Court Cases, the CEQ Phase II Rule, and Monza with Fred Wagner

Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! 

On today’s episode, we talk with Fred Wagner, Partner with Venable, LLP about Court Cases, the CEQ Phase II Rule, and Monza.   Read his full bio below.

Special thanks to our sponsor for this episode VENABLE, LLP!   Check them out at https://www.venable.com/

Help us continue to create great content! If you’d like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-form 

Showtimes: 
1:40  Nic & Laura talk about what makes a good storyteller
5:58 Interview with Fred Wagner starts
20:02  Court Cases
36:05  CEQ Phase II Rule
57:28  Monza

Please be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. 

This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.

Connect with Fred Wagner at linkedin.com/in/fred-wagner-59043019

Guest Bio:

Fred Wagner focuses his practice on environmental and natural resources issues associated with major infrastructure, mining and energy project development. Fred helps clients manage and then defend in court environmental reviews performed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or equivalent state statutes. He works with public agencies and private developers to secure permits and approvals from federal and state regulators under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Fred is familiar with the full range of issues surrounding USDOT surface transportation programs, including grant management, procurement, suspension and debarment, and safety regulations. During his career, Fred has handled a wide variety of environmental litigation in federal trial and appellate courts across the country, from citizen suits, to government enforcement actions, to Administration Procedure Act (APA) challenges.

Fred was appointed Chief Counsel of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) during the Obama administration. He managed all legal matters involving the $40 billion Federal-Aid Highway program, including environmental and natural resources issues for highway and multimodal transportation projects. Among other high-profile projects, he oversaw the agency’s defense of the following:  New York's Tappan Zee Bridge, San Francisco's Presidio Parkway, Chicago's Elgin-O'Hare Expressway, Kentucky and Indiana's Ohio River Bridges, North Carolina's Bonner Bridge, Alabama's Birmingham Northern Beltline, Wisconsin's Zoo Interchange, and Washington's State Road 520 Bridge. He represented the FHWA on government-wide Transportation Rapid Response Team, a multi-agency task force focused on improving project delivery and environmental review reforms.

Fred began his career as a trial attorney in the Environment Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He also served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Misdemeanor Trial Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. Prior to joining Venable, he spent more than 20 years in private practice at a national law firm focusing on environmental and natural resources issues.

Music Credits
Intro: Givi

Chapters

• 1:40 Nic & Laura talk about what makes a good storyteller
• 5:58 Interview with Fred Wagner starts
• 20:02 Court Cases
• 36:05 CEQ Phase II Rule
• 57:28 Monza

Transcript

Transcripts are auto-transcribed

[Intro]

Nic 
Hello, and welcome to EPR if your favorite environmental enthusiast Nic and Laura, on today's episode, Laura and I discuss what makes a good storyteller. We talked to Fred Wagner about court cases dependency, CEQ phase two rule, and his trip to Monza. And finally, alligators and crocodiles can climb trees. That's right, folks, just when you thought dryland was safe. The American murder logs could be looking over your head. It's like well, everybody

Laura 
Oh, that does not bode for my recurring nightmares.

Nic 
That music

[NAEP Event News]

Laura 
This is the last call for abstracts for NAEP's 2023 annual conference and training symposium happening in Phoenix, Arizona from May 7 to 10th 2023. showcase your work to an audience of national and Arizona and environmental professionals at its 2023 conference. Abstracts can be submitted for oral presentations, posters, workshops and special sessions. of national and Arizona concern. Please check it out @www.naep.org And that is again happening in 20 23.0 proposals are due in 2022. Correct. Looking for a great sponsor opportunity. 60% of listeners have bought something from a podcast ad and we are up to 25,000 downloads with over 400 per episode. If you'd like to sponsor the show, please head over to environmental professionals radio.com and check out the sponsor forum for details. We appreciate you immensely and you are what helps keep the show going. Let's get to our segment

[Nic & Laura talk about what makes a good storyteller]

Nic 
We talked to Fred yesterday and I remember yesterday thinking in my head as he was talking in the beginning especially I was like wow, there's gonna be some really good stuff in this.

Laura  
Yeah, I think the probably the funnest thing though, was his story about his misadventure in Italy

Nic 
In Italy and try and get to Monza.

Laura 
Spoiler alerts.

Nic  
Yeah, he goes to Monza. But yeah, he's a great storyteller. It's really fun to have him on.

Laura 
I know. That's you, maybe just storytelling. I think like, like I said, it's actually Sam or volunteer and I were chatting about this afterwards. Just I have no interest in politics and listening to that and the news is, since I'm not doing permitting, or NEPA, like I don't have any need to, like, be up on the cutting edge of what's happening in DC and whatever. But when he starts talking about it, I'm like, well, that's cool. That's interesting. Tell me more.

Nic 
100% And that's like the power of a good storyteller, right? You take something that is, you know, seemingly dumb, like just trying to get on a train. And he it's one of the most captivating things you've ever heard. And it's just kind of the beauty of storytelling, right? You're grounded in something human. And you attach a motion to it, which is the number one thing you need in a good story. And suddenly you become invested. And you know, the stakes are your stakes, and you kind of want to hear more about it. And you can't fake it. You can't fake passion. You can't fake interest. Yeah, I guess someone I can't make friends would say you could but it's gonna say

Laura 
I think there's a couple people in politics and acting that do pretty good job. But you know, they're pros.

Nic 
Yeah, they're pros. Even then, it's still rooted in an actual motion, right? No matter what you're still drawing on your experience to give somebody that that perception so it still is a great story has to have emotion behind it. Otherwise, it's just you telling words, and that's not the same thing? Yeah. He's, he's one of the best. So I wish I could talk about it like that.

Laura  
Yeah, I don't think people are. Well, that's not good. On the whole we suck at storytelling. Well, I guess

Nic 
we shouldn't be right, right. We are 30 I mean, I'm pretty good at it. I like I like doing it. We are pretty good at it. But yeah, he's a master doesn't mean you can't learn, you know?

Laura 
Oh, totally. But yeah, as watching. Just because one does watch The Great Dictator for no reason. On a Friday night, but that speech at the end, you know, I'm talking about No, I haven't seen it. So it's Charlie Chaplin movie. It was put out in 1940. And it is it's a comedy, but the end has this brilliant if you just go on YouTube and just watch the story or the speech that he gives it the end, and you're just like, oh, it's frustrating, because you're like, why are people getting this? It is a brilliant story. And it's he says it's so passionately that you're like, is he acting or is he really like, I think he's just really intuitive. It's really cool.

