Amy Harder

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 e

(These comments were submitted by Brooke Coleman, Executive Director of the Advanced Ethanol Council.)

Researchers at Brookings, World Resources and Breakthrough are right to call out unstable federal policy as the cause of the boom and bust cycles that plague the renewable energy industry. And the enactment of long-term, predictable energy policy is clearly the solution. The question is, how do we get there?

It is clear that the perpetual debate about the efficacy (or not) of grants, production and investment tax credits, and performance standards is not working. In fact, our industry is playing into the hands of incumbents, who fuel this never ending debate to keep the Congressional hatchets focused on our government support and not theirs. This is a game

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?

(These comments were submitted by Howard A. Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center.)

The Senate Agriculture Committee wisely redirected funding to the Farm Bill’s Energy Title, which has strong bipartisan support. These clean energy programs provide a new source of income for farmers and rural small businesses, create rural jobs and enhance economic development, and produce environmental quality benefits for everyone.

The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), in particular, is a success story. It crosses agricultural sectors and provides value in every state. REAP's competitive cost-share grants have helped support a broad range of 8,000 wind, solar, biogas and energy efficiency projects in rural communities. Sin

(These comments were submitted by Mark M. Palmer, senior director at Van Ness Feldman.)

As our nation’s energy needs continue increasing, Congress has the opportunity to legislate meaningful policies through the 2012 Farm Bill to help pave the way toward energy independence. Currently, Congress is considering the 2012 Farm Bill, and it should take a closer look at increasing Energy Title funding. As our addiction to foreign sources of petroleum increases, we need more NOT less of a commitment to sustain our current biofuels industry, but also continue growing it by ushering in second, third, and forth generation biofuels.

In 2002, Congress passed sweeping farm legislation that included the first ever Energy Title. Programs in that legis

(These comments were submitted by Nick Loris, energy policy analyst for The Heritage Foundation.)

Mr. Bromwich deserves credit for asking the right question: What can the private sector do to reduce the risks of offshore drilling? His question not only frames the debate well, it also reveals an implicit recognition that government regulations and involvement are not the only means available (and can be counterproductive) to address this issue. The private sector has an integral role to play.

It’s first important to recognize that the private sector has developed a rigorous culture of safety and continues to improve upon that culture because the industry knows an accident like the BP oil spill will jeopardize production of the entire industry. Additionally, one of the important takeaways from chapter 4 of the President’s oil spill commission report was that the BP oil spill was not a systemic problem but rather a sequence of missteps that led to the blowout. Even so, we can further improve upon culture of safety by fixing the broken oil spil

(These comments were submitted by two Center for American Progress experts: Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy; and Kiley Kroh, Associate Director for Ocean Communications.)

In the two years since the Gulf of Mexico was left drowning in BP’s spilled oil, we have failed to capitalize on the imperative to act created by this eye-opening tragedy. The Obama administration largely did its part, using a temporary moratorium on offshore drilling to completely overhaul the structure of offshore drilling regulation. The 112th Congress, on the other hand, has done nothing. And the industry has done little more than complain about the unfair hardship it has faced while raking in record profits—the top five oil companies pocketed more than $137 billion in 2011. It’s time to use some of those profits to put teeth behind the “never again” mantra repeated ad nauseam in the spring and summer of 2010.

The oil and gas industry took the necessary yet insufficient step of establishing a new Center for Offshore Safety, but

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? H

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?

(These comments were submitted by Bill Cooper President of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas.)

The United States already has a national policy in place on natural gas exports. Expanding our presence in the global LNG market will create new American jobs, boost our economy, enhance the nation’s energy security, and generate higher tax revenues for local, state and federal governments. Accessing that new market will also require the construction of LNG export facilities -- projects that will themselves create many construction and manufacturing jobs.

This opportunity is made possible by an energy transformation that’s taking place in our country. Discoveries of shale gas have revolutionized the scale and future of America's natural gas supply. In

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 admi

(These comments were submitted by Kevin Crapsey, Vice President of Corporate Strategy & Development at Eco Power Solutions.)

Coal provides half of America’s power, so rumors of its death are premature. I expect coal to be a big part of our nation’s energy mix for years to come. But there is no reason that we shouldn’t meet the EPA’s regulations, which finally apply the environmental cost of coal-fired power to the price of electricity. With innovative technologies like multi-pollutant emissions control systems, we can keep the lights on while making coal clean.

Unlike traditional scrubber or flue gas desulfurization technologies that address pollutants individually, multi-pollutant emissions control technologies address CO2, mercury, particulate matter, SOx and NOx in an all-in-one solution. Addressing multiple pollutants in this manner reduces installation costs and minimizes the amount of space needed.

Unlike carbon capture and sequestration, multi-pollutant emissions control technologies are available on the market to

(These comments were submitted by Evan Tracey, Senior Vice President for Communications at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity).

Recently-imposed EPA regulations are dramatically hurting the coal industry – but more importantly, they’re hurting American families and businesses. Through their new rules and regulations, one after the next, the EPA is driving up energy prices and destroying jobs.

An analysis last year for ACCCE by the National Economic Research Associates (NERA) found that the EPA’s Utility MACT rule and other EPA regulations could destroy an average of 183,000 jobs every year from 2012- 2020 and increase electricity and other energy prices by $170 billion. The NERA analysis also found that the average American househo

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?

(These comments were submitted by Kevin Crapsey, Vice President of Corporate Strategy & Development for Eco Power Solutions.)

The recent EPA announcement that tightens carbon emissions on new power plants and ignores current power plants serves as a reverse incentive if the goal is to reduce overall carbon emissions. Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity, raised the issue that when we grandfather old plants and raise standards on new ones, we increase the incentive to keep existing facilities around.

In that situation, we’re not really reducing our carbon

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?

(These comments were submitted by Nicole Steele, Program Manager of policy and research at the Alliance to Save Energy.)

Congress should support President Obama's continuing efforts to enhance our energy infrastructure. Although a recent AP study shows there is no correlation between domestic drilling and rising gas prices, focusing on making the production, transmission, and distribution of energy more efficient nationwide will ultimately create a stronger economy by increasing the productivity of every unit of energy used. Not only will improving this infrastructure boost our energy productivity - but it will also create jobs, make the U.S. more secure, and reduce pollution caused by wasteful energy usage. These improvements could include using more efficient fuel

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?

(These comments were submitted by Peter Gardett, managing editor of AOL Energy.)

It is patently obvious that high gas prices at the pump right now are not Obama’s “fault” – there are a couple of totally untenable actions (like chopping taxes on gasoline or releasing more oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) that he could propose or take, but even allowing all the drilling the industry pushes for wouldn’t necessarily have saved the US consumer from wincing when they fill up their cars this week.

Unpack the argument a little bit, and the part of gas prices that is contributing most to the rise is oil prices. The way oil prices are determined and fed into gas prices is mind-bendingly complex, but has also so far been a system that, to mis-quote Churchill on democracy is "the worst system, except for all the others."

Rising oil prices reflect international politics, shifting storage expectations, the state of the US dollar, demand from China (now the largest consumer of Saudi Arabian oil, in case you thoug

(These comments were submitted by Roland Hwang, the Transportation Program Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.)

Every year when gas prices rise, politicians and pundits like to play the blame game.

Experts say we can blame unrest in the Middle East and increasing global demand for driving up the price of oil, not lack of domestic drilling.

What we can do to bring drivers relief at the pump is to provide more choices: more fuel-efficient cars, more clean fuel options, and more alternatives to driving. Doing so can provide drivers relief from high fuel bills, while tackling the r

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?

((These comments were submitted by Thomas P. Kimbis, Vice President of the Solar Energy Industries Association.)

For more than a century, the federal government has supported the development and efficient use of domestic energy, recognizing that energy powers America's economy. Among several worthy policies under consideration of extension by Congress this week is the 1603 Treasury Program, which has helped the solar industry create jobs across America while leveraging millions of dollars of private investment toward a public goal.

This nation is blessed with an abundance of diverse, domestic natural sources of energy that have provided jobs for millions of citizens and made America the strongest nation on earth. Today, we face some hard choices during tough economic times. It is important that today, more than ever, we choose as a nation to support our energy industry, for it is energy that will power the businesses of today and tomorrow and pull us back on our feet.

Over many decades, the federal government has chosen to invest in

What are the broader implications of new legislation that creates a national clean-energy standard?

Retiring Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., introduced a measure last week that requires utilities to generate an increasing amount of the country's electricity through the use of renewable energy such as wind and solar power. It also calls for the use of other relatively clean and carbon-neutral sources, like natural gas, nuclear power and even "clean coal" technology, to capture carbon emissions from dirty coal-burning power plants. The so-called carbon capture and sequestration technology is not yet commercially viable but has been shown in a handful of demonstration projects to significantly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from coal-fired plants.

Bingaman's bill is unlikely to gain any traction in a Congress focused mostly on election-year politics. But Bingaman says he wants his measure--which is expected to be the last major

(These comments were submitted by Marchant Wentworth, Deputy Legislative Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy Program.)

Chairman Bingaman has turned a proposal by President Obama into legislation that is a welcome step toward moving the U.S. away from its reliance on coal and toward renewable and other low carbon energy. Chairman Bingaman has been the Senate’s stalwart champion for a clean energy future. He is to be commended for forging this new approach.

“Unfortunately, special interests may use this occasion to accelerate baseless claims about the economic impact of energy mandates. Study after study has shown that dramatically increasing our use of renewable energy like wind, solar, geothermal and biomass

(These comments were submitted by Richard Caperton, director of clean energy investment at the Center for American Progress.)

In today’s challenging economic times, clean energy continues to be a success story. In 2011, the United States once again led the world in clean energy investments. In 2012, more than 85,000 people work in the wind industry. And the Brookings Institution found that the renewable energy jobs grew at more than 10 percent annually from 2003 to 2010.

While these numbers are notable, they’re nowhere near as impressive as they could be if there were a national policy to create stable demand for wind, solar, and other forms of renewable electricity. Senator Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012, S. 2146, would create the policy stability that’s needed to increase investment in this critical industry. A clean energy standard would provide a long-term signal to utilities, project developers, manufacturers, and everyone else in this industry that they should invest in clean energy – which

What's at stake for climate change in the legal fight over the Obama administration's power to regulate carbon emissions?

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments over four major lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change. Legal and environmental experts say these lawsuits are the most significant climate change cases to be argued since the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that EPA has the right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The court is expected to rule on those lawsuits as early as June.

Washington is also grappling with another, more politicized climate-change debate: Recently-leaked memos from the Heartland Institute indicate that the conservative organization has plans to educate students on purported doubts about the science showing that the planet is warming and human activity is a major cause. Water and climate scientist Peter Gleick admitted he lied to obtain the Heartland documents. Gleick's a

(These comments were submitted by Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a former lawyer at the Justice Department.)

The National Journal asks what’s at stake for “climate change” in the legal fight over the Obama administration’s power to regulate carbon emissions. But the real question is what’s at stake for the future of American industry, manufacturing, energy production, and agriculture.

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit hears oral arguments over lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, it is important to keep in mind that the supposed link between such emissions and so-called global warming is not an established scientific fact. There is great dissension in the scientific community. The predictions of the theory and the models have been invalidated by an increasingly broad and robust set of empirical observations, compelling the conclusion that the theory and the models are wrong.

The lawsu

Is the regulatory approval of two new reactors a sign the nuclear power industry is poised for its renaissance after more than 30 years of stagnation?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week approved a license for two new reactors at Southern Company's Vogtle plant in Georgia. NRC hadn't issued a license for a new reactor since 1978, just a year before the Three Mile Island accident, when a cooling malfunction caused part of a reactor core to melt and release radioactive gases around Harrisburg, Pa. With NRC's stamp of approval, Southern Company is now primed to receive an $8.3 billion loan guarantee the Energy Department conditionally awarded it almost exactly two years ago. Meanwhile, Congress, the administration, and the nuclear power industry are still grappling with what to do with waste, since Yucca Mountain, the repository site in Nevada, is no longer an option.

Will this approval pave the way for companies to build other nuclear reactors? Or will other obstacles, such as low natural-gas prices, stricter regulations post-Fukushima, and persistent nuclear-waste

What's driving investments and development of America's energy sources ranging from fossil fuels to renewables?

President Obama's State of the Union address has prompted a debate around what policies and market incentives are driving companies to invest in certain energy sources over others. Obama is touting record-high domestic production of oil and natural gas under his watch and has recommitted to doubling down on renewable energy by opening up more public lands to wind and solar projects. He also called for Congress to renew expiring clean-energy tax credits. Some experts say, though, that less government regulation and "red tape" is needed to spur more energy production.

What role does the Obama administration and Congress have in driving energy development? How do federal policies interact with the market to influence energy production? What specific policies--if any--should Washington enact to help spur certain kinds of energy production?

(These comments were submitted by Bill Midcap, director of the Renewable Energy Center at the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union.)

