Commentary

The commentary "No ‘Cash for Clunkers’ in Climate Bill" creates a fictitious history of climate change and seriously harms good faith efforts within the industry to address the legitimate issues many utilities have raised with the Waxman-Markey bill.

If the basic science related to man’s contribution to a warming planet is based on flawed fundamental science, a conscious circumventing of the peer review process, political expediency, and refusing to release the fundamental data used by a computer program that has yet to replicate actual ambient temperatures, then it’s time to pause, take a breath, and regroup.

As director of public policy analysis in my last seven years at Enron, I participated in many legislative and regulatory debates involving electricity, although the public policy thrust of the company was the opposite of what I believed. While I favored free markets, the business model of Ken Lay (a PhD economist with years of Washington regulatory experience) centered on special government favor. Enron, for example, had seven profit centers geared to government pricing/rationing of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. And in the 1990s, the company was squarely behind a Btu tax. Today, Enron would be pushing cap and trade.

The ongoing congressional debate over national health care policy, regardless of the outcome, has important implications for employers who today provide health benefits to their employees. Company management must pay close attention to Washington discussions of health care and to the implications for their companies of what is eventually adopted.

U.S. Democrats in the White House and Congress are in an unseemly race to get something, anything, enacted into law before the December climate gab fest in Copenhagen. But it’s a fools’ game and unlikely to succeed.

What’s to learn about regulation from Julia Child and Michael Pollan, gurus of the food world? Plenty, says Scott Hempling of the National Regulatory Research Institute.

Don’t let your fears of inadequacy limit your ability to succeed in your life and career.

If the planned expansion of nuclear power materializes, it will amplify demands on a nuclear fuel supply system that is only beginning to recover from decades of neglect.

Environmental researchers from Harvard and Tsinghua Universities released a new study, published as the cover story in the September 11 issue of Science, suggesting that China could meet its entire future electricity needs through wind power alone. Studies that focus on a single technology as the silver bullet that solves all of our energy problems often ignore the practical side of their solutions, leaving mistaken impressions in the public mind.

President Obama has set an ambitious goal of doubling renewable energy production in the U.S. within three years, which would spur the development of a clean-tech economy and address the challenge of climate change. There is just one problem: even if we achieve the president’s goal of producing more renewable energy, we have no way of actually delivering that energy to where it’s needed.

The Obama administration’s “new OSHA” has a simple message for U.S. industry. This message has been delivered loudly and clearly by both Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and Acting Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Jordan Barab. Their message: “There is a new sheriff in town.” And we all know what sheriffs do. They aggressively enforce the law. That is exactly what the new Occupational Safety and Health Administration intends to do.

For some time, the U.S. energy industry has feared the prospect of large-scale climate change litigation (CCL) that seeks to link emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to global warming. Thus far though, only a handful of such suits have been filed, and none has yielded any judgments against the energy industry. This begs the question of whether the energy industry can now stop worrying about CCL.

If what we have seen this spring and summer is global warming, my farm says “bring it on.” That sense that there is no climate crisis may present the Obama administration with a difficult choice between energy or health care legislation this fall in Congress. Energy legislation likely will fail.

The world’s war on carbon emissions isn’t going well. In just six months, the UN sponsored Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change will seek to launch a worldwide anti-carbon strategy with teeth. Billed by alarmists as “the last chance to save our planet,” all the signs are that Michael Jackson has a better chance of recording new material than Copenhagen has of delivering a meaningful international accord.

Congress should push for nuclear energy as a climate and energy solution—now.

There’s been a lot of attention on “cellulosic” ethanol, but that could be a nasty dead end, according to this analysis from a well-respected Washington environmental think tank.

The consumer, societal, and business benefits of grid moderniaztion are unclear, because the vast majority of grid-related stimulus funding appears destined to primarily expand, not cure, the ailing system we have today.

How many times have you heard it said: “If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we (you fill in the blank)?” On July 20 we commemorated the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong taking mankind’s first step on the moon and adding this unique point of comparison to our society’s lexicon. The only problem is that the analogy no longer is useful in today’s risk-adverse, technology-driven society.

By J. Wayne Leonard
A policy of allocating free allowances to hold down electric price increases, as some in our industry are advocating as part of climate change legislation, is well-intended but not the best choice for a cap-and-trade plan. An "auction and recycle" plan accomplishes the same goals yet is more consumer friendly.

By Dr. Richard W. Goodwin, PE
Of the 131 million tons of U.S. power plant waste or coal combustion by-products (CCBs), 36% are disposed of in landfills and 21% are disposed of in surface impoundments. Recent problems with surface impoundments and landfills have created a media furor and have prompted elected and appointed officials to demand more stringent regulatory control.

In the battle against climate change, most media attention has been paid to "cap-and-trade" schemes, under which countries set upper limits ("caps") on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and allow companies to sell ("trade") unused emissions rights to other firms. However, there is a second path to global warming salvation: Carbon offsets.

Most Americans simply don’t have clue about energy and environmental issues, according to a Zogby poll commissioned by the conservative Manhattan Institute.

Why Americans have tuned out global-warming hype, and why they are right to do so.

What does science teach us about how to test our ideas about the world around us? How do hypotheses differ from theory, and what does that distinction mean?

Does the House Republicans’ alternative to the Democratic energy plan—with the GOP’s proposal for 100 new nuclear plants in the next 20 years—pass the straight-faced test? Not even close, and the GOP knows it.

Since 1882, when Thomas Edison installed the world’s first central generating plant in New York City, utility business models have varied little from the basic one: cover costs and generate profit by selling more electricity. But today, unprecedented challenges are sweeping through the industry. Soon utilities will face yet another new challenge: the large-scale implementation of distributed solar power, which can result in lower electricity sales. As solar implementation further challenges business-as-usual models, what’s a forward-thinking utility to do?

It’s not easy writing energy legislation, as the experience of the past demonstrates. Nor are the results always in the public interest.

I was one of the scientists counted as supporting the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1996 report. It turns out that effort was bogus and intellectually dishonest.

A [state utility regulatory] commissioner asked recently, “By what metrics can I assess my commission’s performance?” That’s a tough question.

It’s not that the U.S. doesn’t have any energy policy, says this veteran of energy politics and head of a major Washington energy and environmental think tank. It’s that we have too many, and they aren’t coordinated and coherent.