Could the recent boom in U.S. renewable energy go bust?

That's what a recent report warns might happen given the state of current policy. Without a national energy policy providing certainty for renewable sources like wind and solar, the nascent industries could go bust after a few strong years as beneficiaries of the Obama administration's $90-billion injection of stimulus, suggests the report, conducted by researchers at the Brookings Institution and the World Resources and Breakthrough Institutes.

Indeed, renewable-energy policy at the federal level is lagging. The wind industry's production tax credit is set to expire at year's end, and a popular grant program for all types of renewable energy expired last year. Cognizant of this, President Obama last week called on Congress to renew the wind industry's incentive and a manufacturing tax credit created as part of the stimulus. But lawmakers don't seem poised to tackle comprehensive policy providing long-term incentives for renewable energy anytime soon, and any action on temporary tax credits probably won't happen until year's end.

And another recent report by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way warns that without a national energy policy, the U.S. will lose any edge it has in the renewable-energy space to other countries like China and India that provide more stable federal support.

Is it too late to for certain parts of the renewable industry to recover from the repercussions of unstable federal policy? What should President Obama do right now to ensure renewable energy can survive after the one-time injection of stimulus money in 2009? What should Congress do in terms of long-term energy policy and both already-expired and soon-to-be expired tax incentives?

What role should biofuels fill in U.S. energy policy? And how would that role impact agricultural demands?

Farm legislation marked up by the Senate Agriculture Committee last month is now awaiting floor action in the upper chamber. That measure provides $800 million for rural energy programs, including loan guarantees and research and development incentives. That quick action by the committee has prompted a national debate over biofuels, including the role corn-based ethanol should have in the transportation sector. Last week Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack urged petroleum companies to increase how much ethanol they blend with gasoline to help reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

Should Congress provide more or less than $800 million in funding to rural energy programs? What considerations, including those of the environment, economy, and energy security, should policymakers keep in mind when crafting biofuels policy?

[Editor's note: Michael Bromwich, the first director of the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management and Regulation, is providing the question this week. Bromwich was the Obama administration's point person in response to the BP oil spill and now runs his own consulting firm, The Bromwich Group.]

It has been two years since the Deepwater Horizon tragedy that killed 11 people, injured many others, and led to a massive oil spill. These events stunned the nation, sent shock waves through the offshore oil and gas industry, and reverberated around the world.

The oil and gas industry and the U.S. government were forced to admit that the safeguards designed to prevent a deepwater blowout were not effective; that no one had prepared adequately for containing a subsea accident; and that tools for responding to a major oil spill had advanced little in the 20 years since the Exxon Valdez disaster. The risks associated with deepwater drilling had been badly underestimated; the regulatory regime badly needed to be bolstered; capabilities to contain a subsea accident needed to be developed; and spill response assets needed to be enhanced.

Tragedy and disaster frequently lead to reexamining accepted truths. Deepwater Horizon prompted responses from both the offshore industry and the U.S. government. Much has been accomplished¬--both by the private sector and the government¬--but the work is not done. Industry and the U.S. government must continue to take steps that move offshore safety forward and drive down the risks of offshore drilling.

Although people differ on the extent of progress made so far, everyone agrees that much remains to be done. My question for the week is: What should the private sector be doing--and what is currently being done--to reduce the risks of offshore drilling?

What is the right balance of federal and state regulation for natural-gas production?

The Environmental Protection Agency announced last week the first-ever federal air-emissions rules for hydraulic fracturing, an extraction process that's seen as essential for developing vast reserves of shale gas recently found all over the world but is controversial for its environmental impact. The Interior Department is expected to soon propose draft rules requiring companies drilling on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use in fracking. In addition, numerous states have already moved ahead, or are planning to move ahead, with their own laws regulating the booming natural-gas industry.

How can President Obama and Congress strike the right balance of federal rules? How can the federal government work with state and local officials to ensure adequate cooperation among all levels of government? What should the role of the states be? Is the federal government doing enough--or too much--to regulate natural gas?

What's your assessment of the EPA rules announced last week? How do they fit into the larger regulatory dynamic?

What should U.S. policy be on exporting fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, and refined oil products?