Farmers and ranchers in the West live and thrive when a careful balance is reached and when we can adapt to change – in the weather, in our resources and on our land. President Obama and our leaders in Congress should take this same approach with our energy policy.

For the past decade, there has been a shift in our energy resources. Renewable energy industries like wind and solar have not only grown exponentially, but new technology has made them increasingly affordable. More and more people see a path away from fossil fuels, which use tremendous amounts of water and are subject to market vagaries.

Water is considered a

What's ahead for energy and environment issues in the wake of President Obama's State of the Union address last week?

Obama's speech paid significant attention to energy and environmental protection. "This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy," he said. Here's a brief rundown:

The president touted vast domestic reserves of shale natural gas and said his administration would work to develop the plentiful energy safely and promote its use. He said he would direct the Interior Department to tap into more than 75 percent of the country's offshore oil and gas resources (referring to an Interior plan already announced).

Obama reiterated his call for Congress to pass a clean-energy standard, a proposal that Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., plans to introduce within weeks. Amid political attacks over Solyndra, the solar manufacturer that defaulted on its $535 million federal loan guarantee, Obama doubled down and said America could not concede the clean-energy race to

(These comments were submitted by Kevin Massy, assistant director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution.)

It is an odd proposition: a single government department that in 2010 consumed more oil than Nigeria and more electricity than Ireland as an environmental champion. But that might just be what is happening with the United States Department of Defense (DoD), the subject of what President Obama hailed as “one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history” in his State of the Union speech last week.

The unlikely rise of DoD as green standard-bearer comes as the two former tribunes of clean energy have faded away. The first was the concept of energy security: the generations-old appeal to reduce dependence on oil imp

Was President Obama right or wrong to reject the Keystone XL pipeline?

Last week, President Obama denied approval of a permit to build the pipeline, which as proposed would have sent oil from Alberta, Canada's tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries. Obama said the "arbitrary" deadline set by congressional Republicans was not enough time to complete a review of the proposal for an alternate route that would not go through an ecologically sensitive area in Nebraska. TransCanada, the Canadian company seeking to build the pipeline, immediately said it would apply for another permit.

Is there a future for the Keystone XL pipeline once TransCanada seeks a new permit? What kind of repercussions will Obama's decision have on the domestic and global oil industries? Will the rejection help the country become less dependent on oil and more committed to renewable energy sources like wind and solar? What does this augur for congressional efforts to enact meaningful energy and environ

(These comments were submitted by Kim Huynh, Federal Dirty Fuels Campaigner at Friends of the Earth.)

Last week, President Obama showed bold leadership in rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. In an iconic battle of David versus Goliath, the climate movement took on one of the most moneyed and access-rich industries on Earth, Big Oil, and won— demonstrating its burgeoning strength.

But let’s make no mistake—President Obama didn’t make this decision because he wanted to. Public interest groups’ work to shine a light on a corrupted State Department review process and sustained grassroots pressure aimed at holding the president accountable to the people forced President Obama’s intervention and, ultimately, his rejection of the

What are the challenges and opportunities ahead for natural gas?

The recent revolution involving shale natural gas in the United States has sparked debate on a range of issues: the environmental and safety concerns surrounding hydraulic fracturing--the controversial extraction method that's critical to accessing shale gas; how gas should be used within the country; and whether gas should be exported to countries where prices are high compared to domestic prices, which are at record lows.

Recent developments on these issues underscore the importance of the natural-gas industry. More and more states are enacting laws that require companies to disclose the ingredients and concentrations of the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing. The Energy Department is already approving the first natural-gas exports, and several other applications are pending before it. Mean

(These comments are by Rich Kolodziej, president of NGVAmerica.)

Of all the energy challenges facing the U.S., the one that has been the most historically intractable has been our continued dependence on foreign oil.

From 2008 to 2010, the United States spent almost $700 billion on imported petroleum—an expenditure that some expect will increase to $3.3 trillion dollars over the course of the next decade, if left unchecked.

Along with exporting this money, we are also exporting American jobs. Meanwhile, the domestic natural gas resource base is huge, and production keeps increasing. In fact, production is so great and prices so low, that there are now plans to export America’s natural gas.

Since natural gas is an excellent

What are the economic and political effects of high oil prices throughout 2012? That's the question on people's minds inside the Beltway and throughout the country as oil prices rise amid uncertainty about Iran and other factors that affect the cost of oil. Prices at the pump will inevitably rise along with oil prices. Although it is uncertain what, if any, major changes will result because of the situation in Iran or events in other major oil-producing countries, experts say that just the threat of instability is enough to spike oil prices. How could high oil prices--and the resulting high gasoline prices--influence the priorities for Congress and the administration this year? How could the volatility affect the 2012 elections? Washington seems to have the same debate whenever prices at the pump rise. Will this time be any different?

What energy and environment issues should President Obama and Congress focus on this year?

The politics of the presidential and congressional races will likely overshadow policymaking on Capitol Hill, but that doesn't mean energy and environment policies will be absent. Several big issues are coming down the pike: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., has said he will introduce a clean-energy standard this year. Congress could address expiring renewable-energy tax credits early in the year. EPA is on track to issue first-ever national standards for greenhouse-gas emissions. And if all goes as planned for Shell, the oil company could begin drilling in the Arctic Ocean as soon as this summer.

What policies should Congress focus on this year? What, if any, new policies should Obama try to push as he fights to keep his job? What issues, such as the Keystone XL pipeline and EPA, could become flash points during the election season? Will Washington be able to accomplish anything on energy and environment issues this year as most of the po

(These comments were submitted by Rob Mosher, Director of Government Relations at the Alliance to Save Energy.)

While today’s economic and political challenges make it increasingly difficult to advance national energy policy, energy efficiency – the quickest, cheapest, cleanest way to tackle growing energy demand – should be the first fuel of the future.

Bipartisan, affordable energy efficiency initiatives save money, lessen dependence on imported energy sources, reduce pollution and improve America’s global competitiveness. That’s because no one is in favor of wasting energy, and the cheapest fuel will always be the energy that we do not use.

Without the numerous energy efficiency improvements made since 1973, the Uni

What are the economic, health and political significance of President Obama's mercury standards for power plants?

EPA announced this week the first-ever national standards for mercury and other toxic air pollution from power plants. The regulations will require electric utilities throughout the country to install technology to control the pollution. Many power plants already comply with the rule, but others--namely older, coal-fired plants--will face challenges complying within the three-year timeline required by the Clean Air Act.

EPA said the rules will slash 90 percent of mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants and in turn save 11,000 premature deaths, according to its draft rule announced in March. EPA said then that the rule will cost almost $10 billion a year and have annual health benefits between $90 billion.

What are the factors that EPA should consider when implementing the rule? What are the longer term implications of this rule in terms of both public health and the economy? What, if anything, should Congre

(These comments were submitted by Trip Van Noppen, President of Earthjustice)

Coal-fired power plants are the quintessential bad neighbor. Every year, they release far more toxic air pollution than any other industry—and yet they've never been held accountable for the damage those poisons are doing to people who live in the shadow of their smokestacks.

For more than two decades, the powerful coal power industry has managed through ferocious lobbying to defeat the safeguards we need for mercury, arsenic and other toxic air pollutants. Meanwhile, countless other industries have cleaned up their acts and come into compliance with the law—using existing technologies to be better neighbors.

But today that is finally cha

What's at stake for EPA, clean-energy initiatives, and other energy issues like the Keystone XL pipeline during this week's spending debate?

Congress must approve legislation by Friday to keep the government running. One of the most hotly contested issues is whether or not any spending measure should include a provision that would require President Obama to immediately approve the Keystone pipeline, which if built would send 700,000 barrels of oil sands from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Other controversial issues include whether EPA's clean-air rules should be eliminated or delayed and whether renewable-energy tax incentives should be extended.

What factors should influence lawmakers' and the administration's ultimate agreement about what makes the cut in a spending bill--and what doesn't? What does this policy of negotiating via spending bills mean for Washington's ability (or lack thereof) to negotiate policy? How can Washington simultaneously balance deficit cutting, job creation, environmental protection, and clean energy? Or should one issue be prioritized before anoth

(These comments were submitted by Gary C. Hufbauer, the Reginald Jones Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former international tax expert in the Nixon and Ford administrations.)

By postponing passage of a critical spending bill until the last possible moment, Congress has once again opened itself to hasty “fixes” that bring lasting trouble. Calls to pay for pet projects by raising taxes on major corporations, if enacted, will undercut the ability of US firms to drive American growth and create new jobs.

The United States is already less friendly to business than other countries. The U.S. imposes the second highest corporate tax rate among OECD countries, behind only Japan. And unlike nearly every other gove

Should Congress renew tax credits for renewable energy and ethanol? Several clean-energy tax credits will expire at year's end if Congress does not renew them for at least one more year. A Treasury Department grant program for renewable energy such as solar power is set to expire, as well as tax credits for the ethanol industry. A key production tax credit for renewable energy--especially wind power--expires next year unless Congress renews it. Legislation introduced in the Senate would add a new tax credit for natural gas-powered trucks. Should Congress renew some or all of these tax provisions? What factors, such as the deficit and job creation, should influence lawmakers' decisions on this? How will this debate affect the broader discussion over the federal government's role in developing nascent clean-energy technologies?

(These comments were submitted by Tom Simchak, Senior Associate of Policy & Research at the Alliance to Save Energy.)

An often overlooked, but critically important part of national energy policy, energy efficiency is the most cost-effective, clean, and secure way to address growing demand for energy. While many energy efficiency improvements pay for themselves (that is, consumers save more on energy costs than they paid for the efficiency improvement), the up-front cost of implementation remains the primary barrier to most energy efficiency upgrades. That’s where tax incentives for consumers and manufacturers play an important part. Yet nearly all of the federal tax incentives for energy efficiency are set to expire at the end of this year.

What should negotiators seek to accomplish during this year's international climate talks?

The United Nations' annual climate change conference takes place for the next two weeks in Durban, South Africa. The United States comes mostly empty-handed to the talks: Congress has no plans to pass legislation that prices carbon pollution, and EPA regulations controlling greenhouse gas emissions are stalled. The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, with no sign of a new treaty to replace it. Negotiators from other countries say there's no way a deal can be reached without action from the U.S. Meanwhile, newly released hacked e-mails have reignited skepticism among U.S. Republicans about climate change science.

In the face of those challenges, what is possible at this year's summit? What are the prospects, in the coming years, for any kind of new global, legally binding climate change treaty? What should be the top priorities for negotiators in Durban? What's the future of the U.N. climate change process? Can it--should it--continue without prospects fo

(These comments were submitted by Rebecca Chacko, Senior Director of Climate Policy at Conservation International.)

“It always seems impossible, until it’s done”—this is the motto adopted by NGOs like my own here in Durban. It seems fitting, both for the circumstances we face and for the fact that it is a quote of national hero here in South Africa, Nelson Mandela.

Prospects may seem dim, but much is still possible before the conference ends late next week. A second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol is not dead-on-arrival and we haven’t given up yet. Developing countries are still working hard to secure legally-binding emissions reductions targets for developed countries that extend beyond 20

As Washington seeks to slash the federal deficit and Solyndra continues to dominate the headlines, is America's clean-energy industry facing a crisis moment?

One report released earlier this month by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way finds that venture capital investments in clean-energy technology are, indeed, facing a "crisis." Solyndra's demise has raised concerns in both parties about the important role the government plays in developing America's clean-energy technologies. But Washington's laser-focus on cutting the federal deficit is drowning out most other concerns right now.

What's contributing to the struggles facing America's renewable-energy industries like solar and wind? What can this Congress and administration do to ensure the sectors don't face even bigger challenges in the years ahead? How do these challenges affect, if at all, the traditional fossil-fuel and nuclear-power industries?

Was President Obama right or wrong to delay the Keystone XL oil pipeline?

The State Department announced last week that it would take at least another 18 months to consider other routes for the pipeline, which if approved would send 700,000 barrels of oil from Canada's oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries. The decision comes after opponents of the pipeline, including Nebraska political leaders and residents, galvanized an environmental grassroots movement against the project, in large part because the proposed route would cross over Nebraska's biggest aquifer. This delay punts the final decision on the pipeline until after the 2012 election.

What factors should influence the Obama administration's consideration of new routes? Does this delay effectively kill the pipeline? What does this move say about Obama's energy and environmental policies more generally?

(These comments were submitted by John Engler, President of the Business Roundtable.)

When the State Department announced its delay of the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline last week, a decision affirmed by President Obama, many of project’s supporters wondered, “Aren’t jobs supposed to be a national priority?”

The project’s delay into 2013 (or beyond) puts 20,000 new high-wage U.S. jobs in construction, engineering and other pipeline-related fields on the sidelines. It also postpones the flow of an estimated $5 billion in new property taxes to state and local governments along the pipeline route – revenues that could help pay for the teacher and police jobs so often stressed by national political

When considered collectively, what effect will the Obama administration's clean-air rules have on the economy, public health, and the environment?

Washington's debate over the Environmental Protection Agency's rules is never-ending and polarizing. That's because the rules are so integral to the entire country's environmental and economic well-being. Throughout this fall, House Republicans have passed bills that would roll back several major EPA rules recently finalized or slated to be finalized soon. The Senate may vote on a measure this week that would nullify a recently adopted regulation, called the "good neighbor" rule, that requires utility companies in 27 states to reduce air pollutants like sulfur dioxide that cause air-quality problems in nearby states. The debate over EPA will heat up as the agency issues draft rules aimed at slashing carbon pollution from power plants and oil refineries later this year and early next year.

Has EPA struck the right balance in rolling out its clean-air regulations? How can the agency ensure it addresses the environmental and publi

(These comments were submitted by Ann Weeks, Senior Counsel, Clean Air Task Force.)

Hats off to those of our colleagues who already have submitted postings pointing out that EPA’s air toxics and interstate transport rules, when implemented, will have significant human health and environmental benefits. EPA’s assessment is that for the air toxics rules alone, the benefits will exceed the costs thirteen times over, per year, once the rules are implemented. The EPA-calculated benefits significantly underestimate the true value of the rules, because EPA doesn’t have the means to monetize improvements to ecosystems, wildlife, mammals, and the recreational fishing industry that we know will accrue just from the mercury and acid deposition reduct

(These comments were submitted by Dan Yates, CEO of Opower, an energy efficiency technology company.)

Americans have benefited from the Environmental Protection Agency’s 40-year effort to make our water safer to drink and our air safer to breathe.

But upcoming EPA regulations intended to reduce air pollution have ignited a heated debate in Washington.

While I do not agree with those who have called the EPA a “job-killing machine,” I do think there ought to be more flexible paths made available for electrical utilities to comply with regulations – particularly when it comes to energy efficiency.

The “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” is one of th

(These comments were submitted by Susan Dudley, who served as administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from 2007 to 2009 during the George W. Bush administration. She now directs the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center.)

The United States has made tremendous progress in improving air quality over the last few decades. According to EPA data, concentrations of major air pollutants have declined by between 30 percent (ozone) to 93 percent (lead) since 1980. Regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as well as increased demand for environmental quality

What energy and environment policies are at stake in the deficit debates now dominating Washington?

The congressional super committee is trying to come up with a package by Thanksgiving that trims the federal deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. While the 12-member bipartisan committee's negotiations are being kept under a tight lid, possible targets for cuts range from oil and gas tax breaks to Environmental Protection Agency programs.

What impact do you anticipate the super committee's proposal could have on energy and environment issues? What policies should the committee look to cut--and protect? What policies, if any, do you think Congress should bolster funds for? How has the political and policy landscape changed since we asked about the spending debate in July?

(These comments were submitted by Brian M. Johnson, Senior Tax Advisor at the American Petroleum Institute.)

We’ve all heard the stories; friends, neighbors, relatives, American’s out of work. With each passing day, the government continues to struggle with ways to bring down the national debt and concerns continue to grow about our energy security as every economic recovery takes fuel to run the engine back to growth and sustainability. What if there was a straight-forward way to tackle these concerns? Well, there is, and America’s oil and natural gas industry can help answer our nation’s challenges.

The Super Committee has a great opportunity to utilize America’s oil and natural gas industry to help contribute to our economic recovery. Unfortunately, while this industry is in a position to help, many have proposed a false solution – raising taxes. Increasing taxes on America’s oil and natural gas industry, one that supports over 9 million job and contributes more money to the Treasury than any other industry ($8

Is the United States losing to countries like China in the global race to develop clean-energy technologies?

One top House Republican, Cliff Stearns of Florida, suggested that America has already lost. He told NPR earlier this month, "We can't compete with China to make solar panels and wind turbines." Last week, a coalition of U.S.-based solar manufacturers filed official complaints with the Obama administration and the International Trade Commission alleging that China is illegally subsidizing renewable-energy products and effectively gutting America's solar-energy industry.

The downfall of Solyndra, the federally backed solar manufacturer that is now at the heart of an FBI investigation and a congressional probe led by Stearns, has thrust to the forefront a debate over America's place in the global clean-energy race. Energy analysts say Solyndra's photovoltaic solar panels, which did not use silicon, could not compete with cheap silicon panels from China.

Is Stearns right when he says the United States can't compete with China on wind and solar technologies? What

(These comments were submitted by Gordon Brinser, president of SolarWorld Industries America Inc., headquartered in Hillsboro, Oregon.)

America’s solar manufacturing industry should be one of the economy’s bright spots. The U.S. booming solar business is one of the few growth markets in the current economy, yet America’s solar manufacturers have faced unwarranted plant closures and job reductions in recent years. So what lies at the heart of this disconnect?

China.

The answer is clear: China is cheating on global trade rules. China’s state-sponsored solar industry is receiving massive illegal subsidies and is illegally dumping crystalline silic

(These comments were submitted by Nils Andreassen, Managing Director at the Institute of the North.)

When I think of the U.S. being prepared for change in the Arctic, I think of strong economies, a healthy environment, vibrant communities and thriving cultures. In this way, Alaska – America’s Arctic – can be a model for sustainable development in a changing environment.

If we’re looking at an Alaskan approach to responding to change in the Arctic, resiliency and sustainable development are terms that must be defined by Alaskans. To do that, we have to have a seat at the table and a plan when we get there. The plan should take into account the national interest and reflect our position in the global economy; Alaska’s approach should be informed, intentional and responsive.

Governor Hickel always said that development must respond to people, people’s needs and the environment. I would suggest that this is a formula for resiliency in the Arctic and for responding to the increasing change – and corresponding acti

What environmental, economic, and political factors should the Obama administration consider as it decides whether to approve a controversial pipeline project that would transport Canadian crude oil to the United States?

The State Department has said it will decide by the end of this year whether the 1,700-mile, $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline project is in the national interest. If it moves forward, it could eventually bring 700,000 barrels of tar-sands oil daily from Canada to Texas.

In recent weeks, the State Department held a series of public hearings on the project in states where the pipeline would cross and finally in Washington, D.C., to help evaluate whether the pipeline is in the country's interest. Some Congressional Democrats and environmental groups say recently released e-mails suggest an overly friendly relationship between a key State Department official and a lobbyist for TransCanada, the company seeking to build the pipeline. Critics say the e-mails cast doubt on the State Department's neutrality.

How should the administration address concerns abou

Should the Obama administration green light drilling in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska's coast?

Shell Oil is inching closer to completing a lengthy regulatory process with both state and federal agencies to drill exploratory wells in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas off Alaska's north coast. The company could begin drilling as soon as next summer.

What factors should the administration consider when deciding whether to give Shell final approval to search for oil in the Arctic? What lessons have the United States learned from the BP oil spill that could inform its decision on Arctic drilling? What, if anything, should Congress do to influence the process?

(These comments were submitted by Margaret Williams, Managing Director of WWF-US’s Arctic Field Program.)

If a major oil spill happened in the Arctic today, it would be impossible to clean it up much of the time, and research indicates that a clean-up would not be possible 44 to 84 per cent of the short Arctic drilling season. For the remaining seven or eight months of the year, during the ice-covered winter, no spill cleanup would be possible given environmental conditions such as winds, waves, temperature, visibility and daylight. This is not the first

(These comments were submitted by Susan Murray, Senior Director, Oceana's Pacific Office.)

In our national quest to quench our oil addiction, we are seeking out riskier places to search for oil and gas. The ice choked waters offshore in the US Arctic are at the top of that list, and we stand on the brink of opening the flood gate to corporate giants to exploit these remote and unforgiving seas.

While there has been significant investment to figure out whether or not there likely are oil reserves in the offshore Arctic, there has been relatively little investment in science to understand how this ocean functions. We know it is home to such iconic species as polar bears, walrus and beluga whales. We know the bounty of the Arctic seas supports the s

How should the Obama administration and Congress promote different sources of energy ranging from renewables to fossil fuels?

The failure of solar manufacturer Solyndra has triggered a debate in Washington over what role the federal government should play in promoting innovative--but risky--renewable energies. The company's downfall has triggered scrutiny of a host of other types of government incentives, including nuclear-power loan guarantees, tax credits to renewable energy companies, and tax breaks to oil firms.

What lessons from Solyndra can Washington policymakers apply to government support for energy production? Should a distinction be made between the types of support the government gives to nascent industries like solar and wind, and more established sectors like oil and nuclear? And how much risk should the government be willing to take with taxpayer dollars?

(These comments were submitted by George Biltz, Corporate Vice President of The Dow Chemical Company and Vice President, Energy & Climate Change.)

As the run-up in gasoline prices earlier this year demonstrated, the growth of the U.S. economy depends on affordable energy. So does our manufacturing base, which converts energy into products that consumers rely on, create added value for the economy and in many cases also save energy. Without the Administration and Congress coming to consensus on an effective energy policy, the U.S. economy will struggle to grow and create jobs.

Dow’s long-held belief is that national energy policy should increase, diversify and optimize domestic production of all forms of energy while at the same time accelerating energy efficiency and lower-carbon alternatives. This approach will allow us to diversify our energy mix, grow American manufacturing, make the U.S. more competitive globally and put us on a path to slow, stop and ultimately reverse greenhouse gas emissions. To get there, we believe government has a le

What do Solyndra's failures mean for renewable energy writ large?

Over the last several weeks, the federally backed solar company has filed for bankruptcy, laid off 1,100 workers, and became the target of a FBI investigation. Solyndra's downward spiral has triggered a political firestorm in Washington over President Obama's jobs agenda, the federal government's ability to back energy projects, and whether the renewable energy industry is all that Obama promised it would be.

Should Solyndra's woes warrant a deeper look at the Energy Department's ability to finance renewable energy? How does global competition--namely from China -affect the ability of renewable energy companies like Solyndra to succeed? Should the government stop funding renewable energy altogether?

(These comments were submitted by Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy)

Solyndra was a gamble on a promising new technology that didn't pay off. It's the kind of failure you have to expect in innovative technology markets.

Ironically, Solyndra failed because of conventional silicon-based solar's amazing success. Silicon-based solar has come down 70% in cost in the past couple of years--and prices continue to fall. Solyndra was caught selling $2/Watt solar panels in a market where silicon panels are rapidly approaching $1/Watt.

And don't blame China for Solyndra's inability to compete. Chinese subsidies account for roughly a 10% cost advantage over other non-Chinese silicon modules. That doesn't explain the 100% gap between Solyndra's costs and today's market price. The explanation is that silicon prices have dropped dramatically making silicon-based solar far more affordable.

Thanks to rapidly declining costs, solar is one of the fastest growing industries in the US today and employs over 100,000 Americans. As costs continue to come

Can energy and environmental initiatives fit into President Obama's jobs plan?

In his address to Congress last week, Obama announced a $447 billion proposal to put Americans back to work immediately, and he implored the House and Senate to pass it right away. He didn't mention clean-energy jobs once, but observers reading between the lines see areas where the sector could gain, including creating an infrastructure bank and retrofitting schools to become more energy efficient.

What role can energy and environment policies play in jump-starting the economy? Is the nascent renewable-energy sector growing fast enough to make green jobs a realistic policy option right now? What policies did Obama leave out that should be included in his plan?

(These comments were submitted by Jackie Roberts, Director of Sustainable Technologies in the Environmental Defense Fund’s National Climate Campaign.)

The President’s response to the call for jobs now is necessarily focused on short-term triggers. But, we must simultaneously seed the jobs for the next two to five years, or we will just keep putting ourselves back into the same hole. These so-called “medium term jobs” must come from growth sectors in the global economy where the U.S. has skills and ideas to offer. To me, the most promising of those sectors are health care and clean energy & resource management.

It is in the latter area that the U.S. needs to, as David Brooks recently described, “set the table” with policies that create customers for the many small to large businesses that are striving to participate in this new sector. In our survey of clean energy businesses, 73% are small businesses with less than 50 e

(These comments were submitted by Michael H. Schwartz, CEO of New Wave Energy Capital Partners, LLC.)

The President in his address to the Congress put forward proposals that would funnel funding to public infrastructure (such as roads, bridges and airports), create consumer demand and promote private-sector job creation. The same burning platform for economic revitalization has also created a window of opportunity for the US to establish a foundation for sustainably propelling private sector investment in fossil and renewable energy. Focused initiatives in these areas can be linked with comprehensive federal energy policies initiatives in the next Congress, but we should not wait for all the political “stars to align” in order to make progress. Now is the time to act.

For three decades we have failed to take full advantage of the entrepreneurship, project management competencies, capital and technology strengths of American companies to achieve the economic revitalization that would inevitably be associated with achieving credible goals for i

(These comments were submitted by Brigham McCown, who served as the first Acting Administrator of the Dept. of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).)

What can the Obama administration do to reduce unemployment by Election Day 2012? Looks as if they already have a plan.

