Commentary

There is an idea that has been around for a long time, at least since the fall of 1973: All that stands between the U.S. and an abundant energy future is a lack of spending on research and development. It is as though the Knights Templar could find the Holy Grail, if only the Pope would commit just a few more resources to the hunt.

The EPA, determined to regulate U.S. carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act, found that the low limits set by the Act for any “regulated pollutant” led to, in the EPA’s words, “absurd” results. Undeterred, the EPA developed the “Tailoring Rule,” which reinterprets the Act to apply to only larger emissions sources. Texas eloquently rejected the EPA’s legal gymnastics.

A proven solution for immediate and long-term job creation came from President Barack Obama and his administration earlier this year: investment in U.S. nuclear energy. Bulldozers in Georgia are already on the move and making preparations for expansion of a nuclear plant that has achieved several approvals, and long-awaited jobs in the skilled labor sector could materialize there within months.

The recently unveiled Kerry-Lieberman global climate warming bill is an exercise in triviality. By century’s end, reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% will only result in global temperatures being one-fifth of one degree Fahrenheit less than they would otherwise be. That is a scientifically meaningless reduction.

Cape Wind was a momentous clean energy victory, but if climate change advocates truly take the immense scale of the energy and climate challenge seriously, we must ensure that this is the last time that a new zero-carbon energy source faces such prolonged NIMBY opposition

A group of 14 international academics from a variety of fields, under the auspices of the London School of Economics and Politics, have produced a paper calling for a new approach to the failed Kyoto Protocol model for dealing with global warming, scrapping the notion of emissions reductions.

It is clear that energy use will expand in the future as our population and society’s standard of living increase. Meanwhile, the push toward a sustainable lifestyle requires that all resources be utilized efficiently and sparingly. The National Academy of Sciences has identified paradigm shifts from current processes to an ideal vision centered on renewable energy and an atom economy—defined as maximum incorporation of starting materials into final products. These seemingly disparate paths converge if one considers energy production from municipal solid waste (MSW).

An "emergency war supplemental" appropriation bill that Congress was considering at this writing has implications for the power industry: The measure includes $9 billion each for new loan guarantees for nuclear power and renewable energy projects.

I recently had the privilege of moderating the Power Industry Executive Roundtable, part of the annual ELECTRIC POWER Conference & Exhibition opening ceremonies. Usually, the power industry executives have predictable views of important issues, but not this year.

Now that U.S. utilities have taken federal stimulus funds and seamlessly built out two-way advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) connecting utility control centers and end users (ok, not completely, but let’s assume that the “stall-ulus” becomes a true stimulus), the question becomes, what’s next? At the moment, this new “comm layer” or “platform” has utilities planning in two directions: upstream and downstream from the smart meters.

The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill is a very important step forward in the climate debate. We need federal action on climate legislation now. And we need to get it right.

In recent months, U.S. utilities, manufacturers, and technology firms received $3.4 billion as part of the economic stimulus package. These funds have been allocated to help modernize the country’s electric power system and increase energy efficiency. However, as these "smart-grid" grants continue to be awarded, questions are being raised about how to safeguard smart meters and other critical infrastructure from cyber attacks.

The demand for "green" electricity — electricity produced from renewable sources like wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal, and biofuels — is at an all-time high in the U.S. Over the past decade, solar and wind capacity have increased dramatically due largely to mandatory renewable portfolio standards (RPS), which have now been adopted by 27 states.

The fear of losing electric power inspires thoughts about how vital electricity is to our lives. It is fundamental to modern living, and that’s entirely a good thing.

Wind power’s cost is hidden in subsidies; its value is overstated and based on false metrics that don’t account for reliability and dispatchability.

Some amount of NIMBYism should be expected when developing any new project. Good planning and actively engaging community leaders early and often will increase your success quotient.

The regulatory process functions well when citizens and regulators are fully engaged and knowledgeable about important issues. The regulator must also grapple with the ever-changing roles of consumers and utilities to optimize the value of the commodity to society.

During a recent meeting of state utility commissioners, the CEO of a Fortune 500 electric power company said natural gas prices promise reliability but "always break your heart." What breaks my heart is the electric power industry’s ongoing love affair with natural gas. Using natural gas for generating electricity is not the best or highest use for this clean, green, and domestically abundant resource.

A good default proposition regarding the government’s role in the economy would state that the government should not loan money to an enterprise if the enterprise in question cannot find one single market actor anywhere in the universe to loan said enterprise a single red cent. It might suggest—I don’t know—that the investment is rather … dubious.

In December 2009, representatives of nearly 200 governments met in Copenhagen, Denmark, to hammer out the details of a new climate change treaty. Treaty drafts indicated that industrialized countries would be required to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions—primarily carbon dioxide (CO2)—up to 80% by 2050. Developing countries would not be required to reduce emissions much, […]

Why did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drop the Cone of Silence around the good news about the continuing trend of improved air quality? The agency’s annual report of air quality trends was released in mid-March with barely a whisper. Even the major media outlets failed to report on the excellent results.

The U.S. Congress won’t pass anything that looks like a cap-and-trade or carbon tax approach to global warming anytime soon. What’s left? Adaptation, the low-tech, low-cost, slow-cooking, most-sensible policy approach.

Although hydro power in the U.S. is politically incorrect, even though it generates no greenhouse gases and is by far the largest renewable resource in the country’s generating mix, the rest of the world often has a more sanguine approach to using water to generate electricity. For example…

Offshore wind projects involve regulatory, technological, and economic challenges that are greater than those confronted by onshore wind projects. Overcoming these challenges will be necessary to permit offshore wind to achieve its full potential.

How do pharmacy product displays and regulatory conferences differ? A prominent regulatory thinker ponders the differences, and, ironically, the similarities.

Motivating workers can be simple and low-cost: Make your employees feel valued and important.

Data shenanigans and recent political developments in the U.S. suggest that the climate change frenzy is rapidly fading. Could the backlash also sink renewable energy portfolio standards?

In their February 10 “state of the industry” speech to the financial community, reprinted here with permission, Edison Electric Institute leaders summarized the challenges and opportunities in the year ahead.

Nuclear was such a target of the environmental movement that it embraced the “anything but nuclear” policy with abandon. Is the movement’s consideration of nuclear now a case of better late than never?

In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama made only a passing reference to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2545) passed by the House some months ago. “I’m eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate,” was President Obama’s acknowledgement that the House approach to controlling carbon in the U.S. faces an uncertain fate in the Senate. However, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) endangerment finding, released on the eve of the Copenhagen meetings last December could be the unnoticed uppercut that follows a weak congressional jab at controlling carbon.