Nic 
Yeah, I mean, it's like I say it's just it's, I like they were also saying that this is something you can get better at. Like if you don't think you're good at storytelling. If you want to get better at storytelling. You have to practice it's one of the reasons I started doing stand up, you know, it's just like I wanted to get more comfortable in uncomfortable situations. And you actually also learn quite a bit by authorities. One of my favorite shows that we used to do pre pandemic was a storytelling show where it's like, Hey, you guys are not allowed to tell your, your you know, your bits, you have to tell a story. And your singular story can be incredibly hilarious and you learn how people do that. There's still punch lines, there's still jokes, but they're based on one story. There's always really, really great examples. Of that in the comedy world, but it applies really well. Like when you listen to Fred's interview, you're gonna be captivated and interested because of him. His ability to tell good stories.

Laura 
Yeah, and one of the things he does really well is like take a boring subject like environmental law, potentially worrying offend anybody. But he uses analogies and he's, you know, compares it to something else that you can relate to.

Nic 
And he has an energy and passion for it as well. It's, it's incredible. I love it. Yeah,

Laura 
you can definitely tell he loves his job and he is good at it.

Nic 
Yeah. 100% Why don't we go ahead and wrap up and you guys can hear for yourself.

[Interview with Fred Wagner Starts]

Laura 
Welcome back to EPR. Today we have Fred Wagner Venable LLP on our show. Today. He is joining us as the official environmental legal correspondent. I think this is your sixth time here. So welcome back, Fred.

Fred Wagner 
It's great. To be here and it's great to be official.

Laura  
Your official before but um so we're gonna start off with some easy labs where you because there's some serious stuff to talk about later. Why don't you first we'll talk about your job a little. what point does an environmental consultant call you in? Are you like on retainer with your clients or do they call you after they've gotten into trouble like a lot of other specialties?

Fred Wagner 
Yeah, I mean, the classic cases when you have that, you know, oh, crap moment where you realize that you need counsel. I have one story in particular, literally, my phone rang at my desk in my office, and it picked up the phone and the client was whispering and which doesn't happen very often over the phone. I mean, you're on the phone, like why was he? So yeah, why are you whispering? And he explained that he was whispering because he was at a public hearing. Oh, no. And he said in a whisper voice, which I won't whisper completely. He said, No, people are yelling at us. You know, I didn't expect it. They didn't expect that there would be opposition or there would be promises as to what do we do? I said, Well, what are they yelling you about? And he explained that they were questioning a lot of the work that came out in the environmental document that his his his office had prepared and they just weren't expecting that kind of pushback. Well, it turns out that there was a competitor who was upset about the particular project and they had successfully gotten some citizens to come and speak at the meeting. Oh, wow. It caused all this ruckus. And that was the first time I was involved in that project demand ended up being counsel to them as they prepared their Final EIS and actually, you know, went through litigation, other projects, you know, the client is super aware that this is going to be a big deal, and it's controversial and they bring us on right away. Because they want that kind of guidance and understanding that how do we make this successful from a legal perspective? And then everything in between and from my perspective, as a lawyer, we love when we're in early so that we can anticipate these issues and potentially try to use them and we're prepare for challenges in the future. But we realize that's not always possible from a cost perspective, from a planning perspective and all that kind of stuff. So yeah, so it's ranged from the panic phone call at the hearing room, to you know, more deliberate, kind of, you know, planning to get me involved early on.

Laura 
Gotcha. So, ideally, how can Environmental Consultants and lawyers work best together?

Fred Wagner  
I think we've talked about this in the past. I'm a big Broadway fan. And one of the classic Broadway shows is Oklahoma. And one of the big numbers in Oklahoma is the farmer and the cow man can be. And that's on the farmer in the county. It should be friends. And he talks about the rivalry between two seemingly compatible and simpatico communities. Obviously, both working in the same land but you know in different kinds of ways. I think, a lot of ways consultants and environmental lawyers are just like the farmer and the cow, man. You know, we're doing a lot. We're doing a lot of the same stuff covering a lot of the same stuff, but we're approaching it from your different disciplines. And different ways of thinking. And so I try to encourage my consultant friends to say, hey, look, when I give you suggestions on how to write something, why not? I'm not telling you, obviously, that I think that there's, you know, lower quality wetlands. I don't I don't know that's your job. But I'm trying to let you know is that hey, if we're anticipating certain challenges or for anticipating pushback from our permitting agency partner, or if there's public controversy, or what have you, how do we bring this in a way that answers these questions in a manner that people can get it and they can understand? And so my discipline as counsel is oftentimes, you know, communication, it's writing, it's advocacy, especially when you're anticipating, you know, a challenge in the future. Then my friends, disciplines our technical accuracy. You know, you're making sure that things are right as a matter of engineering principles. And I think the kumbaya moment between Environmental Council and consultants is making it all better. And you know, that old commercial which I'm dating myself where I forget which company was I think, was a chemical company and their commercial tagline is, is we don't make the products we make the products that you use better. Right, right. Yeah. Have you heard that? Yeah. That's that's really the relationship I think between counsel and the consultant group, you guys do great jobs. Technically outputting beautiful stuff. We try to make it better. We try to make it approachable, readable, supportable from an advocacy perspective. And so that's what we tried to do. And you know, honestly, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, because we are treading the same ground. Right, and let your colleagues who you are so you don't wait. Don't tell me how to write this. This is how we write it. Something right now. Yeah, you're right, is that the phrase I often hear in my dealings with your community is like stay in your own lane. We hear that phrase. And it's like, Well, dude, this is my lane. So I'd say you're my lane is your lane. And how do we write in that same lane together? You know, and so, like I said, I've been doing this for a lot of years now. And the best way to develop a relationship of trust with, you know, my consultant colleagues to say, hey, when we get out at the end of the day, we're gonna have something better and your interest is making sure that if you know the agencies have some material the permits granted, if it gets into a political spat, that all these answers are questioned, and if it gets into court, that the client wins, and we're all and we're all in that together to develop that relationship and people are, you know, row in the same way or in the same direction. They works.

Nic 
Yeah, that's funny. You just saying that. And it made me think immediately, just like, you know, in my career, there's been moments where, and I'm sure this has happened to you. So I'm gonna ask the question, but I already know the answer. Does anyone ever not follow your advice? And then how does that work out?