President Obama wants to utilize speedy infrastructure permitting as a means of spurring timely job growth and will continue to promote “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects as a way of promoting economic recovery. When the President does so, he should highlight the Keystone XL pipeline project—another infrastructure project that would not only help to create thousands of jobs while simultaneously reducing our reliance on imported oil from the Mideast.

The $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline project would in fact open the door to thousands of new, well-paying American jobs. It would do so directly by creating new jobs devoted to construction and maintenance of the pipeline, and indirectly by creating new opportunities i

Was President Obama right or wrong to withdraw the Environmental Protection Agency's smog standard?

Last week, Obama announced he was withdrawing EPA's re-proposal of the George W. Bush-era ground-level ozone standard until at least 2013 when the agency will regularly review it. While underscoring his commitment to EPA's efforts to clean up the air, he said: "Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered."

What implications does this have for the economy and the country's air quality? How does this affect Obama's commitment to other EPA rules, such as those controlling mercury and greenhouse gas emissions from power plants?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Obama have said that when the Senate returns to Washington in September they want to focus on creating clean-energy jobs. The pronouncement comes as a major new Brookings Institution report finds that new "clean-tech" segments of the economy are producing "explosive job gains" - now employing several hundred thousand workers -- and are growing much faster than the economy as a whole. What are Washington's biggest obstacles in moving the country toward a green economy? What policies (such as tax incentives for electric vehicles or the creation of a clean-energy development bank) would help create jobs while also increasing clean-energy usage? Is it possible for Washington to create green jobs in the current budget-cutting environment? Or should the federal government step aside and let the free market determine the future of clean-energy jobs?

(These comments were submitted by Brian Sager, founder of Nanosolar, manufacturer of solar panels and cells.)

The path forward for commercialization of a new clean technology is often a tale of two colliding risk cultures. Early in the research and development cycle of a new and promising technology, product development is often fueled by highly effective R&D accelerators, including research grants from various agencies of the Federal government, angel investor funding, and highly technology savvy early-stage venture capital. In contrast, as a technology matures, and nears its commercialization potential, the cost of production is often prohibitive for even the largest of private equity firms, and strategic customers may wait to ensure product bankabilit

(These comments were submitted by Rick Melberth, Director of Regulatory Policy OMB Watch.)

Like most corporate complaints opposing environmental, health, safety, and consumer protections, Blanche Lincoln's attack on EPA regulations is based on myth. First, to read her criticism of EPA, one would think there are no benefits to the congressionally mandated or court-ordered rules EPA pursues. The ozone rule alone has substantial benefits that outweigh its costs, including the prevention of death and illness. Moreover, evidence shows that EPA's environmental regulations have significant health, saf

(These comments were submitted by Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen.)

There are many reasons why the U.S. economy is doing poorly. A Wall Street-induced housing bubble popped. Wealth and income inequality has skyrocketed. The United States is running chronic trade deficits. Healthcare costs have spiraled out of control. Corporations are stacking up profits yet not putting people to work.

Yes, there are many reasons why the U.S. economy is doing poorly – but the regulatory system is not among them.

In fact, it is regulatory failures – above all, the failure to regulate Wall Street – that led to the current economic crisis.

In this context, it is fanciful to say that America should delay issuanc

(These comments were submitted by Rena Steinzor, President of the Center for Progressive Reform and professor at the University of Maryland School of Law.)

Is preventing 6000 to 12000 deaths each year really that important? What about preventing more than 2 million lost school days for children sickened by air pollution, and some 420,000 lost days of work? Those, after all, some of the many estimated benefits of pending revised ozone NAAQS standards. But Blanche Lincoln calls them a “relatively small benefit.”

We’ve seen this technique over and over again this year: hype up cost estimates, and stifle discussion of the benefits. In

Do President Obama's vehicle fuel-economy standards strike the right balance? Last week, the White House announced a deal with the nation's automakers to ramp up the standards 65 percent by 2025, from the current 35.5 miles per gallon to 54.5 mpg. The proposal calls for a 5 percent average annual increase in fuel economy for cars and a 3.5 percent annual increase for light trucks through 2021. After 2021, both cars and trucks would face a 5 percent annual increase. The administration would also review the standards in 2018 and adjust them if they're too high or low. Are the standards realistic? Will they do enough to slash oil consumption and climate-change pollution, key tenets of Obama's energy policy? What other policies should the administration and Congress develop to complement these standards?

(These Comments were submitted by Roland Hwang, transportation program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.)

The new fuel efficiency standard agreement announced by President Obama requiring the equivalent of a 54.5 MPG fleet average for passenger cars and light trucks by 2025 (163 gram per mile of CO2) is single biggest step the president can take to simultaneously save Americans money at the gas pump, clean up our air, and cut the country’s dangerous dependence on oil. It represents about a 50 percent cut in carbon pollution from today’s vehicles, and 40 percent reduction in fuel consumption.

The Obama Administration estimates these new standards will save consumers an estimated $1.7 trillion dollars in real fuel cos

What energy and environment policies are at stake in the spending and debt debates now dominating Washington? This week, the House will debate its FY2012 EPA/Interior spending bill. That measure slashes funding for both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department, and includes myriad policy riders that gut environmental regulations, ranging from President Obama's contentious climate-change rules to public-lands protection. Meanwhile, Congress and the administration remain mired in the debt-ceiling debate, which is expected to come to a head this week. What are the implications of the House EPA/Interior spending bill? What are some of the best and worst parts of that legislation? What role will energy and environment issues play in the overall debt-ceiling talks?

(These comments were submitted by Alan Rowsome, Director of Conservation Funding at The Wilderness Society.)

As Congress and the President make a mad dash to avoid defaulting on our nation’s debt over the next week, they are very likely to miss a key fact: Many proposals that claim to solve that problem would generate a new kind of debt – an environmental debt. This deficit, unlike the national debt, can’t be paid back. Once our public lands, like parks and wildlife refuges, and endangered species are gone, they are gone forever, and so are the recreation and tourism jobs that depend on

What are the future prospects for coal-powered electricity?

Coal generates nearly half of the United States' electricity, and it has historically been this nation's most dominant base power. But the policy and economic landscape is changing. Tougher environmental standards are prompting utilities to question their investments in efficient technology and some are shifting to natural gas, a cleaner fossil fuel than coal. One of the nation's biggest coal companies, American Electric Power, announced last week that it was shelving plans to develop "clean coal" technology amid an uncertain climate policy and a still-weak economy. That technology, known as carbon capture and sequestration, is considered the industry's best chance to ensure it continues to thrive in a policy landscape that controls carbon pollution. Meanwhile, U.S. coal exports to Asia are skyrocketing as China and India have seemingly insatiable appetites for coal-fired energy.

What are the biggest challenges facing the coal industry? What policies can Congress and President Obama support that could help the

(These comments were submitted by Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., Co-Founder of the Congressional Coal Caucus.)

Whether providing cheap gas so companies don’t have to pass their costs onto consumers, or keeping home utility prices low allowing Americans to spend money on other things, or employing millions of workers to develop resources found right here in America, the energy industry quite literally powers the American economy.

The fossil fuel industry—natural gas, coal, and oil—directly or indirectly employs millions of Americans. It is the backbone of my state’s economy, employing thousands of hardworking West Virginians, while providing an important source of tax revenue for local and state governments.

Despite its rich potential for expansion and job creation, this Administration has made every effort to dismantle the fossil fuel industry through burdensome and job-crushing regulations while failing to offer a viable alternative to meet our nation’s energy needs.

I have always fought for an all-of-th

(These comments were submitted by Jacqueline Patterson, environmental and climate director for NAACP.)

Not only is it possible to wean ourselves, as a nation, off of coal, it is imperative that we aggressively identify pathways to do so by promoting waste reduction and re-use, advancing energy efficiency, and transitioning to clean energy.

Every day we see excessive waste production and energy usage. We all pay the price, as the majority of Americans breathe air every day that violates air pollution standards. It is all directly or indirectly related to our excessive need for energy and our overreliance on harmful forms of energy, namely fossil fuel-based energy. Whether it is smog from our extensive usage motor vehicles; emissions from paper

(These comments were submitted by Mary Anne Hitt, Director of the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign)

Coal is making our kids sick – it’s the #1 source of mercury pollution and a leading trigger of asthma attacks. In fact, coal pollution causes 13,000 asthma attacks a year, and 1in 10 kids in this country suffers from asthma.

I can’t look at my one-year-old daughter and believe that we should continue relying on coal for years to come. As my colleague Michael Brune wrote yesterday – The U.S. has to move beyond coal. (LINK)

That’s why I’m thrilled with today’s news: The Sierra Club just announced a partnership with Bloomberg Philanthropies that includes a $50 million commitment over four years to the Beyond Coal Campaign, which will fuel the Sierra Club’s effort to clean the air, phase out the coal era, and accelerate the transition to cleaner, cost-effective energy sources.

Michael Bloomberg sees our nation’s energy future as we do: “Ending coal power production

Germany announced in May it will stop using nuclear power, in the wake of Japan's Fukushima Daiichi disaster. The French Senate recently voted to ban hydraulic fracturing, a controversial way to extract natural gas. What lessons can the United States learn from these countries' decisions? National news bears out the different perspectives: New Jersey recently announced a ban on fracking, while New York lifted its unofficial ban on the extraction method. No new nuclear power plants have been built in the U.S. in 30 years, but existing plants are coming under more intense scrutiny in the wake of Japan's crisis. Should the U.S. follow other nations' lead in prohibiting certain types of energies and technologies because of their environmental and health risks? What can President Obama and Congress do to minimize these risks associated with energy production?

(These comments were submitted by Kate Offringa, president and CEO of CNAIMA, the Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association.)

Partisan rhetoric is heating up in our nation’s capital, brought on by the stagnated budget and debt ceiling debates. Amid this atmosphere, the increasingly visible need to reform America’s energy policies has created an often contentious discussion about how best to utilize our energy resources. Most eyes immediately turn to boosting domestic energy production, whether by expanding offshore drilling, through advanced drilling techniques like hydraulic fracturing, greater nuclear capacity, or many more renewable options such as enhanced investment in wind and solar power. While many of these options have merit, they are also often highly divisive, and quickly polarize the political climate in Congress.

One option with the potential to bridge the partisan divide on Capitol Hill, however, is energy efficiency: the urgent need to heat – and cool – America’s commercial and residen

(These comments were submitted by former Under Secretary of State David Koranyi [left photo], now a non-resident fellow from Hungary at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; and Mark Olsthoorn [right], visiting scholar from the Netherlands at the Center for Integrative Environmental Research, University of Maryland.)

Does global warming increase the risk of extreme weather?

Environmentalists and scientists are re-examining that possible link in light of the wild weather the United States has seen so far in 2011, including heat waves, tornadoes, and wildfires. A similar debate was prompted last year by extreme weather throughout the world, including wildfires in Russia and floods in Pakistan.

When considered collectively, what do these extreme weather events mean for the climate change debate? Should scientists study these connections further - examining, for example, whether tornadoes are linked to climate change? How could this debate affect the arguments put forth by skeptics that global warming is not occurring?

(These comments were submitted by Roger Pielke, Jr., environmental professor at the University of Colorado and former director of the university's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research.)

The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] defines “climate change” as a change in the statistics of weather occurring over 30 years or longer and persisting for decades. Thus, the detection of a change in climate requires long-term records. To suggest that particular extreme weather events are evidence of climate change is not simply wrong, but the wrong way to even approach the issue — every bit as much as the claims made during a particularly cold and snowy winter (or even several in a row) that such events somehow disprove c

(These comments were submitted by Nathan Willcox, Federal Global Warming Program Director, Environment America.)

Global warming increases the risk of extreme weather, from floods and more intense hurricanes, to droughts and more devastating heat waves. Numerous scientific studies have said as much, and I co-authored a report last fall that examined the most recent studies making this connection—and also documented the damage that has been caused by recent extreme weat

Was President Obama right or wrong in his decision to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced last week the U.S. government, in coordination with other member countries of the International Energy Agency, was releasing oil reserves to relieve pressure on the global oil market. The United States is releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the SPR, which is roughly 5 percent of the total reserve. Administration officials said they would consider whether more oil should be released in a month. This is only the third time an administration has tapped the SPR since it was created in 1973 in response to the Arab oil embargo. The other two times were in response to a war and natural disaster.

What precedent is this administration setting by tapping into the reserves at a time of ongoing unrest in the Middle East and seemingly sustained high oil prices? What does this say for the nation's energy policy overall? Should it provide more

(These comments were submitted by Former Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo.)

Precedence? You ask what precedent the administration is setting by tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for only the third time in our nation's history? I'll tell you. They are setting a precedent as easily the most blatantly political administration ever in American history.

I'll offer just a few examples of the evidence:

1. This is the administration with a publicly stated objective to "boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

2. This is the administration that cancelled existing leases on millions of acres of federal land and banned development in vast amounts of reserves both on and off-shore.

3. This is the administration that was ordered by a federal court to lift an ill-conceived

After the Senate's rebuke of ethanol subsidies last week, sacred energy cows appear to be no more.

