a year. UM. Not quite. The states have had

0:02:00.040 --> 0:02:04.880
<v Speaker 1>to submit their designations, but the e PA isn't going

0:02:04.920 --> 0:02:09.359
<v Speaker 1>to make a determination on whether e p A finds

0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:14.000
<v Speaker 1>those attainment areas um And that he is correct though

0:02:14.040 --> 0:02:16.959
<v Speaker 1>that the you know, there's a year delay, and that

0:02:17.120 --> 0:02:22.080
<v Speaker 1>year delay has been um you know authorized under the

0:02:22.120 --> 0:02:25.560
<v Speaker 1>Clean Air Act for UH the e p A administrator

0:02:25.639 --> 0:02:31.280
<v Speaker 1>in instances where UH the administrator has insufficient information to

0:02:31.320 --> 0:02:35.720
<v Speaker 1>make those designations chuck. The d C Circuit last month

0:02:35.880 --> 0:02:37.920
<v Speaker 1>rule that the e p A could not delay the

0:02:38.000 --> 0:02:40.760
<v Speaker 1>methane rules on the oil industry for three years, and

0:02:40.840 --> 0:02:44.400
<v Speaker 1>on Monday ordered through it to enforce the methane rules.

0:02:44.600 --> 0:02:47.880
<v Speaker 1>Is that precedent the court will follow in this case? Yes,

0:02:48.000 --> 0:02:50.560
<v Speaker 1>I think they will because I think again, this is

0:02:50.600 --> 0:02:52.200
<v Speaker 1>one of the this seems to be one of the

0:02:52.240 --> 0:02:56.520
<v Speaker 1>standard operating procedures of the c p A where they

0:02:56.560 --> 0:03:00.440
<v Speaker 1>don't actually try to change things right away. They try

0:03:00.480 --> 0:03:04.440
<v Speaker 1>to delay. And I don't think even though there's some

0:03:05.840 --> 0:03:08.359
<v Speaker 1>wiggle room there, I don't think. I don't think it's

0:03:08.480 --> 0:03:13.720
<v Speaker 1>enough in this case for them to prevail in court.

0:03:13.760 --> 0:03:17.120
<v Speaker 1>I think based on that methane decision and and and

0:03:17.120 --> 0:03:21.880
<v Speaker 1>and the full court basically just this Monday said things

0:03:21.880 --> 0:03:24.000
<v Speaker 1>have got to move forward nine to two, I believe,

0:03:24.200 --> 0:03:27.119
<v Speaker 1>and so full DC Circuit Court. So I think they

0:03:27.120 --> 0:03:32.680
<v Speaker 1>will um uh do the same thing in this situation, Diane.

0:03:32.680 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 1>This rule was finalized a couple of years ago, and

0:03:36.200 --> 0:03:39.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, you mentioned that under the Clear Act Clear

0:03:39.680 --> 0:03:42.560
<v Speaker 1>Cleaner Act, there may be some ability for the e

0:03:42.680 --> 0:03:45.680
<v Speaker 1>p A to need, you know, to delay things if

0:03:45.680 --> 0:03:48.320
<v Speaker 1>they need more information. What more information is it that

0:03:48.360 --> 0:03:51.240
<v Speaker 1>the e p A is now saying they need. Sure,

0:03:51.280 --> 0:03:53.600
<v Speaker 1>then that's a good question. But let me just make

0:03:53.680 --> 0:03:57.080
<v Speaker 1>one additional point, which is um with respect to the

0:03:57.160 --> 0:04:01.240
<v Speaker 1>methane rule, uh, There's two tracks going on here with ozone.

0:04:01.320 --> 0:04:05.480
<v Speaker 1>One is that the agencies and any agency can decide

0:04:05.520 --> 0:04:10.040
<v Speaker 1>to reconsider a rule on its merits and whether or

0:04:10.080 --> 0:04:13.120
<v Speaker 1>not they are going to issue a new or different rule.

