Commentary

A million possibilities and distractions are in the business environment. Tom Hall and Wally Bock, authors of the new book Ruthless Focus, say the companies that win in the long term are the ones that can drown out the background noise and keep dancing with the strategy that brought them to the party.

With climate legislation dead in the U.S., it is worthwhile to take a look at how discussions of energy and environmental policy ebb and flow in the country, generally without reaching serious resolution.

A key challenge for new leaders is to make a transition from actually doing the work to making sure that the work gets done. That takes a mind shift.

It’s been almost three years since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its decision vacating the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Revision Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. Since then, the utility industry has been in a holding pattern with respect to the control of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.

On November 8, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its decision in West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, et al. v. Huffman. It’s an opinion that should be of great interest to government agencies and others who find themselves in a position of seeking to remediate water quality problems left by third parties.

Republicans picked up more than enough seats during the mid-term elections to assume control of the House, but don’t expect any relief from the administration’s war on coal-fired power plants.

Energy is the most regulated sector of the American economy, making public-private partnerships essential to scaling the solar industry. Such partnerships have helped other energy sectors to reach scale over the past hundred years.

As the United States grapples with how best to address climate change and conservation—whether by taxing carbon, cap and trade, or setting higher renewable portfolio standards—an effective approach exists at the state level to reduce electricity producers’ carbon emissions: restructuring.

The smart grid, a truly disruptive business force, will require a new regulatory paradigm and new approaches to the electric utility business model.

The Scottish poet Robert Burns had it right. Using the power to see ourselves as we really are, and as others see us, is a key to leadership in business.

Sometimes we do things for the wrong reason . . . that turns out to be exactly right.

Biomass energy has been an up-and-down industry for decades. As public awareness grows, it inevitably influences new tax legislation and environmental regulations. Two recent events have made the climate for development of this renewable resource even more volatile.

Fannie Flagg’s fictional Aunt Elner Shimfissle reminds us of the power and the glory of electricity, a lesson we shall not forget.

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to select its approach for future regulations regarding coal ash storage later this year. One option would be to continue classifying the waste as nonhazardous and leave enforcement with the states. Another option—the worst case for the power industry—would be a determination that coal ash is a hazardous waste, which would result in increased federal oversight and lawsuits.

The U.S. electric utility sector is undergoing a transformation unparalleled in its history. Extraordinary challenges, driven by the urgency of climate change and other market forces, are compelling the industry to abandon its century-old business model of building large, fossil fuel plants to sell increasing amounts of electricity.

In recent months, two noteworthy letters have been sent to Congress by eminent scientists examining the merits—or demerits—of biofuels in the climate debate.

The age-old adage “water and electricity don’t mix” does not apply to 21st-century infrastructure planning. The two entities can no longer be viewed as separate commodities. The demands on both are intertwined, so solutions for meeting new and growing challenges associated with water scarcity and carbon regulations must also be integrated. Water is essential to […]

The enforcement mechanisms of the environmental statutes in the 1960s were both cumbersome and ineffective.

“Electricity use and gross national product [are] strongly correlated. The relationship…is so important that it should be considered in developing…energy and economic policies [which] seek to lower the real costs of electricity supply,” U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 1986

The plurality of regulatory proceedings originate with utilities seeking to improve their profitability. Profitability being part of the public interest, these submissions deserve our attention. But what if these filings are “framed” to divert our attention away from our public interest mission?

Water resources represent essential inputs into energy production while, at the same time, energy availability is a key factor in effective water resource use.

While the New Year officially begins Jan. 1, in my mind, the year really begins the day after Labor Day. That’s when Washington again takes up its never-ending, seldom-succeeding task of pushing the policy boulder up the hill.

When—not if—we pass climate legislation, we will put the U.S. on a path toward a low-carbon electric generation sector. As part of this shift, we’ll need more transmission, including lines to wind and solar power plants that are sometimes located far from today’s power grid. The question is: How do we plan for these new lines and how should we pay for them?

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.

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.

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