The Senate voted on Thursday to immediately repeal $5.4 billion worth of ethanol subsidies. It was largely a symbolic vote that shows Washington's appetite for subsidized energy is diminishing in the face of budget constraints and tea party sway. In the wake of that vote, ethanol proponents are ramping up negotiations to reform the industry's federal support. Democrats are calling on Republicans to put oil and gas tax breaks on the table for deficit-reduction negotiations. Republicans, meanwhile, want renewable-energy subsidies eliminated. It appears no sector is safe anymore. Proposals to subsidize other forms of energy, like natural gas-powered trucks and electric cars, face an uncertain future.

What implications does last week's vote on ethanol subsidies have on the ethanol industry in particular and for the larger energy sector? What energy subsidies should Congress consider as part of the overall budget deal? Do proposals for new energy subsidies stand a chance at pas

(These comments were submitted by Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.)

Last week’s Senate vote to end the ethanol tax credit and tariff is the first concrete signal from Congress that everything must be on the table to tackle the nation’s budget deficit and increasing debt. For nearly a century, U.S. taxpayers have been subsidizing the energy industry with hundreds of billions of dollars in incentives helping much of this industry to prosper mightily. Over the years many of these subsidies have skirted scrutiny, but with today’s fiscal crisis these giveaways are no longer safe.

Energy subsidies take many forms-- running the gamut from direct spending and grants, tax breaks, and loan guarantees, to

Should President Obama restart the nuclear waste repository site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada?

The administration is standing firm in its 2009 decision to yank funding for Yucca Mountain and look for another solution to store America' nuclear waste for the long term. But bipartisan criticism of the factors that went into the decision is growing. A House subcommittee holds a hearing this week to examine a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General report submitted to Congress and the commission last week.

Should the administration reverse course on Yucca Mountain? Is that even possible at this stage of dismantling the project? What are alternatives for storing America's long-term nuclear waste? What does the fight over Yucca Mountain mean for the nuclear industry's future in the United States? What are the environmental and safety concerns that Obama's blue-ribbon commission on nuclear waste should consider as it prepares to release its interim report next month?

(These comments were submitted by Duncan Robinson, President, North American Young Generation in Nuclear.)

As a member of the young generation of nuclear science and technology workers, we have grown up with lingering unanswered questions about the used fuel issue that remain today. The industry has continued to develop solutions to the problem, and has demonstrated the ability to store and manage used fuel safely at their individual sites. However, there is general agreement on the need for a centralized monitored retrievable geological site, yet policymakers still have been unable to provide a resolution.

While the nuclear industry is certainly capable of managing used fuel on-site for years to come, the fact that there is no long ter

(These comments were submitted by Jack Spencer, a research fellow in nuclear energy policy at The Heritage Foundation.)

The Obama administration should unequivocally reverse course on its decision to close Yucca Mountain. When Secretary Chu withdrew the DOE’s permit application, he ignored the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended, which clearly states that Yucca Mountain should be the location of America’s used fuel repository. As if disregarding the law was not enough, by withdrawing the application Chu also dismissed the extensive research that established the technical foundation of the DOE’s application. Making matters worse yet, NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko picked up right where Chu left off by seemingly ignoring establish

(These comments were submitted by Navigant Economics Managing Director Cliff Hamal.)

The question of whether to revive Yucca Mountain is important, but fundamentally suffers from a conceit that has interfered with the development of a comprehensive spent fuel management program in this nation for decades. The conceit is the belief that decision makers at each point of time can chart a course for long-term disposition of spent fuel without further controversy or course changes in the future. The alternative is to ask, what should be done now in an environment where we fully expect controversy to plague implementation of our long-term strategy? And the answer is to look beyond a repository alone at the flexibility and cost savings that

In light of the Obama administration's ongoing review of federal regulations, should the Environmental Protection Agency delay the various clean-air regulations that it's rolling out now?

EPA is in the process of drafting and finalizing several significant sets of standards to control air pollution from power plants, manufacturing plants, oil refineries, and industrial boilers. Multiple sources told National Journal last week that EPA was looking to delay proposing greenhouse-gas standards for power plants and oil refineries, the most politically contested set of rules at the agency now. EPA has already said it would indefinitely delay mercury standards for boilers.

What factors should EPA consider when deciding whether to delay a set of standards and deciding the length of the delay? What signal do the delays send to Congress? What influence will the 2012 presidential and congressional election cycle have on EPA issuing its regulations?

(These comments were submitted by Peter Iwanowicz, assistant vice president and director of the American Lung Association’s campaign to safeguard the Clean Air Act.)

The EPA should absolutely move ahead with implementing Clean Air Act protections as quickly as possible. Rather than succumbing to the pressure of powerful industrial lobbyists, the single most important factor the EPA must consider in deciding whether or not to move forward with these safeguards is the health of our children. Their voices aren’t as loud those of big business, but it is their lives that are on the line.

Frankly, it is astonishing that delaying these protections is even a consideration when the devastating health impacts of toxic air pollutants are well docum

What incentives, regulations, or other government actions should be used to promote more fuel-efficient cars? And what factors should convince Americans to buy those cars?

High gas prices seem to be a staple of Memorial Day, the kickoff to the summer driving season. As gas prices remain high, Congress and the administration will keep focusing on alternative fuels and overall energy issues. Lawmakers from both parties have introduced bills incentivizing alternative-fuel technologies. The administration is moving forward on its fuel-economy standards and electrifying the federal fleet.

What specific bills should Congress and President Obama adopt? What factors should go into drafting the next round of fuel-economy standards? Some top experts, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu in 2008, have said higher gasoline prices spur a shift to cleaner cars. Do you agree with that? Do gasoline prices need to stay high to trigger substantive action?

(These comments were submitted by Judi Greenwald, vice president for Innovation Solutions at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.)

At a moment when it appears to many that our government can’t do anything right, the current approach to regulating vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is a bright spot.

After decades of failing to tighten corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and several years when California and other states began to take the matter of setting vehicle GHG standards into their own hands, the federal government finally got its act together. In 2007 Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Secur

Should President Obama green-light a controversial pipeline that would send a half-million barrels of Canadian oil to the United States?

With high oil and gasoline prices, Congress and the administration have focused their attention more on increasing supplies of oil, both within the U.S. and from countries like Canada and Brazil. The International Energy Agency said last week that more oil production was needed to stave off an economic decline. This project would augment what is already America's top foreign supplier. But it would ship Canada's oil sands, which environmentalists argue causes more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil.

Since the project crosses international borders, it requires approval from the State Department. The department recently said it expects to issue a final decision by the end of the year. It has extended the environmental review of the project in response to concerns from environmentalists

What factors should the administration consider when evalu

(These comments were submitted by Ann Mesnikoff, the Sierra Club's Green Transportation Director.)

With the summer driving season just around the corner, Americans are struggling once again to cope with $4 a gallon gas. Volatility in the Middle East, oil speculation and growing demand for oil continue to jack up gas prices beyond our control, making it clear that we have to cut our addiction to oil in order to relieve Americans’ pain at the pump.

This September, President Obama has a key opportunity to save Americans money on gas by setting strong fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards for cars and trucks through 2025. The administration’s analysis has already shown that we can cost-

And what can Washington's policymakers and President Obama do about them?

The price of a gallon of regular gasoline in the United States is hovering around $4, while global oil prices remain at about $100 a barrel. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle bicker about what can and cannot be done to lower oil prices and thus the cost of gas. Indeed, the amount of political rhetoric correlates to the rise in the cost of gas. Experts caution that no single action that Obama or Congress takes can sway the global oil market or domestic gas prices. But certain long-term policy decisions have proven to make some difference.

What factors go into the rise and fall of global oil prices? And what is the relationship to the cost of gasoline in the United States? What role, if any, do lawmakers and the president fill in controlling the market?

Should the federal government stop doling out dollars to energy sources ranging from renewables to fossil fuels?

Debate is heating up on Capitol Hill and elsewhere about how much money Washington policymakers should give to energy sources, including oil, natural gas, wind, solar, and ethanol. Renewables and ethanol companies receive temporary tax credits that Congress votes to renew or not each year. Both industries say the subsidies are essential to their growth.

Oil and gas companies, meanwhile, have been receiving permanent tax deductions for nearly a century. Citing record-high profits of major oil companies, President Obama and nearly all congressional Democrats have continually tried -- albeit unsuccessfully -- to get rid of those tax deductions. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other House Republicans indicated last week they were open to repealing some of the tax breaks.

Should the government stop giving money - in the form of tax deductions and subsidies alike - to all energy sources or just some of them? Or conversely, should Congress make tempora

(These comments were submitted by Pete Sepp, Executive Vice President, National Taxpayers Union.)

American energy policy has suffered terribly from decades of attempting to manipulate markets, pick winners, punish losers, inflict taxes on some, and shower government spending on others. Having witnessed these failures, in March the National Taxpayers Union organized an open letter to Congress from nearly 30 citizen groups and think tanks who contended:

“Instead of promoting a reliable and affordable energy industry, the subsidy-first energy policy that has prevailed the past three decades has created whole industries dependent on government and focused as much on ensuring their share of taxpayer largesse as they are on developing energy. This is no longer acceptable.”

Unfortunately, sometimes policymakers can appropriate the term “subsidy” for decidedly inappropriate purposes. Take, for instance, moves from President Obama and Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus to end what they’ve called “subsidies”

(These comments were submitted by Kate Offringa, President and CEO of CNAIMA, the Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association.)

“Energy independence” may not command quite the attention it did a year ago during the Gulf oil spill, but it remains a profoundly important public policy priority. The Gulf spill brought the vulnerabilities of America’s dependence on fossil fuels into sharp and discomfiting focus.

Now, political upheaval throughout North Africa and the Middle East is driving the price of gas above $4 per gallon. The successful attack on Osama Bin Laden could spark some additional short term volatility in the oil market. With prices at the pump expected to spike even higher as we approach Memorial Day, consumers are feeling the crunch of America’s energy instability in the one place it counts most: our pocketbooks.

The tsunami and subsequent nuclear tragedy in Japan, moreover, exposed the fragility of a power source many considered clean and relatively risk-free. Conce

(These comments were submitted by former Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo. Click here for more information about Beauprez.)

I really dislike the tax code. If I had my druthers, the entire code would be scrapped, and we'd start all over with a much flatter, simpler system devoid of all the incentives and disincentives that warp business decisions and restrain the growth and expansion that would otherwise occur in a true free-market economy. That's why I was a co-sponsor of The Fair Tax, a consumption based plan, when I was a member of Congress. Unfortunately, complete reform of the tax code seems a distant dream as Congress deals with the more immediately obvious issues at hand.

So, we are left with an endless tug-and-pull of what is penalized (taxed) and what gets rewarded (subsidized) in the tax code. As public opinion and political winds shift from time to time, the assignment of "winner" or "loser" status within the tax code often changes, too. Yesterday's favored son can be

(These comments were submitted by Matt Garrington, Deputy Director of the Checks and Balances Project.)

Last week, the top five oil companies announced their first quarter profits, which numbered in the billions. Meanwhile, President Obama and leaders in Congress are trying to reign in government spending by ending $4 billion per year in taxpayer-funded subsidies to Big Oil.

The Checks and Balances Project, an industry and government watchdog effort, conducted an analysis of the money oil and gas corporations spent in 2010 on campaign contributions and Congressional lobbyists. The numbers tell the story that oil companies’ armies of lobbyists and contributing power give them a louder voice than American families.

These profit reports show that Big Oil is making big bucks from high gas prices at the pump. The oil and gas industry spent $63 million lobbying Congress and $2 million in campaign contributions last year so politicians would continue to hand out $4 billion every year in taxpayer-funded subsidies.

According to Public Campaign

(These comments were submitted by Kathleen Sgamma, Director of Government & Public Affairs for the Western Energy Alliance.)

The argument that we should increase taxes because oil and natural gas companies are earning large profits is misleading and logically flawed. Oil and natural gas companies earn large profits because they sell large volumes of product that power our economy and prosperity. However, profit margins, which provide the context to compare the size of profits, are actually quite modest compared to other industries, at 5.7%. That’s less than the average profit margin for all manufacturing of 8.5% and quite far behind the beverage and computer industries at 21.7% and 17.3% respectively.

The rest of the story also includes the tax rate paid by the industry – 41.1% compared to 26.5% for other S&P industrial companies. The President and others continue to mischaracterize the oil and gas industry’s ability to deduct standard business expenses as subsidies. All businesses, from GE and Nike on down to the mom and pop

Shale natural gas has been emerging as a key piece of America's energy mix, with companies discovering vast new reserves of the energy source all over the country. Natural gas has traditionally been considered the cleanest fossil fuel, and President Obama and congressional leaders have signaled support for legislation incentivizing natural gas.

But a natural gas well explosion in Pennsylvania last week and a recent controversial report from Cornell University are triggering concerns about how clean and safe natural gas really is.

How should Congress react to the well explosion, which occurred during the hydraulic fracturing process? Should reports like the one from Cornell, which concluded that natural gas actually produces more greenhouse gas emissions than coal, have any bearing on policy-making decisions? What legislation, if any, should Congress pass to address these concerns? What can the administration do?

Will President Obama's retooled energy-security plan help wean the United States off foreign oil?

Obama has taken to the road several times in the past month touting his administration's energy plan, which is less ambitious than the one that Obama outlined in his State of the Union address earlier this year. It includes higher fuel-economy standards and incentives for biofuel, natural-gas, and electric vehicles. It also calls on the oil industry to drill in places where it already holds leases--instead of opening up new areas for energy production. Meanwhile, House Republicans are pushing legislation that expands oil and gas production and reverses several of Obama's policies.

Will Obama's plan--or at least parts of it--muster enough support in Congress? Should any component of it be taken out, or something new added? How do the Environmental Protection Agency's climate-change regulations fit into the president's proposal?

(These comments were submitted by Nick Loris, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.)

In order for Obama to meet his objective to successfully wean America off foreign oil, his plan would actually have to work. Unfortunately, Obama’s “new” energy plan – which will supposedly reduce foreign oil imports by 2025 – isn’t really anything new at all. While Obama’s quick to cavalierly criticize his predecessors’ energy policies, Obama’s plans are no better, and in most cases, even worse. The reason Obama’s plan fails to address our nation’s energy needs is because the proposals are flat-out bad policy and his rhetoric doesn’t match his administration’s actions. Let’s take a closer look at the shortcomings in Obama’s energy approach.

Oil and Gas Exploration:
Obama claims that he wants to increase domestic production, but then his administration pulls out every tool in its box – even when that means vastly usurping its authority – to roadblock

(These comments were submitted by former Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo. His biography is available at www.bobbeauprez.com)

A tax by any other name is still a tax. And, when ill-conceived government policy needlessly sucks money out of the working man's pocket, the effect is the same as a tax.

Gas prices have more than doubled since Barack Obama took office. Costs have soared 20% (67 cents per gallon) just since the first of the year. Like a gas surtax, this price spike is costing the average driver an additional $1000 per year. It's an extremely regressive tax hammering hardest on working class American's that the President promised would escape a tax increase. And, the busy summer driving season that increases demand and drives prices even higher is right around the corner.

Obama's quick-fix solution for

Should President Obama defend, delay, or preempt his administration's climate-change rules?

Congress is debating legislation that would, to varying degrees, limit the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas emissions regulations. The House is expected to pass a bill that would preempt the rules entirely by the end of this week. The Senate, meanwhile, may vote on as many as four amendments that restrict the regulations. In the ongoing budget talks, lawmakers and the administration are considering whether policy riders such as those that restrict EPA's regulatory power should be included in a bill that funds the government for the rest of the fiscal year. Washington must strike a deal by the end of the week to avoid a government shutdown.

What are the repercussions for the economy and public health if any of these measures become law? Should Obama take a more firm position on his administration's rules as Congress debates them?

(These comments were submitted by Phil Kerpen, vice president of policy at Americans for Prosperity.)

President Obama should take seriously Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution (which makes clear that legislative power is vested in Congress) and call off the dogs at EPA, accepting that his goal of steep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions must be an issue for Congress to decide. Given the high profile surrounding this week's votes on HR 910 and the McConnell Amendment, there will be a serious political price to pay for Members of Congress who shirk their responsibility to legislate and rubber-stamp the EPA's end-run around the legitimate legislative process. Obama would do right by his Democratic allies in Congress by taking the pressure off and agreeing to include a policy rider in the full-year continuing resolution.

The day after the election, the president infamously said that EPA regulation is another way of "skinning the cat" in the absence of Congress passing climate legislation. He needs to put that cat back in the bag -- ski

In light of the BP oil spill, Japan's nuclear crisis, and a recent spate of coal-mining accidents, the risks and dangers associated with energy production are more evident than ever.

Renewable energy is safer than fossil fuels, but production is not yet at a scale where it could displace any traditional energy source. Natural gas has emerged as a safer bet for fossil fuels in light of these other disasters, but it also must address concerns about pipeline safety and hydraulic fracturing, a controversial way to extract shale gas that has triggered health and environmental concerns.

How should President Obama and Congress consider the risks associated with energy production when deciding how to move forward on an energy policy? What economic, environmental, and safety tradeoffs must be considered with energy production? Is there such a thing as a safe form of energy at all?

Just like the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, Japan's crisis has exposed the great risks associated with nuclear power. In light of the catastrophe, other countries, including China and Germany are delaying construction of new reactors. Are those actions warranted? Should the United States place a moratorium on new plants that could be at risk of major natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis? What, if anything, should the Nuclear Regulatory Commission do to reexamine the safety standards for all U.S. reactors and reassure policymakers and the American public? What lessons can we learn from Japan's crisis?

What effect does EPA's series of Clean Air Act rules have on the energy and environment landscape?

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce draft rules this week aimed at slashing toxic air pollution emitted by power plants. The rules, known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology, or MACT, utility regulations, are some of the most controversial rules coming out of EPA, a list that includes the always politically loaded carbon-emissions rules. The issuance will come in the wake of the agency announcing similar regulations for industrial boilers and certain incinerators. These rules are among several that EPA is rolling out now or in the near future under its Clean Air Act authority.

What effect will these MACT utility regulations have on the power sector? Taken together, how do EPA's various clean-air rules change the industry and protect the environment? What are the trade-offs that Congress and President Obama should consider?

(These comments were submitted by Catherine O’Neill, law professor at Seattle University School of Law and member scholar for the Center For Progressive Reform)

Here is how we ought to judge the EPA's long-anticipated rule controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired utilities: does it follow the mandate of the Clean Air Act (CAA)? For too long, utilities have managed by various means to fend off regulation required by the CAA. Assuming EPA’s rule at long last complies with Congress’s directives, Americans may look forward to a day when they can again eat fish without serving their families a side of methylmercury.

The mercury that coal-fired utilities emit is highly toxic to humans. Exposure to even small amounts of methylmercury can lead to irreversible neurological damage. The most recent data also suggest adverse effects on the cardiovascular systems of adults. Mercury emit

How different will America's energy mix be in three decades? Right now the country's energy comes overwhelmingly from fossil fuels. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, oil, coal, and natural gas generate nearly 80 percent, while nuclear energy and renewables make up the rest. As oil prices continue to climb, lawmakers from both parties are calling to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. It's a clichéd debate, to be sure, but one that resonates across the country. President Obama has called for a federal standard of 80 percent clean energy by 2035. And the Environmental Protection Agency is rolling out a series of air-pollution regulations that experts agree is triggering a shift away from coal-fired power plants -- which account for nearly half the United States' electricity today -- to natural gas-powered plants. What long-term market dynamics -- if any -- will shift the nation's energy from fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy? What environmental concerns should the country consider? What role do the federal and state governments play in sh

(These comments were submitted by Scott Thomasson, Economic and Domestic Policy Director at the Progressive Policy Institute.)

Asking what our energy mix will be three decades from now is exactly the right question to reframe the debate about our national energy policies—or lack thereof. Most of our discussions would be a lot more productive if advocates for different approaches laid out a clear vision of what our future mix of fuel sources would look like in 30 years, so voters and policy wonks alike will be able to better understand and compare competing proposals. We should start with simple but achievable targets, such as the “Balanced Energy Portfolio” that sets a 2040 goal of using one-third renewables, one-third nuclear, and one-third fossil fuels to generate the country’s electricity and avoiding increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

Too often our recent battles over energy legislation have focused on specific mechanisms for shaping our energy future, without making a clear case for what that future sh

What should President Obama do, if anything, in reaction to rising oil prices?

As Middle East unrest continues and the summer driving season nears, oil prices will likely remain high, and some are worried that the U.S. could see a repeat of the 2008 oil crisis and the same bruising congressional debate over gas prices and offshore drilling. We're seeing signs of that already. Republicans are calling on the administration to expedite drilling permits, which remain at a standstill after the BP oil spill. Democrats, meanwhile, are calling on Obama to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Should Obama take any concrete steps, such as using oil in the SPR or speeding up the permitting process, in response to oil prices? What, if anything, can Congress do to help the situation? Given that no one single action will immediately lower prices, what are some long-term policy initiatives that could soothe the oil markets and reduce America's dependency on oil?

(These comments were written by Michael Bissonette, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Efficient Energy Systems; AeroVironment, Inc.)

One of the hurdles to broad-scale adoption of EVs is the infrastructure that will power these new vehicles. By supporting ongoing research and development of electric vehicle (EV) technology and the requisite charging infrastructure, the United States could lead the world in re-stimulating venture investments; reenergizing the automotive and automotive accessories industries; creating opportunities for scientific education and breakthrough technologies; and setting the bar on mainstreaming sustainability.

The time is now: AeroVironment, a leading developer of battery charging systems, has developed, deployed, and proven “fast-charge” stations that are comparable to gasoline pumps in terms of refueling time and usability. Deployment of charging stations that are publicly available and convenient will be critical in the effort to convert EV drivers with long-range commutes or pla

(These comments were submitted by Daniel Gatti, policy analyst at Environment America.)

The future of electric vehicles lies in the convergence of three critical global trends:

· First, planet is getting hotter. 2010 tied global temperature records and produced new calamities, including floods in Pakistan and devastating forest fires in Russia. Oil consumption remains our largest single source of global warming pollution, producing over 40% of our carbon emissions. Moreover, burning oil produces local air toxins that cause millions of asthma attacks and other respiratory problems, both here and in developing nations.

· Second, the number of cars in the world is rapidly ri

(These comments were submitted by Robbie Diamond, president and CEO of the Securing America’s Future Energy [SAFE] and the Electrification Coalition.)

Not only can electric vehicles change the game and strengthen our national security, but they represent the only technology with the ability to do so. And the game we are currently playing – one where our country depends on vast amounts of oil that is produced in highly volatile regions of the world – must be changed sooner rather than later.

No one seriously disagrees anymore that oil dependence represents a real and growing threat to our economic and national security. The United States is the world’s largest oil consumer, accounting for more than 20 percent of global demand. Americans consume approximately 19 million barrels of oil each day. Since 2005, annual retail petroleum expenditures by U.S. families and businesses have averaged more than $700 billion—or about 5 percent of GDP. America now imports more than half of the oil it consumes.

America’s armed

President Obama's budget proposal invests billions of dollars in clean energy and repeals oil and gas subsidies to pay for some of it. In a stark contrast, House Republicans are pushing legislation that would slash billions of dollars in clean energy research and development and entire programs within the Environmental Protection Agency.

Obama's budget probably won't pass Congress, especially the elimination of oil and gas subsidies, which Obama has proposed in past budgets. It's equally unlikely the House Republicans' plan will pass the Senate. Nonetheless, the proposals embody the priorities of Obama and the GOP and lay the foundation for a partisan budget battle over policy.

What investments--and spending cuts--should Obama make in areas of energy and environment policy? What proposals should both parties in Congress consider? Would the clean energy investments Obama is proposing be enough to spur a green economy?

(These comments were submitted by Maureen Gorsen, partner at Alston & Bird LLP.)

Public policy debates about how best to stimulate innovation to a clean energy future need to move beyond a focus on how much money the government should spend and on what R&D or promising technologies it should spend that government money. Public policy debates should also include consideration of the necessary preconditions for an explosive growth in technological innovation, and what policies help or hinder those preconditions.

As far back as some of our earliest and most heralded inventions as a species, such as our invention of the wheel and written language, one can see that where there are more people interacting more frequently (e.g., trade, war, freedom of population to migrate) there is more invention. Human resource is the most valuable wealth of a nation and its ingenuity carries with it the most promises for a clean energy future.

Freedom and opportunity for human talent and creativity to interact, to own and to prosper are key. It's no accident tha

Should lawmakers delay, preempt, or defend President Obama's climate-change regulations? Various pieces of legislation were introduced last week to address greenhouse-gas emissions. Republicans in both chambers of Congress are pushing a permanent repeal of the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory power over carbon emissions. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other moderate Democrats are seeking a two-year delay in the rules. Additional proposals are likely to be thrown into the mix. On Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee holds its first hearing on draft legislation that would preempt EPA's regulations. How should Congress deal with the various pieces of legislation on carbon rules? What significance will Wednesday's hearing hold? How do public-health and economic considerations factor in? How should Congress address those aspects of the debate?

(These comments were submitted by Nick Loris, Research Associate in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.)

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) endangerment finding gives the agency justification to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2), under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA already began targeting motor vehicles last year and will start regulating emissions from new power plants and major expansions of large greenhouse-gas-emitting plants (more than 25,000 tons of CO2 per year) this year.

