Jeffrey J. Cook

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Who’s Regulating Who? Analyzing Fracking Policy in Colorado, Wyoming, and Louisiana

Significant controversy surrounds the use of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in oil and gas extraction in the United States. To address some of these concerns, states are leading the charge by regulating the process. Yet, variations exist in state regulatory approaches, and it is still unclear what drives these differences. Thus, this research applies policy subsystem theory to examine original interview data to determine what may cause these variations in regulations through an examination of Colorado, Wyoming, and Louisiana. This research finds that policy subsystem theory is useful in explaining this variation. In particular, the position of agency staff and privileged stakeholder groups, often industry related, help to explain why Colorado has a much stronger regulatory program than Louisiana. In comparison, Wyomings stringent regulations represent the anomaly in this case, but the results of this research suggest that this dominant energy subsystem will likely not be setting any pro-environment trends going forward.

A revised look: EPA rulemaking processes

Scholars have not analyzed the decision-making processes (i.e., administrative rulemaking) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in great detail since the 1990s. Therefore, this paper uses original interview data to examine a contemporary case, the EPA’s Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, to offer an up to date perspective on how the agency produces rules. This paper argues that, at the very least, the EPA’s Climate Change Division, part of the Office of Air and Radiation is a quintessential example of effective outreach across all of the stages of administrative rulemaking. The findings from these interviews suggest that understanding the process the EPA uses to produce environmental regulations is particularly relevant for practitioners, politicians, and scholars. Therefore, we suggest that scholars should use this research as a baseline for future scholarship about the rulemaking processes of the EPA.

Research Article: Explaining Innovation: The Environmental Protection Agency, Rule Making, and Stakeholder Engagement

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been considered one of the most innovative federal agencies in the nation, and the agency recently has employed a new stakeholder engagement practice in rule makings termed shuttle diplomacy. Though the agency has long been experimenting with new stakeholder practices, it is unclear what factors explain the agencys decision to settle on shuttle diplomacy. This study conducts original interviews with senior career civil servants at the EPA to unpack this decision-making process. These data are then structured by applying Toddi Steelmans (2010) implementing innovation framework so as to assess what factors are most impactful in the adoption of this new innovative procedure at the EPA. This research suggests that Steelmans structure and individual variable are of value in explaining the EPAs rationale for adopting this new practice. Finally, this research discusses the implications of this approach and the practical and political constraints that impact its use.

Are We There Yet? A Roadmap to Understanding National Park Service Rulemaking

The preproposal stage of the rulemaking process is notoriously understudied, but enormously important in determining regulatory outputs. Recently, Rinfret (2011c) analyzed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) rulemaking process and developed a frame analysis model to interpret stakeholder influence during the preproposal stage. Rinfret argues that stakeholders use three frames to influence agency rulemaking, including an expertise, a fiscal feasibility, and an information frame. This article tests this model to determine whether it is applicable to other federal agencies such as the National Park Service (NPS). Through an analysis of stakeholder framing within the 2012 NPS Yellowstone Winter Use Rule, this research confirms that Rinfrets model is indeed applicable to the NPS process. Therefore, this research suggests that this theoretical model examining stakeholder influence is applicable to other public land agencies, and arguably can be applied across the bureaucracy.

Let’s make a deal: unraveling stakeholder influence on Colorado fracking policy

Fracking policy is a contentious issue that is increasingly being debated within state administrative agencies. Though scholars have revealed that stakeholders can be influential in federal rulemakings through framing, it is unclear whether groups at the state level are equally influential. This research employs a frame analysis approach to determine whether stakeholders use similar frames to those of federal groups, and whether they are comparably influential on regulatory outputs. I provide original interview data from a range of stakeholder groups and agency staff to unravel how stakeholders tried to influence the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s (COGCC) Statewide Groundwater Baseline Sampling and Monitoring Rule. This research confirms that stakeholder groups use similar frames to their counterparts in federal contexts. However, whether stakeholder framing efforts influenced the agency, was in part a function of their access, resources, and relationships to agency personnel. In this case, industry groups appeared to have an advantage, but this may shift based on the preference of the governor and which groups are invited to debate policy with agency personnel. This article concludes with a discussion of how scholars might consider evaluating stakeholder influence going forward.

The EPA, NHTSA, and the Multiple Streams drive climate policy outcome

ABSTRACT Although United States environmental policy is frequently being decided in administrative agencies, it is unclear what factors influence policy outcomes. Some limited scholarship has explored whether the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) used for congressional policymaking can be used to explain rulemaking outcomes. This research explores the validity of the MSF via a case study of the controversial 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards Rule (CAFE Standards Rule) jointly published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). This research relies on original interviews with 30 agency staff and stakeholders to conclude that the model is helpful in understanding why these agencies produced the policy they did. However, the results here illustrate the importance of understanding the role and impact of the political stream on outcomes earlier in the process than outlined by previous scholars. Thus, when analyzing controversial regulatory outcomes, the policy and political stream may have to converge as early as the pre-proposal stage to ensure a rule is finalized.

Overcoming bureaucratic silos? Environmental policy integration in the Obama administration

ABSTRACT Environmental policy in the United States (US) is known for its media-specific approach to problems, and scholars have argued that this is ineffective. To combat these problems, some have argued for a more coordinated, integrated approach to policymaking. With Congressional gridlock prohibiting legislative solutions, the Obama administration offers some examples of a regulatory path to policy integration. Importantly, these efforts do not entail significant organizational remodels, which can be difficult to adopt. Three different ‘types’ of policy integration from the US Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management are described. These cases serve as a potential roadmap for broader implementation of policy integration within the fragmented US bureaucracy.

The NPS and Ossification: Does It Still Exist?

ABSTRACT The US notice and comment rulemaking process has often been considered ossified or broken, but recent scholarship has questioned this claim. To address this disagreement, we use McGarity’s (1992) ossification argument as a descriptive framework to structure an examination of interview data from three National Park Service rules: (1) Yellowstone National Park Rule, (2) Areas of the National Park System, Grand Canyon National Park Rule, and (3) the Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, Personal Watercraft Use Rule. We offer qualitative insights into what drives the longevity of NPS rulemaking, including analytical, scientific review, and substantive review requirements.