Federal Energy Policy Paradigms and State Energy Roles

Abstract

The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has rekindled a debate as old as founding of republic by asking once again what governmental functions and responsibilities ought to be carried out by federal government as opposed to powers reserved to state and local governments. The impetus for revival of this issue is commission's conclusion that the intergovernmental system today is a bewildered and bewildering maze of complex, overlapping, and often, conflicting relationships among three levels of government. In short, system is overloaded.' The commission points to expansion of federal government involvement into virtually all of society's activities as primary cause for condition of federalism today. President Reagan's proposal to create a new federalism-announced in his 1982 State of Union address-is, in part, a response to this condition. While commission has reviewed, or is in process of reviewing, intergovernmental relations in various functional areas (e.g., education, welfare, environment), it has not yet looked at energy. Perhaps reason for this omission stems from fact that in energy, unlike many other areas, preeminent question to ask is not which level of government should carry out necessary tasks and responsibilities, but whether government, at any level, has clear and legitimate responsibilities. How can one describe what a proper intergovernmental relationship might entail when scope of overall government involvement is in dispute? There are, of course, numerous other areas within society besides energy where nature and extent of government intervention remains in dispute. One would be hard-pressed, however, to find another area where spectrum of thought is so wide, and basis for consensus so narrow; and since subject is of more than simple academic interest, opposing convictions are supported with considerable fervor. In following sections of this paper, alternative models or paradigms of proper federal government role in energy are sketched briefly. It is demonstrated that these models run gamut from little federal government involvement to total federal government involvement, and that current administration operates on basis of a significantly different model from its predecessor. The potential impact of differing paradigms upon state energy efforts is presented, and initial effect upon states of transition from Carter to Reagan administration is noted. * The nature of legitimate and proper government involvement in field of energy is widely disputed today. Four separate paradigms or models of government-market interaction with respect to energy are identified and briefly outlined. Two paradigms (the energy policy and energy free-market) represent ideological underpinnings of two U.S. administrations. The other two paradigms (energy mobilization and energy nationalization) have remained outside mainstream of government philosophy, although popular with individuals and/or groups. It may never be possible to clearly or ideally delineate state and federal government energy roles until greater ideological consensus is achieved. Although current administration is moving in one direction, many states remain committed to policy paradigm of previous administration.