From the Washington Post.
Senator Murkoski's Resolution (see text here) would have overturned the EPA's finding in December 2009 that greenhouse gases endangered the public health and welfare, and they therefore had the right to regulate them as a pollutant. Murkowski wanted Congress to have that authority, independent regulatory agency, like the EPA. Her proposal raises questions about where and how to strike a dividing line between legislative and executive functions.
- FYI: What is a Senate Joint Resolution? (from wikipedia)
The EPA used its rulemaking authority (see process detailed here) to establish these regulations last year. Click here for the advanced notice of the regulations sent our June 11, 2008. In the notice the EPA mentions that its authority to make such regulations was found to to be constitutional in Massachusetts v. EPA. For additional information on the EPA's rulings click here.
This story is a terrific example of the interplay between institutions, and levels of government, that are a direct consequence of the separated powers, the checks and balances and federalism. It also points out the difficulty Congress has with coming up with any solutions on polarizing issues and helps explain why bureaucratic agencies sometime step in if there is to be action at all on these problems. But doing so raises questions of accountability, which is Murkowski's point. The bureaucracy is not restrained by electoral forces, and is free to make decisions based on its professional judgement. This is either a good or bad thing depending on one's ideological leanings and opinions on how expansive the democratic process ought to be.
