A federal judge has determined that the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) acted unlawfully when it assembled a panel of climate change skeptics to advise on a key government report. The ruling, issued Friday, found that Secretary Chris Wright violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 by handpicking five researchers who reject mainstream climate science to work behind closed doors.
The Secret Panel and Its Impact
The D.O.E. released the report in late July, which minimized the risks of global warming. This report was then used by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin to justify a rollback of the “endangerment finding” – a crucial legal basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
The judge’s decision means that the report’s conclusions are now legally suspect, as they were reached through a process that deliberately excluded public scrutiny and diverse scientific perspectives.
Why This Matters: Transparency in Policymaking
The Federal Advisory Committee Act exists to ensure that federal agencies seek advice from open, balanced groups when making policy. The law requires transparency, including public meetings and a representative range of viewpoints. The D.O.E. circumvented these rules by creating the “Climate Working Group” in secret.
According to Judge William Young, the department claimed the group was simply “exchanging facts,” not shaping policy. The court rejected this argument, establishing that the panel was designed to influence decision-making.
The Judge’s Ruling and Its Implications
Judge Young, a Reagan appointee, made it clear that the D.O.E. failed to follow the law. The ruling confirms that the agency knowingly violated transparency requirements when forming the panel.
“These violations are now established as a matter of law,” Judge Young wrote.
The decision raises concerns about the integrity of the report’s findings and casts doubt on any future actions taken based on its recommendations. This case underscores the importance of open, legally sound processes in federal policymaking, particularly when dealing with critical issues like climate change.
Ultimately, the judge’s ruling ensures that federal agencies cannot sidestep transparency laws when consulting outside experts on matters of public concern.
