After his electoral victory, President Donald J. Trump announced the formation of a “National Energy Council” that will coordinate energy and environment-related activities within the administration—though the specifics of when this may arrive and in what form are still unknown. This prompts two thoughts: First, this is going to make for very confusing acronyms since the “National Economic Council” has existed since 1993. Second, this new approach to energy and environmental policymaking is unlikely to change the overarching policy picture, but its creation may have some advantages for agenda implementation. This then begs the question of if this is worth doing.

Councils like this are not unusual, and their biggest value is an ability to communicate information coming from disparate agencies directly to the president and vice versa. This helps the president more easily implement broad agendas. The classic example of this comes from national security. The National Security Council (NSC) has existed since 1947 and is able to coordinate information and actions across 18 intelligence agencies, six military branches, and five governmental departments. The NSC largely simplifies the agenda setting of the president and the receipt of intelligence and analysis needed for decision-making. While the utility of the NSC is obvious, does the upcoming National Energy Council warrant such measures?

Read more from R Street Institute here.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.