0:04:13.440 --> 0:04:17.240
<v Speaker 1>But I know, I know, I'm saying that this is

0:04:17.360 --> 0:04:22.160
<v Speaker 1>the second track is in this instance where UM a

0:04:22.360 --> 0:04:26.479
<v Speaker 1>part of the rule, that is the designation's process, is

0:04:26.520 --> 0:04:30.760
<v Speaker 1>being delayed, but the other standard, the existing standard, is

0:04:30.760 --> 0:04:34.680
<v Speaker 1>still in effect, and UM states, you know, still have

0:04:34.800 --> 0:04:38.320
<v Speaker 1>to abide by that existing standard. But what is needed here,

0:04:38.560 --> 0:04:43.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, is UM primarily two sets of information that

0:04:43.240 --> 0:04:48.800
<v Speaker 1>it was problematic from the from the origination of the

0:04:48.880 --> 0:04:53.440
<v Speaker 1>rule under the Obama Act. One is that we haven't

0:04:53.720 --> 0:04:57.000
<v Speaker 1>when the rule, when this new standard was issued, UM,

0:04:57.040 --> 0:05:00.400
<v Speaker 1>a great many areas of the country hadn't had come

0:05:00.440 --> 0:05:03.799
<v Speaker 1>into a compliance with either the two thousand and eighth

0:05:03.839 --> 0:05:10.680
<v Speaker 1>standard or standard, and so they imposed a new standard

0:05:10.800 --> 0:05:14.000
<v Speaker 1>before we knew what the results were going to be

0:05:14.320 --> 0:05:18.479
<v Speaker 1>of standards for which many many areas of the country

0:05:18.480 --> 0:05:23.000
<v Speaker 1>had not even yet come into a compliance. Secondly, UM,

0:05:23.120 --> 0:05:26.920
<v Speaker 1>many of the benefits that e p A claimed would

0:05:26.960 --> 0:05:32.719
<v Speaker 1>result from this rule our consequence not of reductions in ozone,

0:05:32.760 --> 0:05:36.560
<v Speaker 1>but in the reductions of particulate matter. The e p

0:05:36.760 --> 0:05:40.919
<v Speaker 1>A has delayed implementation of a rule that would affect

0:05:40.920 --> 0:05:44.720
<v Speaker 1>air pollution and lower the the limits for how much

0:05:44.720 --> 0:05:48.200
<v Speaker 1>ozone can be in the air in the United States,

0:05:48.320 --> 0:05:53.040
<v Speaker 1>and fifteen states, led by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman of

0:05:53.080 --> 0:05:55.360
<v Speaker 1>New York, along with the District of Columbia, have sued

0:05:55.400 --> 0:05:58.400
<v Speaker 1>the e p A to prevent the delay from happening.

0:05:58.800 --> 0:06:01.560
<v Speaker 1>We've been talking with Charles Warren, a partner at Kramer Levin,

0:06:01.839 --> 0:06:05.000
<v Speaker 1>Talas and Frankel, and Diane Katz, senior research fellow in

0:06:05.040 --> 0:06:08.560
<v Speaker 1>regulatory policy at the Heritage Foundation, about the e PAS

0:06:08.600 --> 0:06:13.320
<v Speaker 1>action and the state's lawsuit against it. Diane, before the break,

0:06:13.360 --> 0:06:16.680
<v Speaker 1>we were talking about, UM, you know different ways that

0:06:16.720 --> 0:06:18.520
<v Speaker 1>the e p A can either try to revise the

0:06:18.600 --> 0:06:21.440
<v Speaker 1>rule or implement it. But and what we've seen with

0:06:21.440 --> 0:06:23.760
<v Speaker 1>this e p A is a lot of attempts to

0:06:23.800 --> 0:06:26.880
<v Speaker 1>delay rules rather than going through the process to revise

0:06:26.960 --> 0:06:30.320
<v Speaker 1>them and do new ones. UM, why is it do

0:06:30.360 --> 0:06:32.760
<v Speaker 1>you think that the e p A would delay this

0:06:32.880 --> 0:06:34.919
<v Speaker 1>rule rather than if they don't like it, simply trying

0:06:34.920 --> 0:06:37.360
<v Speaker 1>to revise it to make it more amenable to their

0:06:37.440 --> 0:06:39.960
<v Speaker 1>view of how the rule should work. Well, they're doing

0:06:40.000 --> 0:06:43.760
<v Speaker 1>both and every administration has the right where you know,

0:06:43.880 --> 0:06:47.680
<v Speaker 1>any new administration, actually any administration has the right to

0:06:47.720 --> 0:06:52.680
<v Speaker 1>review any rule UH and the administrative procedures acts as

0:06:53.120 --> 0:06:56.760
<v Speaker 1>that if they want to replace it rule they may,

0:06:56.880 --> 0:06:59.920
<v Speaker 1>they just have to go through the regular rulemaking procedure.