Refined petroleum products--such as diesel and oil--were the country's top export last year, according to Census Bureau data. Because of the recent natural-gas boom, companies are proposing nearly a dozen new terminals nationwide to boost exports--one up for approval this week at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The U.S. is also shipping more coal to other countries than ever, with exports reaching their highest levels in two decades, according to an AP analysis released last week.

What are the economic benefits of exporting these fossil fuels? What environmental and price concerns should the country consider? Should the Obama administration or Congress seek to block--or accelerate--any of these export trends?

Are EPA's clean-air rules putting an end to the coal industry?

That's what some congressional Republicans and coal-industry executives claim about the Environmental Protection Agency's numerous clean-air rules. Several regulations EPA has issued in the last three years, and most recently its greenhouse-gas rules for new power plants proposed last week, will make it more expensive to build new coal plants. Other recently finalized clean-air rules are also likely to make it more expensive to run existing coal plants, which right now account for nearly 50 percent of the nation's electricity.

EPA, some independent experts, and environmentalists maintain that the market is already shifting away from coal to natural gas, which is at near-record-low prices and emits fewer air pollutants than coal. Natural gas accounts for just a quarter of U.S. electricity.

Are EPA rules the reason the coal industry is declining? Or is natural gas and other market forces the cause? Is EPA doing enough to regulate pollution from coal-generated electricity? Should Congress or the Obama administration provide more money for promoting and researching clean-coal technology?

What effect will President Obama's climate-change rules have on the nation's economy, energy mix, and environment?

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed first-ever rules that will control power-plant emissions of greenhouse-gas emissions that most scientists agree is the chief cause of climate change. The rules require all new fossil-fuel power plants to meet a standard based on an efficient natural-gas plant. EPA faces court orders to propose rules for existing plants as well for greenhouse-gas emissions of oil and natural-gas refineries.

Did EPA strike the right balance in proposing these rules? What, if anything, should Congress do in reaction to these rules? What other factors should the agency consider as it moves forward with the other climate-change rule-makings that it will address?

Is President Obama's effort in the last several weeks to tout his administration's commitment to energy production and to streamline energy infrastructure all talk--or is it action, too?

Obama has been talking energy nonstop as gasoline prices continue to rise. The administration has noted that domestic energy production has gone up during his term and that more drilling in the Arctic and Alaska is planned for this summer. Last week, Obama issued an executive order requesting federal agencies to expedite energy infrastructure projects, such as roads, renewable-energy generation, transmission lines, and pipelines--specifically the southern part of the Keystone XL pipeline.

What do you make of Obama's singular focus on energy these past several weeks? What factors, including the economy and environment, should the administration consider when implementing Obama's executive order on energy infrastructure? What, if anything, should Congress do in reaction to everything Obama is doing?

Who--or what--is to blame for high gasoline prices? And what can be done to lower the prices?

President Obama says that Middle East unrest is the chief cause of high gas prices, which are averaging $3.82 across the country. His administration is employing what Obama describes as an "all-of-the-above" energy plan to gradually lessen the pain at the pump for Americans. He is also touting the record-high oil and natural gas production that has occurred on his watch.

Industry executives and other independent experts say that there are certain things Obama can do to lower gasoline prices and that he has been disingenuous by claiming some of the credit for higher oil and gas production.

What, if anything, can the federal government do to lower gasoline prices in the short term? What can Congress and the Obama administration do to wean the country off of oil so that the U.S. is less at the whim of markets and other factors? How will high gasoline prices factor into the 2012 election season?

Should the government subsidize different types of energy sources ranging from renewables to fossil fuels?

The Senate is expected to vote this week on a measure extending tax credits for the wind and solar industries and on a proposal to create tax incentives for natural-gas-powered trucks. Another measure would get rid of such subsidies. Meanwhile, the debate over whether oil and natural-gas companies should retain their tax breaks goes on.

What factors should lawmakers consider in granting tax incentives to various energy sources? What is at stake if Congress does not extend the production tax credit for the wind industry or similar tax incentives for the solar industry? What about incentives to promote natural-gas-powered trucks?

What other considerations should Washington consider with these tax incentive proposals, such as reducing the deficit and combating climate change?