Monthly Archives: May 2023

Dr. Paul Nolette, associate professor and chair of political science at Marquette, has been named the next director of the universitys Les Aspin Center for Government. Nolette, who joined the Political Science Department in the Klingler College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, will begin in his new role on June 1.

A nationally sought-after expert on state attorneys general and contemporary American politics, Nolette will lead the center, which provides academic and internship programming focused on the public policy making process through offerings in Washington, D.C., and Milwaukee.

The Les Aspin Center for Government is one of Marquettes premier and most unique academic programs, and Dr. Nolette is well positioned to continue its strong legacy and move it forward in new ways for the betterment of the students it serves, Provost Kimo Ah Yun said.

Dr. Nolette is a distinguished teacher-scholar with a national reputation for his expertise on state attorneys general, and his rapport with and commitment to students is outstanding, said Dr. Heidi Bostic, dean of the Klingler College of Arts and Sciences. A proven leader through his work as chair of the Department of Political Science, Dr. Nolette also has experience in Washington, D.C., and has established a strong relationship with many of our wonderful alumni and donors. He is an outstanding leader for the Aspin Center for Government as we look forward to the centers future flourishing in service to our students and Marquettes mission.

I am excited for this opportunity to serve as the director of the Les Aspin Center for Government, Nolette said. The Aspin Center has been life-changing for students interested in public policy and public service, and I am eager to explore new opportunities for research, internships, and academic programming that build upon the centers strengths. I look forward to working with college and university leaders, students and faculty, and our over 3,000 Aspin Center alumni on plans to provide an outstanding study away experience in our nations capital for the next generation of Aspin students.

About Dr. Paul Nolette (full bio online)

Nolettes teaching and research interests focus on the dynamics of contemporary American federalism, courts and public policy, and the interplay between politics and law. His book, Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policymaking in Contemporary America (University Press of Kansas, 2015), examines how state litigators have used lawsuits against large corporations and the federal government to influence national policy. Nolettes research on the politics of state attorneys general has also appeared in Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Law and Social Inquiry, and Polity. He also has worked with the National Association of Attorneys General, the nonpartisan national organization for these state officials, on a variety of research projects.

Nolettes work on state attorneys general has been featured in numerous national media outlets,including National Public Radio, the New York Times, CBS Evening News, the Wall StreetJournal, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, the National Law Journal, the Boston Globe,Governing Magazine, BBC World Service, Politico, Law360, Time Magazine, and U.S. News &World Report and others. He is also a frequent guest on local media to discuss political developments in Wisconsin and nationally, including WDJT-TV (CBS 58), WTMJ-TV (NBC 4), WITI-TV (FOX 6), WISN-TV (ABC 12), WTMJ Radio, Wisconsin Public Radio, Wisconsin State Journal and others.

Nolette completed his Ph.D. in political science at Boston College prior to joining the Marquette faculty in fall 2011. He also received a law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center in 2004 and a Bachelor of Arts from Saint Anselm College in 2001. After law school, Nolette worked in a litigation law firm and later served as the legal counsel for the Labor and Workforce Development Committee in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

About the Les Aspin Center for Government

The Les Aspin Center for Government provides academic and internship programming focused on the public policy making process. With offerings in Washington, D.C., and Milwaukee, the Les Aspin Center integrates theoretical and experiential approaches to generating knowledge and provides its students, faculty, and staff with the opportunity to contribute to ethical, substantive and innovative policy making work locally, domestically and internationally.

Over the past 35 years, more than 3,000 Les Aspin Center students have interned at nearly 100 congressional offices, the State Department, the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Secret Service, the White House, the Department of Defense, the Federal Communications Commission, nonprofit organizations, private firms, and offices for Wisconsin-based corporations.

At any given time, there are approximately 50 Les Aspin Center alumni working as professional staff members in Congress. Alumni also have tremendous opportunities to work at other levels of government throughout the country and world.

Read more:

Dr. Paul Nolette named director of Les Aspin Center for Government ... - Marquette Today

***Click here for photos.***

WASHINGTON U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, held a hearing on the authorities available to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for addressing water management issues.

He invited and introduced Ms. Jennifer Verleger, Chair of the Western States Water Council and North Dakota assistant attorney general, and Dr. Andrea Travnicek, Director of the North Dakota Department of Water Resources, to serve as witnesses. Both are knowledgeable about water resource management and Corps operationsin the state.

OPENING STATEMENT

***Click here to download video. Click here for audio.***

In his opening remarks, Senator Cramer covered cooperative federalism and states rights regarding water management, wins in the 2020 and2022 Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA), including the Western Water Cooperative Committee,and the Corps management of the Snake Creek Embankment. A transcript may be found here.

WITNESS QUESTIONING

***Click here to download video. Click here for audio.***

Senator Cramer first discussed the Corps onerous proposed Water Supply Rule, which, before its withdrawal in 2020, threatened to significantly limit states abilities to develop and administer their water resources.

Dig down on the legal objections to the [Water] Supply Rule in the first place, because history is instructive, said Senator Cramer. [Could you] give a little legal analysis as to why it was so objectionable?

By the Corps trying to usurp control over all of that water, that takes away the states ability to allocate the water in accordance with their state laws. Every state allocates their laws or their water somewhat differently, but generally, we all use the prior appropriation system in the West, responded Ms. Verleger. There are already mechanisms set up in place to allocate water between users, especially in times of shortage, and when the Corps comes in and tries to take control over the whole sink, that takes away the states ability to do any sort of regulation and that is contrary to state law and the Constitution.

Senator Cramer asked about therole and future impacts of the Western Water Cooperative Committee, which he and his colleagues established in the 2022 WRDA.

The Corps wasn't crazy about [the creation of the Western Water Cooperative Committee]. Their sense was, we can work with attorney generals, and we can work with governors in individual states. Tell me how you see the new committee working and why it might work better in getting better cooperation with the Corps, said Senator Cramer.

There's one person appointed by the governor and one person appointed by the Attorney General from each of the states, and those are supposed to be people who actually have technical expertise. These aren't meant to be political appointments, but people who are actually going to be able to dig down into the weeds with the Corps of Engineers, staffers, and discuss the problems and try to find solutions, said Ms. Verleger. They are required to report to Congress every year after we have the meeting. I expect it to be focused a lot on water supply issues, but I think we can broaden out from that and see where there's conflict.

He then questioned Dr. Travnicek about the Snake Creek Embankment, a project with which she has been highly engaged. She previously contacted Senator Cramer and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum for access to corresponding economic data included in the Corps' draft Environmental Assessment (EA).

Thanks for your work on the Snake Creek Embankment, said Senator Cramer. [Could you] dig down on what an EA should include in terms of information?

We had requested seeing the data associated with the economic analysis and what that looked like, responded Dr. Travnicek. My team was able to dive in working with Garrison Diversion Conservancy District as well. We feel if there was an opportunity to make sure we're looking at this from a multiple purpose perspective, versus just [the Corps] dam safety, loss of life perspective, we would be above that 1.0 needed for the benefit-cost ratio to move forward with a structural fix versus an operational fix.

Finally, Senator Cramer reiterated the importance of preserving cooperative federalism as it relates to water management in western statesand ended on a note of optimism,highlighting the role of the Western Water Cooperative Committee moving forward.

This is where hope lies in my view: the Western Water Cooperative Committee, said Senator Cramer. The West together, while we aren't identical, we have similar concerns. That's why we created this committee that will answer to the Court and then to Congress. We will be able to be kept up-to-date on how they're responding, so we can hopefully make it crystal clear they're either meeting or not meeting [needs].

He posed a question to the two witnesses regarding whether they are hopeful about the Corps leadership. They confirmed they are.

Read the original post:

Sen. Cramer Welcomes ND Witnesses, Discusses Water ... - Kevin Cramer

Ari Peskoe currently serves as the Director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program. His work has primarily engaged with questions pertaining to electricity regulation at the federal and state levels. Peskoe has also litigated before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on landmark issues in electricity regulation such as the Western Energy Crisis.

Charlie Adams: In your paper, Is the Utility Transmission Syndicate Forever? you describe the unsavory extent to which investor-owned utilities wield monopolistic and anticompetitive power. How did we get to this point?

Ari Peskoe: Well, electric utilities are monopolists, and they were granted monopoly privileges by states about 100 years ago. When states allowed these monopolies, they were primarily concerned about local consumers access to reliable and affordable electricity. The monopoly model was designed to electrify America. You can think of it as a financing model that matches the private interests of utilities in terms of profiting from providing service with the public interests of reliable and expanding electricity. State regulators set rates that reimburse utilities for the costs of providing service and provide a profit margin on their infrastructure investments. This model de-risks investments and incentivizes the utility to build more infrastructure. As the physical electricity system expanded in the first half of the 20th century, it made sense for electric utility companies to connect to each other to provide more efficient and reliable service to consumers. But, the effect of those connections was the regionalization of companies dominance and control over the industry because you had local monopolists linking up with each other and controlling the operations and expansion of this essential infrastructure. This model might have made sense when investor-owned electric utilities were the primary players in the industry, but today, through a series of reforms by state governments and the federal government, we now have competition for the sale of power and the development of power plants and transmission infrastructure. These local monopolists can act anti-competitively in ways that harm consumers particularly, when we have companies that, if given a fair chance, can provide service that is just as reliable and is cheaper and cleaner for consumers.

CA: What role does federalism have in preventing or enabling progress on transmission?

AP: Right now, permitting transmission is done at a state-by-state level. There are some exceptions. For example, when the federal government owns land that your project is going to traverse, you need federal permission. So, transmission is already built around federalism because, for large-scale projects, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates rates and planning processes that determine how utility rates are spent on transmission, but ultimately developers need state permission. So the question is, whats the right role for the states in these federally regulated processes?

FERC has put out a proposal that would give state regulators a greater role in the process of selecting projects and figuring out how those projects are going to be paid for. The idea is if you involve states earlier in the process, it will basically ensure that those projects are later permitted when they go before state permitting authorities. I think that the short history of the successful regional transmission development processes shows that states can play important roles in facilitating the development of major projects. At the same time, when we have large-scale projects with a clear national interest, such as those designed to move renewable energy across state lines from where it can be produced cheaply to where theres a higher energy demand, theres a good argument that maybe the federal government should be the only permitting authority. So, I dont think anyone has figured out what the optimal role is here for state regulators and for the federal government, but I think what is clear is that its very hard to change federal law in this area.

CA: If you were to design a new electric grid and regulatory scheme, taking influences from other countries, states, or existing elements in our system, what differences would you prioritize? What did we get right the first time?

AP: One of the differences between the United States and other parts of the world is disparate ownership. In the United States, there used to be hundreds of privately owned utilities that have since consolidated into what really amounts to a few dozen. We also have public power entities in which municipalities own their local utilities, and then there are rural cooperatives. In many other parts of the world, electricity was a government provided service controlled by the central government. Many countries have since liberalized through various free-market reforms and sold off the assets to various different types of companies. But our disparate ownership makes large-scale transmission development challenging because entities naturally look out for their own interests, and large-scale development may harm the parochial interests of utilities that still own power plants, which is the case in 35 states, for whom the transmission may harm their local generation monopolies.

If I were going to design something new but accept the fact that we have this diverse ownership mix, I think there has to be somebody with real authority at either the regional or the federal level to plan projects that meet 21st century clean energy and reliability challenges; there has to be somebody to figure out whos going to pay for those projects; and there has to be somebody to permit their construction. All three of those things must happen without having to worry about the political influence of the incumbent utilitiesthats really the key. Also, right now we dont have clean energy goals in this country. A lot of states have clean energy goals, but Congress has never enacted similar goals for carbon dioxide or renewable energy. So, I think my solution would be having a national goal to match the evolving energy mix, and creating new institutions at the regional or national level to develop transmission.

CA: Are you optimistic about FERCs appetite and ability to institute these reforms that might create something that looks closer than what youre imagining?

AP: What Id like to see FERC do is regulate utilities. A lot of the issues involving Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) grab most of the attention these days, but FERC has pretty expansive authority, as do state utility commissions, to investigate utility practices and ensure that rates are just and reasonable. This is a pretty broad standard. One of the reasons that I think utilities are not investing enough in large-scale regional projects is because its easier and faster for them to make money by rebuilding last centurys transmission system. Theres just a lot less oversight over small scale projects as compared to large-scale projectsthat limited oversight is both on the state permitting side and on the FERC-regulated side of things. Its just so much simpler for utilities to wreck and rebuild an existing line, and they can often justify doing so because a lot of the existing infrastructure across the country is very old and theres just no oversight over these decisions. Thats simply not how you regulate a utility: by just trusting their judgment, not reviewing their rates, and then not requiring a permit for their projects.

Theres an open proceeding right now at FERC overseeing more of these local projects, and Ive had the theory that if local projects were scrutinized in a way that utility projects have traditionally been scrutinized, then maybe that would remove this attractive nuisance of rebuilding last centurys grid and induce more development at the regional and interregional levels. So Im hopeful that FERC will take that issue seriously. Im also hopeful that FERC can push utilities to do more to consider all the benefits of larger scale transmission development. I think in some regions of the country, theres momentum for doing more on large-scale transmission development. In New England, states have been calling for more. In the middle of the country, in a region called the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), theres been some real progress on building large-scale transmission. A new FERC rule that requires utilities to consider the full range of benefits transmission offers to consumers can have some really positive effects in some parts of the country.

