Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[15]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[43]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[15]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-29 04:38:27.271
	1	+2016-09-29 04:38:27.0

Caselist.CitesClass[43]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,4 @@
	1	+The 50 United States and Washington D.C. should prohibit the production of nuclear power. The United States federal government should devolve authority of nuclear power to the fifty states.
	2	+Devolving federal authority is key – states should regulate energy activities
	3	+Katz 16 (Diane, research fellow in regulatory policy, “A Comprehensive Look at Paul Ryan’s Regulatory Reform Agenda,” June 14, 2016, http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/14/a-comprehensive-look-at-paul-ryans-regulatory-reform-agenda///utd-va)
	4	+These developments are happening in spite of the federal government, certainly not because of it. The United States has an abundance of conventional resources like coal, oil, and natural gas but also uranium for nuclear power. But the federal government prohibits resource development in many parts of the country, including off the coasts of America’s states. Opening access would give companies more opportunity to develop America’s energy resources, be they conventional or unconventional, such as wind or solar. When the government isn’t outright blocking energy extraction, it is virtually grinding it to a halt. As the report mentions, “On average, it currently takes the BLM Bureau of Land Management 227 days to approve or deny a permit to drill, while it takes states on average 33 days.” Over the last few years, federal environmental regulations have become increasingly overbearing, with little to no benefit to show for it. Regulatory agencies commonly underestimate or ignore costs, exaggerate environmental benefits, and push constitutional boundaries. A conservative energy agenda doesn’t mean freedom for businesses to pollute but recognizes that many of the federal government’s major environmental regulations are outdated and, increasingly, counterproductive—even to the point of stifling environmental improvements. For instance, a business may be reluctant to invest in a new technology or to upgrade a power plant to yield better environmental outcomes simply because of all the daunting regulatory obstacles to getting such a project underway. As the Ryan agenda discusses, proper reform would not only eliminate burdensome federal regulations but also empower states to regulate energy and environmental activities without federal interference. State and local governments, working with private individuals, respond better to the unique interests and concerns of their communities. One area of energy policy that deserves more discussion is federal interventionism by way of taxpayer-funded subsidies. Corporate welfare creates dependence on the taxpayer and reduces the incentive to innovate to be cost-competitive with other energy technologies. True economic reform should not pick winners and losers but instead allow natural market forces to drive technological development and prices absent government intervention. The federal government’s role should be limited to the basic functions of protecting property rights and enforcing the rule of law. As the Ryan economic agenda outlines on energy, policies that operate under economic freedom will expand access to energy, stimulate economic growth, and improve the environment. Eliminating cronyism must also be a staple of any energy policy reform.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-29 04:38:29.895

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Powell, Randall, Lonam

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Dulles AW

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+15

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Octas

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+La Canada Zhao Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPOCT - CP - States Update

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Greenhill