Overlapping authorities in U.S. energy policy

Abstract

The authors argue overlapping intergovernmental authorities explain much of the complexities in U.S. energy policy, by accounting for limited powers, uncertain autonomy, cooperation and conflict, interstate differences, and intersecting policies. Additionally, the authors identify implications of overlapping authority for policymakers, regulators, and industry leaders, including polycentric policymaking venues, direct and indirect policy effects, and energy system governance. Overlapping authority provides a framework for understanding intersecting roles of national, state, and local governments in energy policy.

Intergovernmental Relations and Energy Policy: What We Know and What We Still Need to Learn

“…While some scholars argue local governments are energy policy innovators (Krause 2011), there is far less scholarship on local policies compared to state and national. One possible explanation of this trend is the prevailing state–local relations system (i.e., Dillon’s rule), which limits local authority for electricity regulation and results in local governments developing programs that build on efforts from national and state programs (Krane, Rigos, and Hill 2001; Byrne et al 2007; Krause 2011; Fowler and Johnson 2017). Given defined constitutional roles of national and state governments in electricity market regulation, this requires local governments to compete and/or cooperate vertically within the intergovernmental system since they have no autonomous areas of authority (Osofsky and Wiseman 2013).…”

“…Given defined constitutional roles of national and state governments in electricity market regulation, this requires local governments to compete and/or cooperate vertically within the intergovernmental system since they have no autonomous areas of authority (Osofsky and Wiseman 2013). As such, local policies create overlaps with state policies in some areas, in order to make their jurisdictions more competitive or to address deficits in state efforts (Fowler and Johnson 2017). While few examples exist in the scholarship, Barnes (2013) suggests aggregate net metering as a local policy option that presents an alternative to state net metering policies, and Osofsky and Wiseman (2013) note that local governments are not universally preempted from adopting policies such as net metering or renewable portfolio standards.…”

“…Furthermore, there are also policy overlaps in siting and access between local governments and both national and state governments (Fowler and Johnson 2017). According to Morton (2012), “laws and regulations for the development and siting of electric transmission projects often require reviews and/or approvals from multiple federal, tribal, state, and local entities…[and] coordination will reduc[e] redundancies and regulatory uncertainties” (p. 4).…”

“…Previous studies find local governments use land use and zoning policies, infrastructure access, and community concerns to affect development (Davis and Hoffer 2010; Tanaka et al 2012). Additionally, research on issues related to green building indicates overlap between local policies and those of federal and state agencies related to electricity, energy efficiency, and renewable energy (Shapiro 2013; Fowler and Johnson 2017). However, in general, local energy policies have not garnered much attention from scholars (Byrne et al 2007; Krause 2011; Fowler and Johnson 2017).…”

“…Most scholarship notes a general cooperative nature in energy regulation as a whole (Byrne et al 2007; Carley 2011; Carley and Browne 2013; Osofsky and Wiseman 2013; Fowler and Johnson 2017). Vertical cooperation is most apparent via Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs), which “intermixes federal, regional, state, and local lines in its institutional construction” (Osofsky and Wiseman 2013, 819).…”