Several Members of Congress released or plan to release bills to either delay or prohibit the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases. Some ideas are better than others; unfortunately, the proposal garnering the most support in the Senate is also the least effective. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D–WV) wants to delay the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 for two years, but this is not the right approach for Congress to take. Voting for a two-year delay is nothing more

(These comments were submitted by Joshua Freed, Director of the Clean Energy Program at Third Way)

After the Senate stiff-armed every important clean energy idea that crossed its path last year – cap and trade, oil drilling reform, even a clean energy bank – the President called for energy reform to move in a new direction. This new approach, a Clean Energy Standard, has the potential to achieve the results Senator Carper highlights: American innovation and production of clean energy technologies, including wind, solar and nuclear by setting an ambitious but eminently achievable goal.

It is the right policy at the right time.

With fewer clean energy advocates in the Senate and a Republican-controlled House, prospects for reform would appear even dimmer for 2011 than 2010. But with energy use increasing, new power plants being put on the drawing board and China aggressively pursuing clean energy and its $2 trillion payday, the United States cannot sit on the sidelines another two years.

There is a wa

What significance does President Obama's State of the Union address have for his administration's energy and climate policy?

In his speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, Obama will likely highlight clean energy investments and their potential to spur the economy, the public health benefits of EPA enforcement under the Clean Air Act (something interest groups are pushing (subscription) him to promote), and America's global competitiveness and cooperation on clean energy initiatives.

Expert bloggers, we welcome you to log in here both before and after the speech to comment and react.

Pre-speech: What issues should Obama focus on in his speech, and how does that differ, if at all, from what you expect him to discuss?

Post-speech: Did the speech give any concrete indication of what direction the president wants his administration to take on energy and climate issues for the remaini

These comments were submitted by Kate Offringa, President and CEO of the Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association.)

As the new House Republican majority reshapes Washington’s priorities, some analysts believe that energy policy – especially energy efficiency – will be left behind. After all, skeptics say, if the Democratically-controlled 111th Congress couldn’t pass significant energy legislation, how can the 112th Congress with control on the Hill divided between the parties?

The Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (CNAIMA) doesn’t share that view. It’s true that government-funded rebates such as Home Star and Building Star will be hard-pressed to gain ground in the new political environment, but programs that rely on tax incentives for enhanced home and commercial energy efficiency should constitute an agreeable alternative to help achieve compelling energy efficiency goals.

Tax incentives, in the form of tax credits and tax deduct

(These comments were submitted by Josh Freed, Director of the Clean Energy Program at Third Way)

For a successful energy innovation policy, the President needs to argue that not all spending is equal, and that investments in clean energy—a $2 trillion global market—will pay off in job growth, improved competitiveness, and more reliable, clean energy.

If the U.S. were a company like Apple or GE, the board of directors would demand real investment in research on new product lines. Without R&D, these companies would be crushed in the marketplace. The President, coming out of the State of the Union, has to make clear that clean energy innovation is exactly the same thing - research and development for new product lines that can dominate a promising new marketplace.

We anticipate that the President will focus on a few energy policy options that are smart long-term investments. One of these is a Clean Energy Standard (CES), which would stimulate investment in deployment of cleaner energy technologies. With a CES, there would be a c

How can the world's two biggest carbon polluters, China and the United States, work together to spearhead a global shift to clean energy?

When Chinese President Hu Jintao meets with President Obama this week in Washington, energy and climate change will be one of the bright spots in their discussion. They will celebrate the agreement they reached at the U.N. climate talks in Cancun last December, as well as the announcement of partnerships between U.S. and Chinese energy companies on "clean coal" technology. But plenty of tensions persist between the two countries, including trade disputes over China's subsidies of renewable energy and rare earth export quotas, squabbles over clean tech intellectual property, and the still-rocky road ahead until the world's two biggest polluters sign a binding climate treaty.

How can the two leaders balance the cooperation and competition aspects of clean energy development? What role can the private sector play in this dynamic? What can lawmakers do to ensure that the two countries cooperate effectively, when the mood in Congress is

The final report of the White House oil spill commission is expected to come out Tuesday. What impact will it have on action from Congress and the White House?

An excerpt of the report, which was released last week, concludes that the root causes of the BP disaster are systemic and evident throughout the industry and in the Interior Department. The report warns that if major reforms aren't implemented, another massive oil spill could occur. Democratic lawmakers have already reignited calls to pass legislation addressing the spill, while Republicans and oil-state Democrats have had more muted reactions.

How does this change the energy agenda for the 112th Congress -- if it does at all? Will this spur the Senate to pass legislation to raise the liability penalties companies face in the wake of a spill? Does this eliminate any chance House Republicans had of expanding offshore drilling? What role will oil pri

(These comments were submitted by Elgie Holstein, Oil Spill Response Coordinator for the Environmental Defense Fund.)

In its final report, the Oil Spill Commission presents some sobering and dismaying findings about last year’s Gulf oil spill. Two of them are especially worth emphasizing.

First, the Commission found that there is plenty of blame to go around for the tragedy. BP and its contractors were inattentive and undisciplined in designing, drilling, and controlling the well. For its part, the government – the steward of the federal leases on which oil companies drill for oil and gas – lacked (and still lacks) the capacity adequately to oversee an industry that is moving to ever-deeper, more technically complex operating environments.

Once the runaway spill began, neither the government nor industry was remotely prepared to respond to it effectively. For weeks following the sinking of the drilling platform and the loss of 11 workers, oil and gas boiled furiously out of the broken well like some undersea volcano.

(These comments were submitted by Conrad Schneider, Advocacy Director for the Clean Air Task Force)

On January 2, 2011, something amazing happened, or more accurately, didn’t happen. Despite the direst predictions of climate deniers and regulatory naysayers, the sky didn’t fall, or even begin to fall. Because on that day, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency started to roll out long-awaited Clean Air Act regulations that will eventually require major stationary greenhouse gas emitters like power plants, oil refineries and industrial facilities, to reduce their emissions. As a result, our country, and our atmosphere, will be better off, not worse.

We have long known that coal-fired power plants are the largest source of a host of environmental ills, and according to a recent Clean Air Task Force study (http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/view/138), the cause of 13,000 deaths annually from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. They are also the source of 40% of U.S. carbon emissions, the largest industrial source of s

(These comments were submitted by Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch)

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the hyperbolic claims made by industry pitchmen and their congressional friends about the alleged damage to the economy from EPA’s climate-related enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

A “power grab,” warns Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) and Tim Phillips, president of the astro-turf Americans For Prosperity, as if they were describing Lenin’s bloody takeover of Russia. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703929404576022070069905318.html

A “permitorium,” screams the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which on December 23 took the bizarrely anti-capitalist line of denouncing clean energy companies for that horror of horrors—trying to make a profit! (Note to my former boss, Journal owner Rupert Murdoch: start minding the store, mate. After all, it was Murdoch who de

Did President Obama have justification for deciding this month to backtrack on the expanded offshore oil and gas drilling policy he had originally announced in March, before the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill?

Key lawmakers from the president's own party, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, are disappointed about the administration's announcement. Bingaman predicted last week it would be "extensively discussed" in the 112th Congress. House Republicans are also pushing for Congress to open for drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, along with other areas that are limited right now, including portions of the Arctic Ocean off Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

What are the repercussions of the administration's reversal? Should Congress lift the moratorium that's currently in place in the eastern gulf? Will the administration budge on issues like ANWR due to pressure from House Republicans and other conservative voices, like Sarah Palin and former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham? Will the gulf oil s

CANCUN, Mexico -- By now it appears clear that there will be no new binding global climate change treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol when its current commitment period expires in 2012. So what should come next?

Developing countries, led by China, want to renew Kyoto. But that would exempt from action both the United States, which is not a party to Kyoto, and China, which under the terms of the treaty is not bound to cut its carbon emissions. Negotiators in Cancun have talked about putting together a package of agreements on discrete elements, such as prevented deforestation and technology transfer, to come into force after Kyoto expires. Some nations, such as the island state of Papua New Guinea, say that the U.N. process has failed, and it's time for nations and major economies to take action in bilateral and multilateral agreements.

What other options are on the table? Will any effort other than a binding international treaty be enough to meaningfully reduce global greenhouse gas emissions? In the absence of domestic climate legislation, what can the United States

(These comments were submitted by Michael McAdams, President of the Advanced Biofuels Association.)

It’s pretty simple, a decision by the Hill to sit on its hands in December, puts a virtual hold on our nation's energy and economic security. If Washington doesn't step in soon with pragmatic tax incentives aimed at investors and adding certainty to a continuing skittish market, advanced biofuels and its promise of long-term job creation and strengthening our energy security, could be in jeopardy.

What’s on the table that could make a real difference? Finance Committee Chairman Baucus (D-MT) is currently drafting a bill that would grant a one-year extension of the biodiesel and ethanol tax credits, along with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch.

But a word of caution, if the extenders are only renewed until 2011, we will be forced to go through the same situation we faced in 2009 and 2010 to provide certainty of the tax credit to the industry.

Earlier this week, key decision makers from both sides of the aisle, met in Washingt

(These comments were submitted by Marilyn Heiman, director of the Pew Environment Group’s offshore energy reform efforts.)

Senators need to address offshore energy reform during the lame-duck session. For nearly six months, they have deliberated on how to respond to the worst environmental disaster in history. They have held more than 30 hearings and introduced dozens of bills, yet have failed to pass a single one.

The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe showed us the consequences of lax oversight and inadequate response capacity, even in temperate waters within 100 miles of the biggest oil-supply port in the world. It also opened our eyes to the reality that blowouts can occur and have devastating effects on our communities and ecosystems.

Last week, the Pew Environment Group released a major report on the risks and challenges of oil spill prevention and response in the U.S. Arctic Ocean. Ice-choked waters, brutally cold temperatures, punishing winds and enormous waves could shut down spill response or render the usual response mecha

(These comments were submitted by Maureen Gorsen, who is a partner in Alston & Bird's Environmental & Land Development Group where she focuses her practice on State law, agencies and regulation.)

In short, if Prop 23 fails and the voters tell Sacramento that they want to address climate change and be a global environmental leader despite their current unemployment rate of 12.5%,, it will be a huge boost to lawmakers and regulators at Cal/EPA and in Sacramento to proceed forthwith with the broad scoping plan under AB 32 that will target each sector contributing to global warming with goals, targets and restrictions on greenhouse (GHG) emissions. As California speeds ahead to lead the nation in achieving climate change regulatory goals, many of the standards and rules it adopts will immediately become models that other states, particularly in the West and Northeast will seek to adopt, and the pressure to adopt similar standards at the federal level will continue to grow.

As we inch closer to Election Day next week, this outcome appear

(These comments were submitted by Wade Crowfoot, West Coast Political Director of the Environmental Defense Fund.)

National climate legislation is on the shelf for this year, making California’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) the most significant current U.S. effort to cut global warming pollution.

This means polluters—including oil and coal companies that have been fighting clean energy for years—are spending millions on Prop 23 so they can derail California’s clean energy law. Prop 23 is backed by Valero, Tesoro and the billionaire Koch Brothers, a group otherwise known as the Toxic Triplets.

Some have said that this is “one of the most volatile and expensive political battles of the year.

(These comments were submitted by Joel Francis, California Student Leader.)

As a Californian college senior, I am deeply concerned that if passed, Proposition 23 would kill job opportunities for students and graduates in the Golden State. This proposition would gut the most promising employment sector for young Californians – the clean technology industry.

Since 2005, California clean economy jobs have grown 10 times faster than the statewide average, and 500,000 Californians work in clean economy jobs. Prop. 23 jeopardizes these jobs and $10 billion of private sector investment in the growth of clean energy industries, such as solar and electric cars. That’s why 100 economists from California and all over the world have declared Prop. 23 an economic danger and have called for voters to reject it.

This anti-clean energy initiative, bankrolled by oil companies and out-of-state interests, would not only hurt job opportunities for graduates like me, but it would also deepen our reliance on fossil fuels.

Californians ha

(These comments were submitted by Jonathan Wolfson, CEO and co-founder of Solazyme, Inc., a renewable oil company using algal biotechnology to replace petroleum and vegetable oils for fuels, chemicals and food.)

Californians, like all Americans, are mired in a fiscal crisis. Yet instead of addressing that issue, they are being asked to pass Proposition 23, which postpones and effectively overturns Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), a landmark job-creating law that regulates harmful carbon emissions. Passing Prop 23 would likely turn back the clock by a decade or more on fighting carbon pollution. It would have the further effect of costing California billions in gross state product, and thousands of jobs while continuing to accelerate the harmful emissions filling California’s air. AB32 has been an outstanding catalyst for technology innovation and job growth and since it was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006; California’s clean tech industry has had five-percent job growth while the state overall has suffered a one-percent decline. AB32 provid

(The following comments were submitted by Taylor Ferrell, a Truman National Security Fellow and special counsel to the Department of the Navy. The author writes this article in his personal capacity, and his views do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of the Navy. Any errors in facts or judgment are his own.)

