When the branches of government no longer function as constitutionally intended, the bough of democracy threatens to break.

Partisan Politics: My Party Right or Wrong
 
The 2016 presidential election and the period following will undoubtedly be remembered as a watershed in American politics. It is too early to tell just how the election and its aftermath will be recalled by historians; its consequences are still unfurling and likely to continue doing so through the next presidential election cycle in 2020.

It is never too early, however, for the clean energy and climate defending communities to begin thinking seriously in terms of what comes next. Will the molds broken in 2016 be recast as they were, or will the anger, division and disgruntlement continue in 2020 and beyond?

Will the next nominees for president and Congress be consummate outsiders or will establishment politicians be re-established? Can either of the two major political parties be counted on to halt the damage done by Trump and company to the environment—to say nothing of reinstating needed protections and making up for the time already lost in transitioning to a low-carbon future?
​
Six months into his presidency, it is clear the chaos of the campaign has accompanied The Donald into the Oval Office. It is likely chaos will rule longer than Trump himself. 

Much of what the White House claims to have accomplished in the first 170 days 19 hour 03 minutes and 12 seconds* since Trump was sworn into office--by both supporters and opponents—is only partially correct. Not necessarily because the claims of executive action are untrue, but because many are subject to judicial review and cannot be counted as having been completed until the courts rule.

Hardly record-setting for the number issued--Presidents FDR and Truman far exceeded The Donald’s pace of papering over the federal government early in their administrations—the Trump White House leads the pack in number of executive orders struck down by the courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently added to the string of struck federal executive actions when it overruled an attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency to delay Obama-era methane regula-tions, rejecting claims by the EPA that the oil and gas industry wasn't allowed to comment on the rules.

The decision is important in and of itself, of course, but it also offers possible insights into what the judicial fate of other administration efforts to rollback Obama-era environmental regulations might be, including: Corporate Average Fuel Economies (CAFE), the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the Waters of the U.S. regulations (WOTUS) and a growing host of others.
​
Some of the rollback attempts, e.g. CPP and WOTUS, are deliberately named in one or another executive directive. Others are implied under the March 28, 2017 action headed the Energy Independence Executive Order. 

If the revision of CAFE standards serves as an opportunity for the Trump regime to preempt state authorities, the Clean Power Plan (CPP) represents an opportunity to render unto the states what the administration would like them to be responsible for—or perhaps what they don’t want the federal government to bear the responsibility of.
 
The CPP was the intended path by which the Obama administration was to achieve the promised Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) to global decarbonization as part of the Paris Accord. Although finalized late in President Obama’s second-term, the legal groundwork was laid during the G.W. Bush administration.

W’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from car tailpipes led to the decision in Massachusetts v EPA. As discussed throughout, the case established EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) it determined were contributing factors to global warming. The 5 to 4 decision further established such regulation as obligatory, if the Agency also determined that global warming/ climate change was indeed harmful to human life and the welfare of the planet.

Justice Stevens writing for the majority included such phrases in the opinion as:

          The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. 

          EPA overstates its case in arguing that its decision not to regulate contributes so insignificantly to petitioners’ injuries that it cannot be
          ha[u]led into federal court, and that there is no realistic possibility that the relief sought would mitigate global climate change and remedy petitioners’
          injuries, especially since predicted increases in emissions from China, India, and other developing nations will likely offset any marginal domestic
          decrease EPA regulation could bring about.
 
          While regulating motor-vehicle emissions may not by itself reverse global warming, it does not follow that the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide
          whether EPA has a duty to take steps to slow or reduce it. (emphasis mine)
 
          Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,”EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission
          of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition—which includes “any air pollution agent …, including any physical, chemical,
          … substance … emitted into … the ambient air … ,” §7602(g) (emphasis added)—embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover,
          carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are undoubtedly “physical [and] chemical … substance[s].
 
          EPA’s reliance on post enactment congressional actions and deliberations it views as tantamount to a command to refrain from regulating greenhouse
          gas emissions is unavailing. (emphasis mine)

The case led directly to EPA’s subsequent endangerment finding.  Finalized on Pearl Harbor Day 2009, it gave President Obama the needed legal basis to order EPA to regulate power plant emissions—principally CO2--pursuant to the Clean Air Act. The regulation is now generally referred to as the Clean Power Plan. The Plan was a cornerstone of the larger Obama Climate Action Plan that endeavored to combat global warming on multiple fronts, e.g. stringent CAFE standards, promoting American leadership in clean energy, boosting the resilience of buildings and infrastructure to natural disasters, etc.