There will be no panacea for the energy problems of the United States. There will be no silver bullets. There will discoveries, inventions, investments, creative thinking, and strategic thinking.

We are fortunate to have such large reserves of shale gas, tight gas, and other unconventional gas resources in the US. We are also fortunate to have very good neighbors like Canada who have helped resolve some of the energy problems of some of our regions with gas, but more importantly with oil. We should also shout a big "Thank You" and "Merci Beaucoup" to the Canadians. They are our closest allies, biggest trading partners, most important energy sources from the outside, and just a fine bunch of people who work very well with us. Now if only Americans knew more about Canada and Canadians things might improve even more so.

Coming back to our own unconventional gas reserves, which may be called conventional in the coming decades, we need to carefully consider out how to use these and how to apply them for the overall betterment of the people of the country. The energy industry has been seeing the importance of natural gas for some time. T. Boone Pickens is one of the most creative thinkers in that realm. We also have growing interest in the methanol industry and in other industries related to the by-products of natural gas.

Natural gas is also vital to our agricultural systems for the production of fertilizers, in the drying of some crops, and in the processing of other crops. Natural gas is important even to our textile industry given that it is a feedstock to some synthetic fibers. There are numerous industries that rely on natural gas and its by-products, much like many of our industries rely on oil in a sort of under-the-radar manner to most people.

Before any of our political leadership looks into intervening in natural gas markets they need to understand how intertwined our economy is with natural gas. It is more than something used to cook and create electricity. About 25% of our energy use is from natural gas in the US. However, much of that gas is used in industrial processes. The paper, glass, steel, brick and other important industries also rely on gas. Natural gas is also an important fuel for our pipeline systems. As natural gas become more prevalent and likely cheaper compared to alternative energy and feedstock sources, then natural gas will likely make inroads into other industrial, residential, commercial, and even transportation uses.

One of the key changes that will need to be made is in transportation fuels. It really is a no brainer to move to CNG for ground transport vehicles and even LNG for railroads and other very heavy transportation vehicles – and even cargo ships and tankers. Methanol, an offshoot of natural gas, is also a great fuel for transport. This industry is still in its beginning stages in many ways and we should keep an eye on its development. Natural gas can also be used to develop liquids fuels in gas-to-liquids (GTL) processes, such as those being used today in Qatar. Natural gas is a relatively simple chemical yet from it so much can be made and done.

Should Congress intervene in the development of the natural gas and related industries? Please don't. My guess is that the industry can do well on its own in the development of the fields and alternative, creative uses of natural gas. Where some help might be needed is in the investment-invention systems that could develop new transport vehicles that could use various forms of natural gas.

Can there be some meeting of the minds in some sort of consensus on fracking? Time will tell. Maybe a new way of getting the gas will be discovered and applied before the political leadership can decide what to do about this in the long run?

States and localities have already taken it on their own to put limitations or stop entirely the exploration and production of shale gas. That may be costly to them in the future. Other states, especially in the mountain states are going full throttle on shale gas and other unconventional sources.

Surely there are environmental issues to consider, especially with regard to how all of fracking will affect the more fragile water systems. However, if the energy companies can figure out a way to treat that water better and get it back to excellent shape then that issue goes away. Even better, if the gas companies could figure out a way to get the gas out without any or minimum damage to water tables then the code for shale gas will be cracked and our energy security future is looking real good.

Wyoming could be an important test case on how important these water issues could be. The problems with water tables cannot be dismissed, but neither can the future problems we could have with energy and economic security.

Let's try to find better and improved methods of getting the gas out and at the same time help secure our energy, economic and environmental futures. These are tough tradeoffs, but like the BP oil spill one big problem with fracking could put certain parts of this industry on hold in some areas and bring down the iron hand of regulation more so.

If the amounts of natural gas out there are even near what the USGS, some of the energy companies and expert geologists are telling us then natural gas could have a brilliant future. But if the actualities of the fracking situation are not resolved technologically, economically, socially and politically then that future might be dimmer then some might hope. Discoveries, inventions, investments, creative thinking, and strategic thinking could help resolve these complex tradeoffs or even nullify many parts of them. But these have to be done in a timely and proper ways at many levels.

