Does EPA’s sue-and-settle policy circumvent the legislative and regulatory process?

Does sue-and-settle policy frustrate EPA’s legislative and regulatory process? No: It ensures agency fulfills its mission

2013-12-23T00:00:00Z Does sue-and-settle policy frustrate EPA’s legislative and regulatory process? No: It ensures agency fulfills its missionBy Tseming Yang Arizona Daily Star
December 23, 2013 12:00 am  • 

Sue and settle” is the ominous phrase that has been attached to cases where an environmental organization sues a federal agency, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, and then settles the matter without going through a trial.

These tactics, while not ideal, are important to our environmental system because they hold agencies like EPA accountable for the important regulatory work they are required to do by law, but sometimes do not undertake because of politics or other reasons that the laws do not accept as a basis for delay.

It’s true that litigation is rarely optimal for good policymaking. When agencies avoid resolution of important environmental policy issues through unreasonable delay or other illegitimate means, however, they also avoid public accountability for their responsibilities.

Judicial intervention then becomes necessary to prompt them to do what they should be doing anyway. Only after agencies have followed the regulatory process required by law, rather than avoiding it, can the public, green groups, polluters and others scrutinize and debate the merits of “green policies.”

There is nothing nefarious about “sue and settle.” In the American legal system, the reality is that most cases — from simple slip-and-fall personal-injury suits to complex environmental enforcement actions — are settled to avoid the cost and uncertainties of trial.

“Sue and settle” cases usually involve EPA’s failure to take actions required by Congress, such as developing regulations by a deadline. When an agency knows that it is virtually certain to lose, as is characteristic of these cases, and the issues involved are serious environmental health or pollution problems, it makes little sense for the agency to run up legal costs and waste staff time just to delay the inevitable.

Take one environmental regulation pushed by the American Lung Association: the mercury and air toxics regulation. It was adopted in 2011 to solve power-plant emissions of toxic substances like mercury and other pollutants .

Polluters, who are vigorously fighting this regulation in the courts now, have argued that compliance costs will run into several billion dollars for the industry as a whole.

What is usually not mentioned is that the regulation will also prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths annually and save up to $90 billion in quantifiable health-care costs each year.



Polluters say their objection to “sue and settle” is all about “transparency” — the possibility that agencies like EPA might do something untoward in the settlement with less accountability than going through regular agency processes.

Such criticism seems ironic given that EPA settles litigation, such as enforcement actions, with polluters all the time, and judges must frequently approve environmental settlements.



Tseming Yang is professor of international environmental law at Santa Clara University, and a former deputy general counsel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Copyright 2014 Arizona Daily Star. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Activate

Latest Fitz Report video

More

Fitz studio: How to draw the President

In this video tutorial, Star cartoonist and columnist David Fitzsimmons teaches you how to draw the Preside…

Latest Newsmakers video

More

Sarah interviews Dr. Peter Rhee, part 2 of 3

Dr. Peter Rhee discusses mental health and other issues surrounding gun violence.

Featured businesses

View more...

Deals, offers & events

View more...