The latest Bloomberg Businessweek offers a good example of possible Baptist-bootlegger collusion that could lead to negative results for consumers.
Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund discusses his efforts to work with the energy industry on a seven-member committee developing rules for fracking.
[T]he other members were receptive to the ideas we brought. They felt the only thing that could slow the development of this American asset would be the environmental backlash. A commitment that was supposed to be a dozen two-hour telephone calls became 14 full-day meetings. We talked to citizens affected by fracking and visited sites in Pennsylvania.
We came up with some good recommendations. The commission’s final report really focused on how everyone involved in this industry—the federal government, state governments, companies—was not doing enough to make it safer. To get this group of people to shine a spotlight on that fact was really positive. It made people accountable. Many governors read the report and several have already adopted some of the rules. We are working with different companies to measure methane leaks.
Why might energy industry representatives be willing to accept EDF proposals that are likely to raise the cost of doing business? Existing companies are much more likely to be able to bear the costs than any new firms that would like to compete with them for business. Less competition means good news for the established companies. The news is not as good for the consumers who tend to benefit when firms compete.