While no single fuel or energy technology can be a panacea for the energy challenges facing the nation, natural gas clearly is poised to play an increasingly important role as part of an energy portfolio that enables the United States to achieve its economic, environmental and security goals. Other commenters have summarized this compelling case quite well, and even the few skeptical commenters do not deny that the supply outlook for natural gas has changed fundamentally.

Importantly, representatives of the natural gas value chain are not the only ones advocating increased utilization of natural gas. For instance, in the December 17, 2010, edition of The Wall Street Journal, Wayne Leonard, the CEO of Entergy Corp., authored an op ed that made the case for including natural gas among the fuels and energy technologies that would be eligible for compliance with a clean energy standard, if that were to be enacted by the Congress.

Natural gas can compete quite well across a wide range of end-use energy markets based on its inherent attributes. Still, these advantages can be negated substantially by energy policies that anoint winners among competing fuels, energy forms and technologies. Consequently, should the Congress see fit to enact a clean energy standard, natural gas should be among the fuels and technologies that electricity providers can use to satisfy the mandate. Any other result would artificially circumscribe the portion of the electric power generation market in which natural gas would be a competitive alternative.

The same can be said for other segments of the end-use energy market in which natural gas competes with other fuels and technologies. Natural gas does not need a “leg up”. It needs federal energy policies that treat all forms of energy that advance national energy policy goals in a like manner. At that point, the market can make an informed choice about the best energy solution.

America shouldn't go from being overly dependent on coal to being overly dependent on natural gas. We need a balanced, diverse portfolio of domestic energy sources to ensure abundant, affordable electricity for our nation, and reduce the risk of supply interruptions or fuel price volatility.

Over the past three years, natural gas has increased its share of the U.S. electricity market by 6% while wind's share has increased by 0.5% and coal's share has declined.

The Energy Information Administration currently forecasts similar dominance by gas in future decades, projecting that gas will make up fully 62%--nearly two-thirds--of all new electric power generating capacity added during the next 25 years.

Yet the benefits of diversifying our electricity supply by adding more wind generation are clear: wind uses virtually no water, and since wind uses zero fuel, its cost is immune to inflation once a wind farm is built, protecting consumers' pocketbooks.

Steady and cost-effective energy sources are critical to the growth and development of American business long-term. And wind delivers: for example, a Georgia Tech study just released finds the South could save $23 billion by 2030 by investing in renewable energy today, with wind the most competitive resource.

And, practically unique among leading energy sources, wind uses virtually no water.

As a former CEO of the American Clean Skies Foundation, I’m probably as familiar as anyone with the wonderful opportunity that gas from shale provides, but at the same time, we will need “all of the above” energy sources, and adding and increasing market share for renewables will help conserve and protect freshwater supplies for when we need them.

Utilities and regulators should put all energy resources on an equal footing by seeking bids for 20-year firm fixed-price power. Congress can ensure that by enacting a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), which would set loose the market forces to ensure a diverse portfolio of electricity sources that will remain relatively low-cost, long-term.

Does natural gas represent the answer to all questions surrounding America’s energy future? As a rifle-shot reply, probably not. But the very fact that a question like that is being asked in a forum like this suggests the landscape has changed dramatically, and for the better, since the days of antiquity (circa 2007) when everyone was certain we were running out of the stuff.

Thanks to the combination of two proven technologies (hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling) and the application of those technologies to tight formations deep underground, those folks look pretty silly today. According to an assessment released last year by the Potential Gas Committee, the United States could have as much as 3.22 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas potential within its borders – as much natural gas as Saudi Arabia has oil from an energy content perspective. Times two. EIA’s updated 2011 annual energy outlook paints a similar picture. Last year, the AEO suggested a future haul for shale of 347 trillion cubic feet. Twelve months later, that same report updated its shale estimates to 827 trillion cubic feet. But hey, what’s 500 trillion cubic feet among friends?

Of course, with greater supplies of natural gas come greater opportunities for economic growth – and a much more favorable climate for U.S. manufacturers that use natural gas both as a source of energy, and as an essential feedstock in just about everything they create. New supplies equal stable prices, and stable prices provide the certainty that companies need to plan for the future and hire lots of new workers to help get them there. And as an added benefit, new natural gas reserves will also have a positive effect on the development and deployment of renewable energy sources like wind, especially as low-cost, back-up means of generating baseload power during times of the day when the wind doesn’t blow and sun doesn’t shine.

