Been saying, we give up, youre hammering us to nothing, and we think that is the administrations intent. Theres a lot of anger at the president for ignoring what has been a Supreme Court directive. Look, when the epa comes out with recommendations, you just cant willynilly not consider the costs to companies of these recommendations. But, again, the administration doubling down on this with a plan that will go further than any president has ever gone before in policing pollution in this country. Part of a Climate Change initiative the president wants to make part of his legacy. Now to the aforementioned West Virginia attorney general, patrick morrissey. General, what do you think of this . Well, obviously, the details are still coming out, but we think that this administration is pushing a radical and illegal proposal, and West Virginia and a whole coalition of states and many other entities including miners and businesses are getting prepared to sue. Neil what i dont understand, general, when the Supreme Court slapped down the epa in a recent decision saying, you know, you have to consider the costs of whatever recommendations you have, and then i see Something Like this, now, the cost to the industry, all of these affected industries is going to be substantial. Just Capital Improvements and the like are going to be better than 100 billion next year. So has anyone thought of that here . Well, i think people have. And most folks are focusing on the fact that the epa releases these rules, that they know may ultimately not get upheld in the courts, but in order to force states and utilities to come in compliance with it knowing if you dont get a Court Decision for two, three, four years, the damage will already be done. Thats why i think the most important thing we need to do right here, the states and interests that are all going to be suing, we need to ask for an immediate stay on this rule so these issues can get litigated in the courts so we dont see a repeat of the recent Supreme Court case where the epa effectively acknowledged that the damage is already done even though they lost. Neil you know, i dont even know the pros and cons of this particular case, general, and i know a lot of people are all for addressing Climate Change, others dispute that. What i do know is even when you grant a stay, the history at least lately has been that this east administration ignores it or, at best, just kicks it down the road. And i think of, you know, how the court has twice now slapped down the administration move to delay deportations. None of those deportations have resumed, to my knowledge. Im wondering if even if you were to succeed at a stay here, what would change . Well, look, were hopeful that if we are able to get a stay, then the court can carefully consider all these issues. But we know that the administrations track record on the rule of law is very poor. But yet we do have confidence that if we go into court, that if judges can give us a fair hearing, well ultimately prevail on the merits. One of the most important things, i think, for people to focus on is that this is the Environmental Protection agency. This is not a Central Energy planning authority. So we think as people begin to see the utter lack of authority on this rule, theyre going to start to move into our camp. And i think that may force the epa through the public pressure to ultimately do the right thing. Neil all right, general, thank you very, very much. Again, just to bring you folks up to speed who are watching right now, what we are going to hear out of the administration, the Environmental Protection agency, is a plan to rein in emissions at some of these power plants and the like. Most of them coalpowered, to try to clean up the air and do so by 32 by the year 2030. Now, some are considered dirtier than others, it could be significantly more than that. There is not a same standard applied to all states. This gets lost in the weeds here. A lot of people coming back and saying, first of all, not all businesses are treated equally. In other words, one polluter isnt the same as another polluter. But not all countries participate evenly, something were going to raise with former epa administrator mike leavitt right now. The biggest thing is that some of the worlds biggest polluters china comes to mind, india comes to mind arent ponying up money. Theyve got a commitment, i think, on the part of china to look into this, but it isnt necessarily doing anything about this, right . Ive actually had direct conversations with senior chinese officials where i have asked them do you intend to take this seriously and begin to deal in a way that would reduce your carbon foot print, etc. , and they theyre talking a good game, but the reality is their biggest priority is the creation of 25 million jobs a year, and they know if they fail to create those jobs, that it creates disorder in chinese society. I dont think they ever have an intention of being able to obligate themselves to this kind of commitment. I think they have pressure at home to clean up the air, but its not going to happen in this kind of an agreement or in this, in this way. Neil you know, as youve indicated in your days running the agency, Everyone Wants clean air. Everyone wants to make sure were not poisoning our kids and our environment, but we all like to be on the same page on this, and we all, Everyone Wants the to sort of commit their proverbial pound of flesh to this. I get a sense, mike, from some of the other countries that are reluctant to join that not all 195 countries on this planet are participating. I mean, they all commend, i guess, the president for taking this initiative, but they seem to be putting much of the onus and the cost on the United States. This approach lacks the balance thats required for sound environmental policy, because sound environmental