Skip to main content

What's The Real Cost of Overregulation?

That's a question our friend Pat Cleary of the NAM Blog asked yesterday:
As we've noted in this space before, the government's own Energy Information Administration has predicted that energy costs will continue to soar in the months ahead. The cost for people to stay warm this winter in the Northeast and the Midwest are expected to be nothing short of astronomical, a burden that falls disproportionately on the poor and middle class. Because we can see this storm cloud coming (in fact, it's already here), we just wanted to remind everyone that this country's energy policy has been held hostage for years by a small band of extreme environmentalists:

-- They have discouraged the use of coal in spite of the fact that our clean coal technology leads the world and in spite of the fact that our coal reserves exceed (in BTU's) all the world's oil reserves;

-- They've resisted the development of nuclear power. We've not built a nuclear plant in this country since the 70's. France gets over 80% of its power from nuclear. They've built 58 nuclear plants since the 70's.

-- There are about 50 liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in the world. Exactly 5 are in the US. (Japan has 23.) The permitting process for building them here is both cumbersome and expensive.

-- Environmentalists have resisted further exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a parcel the size of the state of South Carolina, where drilling will occur in a footprint the size of Dulles Airport. What's their plan?
That's a question we've asked in another context, but we're not holding our breath waiting for an answer.

We should note that Pat has cross-posted these thoughts over at Red State, where they've kicked up quite a bit of dust.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
The cost of over regulation is also augmented by the fact that courts in the USA do not award costs against unsuccessful plaintiffs except where the lawsuit is frivolous. If environmental groups had to pay defendants' costs and court costs after unsuccessful litigation, they might think twice about suing. The practice of making unsuccessful civil litigants paying other parties' and court costs is well established in countries like Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. When Greenpeace unsuccessfully sued to try and prevent the construction of a research reactor in Sydney, Australia, it had to pay the costs of the courts, the regulator, the purchaser, and the vendor, all of whom were named as defendants.

Making losers in a lawsuit pay other parties' costs may stop lawsuits being used as a delaying tactic.

Such a proposal would require a major law reform in all states and the federal government.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …