Few policy questions have a more profound impact on our day-to-lives than how we produce, transport, and use energy. Whether it’s a fight against the siting of a polluting natural gas facility in a historically Black community, the catastrophic failure of an electric grid following a winter storm, foreign wars causing price shocks that further hollow out the fixed incomes of America’s older adults, or an abiding concern over leaving our grandchildren a habitable climate — all these issues and more make energy policy a central concern for the public.
Despite this broad-based and deep concern, the public remains largely excluded from participating in the development of energy policy — much less shaping it. Instead, corporate insiders still retain outsized influence over the energy policymaking process, leaving policymakers with a skewed perspective on issues they address through regulation, which ultimately undermines the quality and legitimacy of those regulations. Worse still, the voices that are systematically excluded often speak for structurally marginalized communities, which reinforces broader societal and racial injustice.
Fortunately, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) — which oversees much of the country’s energy infrastructure and helps set rules, rates, and standards for energy markets — is undertaking new efforts to level the playing field. A new Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) report examines one of these efforts: the establishment of the Office of Public Participation (OPP). After decades of delay, FERC finally began setting up the office this past year.
As the report explains, the OPP represents an important experiment in “energy democracy,” or the concept of making energy policy more responsive to and inclusive of the public, particularly members of structurally marginalized communities. If successful, the office holds the promise of empowering the public to meaningfully engage in FERC’s administrative proceedings and offset the undue dominance that corporate special interests have enjoyed there for too long.
The OPP’s development comes at a time when more and more Americans are recognizing that to make progress on our most pressing social changes — from racist police brutality to the climate crisis — we must address the systemic power disparities that are at their root. One crucial avenue for achieving this goal is to make our governing institutions more people-driven by, among other things, promoting new opportunities and new fora for sustained and meaningful public participation in existing policymaking processes.
Potential of the Office of Public Participation — and Regulatory Democracy
The new report — The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s New Office of Public Participation: A Promising Experiment in ‘Energy Democracy’ — provides a detailed exploration of the OPP and its potential for advancing energy democracy at FERC and for promoting “regulatory democracy” more broadly across other federal agencies.
It begins by exploring how the policy issues within FERC’s jurisdiction — natural gas pipeline construction, electric transmission grid development, electricity market ratesetting, and grid reliability — are not esoteric matters for a narrow range of experts and industry insiders, but in fact implicate questions of great importance for all Americans. It then catalogs the common classes of stakeholders that have an interest in the outcome of FERC’s various administrative proceedings, with a particular focus on “nonrepeat” participants — that is, most members of the public, and especially low-wealth people and people of color.
One of OPP’s critical functions is to help these nonrepeat players engage more effectively at FERC and otherwise offset as much as possible the systemic resource and expertise advantages of corporate insiders and other repeat players. The report documents the various types of participation barriers that members of the public face at FERC. Because many of these barriers are common to other federal agencies, how the OPP addresses them can provide valuable lessons across our regulatory system.
To help guide FERC’s continued development of the OPP, the report offers a comprehensive set of recommendations aimed at ensuring that the office is able to function as effectively as possible in meaningfully engaging the public, particularly members of structurally marginalized communities. Drawing on these recommendations, the report concludes by identifying best practices that other federal agencies can adopt and adapt to promote greater public engagement within their own administrative proceedings.
Joining me in authoring this report are Shelley Welton, who teaches law at the University of South Carolina; Alexandra Klass of the University of Minnesota Law School; and CPR Member Scholar Hannah Wiseman, a law professor at Penn State University.
To learn more, read our report, subscribe to our email list, and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram.
Showing 2,817 results
James Goodwin | April 27, 2022
Few policy questions have a more profound impact on our day-to-lives than how we produce, transport, and use energy. Whether it's a fight against the siting of a polluting natural gas facility in a historically Black community, the catastrophic failure of an electric grid following a winter storm, foreign wars causing price shocks that further hollow out the fixed incomes of America's older adults, or an abiding concern over leaving our grandchildren a habitable climate — all these issues and more make energy policy a central concern for the public. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) — which oversees much of the country's energy infrastructure and helps set rules, rates, and standards for energy markets — is undertaking new efforts to level the playing field. A new Center for Progressive Reform report examines one of these efforts: the establishment of the Office of Public Participation (OPP). After decades of delay, FERC finally began setting up the office this past year.
