trending Market Intelligence /marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/gxujj4uvxb9fssbhu-ylga2 content esgSubNav
In This List

Judge orders US EPA to produce documents supporting Pruitt's climate stance

Podcast

Next in Tech | Episode 49: Carbon reduction in cloud

Blog

Using ESG Analysis to Support a Sustainable Future

Research

US utility commissioners: Who they are and how they impact regulation

Blog

Q&A: Datacenters: Energy Hogs or Sustainability Helpers?


Judge orders US EPA to produce documents supporting Pruitt's climate stance

A federal district court judge has ordered U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt to produce the documents behind his controversial statement that carbon dioxide is not a "primary contributor" to climate change.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's June 1 directive was issued in a case involving a petition by the federal government employee advocacy group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER. The group had filed a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request for documents related to Pruitt's March 9, 2017, appearance on the CNBC program Squawk Box where he was asked whether climate change was caused by the release of carbon dioxide due to human activity.

"I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," Pruitt replied, adding "there's a tremendous disagreement about" the impact of human activity on the climate.

PEER concluded that the statements "stand in contrast to published research and conclusions of the EPA" and therefore submitted a FOIA request asking the agency to supply the documents that informed Pruitt's conclusions. When the EPA failed to respond to the request in the time allowed under the act, PEER sued the agency to compel the release of the documents.

In responding to the lawsuit, the EPA argued that the request is "an impermissible attempt to compel EPA and its administrator to answer questions and take a position on the climate change debate." It added, "how is one to even know precisely what documents one relies on in forming one's beliefs?"

Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell was unconvinced by the EPA's "excuses for failing to comply with the agency's statutory obligations under FOIA." Particularly troubling for Howell was the agency's assertion that the evidentiary basis for a policy or factual statement by an agency head is "inherently unknowable," such as the scientific factors contributing to climate change.

Citing case law, Howell added, "Such a premise runs directly counter to an axiom of administrative law that an agency's explanation of the basis for its decision must include a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made."

The judge ordered EPA to disclose "any agency records compiled, prepared, provided, used, or reviewed by Administrator Pruitt in connection with his public statements on March 9, 2017," consistent with any applicable exemptions under FOIA.

"EPA's strained attempt to raise an epistemological smokescreen will not work here to evade its obligations under the FOIA," Howell said.

Moreover, Howell found the EPA's concern about taking a position on climate change puzzling since EPA has already taken a public position on the causes of climate change. The EPA determined in the 2009 endangerment finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, a stance backed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, Howell said PEER's request "may be viewed as seeking agency records underpinning a potential change in position signaled by" Pruitt's statements.

The EPA did not return a request for comment on the court's directive. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. EPA (17-652 (BAH))