Fred Wagner 
I think they should teach a course at law school. titled What do you do when your client doesn't? happen so often, and, you know, when you're new to the profession, your expectation, I think, is, hey, I'm spending all this good time and effort to give you what I think is my best advice like, of course, you can do it. And you know, when I started early on, and you know, that's, that was my thinking. One of my mentors explained to me very clearly, he said, do not get your expectations and hopes up that that's going to happen all the time, because there's a million reasons why your advice, even though it's the best legal advice may not be ultimately what the client decides to do. There could be business concerns, there could be political concerns, there could be cost concerns. I mean, it just goes on and on. So your job is to give them the best advice you can based on your interpretations of the requirements they're working under. But they decided to go in another direction for all those reasons are more well, then you turn into their applicant and you give it 100% support that now, are there instances when we give advice to the classes I'm not going to do it and their decision not to do it creates true legal vulnerability, in which case you gotta raise your hand politely and say no, of course. Is that the most frequent occurrence? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. You know, because people get it, they know, but as long as your client understands that you reserve the right to raise your hand and say no, to indicate to them that no, you know, this decision not to move in this direction, you know, raises a real concern in terms of violations or so forth, then you're fine. But I learned long ago thanks to one of my mentors that you just can't be offended. If your client doesn't take your advice. Don't take it personally. You're educating them. You're making them aware of all the options, you're giving them a sense of risks if they do one thing or the other. But yeah, not following advice is part of the job. And, you know, typical thing and a lot of our projects that you see is the consultant creates these matrices, where they get all comments on stuff and they'll explain, you know, adopted or whatever or, you know, oftentimes you'll see the know and you'll get an explanation as to why. And that's fine. That is absolutely fine. And I try to make my clients and my consulting partners comfortable with the fact that I'm not going to stamp it off in a hot if you don't accept every change that I make or whatnot. And the last piece of the puzzle, Nick is when you're making comments or recommendations you have to as a lawyer, you have to discern between what's really, really important, right and the kind of stuff that you know, okay, you might do this or you might do that. And from my experience, the best lawyers are the ones who get that, you know, right away, and so they know when to stick their necks out since somebody really need to do and let the clients understand where you may have some discretion one way or the other. Explain why. And I always tried to do that when I did repose.

Laura  
That's great advice. I think that really applies to anyone in an advisor role. I can see the parameters having the exact same language around the advice they give to the developers right. We're telling you, this is what you should do. If you do something else. There could be consequences. There could not be.

Fred Wagner 
What's the phrase you always hear when we talked about me, reform and permitting reform. Let's focus on what matters, right. You know, we hear that phrase all time. I think we do. Because, you know, sometimes people get caught up in the moment. You know, maybe it's because the red pens in their hand and they figure they have to use it. I don't know what you what advice you get when you edit stuff, your documents that you're writing or whatnot. One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was read first without the pen in your hand. Yeah. Yeah, feed first without the pen in your hand. Because you're just gonna say, the pens if you use it, and you make those changes and whatnot, and that's fine. But is there a sense of the overall you're getting a sense of perspective of the thing that you're reading? Are they getting the point across? Are there things that are the structure of the piece as a whole? And I think that's really good advice to the extent you can read comprehend first, then pick up the pen, because you'll have a better sense of how what you read on page one. Pence with the stuff you're reading on page 10. And I tried to do that as well.

Laura  
Yeah, that's great advice. We also would like to take a moment to talk about Venable and we know what your expertise is. We really appreciate Venable being a longtime sponsor. For us. And what makes Venable different, you know, if I am Environmental Consultants and I'm looking for my options, why do I choose Venable?

Fred Wagner  
Yeah, I think the thing that makes sense to support is you know our, our experience and practical experience and getting projects done and working with you all we've seen it from so many different angles, and so many different sectors. Obviously, I came from my political job from the transportation sector, but I've worked in the mining sector. I've worked in the energy sector, I've worked in commercial development. I've helped build golf courses, you know, and so that range of experience, that practical experience is really what our group kind of hangs our hat on. And we let people and our clients does it. This is what we know you're hired as your hires to get something done. You're trying to get your project built, you're trying to get your approval done. And you know, we're in it for that as well to positive results are practical results for our clients. And we know sometimes the process is not linear, to say the least, for all bunch of reasons that are sometimes way out of your control. So to try to help explain to the client how to manage those things and always move forward always getting to see the end results. So I like to think that's what we do,

Nic  
which is great. You say we do appreciate it. And it's so awesome to have you here.

Fred Wagner 
And the idea just I'll add is the thing that's great about your federal I'm here based in DC and we have such a great presence in the nation's capital and for so many of the projects that we get involved in, not to say it's not political, everything is political to a certain extent. And so to have the wherewithal not have these agencies work, the things that they're concerned about from a political perspective, we have a fantastic you know, government affairs group. That I coordinate with all the time, and to have that Washington DC perspective, especially for the big deal projects, the ones that you know, getting that kind of attention really, really helps that you can pick up the phone and have, you know, respectful and productive dialogue with the folks agencies. I think that's something we do really well.

[Court Cases]

Nic 
Yeah, awesome. That's great. And you know, it's a good segue to our next conversation because you know, we talked last time about the Supreme Court when we had you on right after the Roe v Wade decision, right, which is obviously monumental for lots of reasons now, but nothing else happened after that right like nothing else is going and I know I'm joking, but like, you know, the other big thing that came out right after you were on was the West Virginia versus EPA decision relating to the Clean Air Act. So we talked about what might happen in your episode and that's exactly what how it went. And you know, if there's no surprises there, but let's talk them more about what the repercussions of using the major questions argument are, what are we going to see in the future?

Fred Wagner 
 Right, just quick summary. We're speculating and we were correct, that the majority of the Supreme Court was going to look at the regulations of the Clean Air Act to deal with a greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. And bring in the agency under the major questions doctrine, which is basically the doctrine that says you know, something so important, so influential to the academy and, and in your management of an industry overall that we just do the separations of powers. We just don't want to leave it to the agency on its own devices. To go ahead and do something. We need some clear direction from Congress to say, Thou shalt do this in a particular kind of way. And that's oversimplifying, but let's generally come up with the doctrines all about when the ruling came out. It was interesting in that I thought this I think most legal scholars agree with me that the actual effect, visa vie greenhouse gases, was probably much more limited than folks had worried about because it was really focused on a particularly a narrow portion of the Clean Air Act and particular provision and it doesn't mean that there's no regulation possible, you know, for carbon emissions ever. It was relatively specific. And so to a certain extent, there was a little bit of a sigh of relief. The notion of dealing with GHG is generally was was not off the table because it didn't take the opportunity to you know, reverse the determination from EPA that allowed the regulation of greenhouse gases originally, just to that particular provision. However,

