New UH Law Center Report Offers Safe Permitting Model as States Weigh Counterproductive Legislation on Solar Radiation Management Research
Report comes amid a wave of 133 bills in 38 states since 2023 seeking to prohibit atmospheric research, with three states already enacting outright bans
“Heat Wave Building Into the Ohio Valley and Eastern United States” by NASA Goddard Photo and Video is licensed under CC BY 2.0 
.
JULY 20, 2026 – As lawmakers across the country consider legislation to prohibit solar radiation management (SRM) research and weather modification, a report released today from the University of Houston Law Center argues that a permitting system, rather than a criminal ban, gives states the stronger hand in protecting the public and promoting scientific research
Since 2023, lawmakers in 38 states have introduced 133 bills targeting SRM, weather modification, or both. Three states — Tennessee, Florida and Louisiana — have enacted outright prohibitions, and more than 20 additional legislatures considered similar measures in 2026. The report, “The Case Against Blanket Bans: A State Permitting Model for Solar Radiation Management,” finds that these bans have generated unnecessary compliance costs to businesses and undermined legitimate research efforts that support innovation in these states.
“Our paper shows that there is a better path forward. Lawmakers do not need to choose between an outright ban and no oversight at all. They can pursue a legislative framework that allows carefully governed research to continue while maintaining strict limits on deployment,” said Tracy Hester, co-author and co-director of the Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Law Center “States are the testbed of innovation, but blanket bans shut down legitimate research and stifle critical scientific advancement. A permitting framework with meaningful guardrails offers a more balanced approach that protects the public while ensuring transparency, accountability, and scientific integrity.”
The report proposes an alternative governance framework that balances public accountability with scientific inquiry and includes model legislation that would establish a state permitting process for significant outdoor SRM activities while preserving legitimate research and ensuring robust public oversight.
“This model bill gives states a concrete way to start building the technical and institutional capacity they'll need as questions about climate stabilization become more urgent,” said Craig Segall, co-author and honorary fellow at the University of Edinburgh Law School. “Rather than legislating in the dark, states can bolster their research efforts by putting in place the permitting, monitoring and public engagement processes that let lawmakers engage thoughtfully as the science develops.”
The report stresses that SRM is not a substitute for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and would not address the underlying buildup of planet-warming carbon. But the authors argue it offers what they call “option value,” the ability to better understand a potential climate stabilization tool before it might be needed. This report comes at a moment of growing scientific concern about climate tipping points, such as the possible slowdown of major ocean currents, that could impose significant social and environmental costs. Research now, Hester and Segall write, ensures that if such risks materialize, decision-makers will have credible, shared scientific knowledge to draw on rather than starting from zero.
The full report, “The Case Against Blanket Bans: A State Permitting Model for Solar Radiation Management,” is available here.
