CPR's Hammond Testifies at House Energy and Commerce Hearing

by Erin Kesler

June 02, 2015

This morning CPR Scholar and George Washington University Law School professor Emily Hammond will testify at a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power entitled, "Quadrennial Energy Review."

According to Professor Hammond's testimony:

A critical challenge for energy policy in the United States is that it has evolved in a piecemeal fashion, focusing on specific energy resources through source-specific federal and state agencies. Creating an Interagency Task Force, as this Section does, is an important step in bridging the gaps between the enumerated agencies’ particular statutory mandates. Indeed, agencies stand to be more successful—in achieving stakeholder support and in avoiding litigation—when they coordinate their efforts and ensure that their diverse perspectives are brought to bear on major policy matters.

But the composition of the Task Force has significant gaps that will hinder—not help— the development of comprehensive energy policy. Most critical is the absence of agencies with environmental expertise like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Not only do energy projects implicate traditional environmental concerns—like water use and water quality, air pollution, and ecosystem protection—but, as recognized in the Quadrennial Energy Report (QER), the energy sector is at the heart of climate change policy. One need look no further than the debates surrounding EPA’s Clean Power Plan and MACT Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) Order 745 governing demand response, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Rule on Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel to see that the lines between energy and the environment are more blurred than ever.

I urge you instead to take steps to better integrate energy and environmental policy, and to consider the policy ramifications of energy decisions on jobs and the economy as well. With that in mind, I am also concerned that other critical agencies, like those whose missions relate to jobs and economic development, are also omitted from the Task Force.

As demonstrated by the QER Interagency Task Force, all of these agencies can successfully work together toward developing and implementing policies governing energy resources and related environmental issues.  Indeed, agencies that fail to consult with one another risk judicial remand, while the public suffers the consequences of delay and the United States loses its effectiveness on the international energy stage.

Finally, these concerns are deepened because the list of policymaking criteria in the Discussion Draft does not include environmental issues. By failing to include such issues—and especially, climate change—in the policymaking criteria, the Task Force will deepen the current dysfunctions in our energy regulatory system and energy markets. In addition, this section calls for participation of too narrow a set of stakeholders. Most importantly, the public is not given a seat at the table. At the very least, there should be an opportunity for comment by any interested person on the interagency coordination plan, followed by a mandate that the Task Force consider all input in developing a final interagency coordination plan.

To read Hammond's full testimony, click here.

Help CPR

We want to know what you think about CPRBlog as we prepare to redesign it. If you're willing to share your feedback with us, we'd appreciate it if you’d click here. (It's only eight short questions that'll take you less than five minutes to answer!)

Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Erin Kesler

Erin Kesler was a Communications Specialist for the Center for Progressive Reform.

The Center for Progressive Reform

2021 L St NW, #101-330
Washington, DC. 20036
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015