Originally published on Legal Planet.
The first phase of Trump's regulatory rollbacks has been directed against Obama's climate change regulations. Those deregulatory actions will be finalized soon. What happens next will be in the hands of the courts. But the Trump EPA is now beginning a new phase in its attack on environmental regulation. Having tried to eliminate climate regulation, its next move will be an attack on basic protections against air pollution.
The Clean Air Act, the federal air pollution statute, is largely structured in terms of achieving national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). In March 2020, EPA will propose revisions in the standards for ozone and particulates, the two most important pollutants. It has already started work on the revisions. Guess what? EPA won't be planning to tighten the standards. If anything, they are likely to loosen them, weakening a crucial safeguard.
Trump's EPA has been working over the past couple of years to undermine the scientific basis for the standards. First, it purged CASAC, its general scientific advisory board, of independent academic experts, replacing them with industry-connected scientists. The committee currently does not contain any statisticians, experts in modeling risk assessment, or epidemiologists. The administration also eliminated the specialist advisory boards advising CASAC on the complex science relating to these two pollutants. Even Trump's handpicked CASAC has complained about losing the advice of those specialists.
Second, the Trump EPA has been working to limit the evidence that it will consider in deciding on air quality levels. It floated a proposal, which it is still considering, to eliminate any scientific study unless the sponsors of the study were willing and able to make their data available to industry or the public at large, which is often impossible because of patient confidentiality concerns. The purported purpose is to improve transparency and scientific rigor, but the real goal seems to be blindfolding the agency from considering key studies on the health effects of particulates.
It remains to be seen whether the administration will be able to go through the complex process of preparing its air quality proposals by the planned March 2020 deadline. The current plan is to finish the ozone standards by late 2020. That might just be doable – it seems to have taken between six months and a year to go from proposal to final rule. What happens after that is harder to predict. If the Democrats somehow manage to capture Congress and the White House, they might be able to use the Congressional Review Act to kill the rollbacks. If not, the proposals will undoubtedly still be pending in court when the next presidential term begins. A Democratic administration would undoubtedly seek to have them sent back to EPA for further consideration. If Trump is reelected, then it will be up to the D.C. Circuit and perhaps the Supreme Court to decide whether EPA has given a reasonable, evidence-based explanation for the rollbacks.
The most direct impact of the rollbacks will be on public health, but there will also be consequences for climate change. Reducing these key pollutants would also tend to reduce use of fossil fuels because of the costs of meeting tighter standards. Lowering the air quality standards, however, would be a boon for the oil and coal industries. So it's public health and climate change on one side of the balance, and the oil and coal industries on the other. You can probably decide for yourself which side Trump is likely to favor.
Showing 2,834 results
Daniel Farber | August 5, 2019
Originally published on Legal Planet. The first phase of Trump's regulatory rollbacks has been directed against Obama's climate change regulations. Those deregulatory actions will be finalized soon. What happens next will be in the hands of the courts. But the Trump EPA is now beginning a new phase in its attack on environmental regulation. Having […]
James Goodwin | August 5, 2019
Originally published by The Regulatory Review. Reprinted with permission. Public participation is one of the cornerstones of U.S. administrative law, and perhaps nothing better exemplifies its value than the notice-and-comment rulemaking process through which stakeholders can provide input on a proposed rule. Yet there remains an inherent tension in the democratic potential of this process. […]
Daniel Farber | July 29, 2019
Originally published on Legal Planet. Last Friday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals halted efforts to build a natural gas pipeline because the Trump administration had done such a lousy job of showing its compliance with the Endangered Species Act. This was one of the administration's many losses in court. The case involved a perfect […]
Amy Sinden | July 26, 2019
This commentary was originally published by The American Prospect. Everyone in communications knows how to bury a news story: release it late on a Friday. So it was with the White House’s annual report on federal regulations, released months behind schedule on a Friday in February. As it has for many years, the report pegged […]
Daniel Farber | July 25, 2019
Originally published on Legal Planet. To hear President Trump talk, the point of deregulation is to reduce the burden of regulation on industry. But weirdly enough, that doesn't turn out to be true of Trump's effort to repeal Obama's Clean Power Plan (CPP) and replace it with his own Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. Both […]
Rena Steinzor | July 23, 2019
Originally published by The Regulatory Review. Reprinted with permission. As the United States slogs through year three of a deregulatory implosion, one truth has become clear: As practiced by the Trump administration, cost-benefit analysis has become a perversion of a neutral approach to policymaking. To be forthright, I was never a fan of the number […]
Joel A. Mintz | July 22, 2019
Originally published by The Regulatory Review. Reprinted with permission. When it comes to the need for federal regulation, the American political system is currently deeply divided along ideological and partisan lines. This division has a number of causes, but a good part of the division can unquestionably be attributed to what Professor Thomas McGarity has […]
Daniel Farber | July 18, 2019
Originally published on Legal Planet There's already been a lot written in the aftermath of Justice Stevens's death, including Ann Carlson's excellent Legal Planet post earlier this week. I'd like to add something about an aspect of his jurisprudence that had great relevance to environmental law: his belief in the rule of law, and specifically, […]
Joel A. Mintz | July 17, 2019
This op-ed was originally published in The Hill. In a recent speech, President Trump touted what he described as "America's environmental leadership" during his presidency. He claimed that over the past two-and-a-half years, his administration has been "a good steward of public land," reduced emissions of greenhouse gases, and successfully promoted clean air and water. His […]