Principled Standard-Setting Requires Consideration of More than Science

Abstract

In setting its most recent air quality standards for ozone and particulates, EPA sought to justify its decisions solely in terms of health effects and other scientific criteria. Yet even though scientific evidence plays an essential role in evaluating the risks associated with alternative standards, natural science cannot by itself provide the justification for selecting a particular air quality standard, especially in cases of non-threshold pollutants where any standard set above zero will permit some health effects. To provide a principled and consistent basis for justifying the setting of standards when, as with ozone and particulates, the public will continue to be exposed to some level of risk, EPA needs to incorporate other factors into its air quality decision making, such as costs, risk tradeoffs, or equity. Many scholars have suggested that EPA already tacitly takes costs into consideration in its standard-setting process, but the agency's current approach of purporting to rely exclusively on scientific evidence precludes the agency from openly considering the additional factors needed to allow it to offer a reasoned basis for its air quality standards. The amici curiae brief, written by Cary Coglianese of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and Gary Marchant of Arizona State University's College of Law, was filed on behalf of twenty leading academics and scientists working in the fields of law, science, and environmental policy.Environment, Regulatory Reform, Other Topics