the question of the major questions doctrine is not limited just to this area, and it's applied to a lot of different areas, not necessarily environmental areas. And so to me, the biggest consequence of the ruling, guys is that it is now the roadmap for folks who don't like a particular rule particular regulation to say, hey, you shouldn't be going there agency. You went too far. And the court we need you to rein in the agency. So what are we saying? We're, you know, the Securities Exchange Commission, disclosure reporting rule, and that finally it finally we're finally yet but the state of West Virginia and a bunch of other states wrote a supplemental letter to the common topic. And they previewed quite clearly that okay, if you guys want to go final up to you, but boom, we're gonna be right out of the gate with a challenge on the major question soccer. Does the SEC have the authority to require the disclosure of the sorts of things for GHG emissions that you're proposing under this rule? We're seeing it in terms of non environmental things that Bidens loan forgiveness, student loan forgiveness order, there's talk that the Republican members of Congress are going to challenge it under the major questions doctrine saying you don't have the authority to do that Congress. has to act, and on and on and on. And it's going to be broadly used in many, many different contexts, mostly environmental, because it's kind of the flashpoint for a lot of us, but it's going to be used all over. And so what's going to happen is that over time, and it's going to take time, the scope of the application of the major questions doctor will be defined by examples of specific rules specific agency actions, where the courts either give the thumbs up or thumbs down. It's going to be defined that way I read a brief that was filed, I think, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on some obscure aspect of its rules, where I think the state of Texas raised the major questions doctrine. And the briefing went into gory detail from the governance briefing about look, this is what the statute says this is what the language of the statute provides. Congress clearly intended us to do this. We have done that in the past, it's been upheld, and they went through all the different factors that were laid out by the Supreme Court to defend this particular rights reaction at the NRC was taking my point is, is that that's going to be repeated that drill that analysis is gonna be repeated over and over and over again. And then ultimately, after a year or so, we're gonna see when courts say oh, it's gonna be really important to see this kind of language from Congress or it's gonna be really important to see the this type of authority granted to the agencies to define what's going to fit into the scope of the agency authority. It's not going to be one size fit all. It's going to be different program to program agency to agency, but there will be a body of case law that develops and I guarantee you that some of the folks who challenged these rules are going to go too far. You know, they're gonna say oh, somebody so she has a major question, shocker, and they're gonna get knocked down. Of course, you say, No, it's pretty obvious, right on the face of the statute. And there's gonna be other cases where it might be the same result that you saw in West Virginia. But that's what's going to happen. And that'll take time. There'll be different cases that will work their way up the toilet, you know, structure in the federal courts, but that's what's going to happen and it's starting,

Nic 
like right now now. Well, I mean, just even from like a scientific perspective, it seems it's really hard for me to wrap my brain around. Okay, well, this agency is supposed to do a thing right? Its job is to take

Unknown Speaker 
information to make a decision based on the information available. And now we're saying well, no, actually, the job of that is going to be Congress. And I guess I'm still struggling with why that's like, what is Congress? What would actually Congress be doing like if they decide to do okay, we are going to do greenhouse gases. Are they using scientists to come up with this or some kind of data to come up with a decision or is it strictly gut feeling or economically driven or something like that?
_______________
Nic  
Have some kind of data to come up with a decision or is it strictly gut feeling or economically driven or something like that?

Fred Wagner 
Well, this is the problem that the dissent in West Virginia versus EPA pointed out. This is Congress really equipped to do this. You know, we think not, you know, the dissents said, for all variety reasons. Now, think about the variety of statutes that you deal with in your day to day life. The Clean Air Act, hundreds and hundreds of pages long with great specificity, right? And then the Clean Water Act, you know, regulate waters of the United States, and we've been fighting over that for 30 years. Are we going to be fight? Are we going to be depending rely on Congress to figure that out in the first instance. And so the sense is that that's a recipe for disaster is that fight with those men and women do certainly not what they do? Well, the whole point is that they authorize activity in a certain area and then the experts from the executive branch, do something and then we is the third branch, the judicial branch have oversight to say you know whether they went too far or not, but do we keep waiting? That keep waiting? If we just wait for Congress to act on one thing or another? Are they really going to do that and respect to greenhouse gas? That was that was a great example. The dissent said, yeah, it's one thing to say separation of powers, let Congress do it. But are they going to do it? They're really gonna do it for a whole, you know, for political reasons or what have you? I don't think so. And then the majority said that could be true and it could be frustrating. But Them's the breaks. It's. Congress writes the laws and the agencies implement the law. So unless we hear from Congress expressly, you know, where we're gonna see this next stick? P FOSS.

Nic 
Right, right. Yeah, of course.

Fred Wagner 
We're gonna see it for other forever chemicals regulation, that they're writing the EPA and then the ability to get cleanups under a super fund and what have you the Chamber of Commerce, the US Chamber of Commerce has already very expressly signal that they're going to say that this is something that it's clearly triggers the major question structure just because the you know, potential cost to the economy of now regulating and dealing with these these materials over time. And it's gonna be a classic application of this question classic, because you're gonna have the environmental community, I assume you'll have the EPA in this Justice Department, at least are you what are you kidding me? What is the resource conservation recovery? Act and Tosca and super fun? What are they except the authorization of the government to deal with the disposal of regulation of the cleanup of hazardous materials? Well, here is one, you know, it may not have been front of mine when the statutes were passed 30 years ago, but we should know about it. Now. How could we not have the authority to do that? Are we going to have to wait. Now we'll go by chemical by chemical for Congress to come and say, Oh, no. Are you in that regulate that, you know, and then the other side's gonna say, Well, maybe so but you're you're admitting by your own analysis, EPA that the cost of dealing with these cleanups is going to be $100 trillion? Well, if that's not a major question, I don't know what it is. So that's the kind of dialogue you're gonna see in the courts.

Nic 
Yeah. Yeah. And it's interesting actually amusingly had a conversation about significance in NEPA and how it has nothing to do with money. But money is a very important driver. When we're talking about projects. And you know, in your mind, you're like, well, there should be no limit on people's health, right? What is the cost of cancer? The answer is there is no cost. You should try to treat the cancer don't just, you know what I mean? So it's just a challenge though, because you know, there is money involved as well. So it's, I don't know how we solve that problem. And I guess we'll see over time,

Fred Wagner 
you know, just the other day, I think we might be getting to this in a different context, but just this week, you got to be unsure every week, because so much is happening, but just this week, the Louisiana Court struck down permits for major petrochemical plant proposals in Louisiana, largely on the grounds of the impacts that it's going to have to the environmental justice communities in Louisiana. About a year ago, the Army Corps of Engineers announced that he was going to revisit the NEPA analysis for those proposals, but now, it looks like the proposals are dead. And it's a classic future. So it's about the money, but it's monetizing the impacts to that community over time, from a health perspective from an economic perspective or whatnot, not just from you know, a pollution perspective, and then trying to balance that with, you know, the need for our economy that relies on these chemicals and materials to build and make just about everything, right. And so we're seeing that tension play out in many different ways. And I'd say money is just one element of the major questions doctrine. I think it's certainly a big one. But I think you know, the other aspects of their deal with just the day to day activities of the regulated community, major questions being, you know, are we going to be hiring lots of different people to do this stuff? Is it a new, you know, expertise that we have to have, does it evolve? You know, lots of technical issues. Those are all sorts of issues that are tied up in the major questions doctrine, but there's no getting around, you know, the money and then monetizing the values that you just articulated, you know, between health, economic development, and it's just gonna be an ongoing discussion.

