This is the debate hardly anyone cares about: Is one Railroad Commissioner better than three? I’m not going to waste a lot of space on this issue, but I think it’s clear-cut that a single commissioner is a bad idea. The Sunset folks seem to have gotten it in their heads that the only things railroad commissioners do is (1) run for the commission; and (2) immediately start running for something else. There is a lot of truth there, but not enough to justify going to one commissioner. The problem with a single commissioner is obvious. The commissioner can be bought. If we were dealing with the regulation of say, brucellosis, it wouldn’t matter, but oil and gas companies are awash in money to “invest” in influencing actions of the commission. With one commissioner, there are no checks and balances–not even the courts, because decisions of the Railroad Commission are final and not appealable in court. (Why isn’t that loophole plugged in the Sunset bill?) It comes down to this: Either you believe that checks and balances are important, or you don’t. I do. An energy czar is not the way to go.
Three or one?
By
Date
Share
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Email a link to this page
-
https://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/three-or-one/
Notes
News & Politics
Our latest stories and analysis, sent to your inbox each week.
Read More
-
The Great Texas Blackout Was Caused by a Failure to Ensure Supplies of Natural Gas
By Charles Blanchard
-
Greg Abbott Celebrated Texas Independence Day by Ending COVID-19 Restrictions
By Dan Solomon
-
Ted Cruz’s Attempt to Court Trump’s Base Meets a Predictable Obstacle: Trump
By Jonathan Tilove
-
Rita Clements, The Power Behind a Governor, Dies at 86
By R.G. Ratcliffe
-
U.S. Immigration Director Threatens to Jail Elected Officials in Sanctuary Cities
By R.G. Ratcliffe
Comments