Pruitt signs proposed rule to erase 'secret science' from EPA

Pruitt signs proposed rule to erase 'secret science' from EPA
© Getty Images

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott PruittEdward (Scott) Scott PruittOn The Money: New financial disclosures provide glimpse of Trump's wealth | Walmart, Macy's say tariffs will mean price hikes | Consumer agency says Education Department blocking student loan oversight Overnight Energy: EPA watchdog finds Pruitt spent 4K on 'excessive' travel | Agency defends Pruitt expenses | Lawmakers push EPA to recover money | Inslee proposes spending T for green jobs Lawmakers take EPA head to task for refusing to demand Pruitt repay travel expenses MORE signed a rule proposal Tuesday aimed at increasing "transparency" in science all while limiting reporter, environmentalist and scientist access to the event.

The proposal, signed at EPA headquarters, aims to expose the methodology behind scientific findings and cut back on what Pruitt has deemed "secret science."

Speaking in front of a number of well-known climate change skeptics including the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell, Pruitt announced that the new rule would require science to "be transparent, reproducible and able to be analyzed by those in the marketplace." Reporters were not invited to attend the event, and details surrounding the announcement and rule proposal were kept secret until 30 minutes before the EPA's Twitter account announced it would be live-streamed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Pruitt said the new ruling shows "an agency taking responsibility for how we do our work, in respecting process … so that we can enhance confidence in our decision making." He also dubbed the current process which had, until now, allowed science to be peer reviewed rather than open to public scrutiny, "simply wrong headed."

The rule will replicate, through agency action, two bills previously introduced in the House and Senate meant to restrict the kind of science the EPA can use when writing regulations.

The House bill authored by Rep. Lamar SmithLamar Seeligson SmithEx-GOP Rep. Denham heads to lobbying firm K Street boom extends under Trump, House Dems Ex-GOP congressman heads to investment bank MORE (R-Texas), now called the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, would mandate all scientific data and findings be made publicly available before they are used to justify agency regulations. Versions of Smith’s bill passed the GOP-controlled House three times, but the Senate hasn’t taken it up.

Last week, internal documents released by a Freedom of Information Act request by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that EPA political staffers have been working for months in conjunction with Smith and his staff to mimic the bill.

Speaking at the event Tuesday, Smith thanked Pruitt for being a "courageous leader" of the agency and blamed the "liberal media and alarmist environmental groups," for finding negatives in his legislation.

"For too long, EPA has withheld data that has been hidden from the American people," Smith said.

Opponents of the new rule say it would limit the number of available scientific studies that could be used by the agency in its rulemaking, namely by excluding a number of public health studies.

Timed with Pruitt's announcement, seven Democratic Lawmakers sent a letter to Pruitt on Tuesday denouncing the new policy. The letter, led by Sen. Tom CarperThomas (Tom) Richard CarperOvernight Energy: EPA watchdog finds Pruitt spent 4K on 'excessive' travel | Agency defends Pruitt expenses | Lawmakers push EPA to recover money | Inslee proposes spending T for green jobs Lawmakers take EPA head to task for refusing to demand Pruitt repay travel expenses Dems request investigation of lobbyist-turned-EPA employee who met with former boss MORE (D-Del.), tells Pruitt, "Your proposed new policy likely violates several laws with which EPA must comply as the agency writes rules to protect our air, water and land from harmful pollution.”

The lawmakers said Pruitt's new policy likely would run afoul of a number of laws that mandate rulemaking be based on the "best available science … because it would require EPA to ignore some of the ‘best’ scientific studies."

"Courts have explained that ‘best available science’ means that agencies ‘should seek out and consider all existing scientific evidence relevant to the decision’ and ‘cannot ignore existing data,' " the letter read.

This story is being updated