Ultimately, the challenge of delivering a clean and affordable energy future for our kids and grandkids won’t be met overnight, and it won’t be achieved by the utilization of one energy source at the exclusion of all the others. Plainly put, we’ll need ‘em all – and lots of ‘em – if we have any interest at all in providing the next generation the same economic opportunities that were provided to us.

Here in Washington, D.C., we have been hearing a lot about congressional Democrats and Republicans “working together” recently – as evidenced by passage of the recent bipartisan tax extension legislation.

After taking stock of its bruising midterm election losses, Democrats insisted that it is possible to find some common ground with newly ascendant congressional Republicans. Meanwhile, those very same Republicans, mindful of appearing too partisan, have said the very same thing – there is some common ground; we just need to work on it.

As the president recently noted, natural gas is clearly one of those non-partisan, common ground issues on which both Democrats and Republicans should be able to come together. Indeed, there are a number of steps the administration and Congress can take to act on this critical issue. First, ensure continued access to our vast domestic natural gas resource base, especially the abundant shale gas that we are now producing. Continued, steady production from these shale plays is a key component not only in creating new jobs but also in helping to foster price stability, which will ensure this valuable domestic resource can continue to effectively meet the growing energy needs of our economy while reducing our dependence on foreign sources. Shale gas can be produced in a safe and benign manner with appropriate environmental safeguards.

Natural gas must also be a central part of any energy policy that the 112th Congress considers. If Congress moves forward on a renewable or clean electricity standard, natural gas should be included as a compliance option. And although discussions often turn toward the “smart grid,” our policymakers should pursue a “smart energy” grid that ensures the right fuel mix is in place to achieve the greatest emissions reductions and energy savings. At least for the foreseeable future, the fuel mix in such a “smart energy” approach will require the increased use of natural gas, especially its direct use in America’s homes and businesses.

Indeed, America’s natural gas utilities and their residential and commercial customers have long led the way in reducing carbon emissions. While the number of residential households using natural gas increased from 38 million in 1970 to nearly 65 million today — an increase of more than 70 percent — overall residential consumption over that time has remained essentially flat.

This decline in residential gas usage per household is due to better insulated homes, more efficient appliances and conservation/efficiency programs that are implemented by natural gas utilities. Future policies should take these facts into consideration when developing goals to increase the efficiency of buildings and appliances.

Natural gas contributes to America’s economy too, from the hundreds of thousands of jobs held by those who work for local utilities, to those who are responsible for finding it and bringing it to market, to those who ensure the infrastructure is in place to make it all happen. Overall, there are nearly 3 million Americans employed either directly or indirectly by the natural gas industry, to say nothing of the countless millions of manufacturing and service-related jobs that are dependent on reliable energy. Utilities also contribute significant revenue to local tax bases and provide historically solid dividend income to shareholders, who are often customers of the local utility in which they invest.

The time to act is now. We applaud the administration’s new focus on natural gas’ many attributes because we know that this clean, abundant, efficient, American fuel can make a real difference right now and for future generations to come. We hope that Congress and the administration can find common ground to ensure America accelerates the great progress we have already made thanks to the increased use of natural gas in this country.

I want to be clear from the beginning: The answer depends on the question. Is natural gas faster than a speeding bullet? More powerful than a locomotive? Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? The answer is maybe yes, maybe no.

It is true that the role natural gas could play in meeting our energy needs has undergone a careful re-examination and emerged as a key component in any forward looking scenario. Recently, the Energy Information Administration released its new view as to the supply of natural gas, more than doubling its estimate of the recoverable volume given some simple assumptions about extraction technologies and the solution to environmental worries. Given their baseline view, it would seem that natural gas is the way to go—not just as a “bridge” fuel, but as an integral part of our overall energy strategy. Whenever a knowledgeable, well recognized name says that the Marcellus play is so vast that they cannot even put a number to the amount of gas that’s available, we have to sit up and take note. The notion of “too big to estimate” means that gas needs to be viewed as more than just a stop-gap technology.

However, the volume of recoverable natural gas–no matter how large–is not infinite. We can’t just applaud the latest information and forget our long-term goals. We have a long-term mandate to develop a sustainable strategy that provides for our needs without backing us into a corner. It has been said that gas is a great partner to a lot of the renewable technologies, and indeed it is. But, gas really is being used as storage for a lot of our intermittent renewable resources. So, when the wind-farms and solar cells aren’t generating, gas is used to balance the generation capacity. Eventually, our gas resources will go the way of “bubbling crude”—gone. A true sustainable path will have strategies tied to the natural themes of our environment and capitalize on the wind blowing and the sun shining.

We need to continue to look at all of our opportunities. That natural gas is a key component of our strategy should be a given. But, can it become the sole super energy source for us forever? Probably not, because I’m sure there’s some kryptonite there somewhere.

Let’s set the record straight: Natural gas is neither “clean” nor good for the environment or public health. Yes, natural gas is better than its fossil fuel cousins, but being best in class doesn’t mean the class is something we should invest in.

As a public policy matter, the government should immediately end all “incentives” and subsidies to all fossil fuels, and certainly shouldn’t consider any new subsidies or tax write-offs. Period. We need to rapidly transition to renewable energy and energy efficient technologies if we are going to have a chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change and giving taxpayer dollars to the most profitable companies on the planet isn’t going to get us there.

Natural gas, or methane, is itself a potent greenhouse gas, 20 times stronger in its warming potential than carbon dioxide. According to the Energy Information Agency, the natural gas industry is responsible for 20% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and a full quarter of our methane emissions through leaks and releases of natural gas from wells to pipelines.[1] Before we drill another cubic foot of natural gas, we should at least plug the holes in the system.

The production of natural gas is as destructive as oil. You have to lay new roads, clear land and habitat, scrape well pads, send hundreds of heavy trucks back and forth during construction, lay hundreds of miles of new pipelines. Then there is the drilling operation itself, sending down toxic slurries of chemicals to fracture the geologic formation, sending up drilling muds along with toxic substances. Tremendous quantities of water are needed to support drilling, competing with municipal water supplies, as well as water in our rivers and streams for recreation and wildlife. Then there is the transport and disposal of drilling water, mud and other wastes.

The wild west attitude driving the current gas drilling frenzy in the northeast worried the state of Pennsylvania so much they conducted a sting operation, called FracNET, which during a 3-day enforcement blitz issued 669 citations to trucks hauling wasewater from shale drilling operations.[2]

The reality is there is no panacea to our energy problems. And obviously it will take time to wean ourselves off of dirty fossil fuels. Burning natural gas is better than coal and oil, but it is not the solution to our energy needs. We need policies that move us forward, not lock us into dependence on more fossil fuels.

[1] See http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/ng_faqs.asp#ng_emissions

[2] See http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/search_articles/14292 and http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/report_finalaug10.pdf

Natural gas can play a vital role in enhancing U.S. energy security, but a broad array of technologies and feedstocks are needed to fully reduce reliance on imported oil, meet national security needs, and jumpstart economic growth. There is no single answer; the U.S. must address these issues with a portfolio of domestic, stably priced, and low-carbon energy resources. Congress and the Obama administration should incentivize natural gas to the best of their ability, but should continue or increase support for renewable technologies that produce liquid transportation fuels as well.

Military and civilian aircraft, fighter jets, ships and tanks require liquid fuels and oils. Biofuels can replace petroleum in these applications, but the technology does not currently exist to allow natural gas to do so. We already have a liquid fuel infrastructure in place so it is more cost effective to develop advanced biofuels. And while natural gas can be used as a feedstock for chemicals, its volatility in price makes it less than ideal. Chemical platforms that convert biomass to intermediates and finished products offer a solution.

The U.S. chemical industry has been seeking a stably priced, abundant raw material resource for the chemicals in everyday products. The United States is a leader in biotechnology innovations that convert sugars and oils to chemicals and plastics. The United States also has the capacity to grow renewable agricultural feedstocks and the infrastructure for converting plastics and chemical intermediates to higher-value products. The U.S. chemical industry could, therefore, capture worldwide competitive advantage by using biomass.

Less than 4 percent of U.S chemical sales are bio-based today, but a recent USDA analysis puts the potential market share in excess of 20 percent by 2025. This projected growth could create or save tens of thousands of additional jobs in coming years. We’ve already seen U.S. biorefineries – such as NatureWorks, LLC and DuPont Tate & Lyle Bioproducts – expanding production to meet growing demand, creating jobs in the process. This available technology should be incentivized to grow in the United States in order to keep this production and the jobs here in the United States.

America’s newfound wealth of unconventional natural gas reserves presents a great opportunity to modernize the nation’s power generation infrastructure while significantly reducing carbon emissions.

In comparison with other forms of electric generation, natural gas-fired turbines are a highly efficient, flexible source of reliable electric power that can be constructed and installed in relatively short periods of time and require comparatively lower levels of capital investment. They also have outstanding operating flexibility, including the ability to power up and down in short periods of time, and can operate on a variety of fuels, including liquid fuels, crude petroleum products, syngases, and biofuels. Gas turbines can accommodate the variability of renewable energy and also will be a core component of cleaner coal power plants. In short, gas turbines will play a critical role in our nation’s long-term energy future. It is a mistake and undermines the integrity of the policy debate to refer to gas generation as a “bridge technology.”

Incentives for retiring older, less efficient coal facilities and expanding the deployment of advanced natural gas power generation technologies would help boost U.S. energy security by utilizing a plentiful and affordable domestic resource. Since natural gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal, increasing the proportion of natural gas fired generation would dramatically reduce carbon emissions while maintaining the reliability of the bulk power supply. Accelerating advanced gas turbine research, development and deployment offers a proven and effective means of jump-starting America’s transition to a new energy future.

GE is an American energy technology company with a global presence. We see the rest of the developed world – and key players in the developing world – moving faster on modernizing their energy systems. The vast majority of GE’s gas turbines manufactured in our facility in Greenville, South Carolina are destined for overseas markets. In fact, gas turbines are our nation’s largest clean energy export product. We can and should be installing more of those turbines here, and it reflects the lack of a stable national energy strategy that we are not. It is troubling – and indeed hampers our national competitiveness – that America is falling behind in the race to define and secure its long-term energy strategy.

Clearly, recent developments with shale gas supplies are a pillar of the case for expanding gas-fired generation. It is critical that we do what we can to preserve access to this important national resource while enhancing our ability to produce it safely and with minimal environmental consequence – particularly with respect to water supplies. The technology exists today to ensure that is the case, and we need to have supporting policies to secure our access to shale gas coupled with incentives to deploy technologies to protect the environment.

Natural gas is only part of the solution. New turbine technologies and expanded access to gas supplies may give America some breathing room but, without a credible national energy policy that leads to a balanced mix of power generation technologies, the U.S. power sector will remain plagued by uncertainty. Power generators and utilities won’t invest when they don’t know what the market and regulatory frameworks will look like.

While expanded deployment of natural gas power generation would be good for the country, it shouldn’t come at the expense of other advanced energy technologies. To supply America’s homes and factories with reliable, affordable energy with reduced environmental impact will require a broad portfolio of energy technology solutions, including advanced nuclear power with fuel recycling to turn “waste into watts,” coal gasification with carbon capture and storage to reduce the environmental impact of America’s most abundant fuel source, more renewable energy, smart grid technology to empower consumers and better integrate renewable sources, and greater expansion of the use of electric and hybrid-electric vehicles.

Natural gas is a great energy solution for America, but it is one of many. U.S. policy should encourage deployment of the full complement of next-generation energy technology options, including natural gas.

While not a panacea, natural gas is a critical part of the answer, keeping in mind that we will need all of our fuels to answer America’s energy challenge. We look at natural gas as that last piece of the puzzle -- fit it in and watch the separate pieces transform into a meaningful whole. The natural gas piece fits with our goals for cleaner air, growing jobs, and affordable, reliable domestic energy.

The facts speak for themselves in EIA’s latest outlook. EIA captured the growing importance of natural gas to electric generation and the economic realities of rising construction costs for nuclear and coal-fired plants, even as costs for building natural gas plants are projected to stay the same.

Government forecasts further reflect the continued upward arc of shale gas, which went from just a speck, to 14 percent of U.S. annual production in 2009, to a projected 45 percent by 2035. As long as the free market is allowed to send undistorted signals on natural gas production and delivery, incentives for its use are unnecessary.

