Regulatory: Policy battles over control of the nation’s energy supply
The United States does not have an affirmative policy to provide the energy necessary to propel the economy. Instead, we follow a de facto policy of obtaining energy under the incentives and constraints that emerge from the highly decentralized process by which Congress resolves competing claims for subsidies and controls...
December 21, 2011 at 04:15 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The most significant disputes concerning regulation arise from federal rules governing energy production and the permissible levels of pollution it generates. This series will discuss the nation's energy policy and identify the major policy issues facing each of the country's major sources of energy: coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power.
The United States does not have an affirmative policy to provide the energy necessary to propel the economy. Instead, we follow a de facto “policy” of obtaining energy under the incentives and constraints that emerge from the highly decentralized process by which Congress resolves competing claims for subsidies and controls for each separate type of energy. This system is easily driven by events, whether it's the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear reactors or a revelation of losses on federal loans to subsidize production of solar panels. The Obama Administration has not sought to implement a coordinated energy policy, but has concentrated on funding development of alternative energy sources and adopting more stringent air pollution controls (which have both the highest costs and greatest health benefits of all federal rules).
Ten days in mid-December vividly illustrate the crazy-quilt of often contradictory impulses that can result from this process. In 2011, House Republicans repeatedly passed, and Senate Democrats rejected, appropriations restrictions seeking to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from adopting or implementing major regulatory initiatives. In particular, Congress rejected efforts to block the EPA's Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule, which will be issued later this week. The rule will limit emissions of toxins (mercury, acid gases, and dioxin) from coal- and oil-burning power plants. The House also failed to prohibit the EPA from issuing rules controlling greenhouse gas emissions and a rule limiting air emissions of toxic chemicals from industrial boilers.
On the other hand, the EPA's opponents succeeded in reducing its research, regulatory development and operating budgets. They also forced the agency to adopt a more scientifically sound approach to its Integrated Risk Information System, the process under which it assesses the toxicological health risks presented by chemicals and whose assessments serve as the basis for subsequent regulations, such as those limiting the amount of suspected carcinogens in drinking water. Congress also adopted a related provision that prohibits the Department of Energy from enforcing a lighting efficiency standard that would encourage the phase-out of incandescent bulbs by requiring manufacturers to increase energy efficiency by 30 percent.
One major additional item remains undecided. The Senate version of the bill to extend the payroll tax reduction for two months contained a provision requiring the President to decide within 60 days whether to approve the construction of the XL pipeline to bring oil from Canadian tar sands to Texas refineries. Republicans expected the President to withhold consent, because the environmental assessments have not been completed .But House Republicans unexpectedly rejected the tax measure and left the project hanging.
These recent developments show the difficulty of formulating energy policy in a decentralized, multi-branch democratic system in which citizens, regulated entities, and non-governmental organizations participate actively. The United States government is the most complex human organism on the planet. All energy policies must pass through this process and still obtain the support of people like you and me, who want the benefits of smart rules but would prefer not to pay the costs. The next five columns will address the challenges this dynamic presents to future regulation of the nation's energy sources.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Seemingly Simple Off-Channel Communication Rules Still Vex Finance Industry
5 minute readSEC Enforcement Chief Grewal—Whose Hard Line on Crypto Tormented the Industry—Stepping Down
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250