0:07:00.480 --> 0:07:04.200
<v Speaker 1>And so the e p A and you know e

0:07:04.320 --> 0:07:07.640
<v Speaker 1>p A s under other administrations are doing that. They're

0:07:07.640 --> 0:07:11.280
<v Speaker 1>looking at rules that have UM in some cases very

0:07:11.360 --> 0:07:15.280
<v Speaker 1>questionable premises and deciding whether or not the rule is

0:07:15.320 --> 0:07:17.720
<v Speaker 1>going to stand. And in some cases some rules have

0:07:18.320 --> 0:07:22.040
<v Speaker 1>and it in other cases, you know, looking at rules

0:07:22.080 --> 0:07:26.080
<v Speaker 1>that that shouldn't are not warranted, have very you know,

0:07:26.200 --> 0:07:31.760
<v Speaker 1>questionable UM premises and so ozone clearly falls into that

0:07:31.760 --> 0:07:35.840
<v Speaker 1>that category. Now, as I as I mentioned earlier, the

0:07:35.920 --> 0:07:39.239
<v Speaker 1>e p A with this particular rule has a couple

0:07:39.280 --> 0:07:43.040
<v Speaker 1>of different ways UM to manage the rule, and one

0:07:43.160 --> 0:07:45.800
<v Speaker 1>is to reconsider it, which they are doing. And the

0:07:45.880 --> 0:07:49.840
<v Speaker 1>second is UM in the midst of the rule being

0:07:49.840 --> 0:07:56.840
<v Speaker 1>in effect already UM what enforcement actions or what UM

0:07:56.880 --> 0:08:01.520
<v Speaker 1>you know UM and actions for the going further into that,

0:08:01.560 --> 0:08:05.640
<v Speaker 1>can they take UM or stop while they reconsider and

0:08:05.680 --> 0:08:09.120
<v Speaker 1>so what's under reconsideration here um as I said, is

0:08:10.120 --> 0:08:14.760
<v Speaker 1>that the benefits of this rule are not justified by

0:08:15.040 --> 0:08:17.400
<v Speaker 1>the cost of the rule in any way, shape or form.

0:08:17.520 --> 0:08:20.360
<v Speaker 1>The rule is going to cost, you know, several billion

0:08:20.400 --> 0:08:25.760
<v Speaker 1>dollars a year, and virtually all of the benefits that

0:08:26.000 --> 0:08:28.720
<v Speaker 1>are that the e p A identified as the rule

0:08:28.800 --> 0:08:32.200
<v Speaker 1>having have nothing to do with those own chuck. We

0:08:32.280 --> 0:08:36.000
<v Speaker 1>know that this is opposed. This rule is opposed by

0:08:36.880 --> 0:08:41.720
<v Speaker 1>UH fossil fuel companies and other companies, and that prue

0:08:41.720 --> 0:08:45.160
<v Speaker 1>It has made UH a name for himself by suing

0:08:45.160 --> 0:08:48.600
<v Speaker 1>the e PA when he was in Oklahoma. Doesn't the

0:08:48.600 --> 0:08:52.040
<v Speaker 1>Administrative Procedure Act require the e p A to do

0:08:52.240 --> 0:08:57.720
<v Speaker 1>certain things like public comment and justifications before what prue

0:08:57.720 --> 0:09:01.200
<v Speaker 1>It is attempting to do here, Sure, let me let

0:09:01.240 --> 0:09:03.920
<v Speaker 1>me explain. Let me explain one thing the premise here

0:09:04.120 --> 0:09:08.560
<v Speaker 1>that's been discussed, frankly, in my view, is is totally wrong.

