The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last week filed a supplemental request for an “on-the-record” hearing to debate the evidence behind the Environmental Protection Agency’s expected finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare.
Readers of MassTortDefense may recall that in 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases could be regarded as air pollutants, and held that EPA must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the agency is required to follow the language of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.
The EPA is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is typically referred to as an “endangerment finding.” EPA is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. While an endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act would not by itself automatically trigger extensive regulation under the entire Act, many observers expect such regulations. Moreover, the finding could prod the Congress to pass controversial climate legislation. Finally, it may impact the pace and weight of climate change litigation.
The Chamber argues that the informal notice-and-comment process employed here has not worked to air the issues, and the only real solution is an on-the-record hearing for a transparent review of all the evidence. Having reviewed the evidence in EPA’s endangerment docket, the Chamber observes flaws and omissions in the reasoning underlying the proposed endangerment finding. The Chamber is thus asking for more transparency in this process, as the ruling could ultimately cause a “regulatory train wreck” with inescapable economic consequences, as well as an impact on mass tort litigation. The agency has apparently ignored evidence contradicting its preliminary conclusions on a wide range of issues, such as the alleged effect higher temperatures will have on net mortality and on the levels of other pollutants. Media reports have surfaced that EPA ignored a study by two members of its staff concluding that the agency had relied on outdated studies and that the current state of climate science refutes the proposed endangerment finding.