Nic 
Yeah, of course. And, yeah, I can see, I know, we got a lot of other things. I wish I could I have so many more questions I wish we could get to but there's more stuff. There's just so much going on, as we've we've said every time we had you on more and more keeps coming up. So, you know, we also have new climate provisions that were identified in the inflation Reduction Act that was also just passed. Recently. A lot of times, we talked about how bills have seemingly unrelated notes in them. But I think in this case, the state level climate actions are actually pretty irrelevant. So what's worth paying attention to here for our listeners?

Fred Wagner 
Yeah, I mean, the one thing to keep in mind about the inflation Reduction Act, first of all, in my view has nothing to do with reducing inflation. I mean, I think the most progressive supporter of the bill would say it's, it's pretty odd name, even though it gets to MIT to get mentioned some of the bottom line, but the thing that's really important to remember about the bill is that it was done through reconciliation. Why is that important? Because this is to your last question, this is all about the money. You can't do a reconciliation bill by non budgetary stuff is the bottom line. So the inflation reduction act at heart in some ways is attacked tax bill. It's a bunch of tax credits, tax incentives, it's grants and dollars going to communities that have these economic effects that had to pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, so that it got pulled in under reconciliation otherwise they can do it. So for example, you couldn't fold in voting rights under the inflation Reduction Act. Well, some people were trying to do that. Because that's not a budgetary type thing. It's not a tax and money sort of thing. So why is that important? Because in a lot of ways, the incentives and the direction of the inflation Reduction Act goes to enabling private parties, communities, states, etc, to adopt these actions that overall have a favorable effect on reducing carbon and reducing greenhouse gas. Emissions according to the proponents of the bill. Because there's economic benefits for doing so. You convert to using more green energy, you're getting a tax credit, if you're a consumer, and just like I'm doing right now, you switch your gas top range to electric. You can get a tax credit. You can get a rebate or you can get a rebate. It's all the money. And so a lot of the inflation Reduction Act is going to focus on the actions that, again, the proponents of the bill sought to incentivize that all have the effect of it. A lot of folks minds, advancing the way we either electrify our economy, whether we go to different technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and all the rest and just internally at the firm just to prove this point and, you know, the other day at a conference with my colleague about you know, how we help explain to our clients that the implications of this bill, and my colleague was the chair of the Tax Practice and federal, it was not in another environmental war. It was it was the it was the tax ban. So, you know, our challenge is like, how do we get this information into the hands of our clients when there's this overlap between financial law and environmental law and regulatory law? It was a really interesting conversation. But that's the point of this bill, a lot of pretty arcane financial incentives for different aspects of the economy, different industrial sectors. So I think that's one thing for our listeners to understand. It's not like a Regulatory Act. It's not like an Authorization Act for brands under the Highway Trust Fund or stuff. It is a little bit different, in that it has as its goal, you know, climate type action but the vehicle is through fax.

[CEQ Phase II Rule]

Nic 
That's really cool. If Nate, and I can say like we talked about, like, creativity, innovation, it's good to see that we can still do that. Because it's really important. I think it's a lot of what we do. Well, so you mentioned mentioned earlier, and I want to circle back to that. too, because when there was the the mansion compromise, I would say was pretty shocking to just about everybody except for mansion and Schumer. So it kind of came out of nowhere, which is so rare. So I want to hear your thoughts on that. But I also want to know, like, what are the possibilities that the permitting reform legislation possibilities coming out of this compromise? And will that impact the Syracuse, phase two rule,

Fred Wagner 
Senator mansion, one of his long objections to some of the build back better proposals when it was a much bigger proposal than it was, you know, a couple of billion dollars or more, was that we were going to try to do all these things. We were trying to build all these things, but there were these in his mind, impediments out there in the form of environmental regulation in the form of, you know, NEPA, lengthy NEPA reviews in the form of litigation delays and so forth. And he was absolutely he's a conservative Democrat. He was very concerned about all those things from the get go for a long time. So we're saying it's great that we have all this money, but we actually can get these things out onto the ground. And so from the beginning, from the outset, he had this as a as an aid and as we discussed last year, surprisingly, the bipartisan infrastructure law incorporated some permit reform by taking some of the Trump administration's executive orders one federal decision executive order and codified again, another compromise to try to get people on board. Well, you know, imagine in Schumer, behind the scenes, were talking not just the high level reforms, but they were very specific. There was like a couple of particular projects that Nanjing was worried about pipelines, you know, going through his state and whatnot, and other sorts of projects to help promote the, you know, the Natural Resources Development in West Virginia. And those are some of the very controversial elements of the inflation Reduction Act. We're basically given a free pass into some of those things. One of those just happened yesterday. The major offshore lease sale. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that was conducted. The government took the position that NEPA did not apply to that lease sale. Because under the bill, they only had 30 days to do it. And they did. And then they said it's a classic case of impossibility. There was no way that we could have done a full scale legal review and met the mandates of Congress. So the sale was conducted with no NEPA, and there was pending litigation over that sale. They made a filing with the Court that said, Hey, your honor, here's why. Cases move over how we started this a do within 30 days, if you have 30 days, even though we wanted to redo our NEPA we couldn't do it. Nothing to see here. Right. It's pretty remarkable. Well, part of the deal was that longer term mentioned was going to get greater permit reform, on top of all the other stuff that we've seen so far. And in fact, there was a document around Washington DC, that I talked to some people about, and folks from the administration swore up and down it wasn't that that came from mansions office with some of the things that he wanted to see in terms of permit reform. Well, that one is like one page. That one pager got out and all heck broke loose. on the progressive side, they said, you know, no is not you know, something we want but conservatives were still ticked off that mentioned shook hands with Schumer. So they were ticked off and measures they and we think you're gonna get less support for this permanent reform while I'm still mad at you for even agreeing to get this thing passed in the first place. Right? And so all of a sudden you have a situation where we don't even know if a permit reform piece of legislation that was promised, can even pass manager was quoted recently saying he thinks he may need 20 Republican votes to pass permanent reform legislation. To which I say razza rock like Scooby Doo, right? Where is he gonna get 20 Republican votes? So right now the thinking is that the prospects of the primary reform are pretty dim. Okay. They're not really sure it's going to happen. Well, then if it doesn't happen, what's he going to do? The President already signed the bill that's part of the law. And you're their handshake, their backroom handshake, Schumer mentioned that they don't worry, there'll be the separate legislation. What's he going to do now that that didn't happen? The last part of your question was, well, how does it relate to what CQ is doing? We had heard that CQ is going to, you know, act by the end of summer. Yeah, so we'll face to the NEPA regulations while looking at my watch. And your summer is what the 21st Technically, the joke was September so the joke was calling to midnight on the 21st.

