Regulation is part of a continuum that begins with ideas shaped into ideologies which lead to goals that are formulated into policy through the politics of elections, promoted by the winners and codified through the sausage-making legislative process. This process leads to rules and precedents that are codified and implemented case-by-case via regulation. However, regulation is not the final step in this process, judicial action from appeals of regulatory decisions may reset the legislative or regulatory policies and decisions.
Today's regulatory and judicial environments have become the battleground of ideologies creating gridlock and a morass of uncertainty. Regulation should be the table at which thoughtful policy, clearly articulated in statute, is brought to bear on specific projects and proposals which will produce best outcomes for the proponents and Vermonters.
Today's and yesterday's regulatory process is adversarial by design a costly venue where conflicting facts and expert opinions are openly presented, thoughtfully examined and distilled into decisions by intelligent, rational, hopefully unbiased, people seeking the best result for all parties under the policy contained in law.
Unfortunately, we cannot afford the present adversarial system. It is too costly in time and resources. It frequently produces outcomes which may be far more costly than expected with adverse economic and social consequences.
Regulation is hampered by policies that are sometimes ill defined in statute. For example, economic regulation aims for "just and reasonable" prices for services. Compared to what? Environmental regulation stumbles over the criteria of Act 250 and other statutes meant to balance the needs and desires for economic and social infrastructures with the hope of preserving Vermont's natural resources. This infrastructure, whether housing, roads, business or industrial development must somehow accommodate the pressures of population growth, the need for jobs, and for business to provide products and services at a profit.
Unfortunately, regulation in Vermont has become a battleground of ideologies resulting in a costly and unpredictable process that serves as much to increase our costs as to enhance or protect the public good.
Maybe there's a better way. Elections and the political process should be the workbench of ideologies, not the regulatory process. Legislation should articulate clear policy without ambiguous and lofty language left to the regulators and the courts to interpret.
Perhaps we have an opportunity to test a new regulatory model. With the advent of technology whose sponsors say will enable wind energy as a sustainable source of electricity, the ideological debate has begun about the cost, reliability and environmental effects of this energy source.
Why not use this opportunity to create a Vermont policy for wind farms? Let the facts and opinions about wind energy surface in forums outside the legislative and regulatory process. Advocates and opponents should be encouraged to craft a policy that will either allow, under specific criteria, or prohibit wind farms in Vermont. If allowed or even encouraged, ensconce the policy direction in statute. Decide how the regulation of specific proposed projects will be handled in a single process that will incorporate local and state regulation in one body, perhaps constituted from the many agencies claiming a piece of the action. Let's not force a project through the morass of multiple regulatory proceedings.
Here's an opportunity to test our ability to deal efficiently with a controversial issue and formulate policy upstream of regulation. If we are to have Vermont wind farms, let's decide that far in advance of the regulatory forum which will evaluate and decide the merits of specific projects.
We may have much to gain and little to lose in reforming an archaic regulatory process.
No comments:
Post a Comment