Here’s a Bad Idea: Costly New Energy Regulations
Subscribe today for Free Enterprise Updates
- Latest business trends and best practices
- News about legislation and regulation impacting business
- Business how-to articles from industry experts
- Commentary and interviews with newsmakers in business and politics
Two former EPA administrators hope the President’s second term means more rules and regulations to tie down energy use and its production. Talk about bad ideas.
On her “to-do list” for President Obama, former Republican governor of New Jersey Christine Todd Whitman wants Congress to try again in passing a cap-and-trade bill to limit greenhouse gases. But since such a proposal couldn’t get through Congress when it was completely controlled by Democrats in the President’s first two years in office, I’ll chalk this up as wishful thinking.
Oddly (or ironically I’m not sure), Whitman also hopes the President “follows through on his mention during the campaign of clearing out needless regulations that burden businesses throughout the country.” I hope he does too, but unlike Whitman, I’m not pushing for a massive set of new job-killing regulations on the economy.
One item on Carol Browner’s wish list is imposing federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing, the technology that helps extract oil and natural gas from shale. She writes, “Right now states are responsible for overseeing fracking. That means there could be 20 to 30 different state regulations imposed on fracking businesses.” Yet she offers no examples of harm from states failing to properly regulate fracturing or what the benefits would be to one-size-fits-all federal rules.
While not directly addressing Browner, Mark Green’s post on Energy Tomorrow makes a useful retort:
[N]ew, unnecessary federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing could limit the potential of oil and natural gas produced from shale – a key to American energy security and perhaps the president’s best chance to achieve his goals of reducing oil imports and emissions of carbon dioxide.