0:09:09.120 --> 0:09:13.200
<v Speaker 1>First of all, we're talking about these criteria pollutants such

0:09:13.240 --> 0:09:15.520
<v Speaker 1>as OO zone in particulates, and the e p A

0:09:15.600 --> 0:09:19.839
<v Speaker 1>has an obligation to set standards based on public health

0:09:20.600 --> 0:09:22.920
<v Speaker 1>with an adequate margin of safety, and that means to

0:09:22.960 --> 0:09:27.400
<v Speaker 1>protect the most vulnerable in the population. So these standards.

0:09:27.480 --> 0:09:30.880
<v Speaker 1>The standards themselves have to be set based on scientific

0:09:30.880 --> 0:09:35.719
<v Speaker 1>studies and impacts that it's going to have on vulnerable populations,

0:09:35.800 --> 0:09:38.320
<v Speaker 1>and the standards themselves are not set on a cost

0:09:38.320 --> 0:09:41.280
<v Speaker 1>benefit basis, and a lot of people like to say, oh, yes,

0:09:41.360 --> 0:09:45.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, it's benefits and all that. There's Once the

0:09:45.160 --> 0:09:47.680
<v Speaker 1>standard is set, then the question is how do you

0:09:47.720 --> 0:09:51.280
<v Speaker 1>go about the meeting those standards. And those standards are

0:09:51.360 --> 0:09:55.600
<v Speaker 1>met by through states setting a state implementation plan, and

0:09:55.760 --> 0:09:59.160
<v Speaker 1>there they can look at ways to ameliorate what might

0:09:59.200 --> 0:10:03.280
<v Speaker 1>be the economic impacts. But the problem that someone like

0:10:03.880 --> 0:10:05.839
<v Speaker 1>prow It's going to have is that he goes he's

0:10:05.840 --> 0:10:09.280
<v Speaker 1>going to go back to reconsider this standard and going

0:10:09.360 --> 0:10:12.560
<v Speaker 1>through the Administrative Procedure Act, as you indicated June, he's

0:10:12.559 --> 0:10:16.040
<v Speaker 1>gonna have a hard time justifying why they should change this.

0:10:16.200 --> 0:10:19.480
<v Speaker 1>And that's why he uses these backdoor methods and tries

0:10:19.520 --> 0:10:21.600
<v Speaker 1>to then say well, we're going to delay this, and

0:10:21.600 --> 0:10:23.520
<v Speaker 1>we're going to keep delayed. Like you know, he talked

0:10:23.520 --> 0:10:25.800
<v Speaker 1>about a one year delay. He might come in with

0:10:25.840 --> 0:10:28.040
<v Speaker 1>a new delay. He tried the methane. He tried it

0:10:28.080 --> 0:10:30.120
<v Speaker 1>two year delay and they said no, we're not going

0:10:30.160 --> 0:10:33.319
<v Speaker 1>to do that, and I just think that in the end,

0:10:33.520 --> 0:10:35.080
<v Speaker 1>they're not gonna be able to get away with it.

0:10:35.080 --> 0:10:38.000
<v Speaker 1>They're gonna have to operate within the law and within

0:10:38.040 --> 0:10:41.960
<v Speaker 1>the Administrative Procedure Act and follow the law. And if

0:10:41.960 --> 0:10:43.720
<v Speaker 1>they're going to change the standards, they're going to have

0:10:43.840 --> 0:10:47.640
<v Speaker 1>to justify those changes because they will be challenged and

0:10:47.679 --> 0:10:49.319
<v Speaker 1>they may and I don't think they're gonna be able

0:10:49.360 --> 0:10:52.360
<v Speaker 1>to justify it based on the public health impacts. And

0:10:52.440 --> 0:10:54.680
<v Speaker 1>that's really what you have to look at here in

0:10:54.720 --> 0:10:59.559
<v Speaker 1>these kinds of standards. Uh, you know, dan uh, the

0:10:59.679 --> 0:11:03.240
<v Speaker 1>National Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American

0:11:03.280 --> 0:11:07.480
<v Speaker 1>Public Health Association, the American Lung Association have all come

0:11:07.480 --> 0:11:11.840
<v Speaker 1>out against congressional attempts to roll back uh this rule.