Maybe you'll see something that but then the question was was why should we go ahead and do that? If Congress through this managing compromise bill was going to legislate more stuff. So why would we write regulations if the legislation potentially could be inconsistent with that right? And so that then the thinking was, well, he was gonna put off things to to see what if anything comes out of the mansion permit report.
____________
Fred Wagner 
But then the question was, well, why should we go ahead and do that? If Congress through this mansion compromise bill was going to legislate more stuff, like so why would we write regulations that the legislation potentially could be inconsistent? And so that then the thinking was well, he was going to put off things to to see what if anything comes out of the mansion permit report, with the prospects of that getting worse and worse. I think CQ may be now gearing up again, to try to get out of this proposal. Because now it has bigger calendar issues. This is gonna be a long comment period. There's gonna be 1000s and 1000s of comments on the phase two proposal, then there's gonna be a challenge. They really want this done before, you know, January 2025. Of course, and as hard as it is to think about that, you know, unless they get that on out on the table, you know, this year, that gets harder and harder to do to accomplish. So, originally, I thought they were gonna wait because the bill is going to come out. But now, with the bill seeing less and less likely and Democrats really, very aggressively in the house. Let's instead have been very aggressively now saying, forget about, you're not gonna get that support. I think I mentioned they have to look elsewhere.

Laura 
Fascinating. Yeah. Thank you. Maybe you're on TV show Fred because like you almost make me want to read the news about this stuff. Almost from you, but I'm not gonna pick up a newspaper and read about it. So are you

Fred Wagner 
like what I used to be like when we actually had newspapers, comics. section next.

Laura 
crosswords and comics. That's Proserpina.

Nic 
hurts my heart.

Fred Wagner 
This like newsprint on your fingerprint on your fingers? I do.

Nic 
Oh, yeah. Yeah, I remember that. I do. And yeah, I mean, I was yeah, they stopped giving me newspapers, I think in I mean, all the way through. I had through high school and everything. We still got newspapers, so I'm old enough to know that I do miss it.

Fred Wagner 
You know why one of the guilty pleasures of law school was stop studying and reading your Facebook and we go over to the portion of the library where they had, you know, those racks with the bamboo things and they had all the newspapers around the country I wear that like 10 or 20, you know, both times and they got all these newspapers and they were sitting there on the rack. It was just such a great feelings and we'll take a break from the cases and pick up the newspapers around the country and flip through and then go wash your hands to go back to

Laura 
the smell no more I think I just missed the news being like news now. It's like it's not news anymore in most places, you know, it's all propaganda different things now that it was always perfect, but

Nic 
it feels like it's more entertaining.

Laura 
Just like real fast, everything's fast. I know. I don't know. One of the I won't name names, but one of the places I do read news here sometimes like just the grammar and spelling mistakes and stuff. You're like, Man Did anybody even proof this before it went out? No.

Fred Wagner 
Yeah. And as we discussed, some of the stuff is, you know, so nuanced that, you know, it doesn't lend itself to the lickety split, you know, tweet level type analysis that we're seeing and I you know, I was frustrated. I hope I'm good listeners is the fact that this stuff does develop over time. It does take time and it's gonna have ups and downs and peaks and valleys are the trends that we see in some of this stuff, but it does take time.

Laura 
That's for sure. Speaking of things that take time, you mentioned briefly earlier the SEC has proposed to enhance disclosures on ESG reporting, and no surprise, there's backlash to the proposals in some states. So why is it being proposed and maybe for obvious not so obvious reasons, why is your opposition to it?

Fred Wagner  
Yeah, the SEC has been really committed to this rule. Their actions took place a couple of phases. They first they they went out with a request for information or the financial community from stakeholders saying, Hey, should we do this? It was a loaded question because they were gonna do it. They wanted some more stuff. And they did get hundreds and hundreds of really detailed comments from the community about why this reporting was important and some of the issues with it and so forth. Again, for listeners, SEC disclosure, deals, not with environmental stuff. It deals with financial stuff obviously. But the main concept under SEC rules and laws this concept of materiality, what information is material to potential investor to shareholder about this publicly traded company? So, for example, let's say your company that owns ski lodges, what is it quote unquote, material that you use to have a ski season that was five months long? And now because of climate? It's three months long. Does that affect the bottom line from an investor's perspective? Right. And so what the SEC is saying, look, it seems to us that the effects of climate on a whole variety of different industries for whole variety of different reasons, is clearly a quote unquote material thing, that you as an investor or as a shareholder would want to know about. See, how's the company dealing with this? Right? So it's not an environmental law. It's a financial rule. And so the the SEC said, look, I think we need to disclose this information. The question is, what information, how much information some of the stuff is pretty straightforward. And what they did is they broke it down into different they call scopes scope one, scope two, scope three. That was an SEC term that is determined in you know, in the greenhouse gas reporting world, scope one, the stuff that you emit easy greenhouse gases, your factory poof, you can track that easily, pretty much because you have to report on it and you probably do environmental agency so you do that scope to the electricity that you use to support your, your plant or your manufacturing facility, whatnot. Again, not that hard. You get an electric bill at the end. Of the end, you've got to know that all the action was on what so called scope three emissions. And that's the direct and indirect emissions over the lifecycle of your activities. So if you build a widget, once all the GHG emissions related to the materials that you use to build your widget, the transportation to get your widget out to market, the use of your widget by folks out in the world and then the disposal of your widget at the end of the lifecycle of your Well, this is the area that really got people kind of up in arms, some industries they're doing already they're giving it a college try. Other industries are like thrown up and just saying, Gosh, where do we begin to do this in a way that's valuable? And so that's where I don't say all of the action is I mean, some folks talked about scope one scope two, but that's where a lot of the action is. And then getting back to our very first question, when he said the state's objections, you're led by West Virginia as well as some other entities. The concept is, you know, sec, you're pushing the envelope too far. In terms of materiality, you we all have things that material and we know that you have the authority to get information into the marketplace, that's your job, but you're pushing it too far here in terms of materiality, and that's going to be the challenge. And there's gonna be other aspects of it, but that's going to be the guts of the challenge. The Supreme Court as opined on materiality twice already, this issue has gone up to super twice over the last few decades, and pretty much upholding the authority of the SEC. So the question is going to be in this area, can you make SEC the logical argument that, you know, certainly, let's say you're a place that has manufacturing facilities, right on the coast, or you're a commercial developer and you build beach side results, right. Can you make the nexus between law you know, if the beaches are flooding or

