Kate Jorquez is a freshman at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

One of the most annoying feelings in daily life is the feeling of being micromanaged. It can feel stifling, irritating, and frustrating. Often, people are less productive and poorly motivated when they feel micromanaged. Similarly, over-management by the federal government causes more harm than good in the energy sector. Instead, energy should be managed at a more local level.

While there are many different ways the government can interfere with the energy sector, it does so most often in the form of taxes, subsidies, and regulations. 

Subsidies give financial incentives, like grants or loans, to companies in ways that are typically meant to influence their actions. For example, the government might subsidize grants to solar panel manufacturers. Companies will take the grant money and spend it on solar panels, even when in cases where solar is less effective at generating reliable electricity than other methods. Subsidies can result in companies taking advantage of grants for things consumers don’t necessarily want or need and excessive government spending on projects when the money could be better allocated elsewhere. 

When it comes to energy, taxes can be applied broadly or very specifically. While both types of taxes have unique disadvantages, there are a few drawbacks that they have in common. When taxes are higher than businesses can tolerate, it can drive those businesses away from the United States and into more affordable countries, causing us to lose that contribution to our local economy. Hardworking Americans may also lose their jobs. Depending on the tax, it can be hard to enforce and ensure that the correct business pays the right amounts in taxes. Also, the cost of taxes on a business typically gets passed down to the consumer in the form of higher prices, making energy more and more expensive. 

When the government over-regulates the energy sector, it ends up stretching already strained government resources that could be better utilized in other areas. Regulations are often subject to influence by political agendas, making them less about improving the lives of American citizens and more about fulfilling political favors. Federal regulations cover vast spaces and many different environments. These wide-sweeping regulations tend to take a localized or specific problem and create regulations to fix it over a broad area. Then the unaffected places must comply with new mandates that may not be useful and can cause greater issues. Additionally, over-regulation slows down innovation and efficiency. Businesses can act much faster and more effectively with less regulation. 

Less is More

Texas is a prime example of what happens when businesses are subject to fewer regulations and are allowed more localized flexibility. 

Texas provides a clear alternative to large governmental micromanagement: an independent power grid. Rather than relying on a large national power grid, the majority of Texans get their electricity from a grid managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Less regulation and more private business control results in a more flexible and efficient energy market. A more localized approach allows for better flexibility in methods of production. 

It’s clear to see that when the federal government is overly involved in the energy market, it can cause more harm than good. Instead, we should create more flexibility and freedom to help the market thrive. This enables businesses to be more productive and less stifled by the government.