I’m a big fan of the normal distribution. You know, the bell curve that gave us all such fits in statistics class. Increasingly, as I grow older and observe, I see many things that seem to fall under its classic shape—the relative favorability of a political figure, the strength of opinions on controversial issues, math class test scores, the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop.
Several months ago I attended a scoping session held by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Bridgeport, West Virginia, as part of the process for obtaining the certificate of convenience and necessity for Dominion Resources’ Atlantic Coast Pipeline project through West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. I did not have any particular opinion on the matter and attended primarily to educate myself on the process and on the details of this specific project. The comments were as you might imagine. I was struck, but not surprised, by the degree of polarization of the speakers. I suppose this is to be expected.
As I listened to the individuals who had registered to provide a five-minute monologue for FERC’s consideration, again my mind drifted to the bell curve. I believe my views tend toward the mean of the normal distribution. For a time, I worked in petroleum drilling and production, followed by many years of environmental assessment and remediation. Now I practice law and deal in statutes and case law.
I think I am reasonably objective on the issues of energy development and environmental protection. However, it occurred to me that the speakers in the scoping session represented the tails of the curve—those portions lying more than one standard deviation to each side of the mean. Most, whether pro or con, seemed to be in the two-standard-deviation area where about 13%-14% of the data points lie at each end of the curve, but a few made into the third standard deviation, where around 2.5% of the data points are found where the curve flattens out on each end. Then I thought about the meaty portion of the normal distribution, that which falls within one standard deviation of the mean. If I recall correctly, roughly 68% of data in a normal distribution fall within these boundaries. I thought to myself, “Where are the speakers in this portion of the curve? Surely their opinions must count as much as the others.”
Then it came to me. We allow the tails of the curve to drive the debate. Certainly special interest groups recognize and exploit this phenomenon. All issues then become matters of dollars and “cents,” but not dollars and “sense.” The special interests with the greatest treasury for influencing policy makers and weak-minded automatons win the day. We cannot allow this to continue when it comes to energy policy—the stakes are much too high.
The issues are complex for sure. But Americans, collectively, have an innate sense of what is right in spite of the lunatic fringe on both ends of the spectrum. It is time to tap into that. It’s time for reasonable debate about real risks and real rewards, and not rote recitation of talking points. Surely it’s possible to transport natural gas at a low level of risk and with reasonable impact to the environment. In this technological age, certainly construction and operation of a pipeline and its appurtenant facilities within environmental and safety constraints can be monitored and enforced appropriately, if they are indeed necessary for the public good. So we, the great standard deviation, need to become involved and make our combined voices force reason into the question of energy development and sustainability, lest we allow the tail(s) to wag the dog.
Lowe Law Solutions 