How do agencies integrate climate science into rules?
How Agencies Integrate Climate Science into Rules
Statutory Mandates: Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often required by statutes to regulate pollutants or protect the environment. These statutes may mandate the use of the “best available science” or require an assessment of environmental impacts.
Scientific Assessments: Agencies rely on climate science from sources like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), National Climate Assessments, and their own scientific research to understand greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, climate impacts, and mitigation methods.
Rulemaking Process:
Notice and Comment: Agencies publish proposed rules, including scientific data, for public comment.
Economic and Environmental Analysis: They analyze costs and benefits, including climate impacts.
Technical Support Documents: Often accompany rules explaining the scientific basis.
Integration of Climate Models and Projections: To predict future climate scenarios based on emissions.
Interagency Coordination: Agencies may collaborate with scientific bodies or other agencies to ensure climate science is accurately reflected.
Key Cases on Integration of Climate Science in Agency Rulemaking
1. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)
Context: EPA’s refusal to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
Significance:
The Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
EPA must base its decisions on the best available climate science.
The Court emphasized that if EPA finds that GHGs cause or contribute to climate change that endangers public health or welfare, it must regulate them.
The decision forced EPA to seriously consider scientific evidence on climate change, integrating climate science into regulatory actions.
2. Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA (2014)
Context: EPA’s interpretation of permitting requirements for GHG emissions from stationary sources.
Significance:
The Court upheld EPA’s use of science showing GHG emissions threaten public health as a basis for requiring permits.
The decision supported EPA’s reliance on climate science to justify rulemaking under the Clean Air Act.
The Court recognized the importance of scientific evidence to delineate the scope of regulations.
3. Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (2012)
Context: Challenge to EPA’s Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule regulating vehicle emissions.
Significance:
The D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s use of the “best available science” from the IPCC and National Research Council.
Affirmed that EPA’s scientific analysis linking GHG emissions to climate change was reasonable.
Emphasized the agency’s discretion in weighing complex scientific data.
Showed courts defer to agency climate science expertise in rulemaking.
4. Juliana v. United States (2018-ongoing, varied rulings)
Context: Youth plaintiffs sued the government claiming failure to address climate change violated constitutional rights.
Significance:
Though focused on constitutional claims, the case involves detailed agency climate science assessments.
Courts have discussed the adequacy of government climate policies and scientific understanding in this context.
Reflects judicial engagement with the substance of agency climate science in broader governance.
5. Friends of the Earth v. EPA (2020)
Context: Challenge to EPA’s rollback of methane regulations from oil and gas operations.
Significance:
The D.C. Circuit examined whether EPA adequately considered climate science and statutory mandates in weakening methane limits.
The court emphasized the need for agencies to rely on sound scientific data and rational analysis in making climate-related regulatory decisions.
Demonstrates judicial insistence on proper scientific integration even when rolling back rules.
6. New York v. EPA (2022)
Context: Challenge to EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule replacing the Clean Power Plan.
Significance:
The court analyzed whether EPA’s interpretation of climate science and statutory authority was reasonable.
Criticized EPA for failing to adequately consider climate impacts and relying on outdated or insufficient scientific analysis.
The case reinforced the requirement that agencies must incorporate comprehensive, current climate science in rulemaking.
Summary: Themes from These Cases
Deference to Agency Expertise: Courts often defer to agencies on scientific matters but require that agencies rely on credible, up-to-date climate science.
Statutory Interpretation Linked to Science: Courts enforce that agencies must interpret statutes like the Clean Air Act in light of scientific findings on climate risk.
Requirement for Reasoned Explanation: Agencies must clearly explain how climate science informs their regulatory choices, especially if they decline to regulate or relax standards.
Judicial Oversight on Integration of Science: Courts act as a check to ensure agencies do not ignore or misrepresent climate science in policymaking.
RELATED Blog
0 comments