*This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Read more from the original source:

Utilities, Transmission, and the Grid: An Interview with Ari Peskoe - Brown Political Review

Six months following the last major polls, the provincial governments are yet to get a full shape.

In Lumbini, two ministers without portfolios have yet to be assigned ministries. Chief Minister Dilli Chaudhary of Nepali Congress has been trying to complete the government but to no avail. The Congress is yet to finalise its ministerial nominees, resulting in the delay.

On Monday, Chief Minister of Sudurpaschim Province Kamal Bahadur Shah flew to Kathmandu seeking the help of top leaders from parties including his Nepali Congress in expanding the provincial government. A week ago too, he was in the national capital to meet Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Congress chief Sher Bahadur Deuba. Four ministries are yet to be appointed in Sudurpaschim, even as the Maoist Centre has claimed three, Nagarik Unmukti Party two, and the Congress one ministry.

In Madhesh, the ruling partners see chances of forming a provincial government under a new leadership. Three coalition partnersthe Congress, the CPN (Unified Socialist) and the Loktantrik Samajbadi Partyare yet to join the government led by Chief Minister Saroj Kumar Yadav of Janata Samajbadi. Nonetheless, everyone is eying the chief ministerial position, further complicating government expansion.

The Bagmati government has only six of the 11 ministers. Chief Minister Shalikram Jammakattel has taken charge of three ministries. The provincial government remains incomplete due to the claim of the Congress to four more ministries and of the Unified Socialist to two.

The federal government is unveiling its policies and programmes on Friday. The budget for the new fiscal year will also be unveiled shortly. Nepals provincial politics is affected by the change of power equation at the centre. Provincial administrations that were destabilised by the break-down of the Maoist-UML alliance are yet to stabilise. Its been around three months since the Congress joined the coalition and the UML quit the Cabinet in Kathmandu.

Such a delay and inefficiency of provincial leaders to form governments on their own has weakened the federal system as all tiers of government should be autonomous and well-governed, say observers.

It is already too late. The focus should have been on making proper plans and policies, on improving revenue collection and budget spending, all of which the provincial governments have failed to do, said Krishna Prasad Sapkota, a local governance expert. Yet, the sole focus of our political parties continues to be making and breaking governments.

In the meantime, the provincial assemblies have not been getting business as the parties continue wrangling for power. Crucial tasks, such as budget implementation, remain unfinished.

Experts say the failure of provincial structures invites questions and suspicions over federalism, which would be in jeopardy if the provinces cannot function effectively.

According to Rudra Sharma, an expert on federalism, Nepal has to allow the provinces to perform effectively by amending and formulating laws in order to devolve power. The federal set-up outlined in the constitution is only skeletal, and for the federal structure to be successful, laws such as Civil Law should be enacted besides other legal amendments, said Sharma. Federalism and its implementation so far should deserve a thorough review.

The Gandaki and Karnali governments have taken full shape. Gandaki got all the ministers last Friday after Chief Minister Surendra Raj Pandey inducted four new onesthree from the Congress and one from the Maoist Centre.

In Karnali, the provincial government too took full shape after four ministers assumed offices last month. Three ministers from the Congress joined the provincial government, and one state minister from the Maoist Centre was promoted to minister.

There is a tie in Koshi between the UML-Rastriya Prajatantra Party alliance and the ruling alliance, at 46 assembly members each. The UML has 40 provincial lawmakers, Rastriya Prajatantra Party six, Nepali Congress 29, Maoist Centre 13, and Unified Socialist four. This has made the new government formation trickier.

Observers say provincial governments have been treated like satellites of the central government.

This is happening because of our election system. Like local governments, the provincial governments should also be elected for a fixed term of five years to prevent frequent government changes, said Sapkota, a local governance expert. If that happens, the disturbance and change at the centre will not impact provincial governments.

Coalition leaders agree that it is already too late to make provincial governments complete. Yet they are failing to seal power-sharing deals.

Keshav Jha, a Loktantrik Samajbadi Party leader, said the provincial governments should be given full shape at the earliest to keep the ruling coalition strong. More delays will lead to a serious problem, he said, expressing fears that the next year might likewise be spent discussing power-sharing.

The delays in appointing provincial ministers will have a direct impact on budget implementation and delivery.

See the article here:

Six months after elections, provincial governments are still incomplete - The Kathmandu Post