policy does not simply take into conversation how low can you grind the requirements. It takes into consideration what it does to every other aspect of the economy. Ultimately, this is going to drive what they want which is to move Energy Policy away from fossil fuelings. But that fuelings. But that has consequences too. It has consequences both economically, environmentally and long term our competitiveness. Neil all right. Well watch closely, michael, always good having you. Thank you very, very much. Well, obviously, this has all been dumped in the candidates lap ahead of their big debate on thursday. In other words, if you come out against this law, are you anticlean air, are you antithe environment . How do you dance that one . Thats something im going to raise with lenny right now, he works on mitt romneys 2012 campaign, and he says it could potentially put a lot of those debaters in a bit of a pickle. What do you think they say and do, to a man, to a woman on the predate with Carly Carly Carly a likely, theyre not big on the epa and its intrusiveness, but they cant be big on saying theyre against clean air, right . So how do they dance that back . Neil, i think there are two important things that the candidates will factor in. One is there are so many candidates, youre not going to have a lot of time. Thursday night is not the evening to spend a lot of time debating the merits of Climate Change. Thursday night is an opportunity to demonstrate that if you love president clintons jobkilling agenda on energy, youre going to love Hillary Clinton. And i think theyre going to talk about this issue as it relates to a departure from what were seeing in Hillary Clinton and president obamas views on energy and give them an opportunity to talk about a more balanced, common sense, projobs initiative that addresses our neil yeah, but i also think they were very astute, some of them were quite astute, jeb bush, Chris Christie, saying when the Supreme Court ruleed about overreach and the epa and the cost to these corporations, that did resonate with a lot of folks. They say it didnt resonate with the administration because theyve doubled down on this proposal now, but they will likely treat it much as sort of the new keystone debate, right . That that is the jobs killer, right . No question ability it. Neil, theyll do two things, i think. One is theyll tie Hillary Clinton to this disastrous obama Energy Policy, and, two, theyll use it as an opportunity to highlight not only their own visions for a balanced energy plan, but more important, neil, theyre turn this into an opportunity to frame their message about a positive Economic Future for American Families and for businesses moving forward. Campaigns and elections are about the future. I think thats what theyre going to use this opportunity to do, to pivot to what they would do when theyre in charge of an American Economy and desperate need of change. Neil you know what i do think, theres been no talk about all the layoffs in the oil and energyrelated industry since oil has been collapsing. I think were down another buck and a half today, around 45 a barrel. No talk about all the jobs lost there. I guess there is no sympathetic lobby for oil and oil services workers, but tens of thousands are out of work as a result of this. They could argue, and i dont know if they will argue, that this, the silence on this on the part of democrats is deafening. What do you think happens . I think what is going to be perilous for democrats moving forward is weve got to remember we have a president ial debate on thursday, but more important, over time democrats will be competing in coalrich states like pennsylvania and iowa in 2016 on the senate side. If they want to double down and embrace this jobkilling agenda, by the way, which leaves countries like china completely exempt and continue their ability to continue polluting without ramification, so be it. A Smart Campaign will remind viewers on thursday about how china gets a free pass and obama, hillary energy plannings. Neil lenny, thank you very, very much. As we were speaking, just want to pass to you, but it has been confirmed, the Texas Attorney general, ken paxton, has been booked on felony securities fraud charges including a lesser chance of failing to register with the state securities regulators over some possession of stock that he had. Its a little murky here, and a lot of this has occurred aledly during his prior days before he was elected attorney general of the state. A judge is going to take up these issues, and its a little different in texas, but the Texas Attorney general, ken paxton, has been booked on these, and in texas they are, in fact, criminal charges. Well keep you posted. All right now, we mentioned this with a couple of our guests, but it bears watching ahead of this epo ruling and the detail coming out in the next couple of hours, is it overreach . Exactly how does the Republican Party plan to stop the president on this, or is this going to be just a, go ahead, propose and leave it to courts to dispose over the years and the president wins regardless . Can a business have a mind . A subconscious. A knack for predicting the future. Reflexes faster than the speed of thought. Can a business have a spirit . Can a business have a soul . Can a business be. Alive . Great time for a shiny floor wax, no . Not if you just put the finishing touches on your latest masterpiece. Timings important. Comcast business knows that. Thats why you can schedule an installation at a time that works for you. Even late at night, or on the weekend, if thats what you need. Because you have enough to worry about. I did not see that coming. Dont deal with disruptions. Get Better Internet installed on your schedule. Comcast business. Built for business. Neil welcome back, everybody, im nel cavuto, and you are