is that exactly what affect your bottom line? Yes or no, you see, and that's where this is all going to come down. And so the rule itself, very detailed, it gives you instructions on how to file and when to file stuff like that. But the real heart of the challenges in the can they do this in the first place, under the auspices of their existing authority. Remember, we talked about this with EPA, hey, we regulate hazardous waste all the time. So Pete Boz, no sweat is gonna say, hey, we regulate materiality all the time. So this is just yet another thing. That may be immaterial to the way businesses operate, so no sweat. That's going to be the question. And so I read the rule. I've read a lot of the comments to the rule. The docket is very, very long. My sense is that SEC is moving forward with it. They're committed to this rule, and they're going to send out a final rule the litigation will happen, you know, in a nanosecond, and then the courts will have to sort it out. But that's what it's all about. And I think it's yet another example of the Push Me Pull You between the branches of our government, and Congress may say, if you want to do that, we have to tell you, and the agency is gonna say, Well, you already told us you already told us you already said to you know, govern the marketplace so that it's fair, and people have good information. And this is just another way we're doing it. So what's the difference between the materiality related to greenhouse gas emissions as opposed to the materiality is something else that we, you know, nobody's challenges so we've been doing for us, that's gonna be a very big deal.

Laura 
If they do decide to move forward with that, how are they going to put into place? How are they going to enforce that?

Fred Wagner 
Well, I mean, that's the many of the objections that people registered in their comments was asking that question rhetorically, how are you now enforce this? Right. And that's part of the that's part of the challenge for sec, which is, you know, when companies report stuff, there's liability attached to it. Because if it's fraudulent or inaccurate, in theory, the SEC cutting a company or doing something like that, right, and a lot of the comments were people saying, well, we're giving it our best shot. We don't know how accurate it really is. So how are you going to enforce this? And the SEC said, Hey, don't worry the rule. There's things in time. We're going to give you some time to get used to it. We really don't intend to do this more, you know, only the most egregious things type of thing. But it's a little bit of a trust me, we're not going to be you know, crazy and getting this going and we're gonna give you some time to get used to it. And that's a relationship you know, for a court to say is that is that good enough? You know, because the law is the law, you know, your report. It's subject to liability if your reporting is that correct. And it may not be enough for the agency to say trust us. We're not going to enforce this so much right away because we understand people are getting used to it. You know, that's the more that's gonna be part of the challenge. Now, eventually, you know, as reporting gets more routine, and some of the standards and some of the information that people need to report GHG emissions gets a little bit more accepted. It may be fine. And I think a lot of things you're gonna see litigated center around, but we're not there yet. So we're not there yet. How can you make it required, and then attach potential liability to it? You see what I mean? So I think some industries might want to say we want this because it's not fair. We're doing our level best to try to report and go out into the public, and then actually courtrooms comes out as over the greenest thing with no emissions and they're just vivid. Vivid. To me, I don't want to be compared to acne when they're feminine. And that's what SEC says. Well, that's what we're here for. If somebody straight out, you know, making it up, we're gonna thank them. So that the companies that are doing the right thing, you know, get rewarded. I don't know that every company is Patagonia. Selling itself to the future of the world. I realized that I realized that but you know, the SEC is trying to make a level playing field is what they're trying to do. And the question is going to be whether the standards that they laid out in the proposed regulation do that. That's what we're gonna find out.

Laura  
Yeah, I love it. It can help consumers make their purchases and also help the businesses say, You know what, maybe we're not doing what we should be doing. But I do also understand the tricky part of trusting the government.

Fred Wagner 
That's right. Yeah. Oh, a lot of the comments actually said that. No, okay. You know, make this reporting voluntary, right. Right. Don't attach the liability to it and let the market sort out who's fit in and who's not and not because the market tends to do that pretty well. And, you know, I don't know what the SEC will do with that. Again, I think they're pretty committed to try to make it routine across the entire economy. But yeah, that a lot of people did say that to the agency. And they said, Well, if you're so committed to this, given all these uncertainties, great we'll do it but make it voluntary and then the consumer can decide, hey, look, company a really detailed reporting. I'm really psyched that they're, you know, concentrating on their supply chain and stuff like that, whereas Company B, even I could tell that it looks like these numbers are kind of just you know, haphazard and if you want to make an investment decision based on that you can do it. But it's unclear whether they will accept that comment to make them scope three, reporting voluntary or not, but we'll see. I think we'll see something by the end of the year or beginning of next. I truly, truly think that's gonna happen.

Laura 
Yeah, I hope that's the way the world is going. Yeah,

Fred Wagner 
well, what voluntariness or

Laura 
Yeah, because we want yeah, you know, we know our I just had a girl in my one of my environmental coaching things she was telling me that they're learning in school that consumers are making the decisions and, you know, if that's what young people are learning, and that's what they're doing, like, I hope a generation from now, you know,

Fred Wagner  
business already has some of these challenges from your conservative groups, you know, again, not in South political statement, but these are the free market people, right? Yeah. Well, if the market is saying we want electric vehicles, yeah, the market is saying we want companies that do this or that in terms of their operations and sustainability. Why not? Well, it looks like the markets talk, right? The market has spoken. So should we be objected to that, then the question is, that is the government overstepping its role to enhance the direction of the marketplace and I think that's that's what you're saying in terms of the challenges, but there's been so much activity in the courts. I think the next time we talk we'll probably have some more discussions about that. And every day like I said something new.

Nic 
I know it's, it's fascinating. It really is.

Laura 
Fascinating. It really is. I have so many questions. So I'm good. So not good.

[Monza]

Nic 
Do more a lot of them has to be about Monza. So

Laura  
I know we're getting close to ever already, like running out of time. So it's great stuff though.

Fred Wagner 
And this and I was not thinking about this when I was at Monza.

Laura 
Thank you for not any

Fred Wagner  
of it No. But yeah, the last time we spoke I told you about this kind of bucket list kind of trips to see the Italian Grand Prix company, one of my best friends who's a big Formula One fan. And so I went and it was just spectacular. And so later for levels to see the cars and the race or whatnot. But I had one great day, that sort of ties together so much of my life and so much of the work that I do. So they took us from the hotel which was in Como, Italy, up to Monza for the for the race and I don't know if you read there's over 330,000 people attended the races. So you got to go really, really early to the traffic and just to get into the trap. But one day, we're really pooped. We didn't want to wake up early to get the bus. So we said hey, well, we'll just make our way to the track later on during the day. And so we did some touring around como and we're about to leave the hotel and we asked the nice person to tell if you could negotiate a cab ride to us, for us to live because we knew that we can do it very well. And very nicely. He said, Hey, Brian, why don't you take a cab right now you take a train. Train goes right to Monza and there's a shuttle bus to the track. Perfect. And instead of paying you know, 120 Euro, you'll you'll pay fine. Well, that's pretty good, you know, give us more for souvenirs at the track. And so we felt great. We were like so European. We went from this small hotel in a village and call we walked to the central train station. We've picked up the time of the train. We knew how to say it Metallian we're ready to go. Get to the track. We get to the station and there's a pretty long line at the ticket booth and at the automated ticket right booth right next to it. It's not moving very quickly. I wonder what's going on. And then it was like one of these Hollywood movies where the hero has to get out of town because the bad guys are on his on his trail. We look at the screen and all sudden each of the trains cancel, cancel, cancel Oh no.

Nic 
Oh no.

Fred Wagner 
Your why is this couple minutes later somebody comes in a very nice person says there's a train strike.

Laura 
A good time for that.

Fred Wagner  
Well, we're awesome. We're saying oh, we're not gonna be able to get to the track. We really want to get to the track today. And what do we do? What do we do? It's you know the trains in 10 minutes and it's like the Believe it or not, there is the last train on the board. Is this one train going to Milan with a stop a month but it does look we're able to get up get on this train. My friend looks over to the right. Thank goodness, he's very observant. And he sees like a tobacco shop or convenience store. And he swears that he sees somebody walking out of the convenience store with tickets in night. And there's nobody online so he says Fred, you go I'll stay here and see if that's a ticket and that was like five minutes before the trains or the last train to be able to get there. So I go to the front says I said to to Monza and the guy or the language guy said the time to Mala I said no no Monza he says no to Mala. As I pointed my hat we're in the Ferrari hat I'm wearing Yeah, it's a month of the race. Is it? No, no I know Monza. Milan Monza. Yeah, we tickets. And that was like two minutes before the trains gonna leave the last train of the day because everything else is canceled. I waved my friend. He runs from the line into the convenience store. And we're going to go through the door to get to the train which is now at the platform. And another guy speaking Italian runs up to a stands in front of the door. And so to know, we'd like to chime in with that. Why no why No, no waving the ticket in front of them. It's a ticket to 1210 Train 315 ticket ticket. Again, not a tiny long census. And I'm looking right now. It's like one minute before the trade. Yeah. And the game sold us the ticket starts yelling and talking to the guy who's stopping us. As a parent, what he's saying is just let them go. Yeah, just let them go. So the guy opens. The door filing and we get ready to last people on the train. And it's because it's the last job. And for some reason, everyone is standing on this train everyone. But there's two seats. Like wow. Why aren't people sitting in these seats? So we're all sweaty. We're all nervous. So let's just sit down. So we sit down and we're gonna gather ourselves and she kind of people looking at us. Like staring at us giving us the evil eye and I turn around. I know we're sweating a little bit but that would have been people staring. And we're looking around. And finally after about 10 minutes of the draw of the trip, my friend says look behind you. Look on the look on the seat. So there's the seat. There's the headrest versus now. There's a small number one stitched into the fabric on the seat. Well, apparently, nobody's sitting there because it's a first class seat. Oh. And we did not purchase the first we're just getting this out. He just gave us a second class. He said they were sir. So we're having this conversation. It was the funniest thing, personal circumstance getting on the train, sitting in the seat. So finally the mountain stop is coming up. So we said okay, we're just gonna sit here we're gonna squat first. 12 words word minutes. And we finally get it from Mazda. And sure enough, we get off onto the platform, a sea of f1 fans all wearing Ferrari gear. So yeah, we're in the right place and then eventually we get to the track. But just the the act of going getting from our hotel to the track that day, with almost as much fun as the amazing racing that we saw. I gotta tell you, you know, I'm an environmental lawyer and you know, traveling for three and a half days, you know, between Washington and Italy to see a former the one race is probably the least sustainable thing I've done in my life.

But one of the most fun things that I've ever done. It was amazing the spirit and the standards, the singing the support for Ferrari, just the passion that people have for the car race there. And the fact that this was, you know, a historic track, the track Oman's is 100 years old. So 100 years old, and they've been running f1 races since 1950. So this is totally part of the culture and that part of the world and just a great thing. So so happy I did it. So disappointing for the locals because probably couldn't pull it off. But you know when you're when you're up against Max Verstappen and the great car that he has for the Red Bull team. finishing second is gotta get used to that.

Nic 
And no mistakes either. My goodness. Yeah,

Fred Wagner  
I mean, it was it was great, and just capped off a wonderful summer

Nic  
cache. That's so cool. I love it that the race was fine, but let me tell you something with the train and that was awesome.

Fred Wagner 
It was part of the whole experience. Yeah, of course. Definitely. Every night yeah. Oh yeah. Every night because he really late in Italy. You don't start eating till like like 9pm Yeah. So like I'm having gelato at home, the big very ice cream at 11pm every day and go to bed. I never think of it. But I was over there and said hey, gelato

Nic 
literally went in Rome.

Fred Wagner 
Already KOBO. So every night there was gelato. There was like 20 flavors at the shop. And so we were there for four nights. So I got through eight of them. I told my wife to go back if nothing else, because we got great

Laura  
joy of travels just misadventures and food that's I love it. That's great.

Nic  
I know if it's fascinating. It really is. Yeah,

Laura  
I know. I look forward to having you back. We gotta go. I know. Nick's got proposals right and stuff. It's that season. So, Fred's so much we look forward to having you back again in a couple months. Glad you made it to the race.

Nic 
Yeah, and survived.

Fred Wagner 
Thanks as always.

[Outro]

Nic 
That's all Thanks, Fred for joining us today. Please be sure to check us out each and every Friday. Don't forget to subscribe, rate and review. See you everybody.

Laura
Bye

Transcribed by https://otter.ai