A Current Challenge To The Engineering Professional: Government Regulations
Authors: Russell Donald G. 
Published: December 2007

There's no need to tell you that we operate in a different world today. It is an environment of increasing government involvement in all aspects of our business. It is an environment of increasing public interest, and, in some cases more than interest concern and suspicion - in the institutions and the companies that make up our industry. More than ever before, we operate in the limelight. That will not change.

It's very easy for us in the energy business, buried in the mass of FEA, OSHA, EPA and other regulations and with the prospect of a new batch of energy regulations, to think we are being picked on. But we really are part of a general phenomenon of regulatory "explosion." You can see from the Federal Register activity and costs cited in Figure 1, why the term "explosion" is appropriate. During the 60's, there was rather general acceptance of the view that government should and could deal with all social and economic problems. The resulting flood of laws — the Civil problems. The resulting flood of laws — the Civil Rights Act, Clear Air Act, Pension Reform Act, etc. -led inevitably to a tidal wave of regulatory mechanisms for pollution control, industrial health and safety, consumer product quality and safety, equal opportunity, housing discrimination — and now energy in all its phases from exploration through production, refining, phases from exploration through production, refining, transportation, marketing and end use.

At least part of this growth in "social" regulation, and I'll define that term in a moment, is relates to another "explosion" taking place. This might be called the "expectations" explosion.

Many have been led to believe that government can solve their problems and give them much more protection against the "ups" and "downs" of life. protection against the "ups" and "downs" of life. Witness the calls for consumer protection legislation purporting to provide total safety in all purporting to provide total safety in all transactions and consumptions; for medical protection -malpractice liability, safe and effective drugs, medicare-medicaid, proposed national health insurance; for truth in advertising and its ramifications -professionalism, truth in lending, accounting reports, etc.; for workplace insurance — equal employment opportunity, occupational safety and health, guaranteed retirement, disability and unemployment benefits, minimum annual wage; and in general, a call for government to remove as many risks as possible from all aspects of life.

Despite such a dismal introductory litany, let me now state that while many regulations and controls are counter productive, I believe that to call for their abolition, without putting forward alternative solutions to the real problems they're aimed at curing, is irresponsible. Such calls have no positive impact; more likely, they have a negative result and cost the maker, and the industry he is associated with, credibility.

Now, there is a discernible movement for some sort of regulatory reform. Some of the advocates of reform, in business as well as in government, pay such reform only lip service. However, there is no doubt about the growing resentment against excessive red tape and irritation at the costs of regulation. Reform and change, if they are to happen, must be broadly seen as needed and desirable and so this resentment and concern for costs is important.

Even should some successes in reform be achieved and more efficient alternatives be adapted, it is unlikely that the regulatory approach will fade away. Regulations, forms, and government data banks will be with us for a while.

But between the unreal yearning to do away with regulation and the continued proliferation which now threatens to engulf us — some changes, some rationalization, can be brought about. You can be a part of that process. part of that process.