Democrats are outnumbered in Washington these days, but that doesn't mean they can't pull out the occasional victory. It happened this week in the Senate where three Republicans joined all forty eight Democrats to leave intact and Obama administration rule that would curb emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from drilling operations on public lands. The vote marked the first failure for the Republican leadership in an effort to roll back in Obama regulation under an obscure law known
as the Congressional Review Act. How important is this regulation and will Republican and industry opponents find another way to kill it? We will ask our guests. He is Charles Warren, a partner at Cramer Levin, Talas and Frankel Chuck. Thanks as always for joining us. Tell us about this rule, what what would it do? Well? What the rule would do?
I think if people are familiar with seeing oil and gas wells, and you see them around here off the New Jersey Turnpike, they flare off and you can see fire go up in the air, and that's what's called the venting of gas and what they vent and also leak sometimes is methane gas. And methane gas, while it's not present in such large numbers as c O two that comes from big power plants all over the country, is twenty five times more potent a greenhouse gas than
c O two. So even though it's in small numbers, that can have a big impact. And so what this regulation basically does, it's it says that they have to control the venting and the leaking of the methane gas and they have to report periodically on it and take steps to minimize, you know, the in the future venting.
And uh, I think that the idea behind the regulation was that you could also use this methane that you captured in and sell it off in ways that would be economically valuable, uh, you know to the oil and gas producers. And they objected, Yeah, go ahead, sorry, you chuck. Getting the Trump administration to repeal the methane emissions rule had been a top priority of the oil and gas industries, and Republicans had been working for weeks to get the
forty nine votes they needed. Does this defeat mean something for environmentalists? Well, I think it's I think it's important for environmentalists because this is this is the only loss so far under the Congressional Review Act, and uh and I think it's an important regulation. But the fight's not over yet because still the administration at E p A and at the you know, the National Parks and the Interior Department can still try to water down the regulation.
But I think it's you know, I think it's gonna make it harder in the administrative process to do it where they thought they had an easy way just to knock it out. There's also some lawsuit over over this rule out there. Does that have any any legs to it or is that an administrative avenue that you were referring to. Is that the place to watch for for
the future of this role. Yeah, that I I don't think the lawsuits gonna do much, but I think that I think the administrative avenues at at E p A and Interior that's really what to watch because I know there's going to be a concerted effort by those departments to try to uh water down the regulation that you know that they failed to knock out completely. So chuck
the real surprise vote. There were three Republicans who voted with the Democrats, but the real surprise last minute was Senator John McCain, and he was also the target of significant lobbying on the climate issue. UM At the same time, he said that he would support an effort by the Trump administration to rewrite the Obama Rule. So where does
that leave him as far as the environment and methane. Well, I think you know, when you look back in history, sent Or McCain has actually been someone who's tried to do something about climate change. I mean, going back far back. He was involved in supporting a cap and trade proposal to control power plant emissions that didn't get anywhere. But so I think he I think in the back of his mind he's still, uh, you would like to do
things about climate change. And he's probably trying to walk a fine line by saying he'd like to cut like to see it cut back a little bit. And probably that goes to the small producers because they're complaining and saying it's it's it's a hard regulation for them. If it's one thing if you own a lot of wells, or it's another thing if you have a couple of wells. And uh, And I think that's the fine line he's
trying to walk. But I think I think he's supportive of doing something about climate change, and I think I think you'll see him in the future try to be helpful in this area. Chuck. One of the arguments that that opponents have used with regard to this regulation is that it's duplicative, that there are state regulations out there that deal with some of those things. Um, is that
A Is that a legitimate argument? Well, if you look back in history, leaving it to the states and environmental protection has never really been a very good strategy because you always have the competition than among states. Some states are doing more than others, and they'll say, well, you really ought to come to our state because our regulations are less onerous. Uh, And I think you need to have a standard that the federal government sets and the states.
The state standards are generally not as effective as the federal standards and really getting a meaningful reduction in UH, this type of potent greenhouse gas methane. Chuck explain this. John McCain said in a statement that while I'm concerned that the BLM rule may be onerous, passage of the resolution and would have prevented the federal government under any administration from issuing a rule that is similar. Can you
explain what that is? The Congressional Review Act? Is this uh, you know act that allows Congress within a certain time when the regulation is enacted at sixty legislative days, and how you account that is tricky and usually the uh, you know, the the um Congressional Review uh looks at it and they sort of say, all right, here, here's where,
here's where the date starts. But once you pass a resolution and is signed in the law by the President, as they've done twelve other times, that means not not only is that regulation killed, but you can't go back and resurrect that regulation in another form, because it basically says you cannot without getting congressional approval, you cannot put a new regulation in that covers this same issue. That's
what they think he means there. In other words, he'd like to see it cut back a little bit, But if this passed, they wouldn't be able to do that. The regulation would be out and they wouldn't be able to resurrect it in any form, essentially unless Congress went along, which they wouldn't have if this had passed. Chuck, how big of an impact has this Congressional Review Act had had I'll confess, until a few weeks ago, I don't
think I had had heard of it. But it seems as though Republicans have scored some pretty significant victories, both environmentally and otherwise against these Obama administration rules that were put into effect at the very end of of the Obama era. Yes, well, it's interesting that Congressional Review Act was enacted in about and it was used once before. And here you have a confluence where you have a Republican Congress and a Republican president, which you haven't always
had for any concerted period of time. And not only that, but a congressman the president that are really um set on rolling back regulations in a big way. And they have been you know, twelve different kinds of regulations and the financial area, the disclosure areas, from the environmental area,
and so it has had an impact. And I think this is the boast significant, by far, the most significant use of this Congressional Review Act that's ever taken place since it was put into you know, effect in I understand that Thursday is the deadline today for using the Congressional Review Act in this way to undo major regulations. So are there any Obama era environmental rules that were
on the block that will now be saved. You know, I don't think there well, there are regulations that are certainly before you know, before I think it was may of of that are not subject to it. But I I don't know if there's anything that they have right
on the block now. I think that's probably since today is the end, I think that's that's that's probably it in terms of environmental regulation, although I think that you're going to see e p A in interior still be looking to revise other environmental regulations, and so you'll see more activity on the you know, administrative front, agency front. Chuck, what's at the top of the agenda on that front? Since we have were I guess ending the Congressional Review
Act era of the portion of the Trump administration? Where do where does the administration turn now? And where the
Republicans turn now in terms of environmental and energy policy? Well, I think obviously public enemy number one for the energy companies and and you know, and and I think the the congressional people and the Trump administration is probably the Clean Power Plan And uh, you know that's something that the e p A. You know, under Scott Pruitt has said they're going to go back and attempt to rewrite it, and I think they will, and the d C Circuit has held things in abeyance, you know, the case that
was pending, and I think they're going to go back and try to come up with a regulation that's much different. Now. Whether that's successful or not, we don't know. Um. I think part of the problem that you have here is that they're bucking a trend in this whole energy and environmental area, and that trend is that there's more and more use of natural gas, which is the less polluting fossil fuel of all