IF, AS SOME ARGUE, THE SCIENCE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE IS UNSETTLED, WHAT KEEPS GOVERNMENT COMING BACK FOR MORE REGULATION ON THE ISSUE?

PART OF THE ANSWER IS FOUND IN THREE LETTERS: E P A.

CURRENT CALLS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE GOT THEIR START BY THE ACTIONS OF OUR 37TH PRESIDENT—REPUBLICAN RICHARD NIXON.

IN 1970, NIXON ESTABLISHED THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BY EXECUTIVE ORDER.

CONGRESS TASKED THE EPA WITH ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH  CLEAN AIR AND WATER STANDARDS THAT THE AGENCY SET.

AMONG OTHER THINGS, THIS LONG LEGISLATIVE LEASH ENABLED THE AGENCY TO DEVELOP A CULTURE OF INDEPENDENCE IN DECIDING THE “WHAT AND HOW” IN FOSTERING A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT.

TO MANY DEMOCRATS, CLIMATE CHANGE IS A LOGICAL OUTGROWTH OF THE EPA’S MISSION.

192 HOUSE MEMBERS SIGNED AN AMICI BRIEF EARLIER THIS YEAR.

THEIR GOAL WAS TO PERSUADE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AGENCY’S PURVIEW IN PREVENTING FURTHER DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT BY REGULATING COAL PLANT EMISSIONS TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE.

THE PROBLEM, ACCORDING TO INDIANA UNIVERSITY PUBLIC POLICY PROFESSOR DAVID KONISKY: NONE OF THE EXISTING CONGRESSIONAL ACTS AUTHORIZE THE EPA TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE.  SO, EPA HAS USED ITS DISCRETION.

“Congress has a tendency to write laws that provide the agency with discretion for good reason. Because Congress wants to defer to the expertise of scientists and environmental policy experts.”

BUT THAT’S NOT HOW THE SUPREME COURT SEES IT. THE COURT RULED IN JUNE THAT THE EPA CANNOT MANDATE REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS TARGETING POWER PLANT OPERATORS.

AND KONISKY SEES THIS AS THE COURT STEPPING IN WHERE CONGRESS HAS STEPPED OUT.

“. . . more broadly what the court is doing is repositioning itself as a stronger voice in policy debates—taking away some of that discretion that the EPA has traditionally had.”

IT APPEARS THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL CONGRESS GIVES THE EPA A CARBON EMISSIONS MANDATE, IT’S THE EPA’S ROLE THAT WILL CHANGE. AND THAT’S SETTLED, AT LEAST FOR NOW.

BRIAN CALFANO, STRAIGHT ARROW NEWS.