As for hydraulic fracturing, it is an issue that merits our careful attention and commitment to better public outreach, but it is not a roadblock to increased use of natural gas. That’s because states already are heavily regulating this technology and are demanding their own transparency. That’s where the policy debate ought to take place, because each shale formation is different, requiring different fracking fluid mixes. A “one size fits all” federal approach would be counterproductive.

Fit the pieces of the puzzle together and the picture that emerges is not of a bridge fuel, it is a fuel that is sustainable for generations to come.

The short answer to this week’s question is simply, no. Natural gas cannot be the “silver bullet” solution to America’s energy concerns, because there is no single solution that will solve our energy needs. The fact is that no matter what energy policies our nation pursues, the U.S. will continue to use natural gas, and we must assure that its development is done in an environmentally safe manner.

And here’s the rub with natural gas: Though it is a cleaner burning fuel than coal – its extraction can and does pose threats to local air and water quality, wildlife habitats, and ecological values, if not done carefully.

For example, the web of roads, drilling pads, pipelines and other infrastructure needed to extract natural gas poses threats to wildlife habitat and surface water quality. Ozone-forming emissions from methane leakage and emissions from power equipment needed to produce natural gas have severely degraded local air quality in western communities. And the secretiveness of companies in shielding the public from information about the large volumes of toxic chemicals used to extract gas from deep deposits is undermining the public’s confidence that drilling is “safe”.

We believe that natural gas development needs to be “done right.” “Doing it right” means that our most ecologically sensitive lands are placed off-limits to development; wildlife and wildlife habitats are protected from degradation; the chemical compounds used in the extraction of natural gas are publicly disclosed; loopholes in federal laws protecting drinking water and surface water quality from natural gas extraction activities are closed; local air quality is protected from the ozone-forming emissions resulting from natural gas extraction and processing; the rights of local surface owners are protected; and regulatory agencies have sufficient personnel to enforce environmental and public safety laws.

Only when these issues are effectively addressed can natural gas be considered the “clean” and “safe” fuel its proponents tout.

Listen to energy companies, research firms, U.S. government agencies, and even President Obama and they will all tell you the same thing: Natural gas is, in fact, a solution to our nation’s growing energy needs.

This past week, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said in its preliminary Annual Energy Outlook 2011 that America has abundant supplies of natural gas—even more than it estimated just last year. Among the EIA findings, the U.S. has twice the projected recoverable natural gas as previous forecasts, prices will remain affordable and stable for at least the next 25 years and demand for clean natural gas is rising across all segments of the economy.

This means natural gas can provide energy on an even larger scale, fueling significant portions of the nation's power generation, industrial sector and transportation fleet for generations.

States are embracing the environmental and economic benefits of natural gas, too. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission recently approved a plan that will lead to substantially greater use of natural gas in power generation because of its favorable emissions portfolio. Revis James, an economist with the Electric Power Research Institute, said in a recent NPR interview that utilities in states like Colorado are finding natural gas increasingly appealing because it can be brought online quickly and provides a reliable backup to renewable power sources.

There is room for common ground in the practice of hydraulic fracturing. Much of the natural gas community has come together behind a plan to disclose chemicals used in fracking on a state-based registry, and the industry has worked with states on appropriate regulation. Fracking has been used for 60 years, on over a million wells with a proven track record for safety. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study that is currently underway will provide policymakers and the public with even greater reassurance of the safety of this longstanding practice.

People do not have to choose between jobs and economic opportunities, and their environment. Natural gas supported 2.8 million U.S. jobs in 2008. The EIA report revealed the impact natural gas can have on our nation's economy, environment and energy security. Without question it will take all fuels to power our country's growing needs. Equally true, it is time we as a nation embrace the full potential of natural gas to energize our continued progress in a clean and affordable way.

Irrational fears make up a considerable portion of the American Psychiatric Association’s Manual of Mental Disorders. It includes catoptrophobia (fear of mirrors), geliophobia (fear of laughter), and levophobia (bizarrely enough, a fear of things to the left side of the body). Unfounded fears are bad enough when they impair an individual’s ability to function in the real world and even worse when they obstruct entire sectors of our economy.

