Skip to main content

The Politics of Regulation

In today's Washington Post, Steven Perlstein shares thoughts on the politics of regulation after Deepwater Horizon. The title gives you his main point: "Time for Industry to End Its War on Regulation."

Perlstein cites examples of oil, coal and financial regulators being too close to, or too cowed by, the industries they oversee. He believes regulation was too lax under the Bush administration and considers it laughable that industry observers would suggest that 16 months into the Obama administration, regulation has already become too tight.

Perlstein describes the value of regulation as helping stave off low-probability events that could have devastating consequences. In the financial sector, he acknowledges that regulation may "trim profits" for the businesses involved, but insists we remember the benefit associated with this cost:

The big flaw in the business critique of regulation is not so much that it overstates the costs, but that it understates its benefits - in particular, the benefits of avoiding low-probability events with disastrous consequences. Think of oil spills, mine explosions, financial meltdowns or even global warming. There is a natural tendency of human beings to underestimate the odds of such seemingly unlikely events - of forgetting that the 100-year flood is as likely to happen in Year 5 as it is in Year 95. And if there are insufficient data to calculate the probability of a very bad outcome, as is often the case, that doesn't mean we should assume the probability is zero.
Mr. Perlstein assumes that in the absence of regulation, businesses would reach a different - and inappropriate - conclusion than would regulators about the events worth guarding against and the measures necessary to prevent or mitigate them. This fits the Hollywood stereotype of evil businessmen conniving to maximize profit without regard for the consequences, but falls short of the reality we have seen in our industry. The professionals operating U.S. nuclear plants maintain a high regard for the public good, starting with protecting workers and the environment. Many live close to the plants in which they work and know their families would be among those affected by a wrong decision made at their plant.

Perhaps in a sign of things to come, Mr. Perlstein closes with a call for business to stop fighting government regulation:

It's time for the business community to give up its jihad against regulation. We can all agree that there are significant costs to regulation in terms of reduced sales and profits, stunted job growth and even, from time to time, stifled innovation. But what we should have learned from recent disasters is that the costs of inadqueate regulation are even greater. Strong and efficient conomies require strong and effective government oversight.
We agree on the importance of a strong, credible regulator in assuring public safety and confidence in potentially hazardous industries. While Mr. Perlstein argues for business to accede to whatever level of regulation government decides, we believe it is vital for regulation to be commensurate with risks and consistently applied. That takes input from the regulated businesses and careful weighing of benefits and burdens on all stakeholders.

Comments

Phil said…
The nuclear industry has a whole different culture of safety compared to other energy industries. As well as a more comprehensive regulatory regime. It's hardly comparable at all.
sefarkas said…
When the regulators demonstrate that they are technically competent in the area of engineering they are trying to regulate, then they will have a seat at the table. It is difficult to swallow the dictates of a group with superficial knowledge of technologies being used to solve real problems. This goes for nuclear, mining, banking, farming, and any other industry you can name. Not only is this the basis of conflict between industry and its regulators, it is also the basis of conflict between employees on the front lines -- sales, operations, engineering -- and the cadre of managers above them with an over reliance on accounting skills who attempt to schedule money flows in the face of uncertainty.

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 …