0:11:12.240 --> 0:11:15.240
<v Speaker 1>And you know, doesn't that sort of indicate that maybe

0:11:15.320 --> 0:11:17.520
<v Speaker 1>there there is at least a basis for this that

0:11:17.559 --> 0:11:19.640
<v Speaker 1>should require the a p A to go through a

0:11:19.679 --> 0:11:24.080
<v Speaker 1>full administrative process before they delay implementation exactly what it's doing.

0:11:24.120 --> 0:11:27.080
<v Speaker 1>There's some confusion here among you guys about a two

0:11:27.160 --> 0:11:31.240
<v Speaker 1>track process. Okay, So if if e PA wants to

0:11:31.320 --> 0:11:36.960
<v Speaker 1>reconsider the entire um ozone knacks, you know, the five

0:11:37.040 --> 0:11:40.360
<v Speaker 1>every five years. E p A is to review the

0:11:40.480 --> 0:11:44.839
<v Speaker 1>standard for a variety of different pollutants and decide whether

0:11:44.920 --> 0:11:48.360
<v Speaker 1>or not a stricter standard is necessary in this case,

0:11:48.520 --> 0:11:50.959
<v Speaker 1>in two thous you know, for two thousand fifteen, they

0:11:51.000 --> 0:11:55.120
<v Speaker 1>decided a stricter standard was necessary. Okay. E p A

0:11:55.280 --> 0:11:58.960
<v Speaker 1>can reconsider that rule and that finding, which it is

0:11:59.000 --> 0:12:02.760
<v Speaker 1>doing through the through procedures set down in the Administrative

0:12:02.760 --> 0:12:07.240
<v Speaker 1>Procedures Act. Secondly, e p A under the Clean Air

0:12:07.320 --> 0:12:14.880
<v Speaker 1>Act has the opportunity has the authority to delay implicmentation

0:12:15.000 --> 0:12:18.440
<v Speaker 1>of the new standard in the in the face of

0:12:19.160 --> 0:12:25.160
<v Speaker 1>uncertainty or questions about um whether the designation was correct,

0:12:25.240 --> 0:12:28.640
<v Speaker 1>whether the standard was correct. I can read you, you

0:12:28.679 --> 0:12:31.120
<v Speaker 1>know that part of the of the statute. I don't

0:12:31.160 --> 0:12:34.520
<v Speaker 1>know why, you know. The attorney here doesn't seem to

0:12:34.600 --> 0:12:38.120
<v Speaker 1>understand or be cognizant of what the what the statute says.

0:12:38.160 --> 0:12:41.880
<v Speaker 1>It actually says that outright that such period may be

0:12:42.000 --> 0:12:44.920
<v Speaker 1>extended for up to one year in the event the

0:12:45.000 --> 0:12:51.560
<v Speaker 1>administrator has insufficient information to promulgate the designations. Let's let's

0:12:51.600 --> 0:12:53.640
<v Speaker 1>let's let's Chuck respond to that, because we have about

0:12:53.640 --> 0:12:57.520
<v Speaker 1>thirty seconds left. Where was his justification for doing that?

0:12:57.600 --> 0:12:59.440
<v Speaker 1>Sure he can do that. Where is the justification? Is

0:12:59.440 --> 0:13:02.640
<v Speaker 1>insufficient information he did he just said were extending it.

0:13:02.920 --> 0:13:06.920
<v Speaker 1>I didn't see any justification for that, and uh, well,

0:13:07.000 --> 0:13:09.280
<v Speaker 1>we'll see what they have to say. But I don't

0:13:09.400 --> 0:13:12.040
<v Speaker 1>I don't see I don't see a justification at this point.

0:13:12.200 --> 0:13:14.160
<v Speaker 1>Afraid we're gonna have to cut off our disagreement. There

0:13:14.200 --> 0:13:17.560
<v Speaker 1>are thanks to Charles Warren of Cramer Levin and Diane

0:13:17.600 --> 0:13:20.000
<v Speaker 1>Ketch of Cats of the Heritage Foundation for being with

0:13:20.080 --> 0:13:20.160
<v Speaker 1>us