Today, America faces a growing threat to its economic recovery as propaganda-generated afflictions like “frackophobia” (fear of hydraulic fracturing in natural gas production) spread through the media and seeped into regulation and legislation. For example, “fear of fracking” has resulted in a de facto moratorium on gas drilling in New York State. Public officials ranging from city council members across Texas, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming to federal regulators in the Obama administration are currently considering new fracking regulations that threaten to bring the industry to a standstill.

As with other perceived risks, we should be careful to keep those associated with energy development in perspective. Though the U.S. natural gas industry has safely managed the hydraulic fracturing process for more than 50 years, environmental activists and alternative fuel lobbies have begun hyping its risks in recent months. Yet, there is not one verifiable instance of properly performed hydraulic fracturing causing direct harm to communities or individuals.

Opponents claim that fracking fluids frequently migrate into local water supplies. But of the nearly 100,000 natural gas wells drilled annually, water contamination occurs in only a handful of cases. In those rare instances, responsible companies have provided clean water and compensation to affected families. While the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are minor, those associated with stymieing natural gas production are major.

Natural gas production currently supports nearly 4 million jobs in the U.S. and adds $385 billion to our economy each year. Its growth potential is enormous, with large shale formations existing in virtually all regions of the country. A Penn State study estimates the Marcellus Shale gas reservoir could add $8 billion in economic value and 100,000 new jobs in Pennsylvania next year. Over the past two years, the 13,600 residents in Bradford County have enjoyed $300 million in lease bonuses and royalties—just one example suggesting the rewards from gas drilling far outweigh the risks. A recent study by this author for Broome County, New York found that shale gas drilling and production would pump $19 billion into the local economy over a ten year period while supporting 5600 much-needed jobs.

Production of every energy source involves some risks. In view of historically high unemployment and empty state coffers, regulators and legislators need to carefully weigh the economic benefits from natural gas development against the environmental risks that are typically exaggerated by drilling opponents.

Removing “frackophobia” from the lexicon of the energy policy debate is an imperative for assuring a robust future for the natural gas industry. This abundant domestic resource, if fully developed, can shrink our dependence on energy imports while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions because of its minimal carbon footprint. And America will be happier and more prosperous if we pay more attention to geliophobia and less to frackophobia.

In Washington, 2010 saw natural gas rise to the head of the class. Last month, President Obama noted that there was now "broad agreement that we’ve got terrific natural gas resources in this country." And several studies -- from MIT, Deutsche Bank, and the Congressional Research Service, among others -- suggested that America could easily put more of this resource to work generating electricity, leading to cleaner air and more jobs.

The Congress also began to get behind the promise of natural gas with wide support for legislation to boost the production of natural gas vehicles so as to reduce the country's unsustainable appetite for imported oil.

Why is natural gas winning such high marks? No other widely available domestic energy source can do so much so quickly to improve our health, our environment and our national security.

Our power grid is still burdened with old relatively inefficient coal plants, many of which pre-date the Eisenhower administration. These plants typically lack adequate pollution controls and foul the air with toxic emissions that are as dangerous for our lungs as they are for our environment. This year saw a growing consensus that we have more than enough natural gas to replace the dirtiest of these coal plants. In fact, earlier this month, to meet local air quality standards, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission showed the way forward by voting to shutter four coal-powered plants and replace them natural gas-powered facilities. The cost to consumers will be minimal.

The danger to our health from coal-generated power has been well documented. If the EPA stays on course with its current proposals for stricter pollution controls -- and we are not talking about CO2 here, but air toxics like mercury -- then, as in Colorado, the EPA’s actions will provide an important new driver for cleaner energy.

Gas and renewables (e.g. wind and solar) will both be winners. Natural gas is available when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.

Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, recently underscored this point at a renewable energy conference on Capitol Hill. There, Wellinghoff said that by "marrying the two together" -- natural gas and renewables -- the country " can ultimately create stable baseload resources that can provide for substantial amounts of our new energy needs. And our energy needs to replace aging coal plants that will be retired because of emissions ... and other requirements."

It also bears emphasis that, even without major policy changes, the country will still use more natural gas because, compared to other fuels, natural gas has become more affordable (and is likely to stay that way, thanks to new production from shale formations). Thus, as the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported last week, as compared to its 2010 forecast, the use of gas in electricity generation is likely to rise by 42 percent over the next two decades.

That's right - since 2009, the Department of Energy's statistical agency has concluded that its prior forecast of gas-fired power was off by some 40 percent! And this about-face doesn't even factor in the next wave of EPA pollution controls discussed above.

Looking back, therefore, one might well say that 2010 was the year that natural gas came into its own in Washington. In 2011, there is good reason to believe that White House and congressional policy will adjust accordingly.

There is no doubt that natural gas reserves have increased substantially which is why government financial incentives or mandates that would drive markets to use more natural gas should not be considered. If natural gas prices provide value-added advantages, more volume will be consumed in markets like power generation and transportation without government intrusion.

Consumers benefit from competition. If natural gas has cost advantages with renewable, coal and nuclear energy, it will surely pick up market share and help keep electricity prices low. Low electricity prices are essential for the U.S. manufacturing sector to compete globally. Likewise, if natural gas can compete with gasoline, diesel and electricity as a transportation fuel, this is a good thing for consumers.

Importantly, policy makers need reminded that a home owner, farmer or manufacturer that uses natural gas - do not have an economic alternative while the power generation and transportation markets do. Higher relative natural gas demand, driven by financial incentives to increase market share or incentives to shut down older coal fired power plants, risk increasing demand and price ahead of the supply curve. Plus, higher natural gas prices would mean higher electricity prices – both would negatively impact all consumers.

Lastly, it is not enough to know that natural gas reserves have increased. The key question is at what delivered price to the consumer can the industry supply those reserves. This is an important unknown and another reason that policy makers should not get ahead of themselves by providing incentives or mandates that increase natural gas demand.

There is no panacea to America’s energy problems. Thinking that there is will lead to wrong-headed policy choices. Natural gas has an important role to play in meeting our nation’s energy needs for decades to come but our energy problems are broader.

A few years ago, all the best energy minds had concluded that natural gas production here and in eastern Canada had peaked and our needs for natural gas would be met by imports of LNG. That picture has completely changed because of advances in technology that allow shale gas to be produced at a cost that will make it competitive. The rapid and radical change in the outlook for natural gas should be a lesson in humility when it comes to forecasting our energy future.

Rhetoric and regulatory zeal not facts have made “fracking” controversial. This is a technique that has been proven to be effective and safe. While there may be a need for improved standards and regulatory oversight as the use of “fracking” is expanded, there is no need to strangle its use with overzealous regulation. As in most oil and gas exploration issues, standards and practices should be tough but economically realistic.

The transition from coal to natural gas can be accelerated by accelerated depreciation rules, clarity in utility emission regulations--for example moving forward with a CAIR like rule, and streamlining the permitting and new source review process. Those would provide strong incentives that do not involve subsidies or mandates.

Gas can be more than a bridge for electric power generation because of its abundance and cleaner burning characteristics. But, our energy needs in the decades ahead, according to EIA and other analyses, will have to be met by all of the energy that we can effectively and efficiently produce. If the cost of clean coal technology and coal liquefaction can be reduced, coal can continue to play an important role in meeting our energy needs.

The cost of capital and regulatory red-tape keep nuclear from making a greater contribution than it currently does. Advances in smaller reactor economics and standardization hold much promise in reducing the cost of nuclear power generation. There are also more promising options to financing than loan guarantees which lead to moral hazard. One of these options is the investment bank model that is used by the International Monetary Fund.

Power generation will become increasingly important as our economy continues to move to become more of a service economy. Taking actions to ensure adequacy, low cost, and a reliable infrastructure should be a major priority for Congress and the Administration.

Finally, there is the issue of gas as a transportation fuel because of its lower greenhouse gas emissions. There may be a role for gas for centrally fueled heavy duty vehicles but the market not Washington should determine that. There are technology improvements in the internal combustion engine that could produce a 40% improvement in efficiency--miles per gallon. Those are not free but probably are less expensive than outcomes dictated from Congress or EPA.

History has demonstrated unequivocally that the government has a dismal record in forcing technology and in picking winners in the commercial market place. Instead of plowing the same fallow ground, let’s hope that the new Congress and the Obama Administration learn the lessons of the past and go in a different direction on natural gas and energy policy.