watching coast cocoast and as we told you, a continuation of what coal stocks think is an allout war on an industry by a president who doesnt much care. The gist of the republican argument and the critics argument against this effort to in the name of Climate Change go after emission standards aggressively over the next few years is that the president has the power to do this. They insist that he does not, and therein lies the rub. But they do see a president and administration that oversteps itself, waits for the courts to rule later on this, but theyre long gone, the changes are long made, and then they just go out there with one of these kind of deals. [laughter] thats kind of what they say. But there is a case sometimes within the administration a court rules against what theyre doing. The epa comes to mind. Congressman ed royce on the republicans plan to deal with that. And what we discovered, congressman, is that the Supreme Court said to the epa youve got to factor in the costs of what youre doing before you willynilly change things, and they just doubled down on this with the measures today just like a lot of your colleagues say they doubled down on this deportation stuff even though two different courts slapped them down on this. I dont see deportations resuming after the administration wanted to freeze five million of them. I get a sense, sir, they dont much follow what the courts or what youre saying. What do you make of that . And another problem here is weve actually got two different decisions by courts as it relates to the epa. One earlier decision, unfortunately, very close decision indicated the epa did have some of this authority. And so [laughter] part of the problem is it also matters not just elections for president , but it also matters who gets appointed to the court. And increasingly on these 54 decisions, a lot is going to depend upon where the court swings one way or the other. Neil do you know the latest swing, if you are, sir, is, no, were not saying yea or nay, epa, we are saying yea or nay youve not factored in the costs. Theyre going to be prohibitively higher and a lot more sweeping. So i guess i cant read after that Supreme Court why the administrationing would even propose administration would even propose it, because that is really flaunting the court. Or do they feel that by the time the court sorts out this latest, you know, as some of your colleagues see it, roughshod treatment, that theyre long out of there, and these changes are already well along the way . Neil, i this think theyre banking on the court not being assertive. Clearly, the court could come in, we could have a decisive decision here which forces the hand neil theyre not going to do that. That would involve even a stay, and the Supreme Court doesnt deal with stays. Theyre just not going to jump in when they feel theyve already jumped in, right . But wait, i think the problem is a little more complicated than that. I think that the conservatives on the court have a hard time mustering that additional fifth vote. I think what we see right now is a reticence to go in and take that constitutionalist perspective here. And, frankly, thats another consequence of not having the right appointments to the Supreme Court. Neil i gotcha. And that should be part of the overall this should be addressed, i would hope, by president ial by the candidates running for president , because its a key question going forward. Neil well, you didnt hear this from me, congressman, but theres a big debate on thursday, and im betting it could come up. Its always good to have you, sir, one of the few people not running for the president for the time being. Congressman royce, thank you very much. All right, we will see what happens on that. Whats at stake here is whether the court says the administration has gone too far, but were going to get that decision, at least the administration wants to do, in a couple of hours. It is very, very sweeping, unlike anything weve seen before. And i know it seems like were going to get ross in the environmental weeds lost in the environmental weeds here, no pun intended, but this is pricey and part of what the president claims will be his legacy. Albeit is price by pricey one. What if i told you the Financial Aid that youre applying for is whats driving it up . Every time you or your child gets a loan, that drives up the cost. Now, does that make colleges thieving s. O. B. S . Of course not. [laughter] 90 chance it does, after this. I built my business with passion. But i keep it growing by making every dollar count. Thats why i have the spark cash card from capital one. I earn unlimited 2 cash back on everything i buy for my studio. And that unlimited 2 cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business. Thats huge for my bottom line. Whats in your wallet . eeeeohmumohweh hush my darling. dont fear my darling. the lion sleeps tonight. hush my darling. man snoring dont fear my darling. the lion sleeps tonight. woman snoring take the roar out of snore. Yet another innovation only at a sleep number store. The has unlimited access is thatto information,tion no matter where they are. The microsoft cloud gives our team the power to instantly deliver critical information to people, whenever they need it. Here at accuweather, we get up to 10 billion Data Requests every day. The cloud allows us to scale up so we can handle that volume. We can help keep people safe; and to us that feels really good. Neil all right. If you have kids going to college or soon going to college ever do those formulassing where you formulas where you put in their age and how much youll need . I need 17 million. [laughter] heres what complicates things. Apparently, if you apply for aid, theyve done studies on this, it actually boosts tuition. The idea being that the colleges feel free to raise the price sinc