Marcha Chaudry | April 26, 2022
Earlier this month, HBO Max aired an important series about toxic ingredients in cosmetic products. The series also examined the professional beauty industry and the health effects to workers exposed to toxic ingredients. Toxic ingredients are found in cosmetics and other personal care products. The toxic chemicals used in them have been linked to a wide range of health problems, including ovarian cancer, breast cancer, early-onset puberty, fibroids and endometriosis, miscarriage, poor maternal and infant health outcomes, diabetes and obesity, and more. As I noted in Not So Pretty, "There is a loophole in federal regulation that allows industry to use almost any ingredient and label it as 'fragrance.'"
Daniel Farber | April 25, 2022
Last week, the White House undid an effort by the Trump administration to undermine the use of environmental impact statements. The prior rules had been in effect since 1978. Restoring the 1978 version was the right thing to do. The Trump rules arbitrarily limited the scope of the environmental effects that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can consider under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Their goal was clearly to prevent consideration of climate change.
Jake Moore | April 22, 2022
In October 2022, the Clean Water Act will turn 50. Though heralded as a crowning environmental achievement, some argue it's a costly and ineffective law. Half a century later, what has it achieved, and what can policymakers improve?
Minor Sinclair | April 21, 2022
I'm hopeful the recent disco revival won't last but that other resurging movements of the 1960s and '70s will. That era saw the birth and explosive growth of the modern environmental movement alongside other sweeping actions for peace and equality. Public pressure led to critical environmental laws that continue to protect our natural resources and our health and safety. In 1970, Congress created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and enacted the Clean Air Act, which authorizes the federal government to limit air pollution, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which established the first nationwide program to protect workers from on-the-job harm. Two years later came passage of the Clean Water Act, a landmark amendment to existing anti-pollution law that requires our government to restore and maintain clean and healthy waterways across the land. That was some era -- the last great upsurge of government protections.
Michael C. Duff | April 21, 2022
It might not be easy to get to the merits of United States v. Washington. A funny thing happened on the way to oral argument: The state of Washington modified the 2018 workers' compensation law at the center of the case, raising the prospect that there is no longer a live dispute for the justices to resolve.
Brian Gumm, Minor Sinclair, Robert L. Glicksman, Sidney A. Shapiro | April 18, 2022
We're sad to share the news that long-time Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholar Dale Goble passed away at his home on April 14. Scholars and staff alike appreciated his warm presence at our scholars' meetings, and he brought a wealth of knowledge to the fields of wildlife and conservation law. When the founders of CPR were reaching out to the nation's leading progressive scholars, we were so pleased that Dale agreed to join. His humanity, his dedication to protecting public lands and wildlife, and his participation in CPR will be sorely missed.
Michael C. Duff | April 15, 2022
Under established constitutional law, states may generally not tax or regulate property or operations of the federal government. This principle is known as intergovernmental immunity. Congress may waive this federal immunity, however, and the scope of that principle is the major issue in Monday’s oral argument in United States v. Washington.
Caitlin Kelly | April 14, 2022
In 1971, Iowa highway construction workers uncovered 28 human remains. Of these, 26 were white, and two, a mother and her baby, were Native American. The white remains were buried in a local graveyard, while the Native American remains were sent to a local university for study. This decision was typical in the context of the past centuries' patrimonial laws, scientific racism, and outright genocide. In this case, however, a tribal member named Maria Pearson successfully pushed for both the return and proper burial of the Native American remains and the passage of a state law guaranteeing equal treatment of the remains of Native Americans and other peoples. Pearson and other advocates continued lobbying for federal protection of their cultural items. In 1990, because of their efforts, Congress passed the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act ("NAGPRA"), which provides a framework for federally recognized Native American tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations to reclaim ancestral remains and associated objects from entities that receive federal funding.