Former EPA official Benjamin Grumbles explains whether regulators are more prone to serving the public or the industry.

 

MSNBC TRANSCRIPT:

>>> well, one of the most important challenges, when it comes to energy in america is government oversight. can we trust the regulators to serve the public interests and not the profit interests of industry at the expense of public safety? my next guest was a regulator who in fact oversaw a critical ruling about natural gas drilling. it’s a technique called hydraulic fracture drilling, called frac for short. we’re joined by ben grumble, a former epa official, now president of the clean water america alliance. before we get too deep into natural gas, what can be done to restore the trust of the american people between or regulators, the people and industry.

>> transparency is a key part and making sure the public has easy access to the regulators to hold them accountable, make sure the relevant, timely, accurate information is part of the decision-making.

>> how much is the revolving door a problem? we see it with mms, and industry. is that an issue?

>> it’s absolutely an issue. it’s also a part of human nature, i guess, that when you become so involved in a matter and you have an expertise, when you leave the government job, there’s a tendency to want to stay in that general community.

>> let’s talk a bit about your work with hydraulic fracture drilling. to put this in context. we have natural gas out the wazoo. we can run these trucks on it, run cars, we can make electricity. we have it. there’s dpee bait about how to get it safely out of the ground. voufd in a ruling that was basically used, i want to read a quote from you. you say one single report, which we’ll get into, one single report shouldn’t be the basis for a perpetual neverending policy decision. it wasn’t met to be a bill of health saying, well, this practice is fine, exempted in all respect from any regulation. i’m sure that wasn’t the intent of the panel of experts and the epa never viewed it that way. what are you talking about there?

>> i’m talking about the use of science and data to see whether or not a practice — hydraulic fracturing, was presenting a risk to drinking water. the important point, dylan, is that the american public need to be able to convince the policy makers to connect the dots, the drops and the watts, and make sure that they’re connected. with the hydraulic fracturing, we did a report that indicated that based on the information we had there wasn’t a present threat to drinking water. that report was then criticized, but it was also used to justify a broader exemption from regulation, period. that’s a concern. that’s something that we need to keep an eye on, and constantly revisit the issue to have the science to make sure there are safeguards.

>> again, and we’re going to talk to boone pickens tomorrow, one of the greatest advocates of natural gas we have in this country. the president talks about it. i like to talk about it. i talked to john hennessey, president of stanford university, he likes to talk about it. does 9 skrints exist to frack quickly? is there a way to do it scientifically that’s safer than we do now?

>> the location makes a difference. haste makes waste. you need to be careful about it. the future for natural gas is bright. it’s getting us farther and farther away from oil and coal, but the water footprint is just as important as the carbon footprint. the technology is improving, buzz there’s a need for oversight and monitoring, because they are going to be some impacts on the landscape.

>> the point is it can be done if you invest the dollars, the time and the science to do it.

>> and track the results.

>> it’s been a pleasure. thank