California voters will soon vote on a measure that will have a lasting effect on the state’s energy and economic future and on U.S. national security. If passed, the Proposition 23 ballot initiative would suspend AB 32, California’s far-reaching 2006 climate law. As former Secretary of State George Schulz and others have argued, the essential repeal of the law would have negative repercussions for California’s environment, renewable energy industry, and economy at large. Perhaps less evident is the potential negative effect that repeal would have on the US military’s energy security strategy.

There is a direct connection between America’s energy policy and its national security. This connection is seen thro

(These comments were submitted by Ken Cohen, Vice President for public and government affairs, Exxon Mobil Corporation)

Many have questioned government support of ethanol. They have seen that the federal government has provided substantial subsidies for ethanol fuel for more than 20 years, yet economic studies have concluded that the ethanol market could collapse without such subsidies. Why?

Observers and economists point to the fact that there are virtually no economies of scale associated with ethanol processing; production costs have not declined significantly over time; and ethanol production is a very mature technology.

The bottom line is the government should not be picking winners and losers. Governments should promote and support reliable, affordable energy of all types to meet societal needs.

I recently discussed the unintended consequences of the ethanol mandate on my blog, ExxonMobil Perspe

(These comments were submitted by Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.)

The Obama administration has taken salvos from both the right and left for its environmental policies. From the left most recently in a The New Yorker article that quoted an anonymous environmentalist as branding President Obama “the James Buchanan of climate change.”

No doubt some leftward criticism seems in order: for the President’s blithe assurance – pre-Deepwater Horizon -- that “oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.” For the incessant support of “clean coal,” whatever that is. (Hint: it’s an effort to retain votes in coal-heavy states.) For the upcoming plan to stick more ethanol in regular gasoline even though my sources report recent tests show increases in smog-forming pollution from some cars. (Hint: it’s an effort to retain votes in corn states.)

But on

(These comments were submitted by Kathryn Phillips, director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s California Transportation and Air Initiative.)

Transportation is the addicted friend who keeps promising to do better. Today, it accounts for nearly 70 percent of the nation’s oil use, and every year, the billions of barrels needed to feed that addiction grow.

Our oil addiction is directly linked to transportation inefficiencies that we have tolerated for too long. Our vehicles have lousy fuel economy, and our infrastructure is outdated, designed in a way that enhances inefficiency.

To reduce the addiction requires working on at least two levels at once: fixing fuel economy and fixing the infrastructure. Taken together, fixing a sector that includes more than 245 million cars in the United States alone and an outdated infrastructure that needs hundreds of billions just to bring it up to a state of good repair seems daunting. The good news is that we can take discreet actions in the next year that will have a big pay off and create a sub

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is floating a clean energy standard that includes nuclear power and "clean coal" as part of an energy mandate in addition to renewable energy. Here is a statement from the senator. And below that are the basic provisions of the bill.

“The RES introduced by Senators Bingaman and Brownback short-changes nuclear power, a safe reliable form of clean energy. It is essential that nuclear power be fully embraced in any clean energy standard. It is long overdue for our country to experience a renaissance in nuclear energy. It will lead to the creation of millions of new jobs here in the United States and help make our nation more energy independent.

“S. 3831 (Bingaman-Brownback) also does not have an expansive view of biomass opportunities. It is too quick to pick winners and losers in the clean energy race.

“As a nation, we should set reasonable clean energy standards which recognizes and rewards technologies that help our nation achieve energy independence. When it comes to clean energy

(These comments were submitted by Michael Williams, the legislative representative for the BlueGreen Alliance. The alliance is a national partnership of nine major U.S. labor unions and two of America's environmental organizations.)

A Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) is one of the most powerful tools America can use to reinvigorate our economy and make America a world leader in clean energy production and manufacturing. As noted in our report, Building a Clean Energy Assembly Line, a national RES with targets of 25 percent renewable electric generation by 2025 could create more than 850,000 jobs across the country.

Sens. Bingaman and Brownback proposed the Renewable Electricity Promotion Act of 2010, which ought to be commended and passed immediately. We are falling further and further behind countries like China in the economic race to develop clean energy. The baseline for renewable energy production established under Bingaman-Brownback wi

(These comments were submitted by Phyllis Cuttino, director of The Pew Charitable Trusts’ climate and energy program.)

Last week, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing on the global clean energy race. The overarching message of industry leaders: The United States needs to adopt a national renewable energy standard (RES) if it wants to compete on the world’s stage.

This message echoes the findings of The Pew Charitable Trusts’ recent report on clean energy investment in the G-20 countries. Documenting intense international competition for leadership, our analysis indicates that in countries where national policies are adopted, private finance and investment surely follow. We also found that here in the United States, the lack of a clear, long-term and consistent clean energy policy is a major barrier to building this sector. In 2009, for the first time, China pulled ahead of the United States to take the top spot in clean energy investments and finance by attracting $34.6

(These comments were submitted by Jason Hutt and Matt Armstrong of the Environmental Strategies Group at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP)

Given that Congress requested that EPA conduct this hydraulic fracturing study, federal legislative action prior to publication of EPA's report is misguided, and would reinforce the cynical view that perception matters more than reality. By requesting the study, Congress demonstrates that its information regarding hydraulic fracturing is lacking, and so any legislation curtailing or further regulating the practice will implicitly rely not on science but on unproven allegations for justification. The strategic advantages—economic, environmental and energy security—of the responsible development of America's abundant natural gas reserves are too important to let the public discourse be governed by misinformation, fear and NIMBYism.

From industry's perspective, hydraulic fracturing is not a new or revolutionary technology. Use of the technology in conjunction with new horizontal drilling techniques has made the

(These comments were submitted by Bruce Pasfield, a partner with Alston & Bird, who has a national practice in environmental litigation and served 15 years at the Justice Department where he focused on environmental crimes.)

Congress’ inability to pass comprehensive climate change legislation means that business now face the prospect of command and control regulation imposed by EPA. This is exactly the approach that many economist and businessmen wanted to avoid in favor of more market based approaches such as cap and trade or a carbon tax. The more practical view is that EPA’s green house gas tailoring rule is a fairly logic first step in the progression of carbon controls that will be imposed in the years to come. The Clean Air Act may not have been written with green house gases regulation in mind, but then again the Constitution was not written with all the modern day due process considerations in mind and it stills serves as a very functional document. EPA has plenty of experience with command

(These comments were submitted by Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.)

Let’s cut right to the chase and tell it like it is: the Clean Air Act is not a perfect tool, but the United States is one heck of a lot better off today because of it.

This landmark law has brought cleaner air, longer lives, better health, technological innovation and jobs. In fact, it created a whole industry dedicated to making pollution controls. You would never have seen a catalytic converter or a scrubber without the Clean Air Act.

Let’s address some imperfections head on.

Far too often the law has been the subject of compromise. Perhaps the most fateful one took place in 1970, when, as a concession to Senator Jennings Randolph of West Virginia and the mine workers union, Congress agreed to permit a less rigorous regulatory regime for existing power plants than for new ones. Few law makers then could foresee that coal-burning electric power plants built in the 1950s would still be smoking away in the 21st century. Thoughtful people b

Several recent weather events, including wildfires in Russia, floods in Pakistan and an ice sheet breaking off Greenland, have renewed a sense of urgency among environmental groups and progressive lawmakers such as House Global Warming Chairman Edward Markey that climate change is occurring -- and at a faster rate than previously assumed. They argue that the connection between climate change and a pattern of extreme weather is stronger than ever, but some scientists and skeptics of climate change say that connection cannot be made -- at least not with the data currently available.

Are extreme weather events, when considered collectively, evidence that climate change is occurring? If not, what are the missing links scientists still need to study in order to make a more conclusive find? Could these weather events revive congressional efforts to pass comprehensive climate legislation?

(These comments are from Andreas Muenchow, physical ocean science and engineering professor at the University of Delaware. He recently testified in front of the House Global Warming Committee on this issue.)

Neither climate nor weather is linear, but this neither makes them unpredictable nor chaotic. The simple harmonic pendulum is the essence of a linear system with clear cause and effect relations. Oscillations are predictable as long as the initial forcing is small. Furthermore, a linear trend will show the pendulum to slow down due to friction. Corrections are straightforward. Unfortunately, climate is not a simple, harmonic, or linear system. While this does not make it unpredictable or chaotic, it means that our “common sense” and loose talk of “totality of events” can easily fool us. We know that CO2 emissions for the last 150 years changed global temperatures. We also know that our current climate system has been very stable over the last 10,000 years. What we do not yet know is how small or how large a perturbations the last 150 years hav

(These comments are from Andreas Muenchow, physical ocean science and engineering professor at the University of Delaware. He recently testified in front of the House Global Warming Committee on this issue.)

No, climate does not cause weather, the balances of forces, masses, and energies in the atmosphere do. Furthermore, the atmosphere interacts with oceans, ice sheets, lands, and livings things. Ask an equally ill-posed question “Is climate change contributing to wild weather?” and my answer becomes yes, but with the caveat that butterflies flapping their wings in Tokyo contribute as well. There is more to the question than meets the eye.

Globally averaged air temperatures have increased by about 0.6 degrees Celsius per decade over the last 50 years. This warming is not uniform as it varies in both space and time. Some places cool, some places warm, some places cool or warm more than expected. Floods, droughts, mudslides, and calving glaciers always have and always will occur. Some weather events separated in space an

These comments were submitted by Steve Miller, president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

Clean coal technology is not only viable, it is essential if the United States is going to meet growing energy demands, decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and hold down consumer costs, while protecting American jobs and our economy.

Coal—America’s most abundant domestically-produced energy resource according to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) —has long been the dominant fuel to generate electricity in our nation, and advanced clean coal technologies (CCT) will allow coal to be “America’s fuel” for decades to come.

First, what do we mean by “clean coal technology?” The term refers to many different technologies that have been developed, or are being developed, by industry—typically in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy and sometimes the EPA and state agencies—since the 1980s to reduce air emissions from coal-fueled power plants

These comments were provided by Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's International Program.

The United States does not need TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The security, economic, environmental and health costs are too high. Rather than a system for importing fuel into our country, the pipeline is set to become a system for increasing and importing pollution and for putting livelihoods in America’s heartland at risk.

The Canadian pipeline company TransCanada has proposed a 2,000 mile tar sands pipeline that could bring as much as 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of costly and carbon-intense fuel to the U.S. Gulf Coast. This pipeline, called Keystone XL, will lock the United States into a continued dependence on expensive oil and generate a massive expansion of the tar sands oil operations in Canada. These operations have already left a permanent scar on Canada’s Boreal forest. The consumption of water and natural gas, creation of miles of leaking and toxic tailing

What can the U.S. do to keep up with China and other countries in the clean energy race?

The Senate has stalled action on legislation that prices carbon emissions and sets a renewable electricity standard, leading many energy experts to warn that the U.S. will fall far behind other countries, namely China and India, in developing clean energy like wind, solar, and "clean coal" technology, while continuing its dependence on fossil fuels.

What proposals in Congress right now would help spur the development of domestic clean energies? What can the administration do in this area to drive innovation and development? What does the U.S. risk in losing the clean energy race?

This comment was submitted by Teryn Norris, president, of Americans for Energy Leadership, and Daniel Goldfarb, program director of the organization.

U.S. economic leadership is at a crossroads. Recent outlooks suggest we may experience long-term stagnation and unemployment comparable to Japan’s lost decade. Yet while we have suffered an economic crisis produced by our own financial sector – losing millions of jobs, trillions in economic output, and further damaging our industrial base – China has largely shrugged off the global recession with high levels of growth and self-financed stimulus, all while purchasing billions of Treasury bills to finance our own deficit.

Meanwhile, as Breakthrough Institute and ITIF documented in “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant,” China and o

This is a guest response by Don Furman, senior vice president for external affairs at Iberdrola Renewables.

The United States economy has reached a crucial turning point. Last month, the US Senate abandoned plans to pass comprehensive clean energy legislation, just one day after China decided to cap its own emissions. Last week, China also announced its intention to limit its use of coal for electricity generation. China's moves are great news for the environment and for renewable energy innovation - but not great news for the future of the US clean tech economy. Without a real shift in policy soon, America's clean, renewable and efficient industries may be relegated to a permanent backseat position.

As Senior Vice President of External Affairs for Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., the second-largest wind operator in the US, I know firsthand the value of investing in renewable energy resources. Many of the jobs created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) were in the renewable energy industry, and billions of

How should Congress proceed now that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has shelved comprehensive climate and energy legislation?

Reid said last week he will not take up legislation that prices carbon emissions or includes robust energy measures like a renewable electricity standard before the summer recess. The bill he intends to bring to the floor before Congress adjourns Aug. 6 will include provisions that address the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, boost home energy efficiency and incentivize the use of natural gas as a fuel.

Should senators continue hashing out details on proposals that cap power plants' carbon emissions with the hope that Reid will make time in the fall? Should the chamber instead work toward passing an energy-only bill that includes a RES and provisions incentivizing nuclear power and "clean coal" technology? How does this affect the upcoming EPA regulations over greenhouse gas emissions?

The following comments were submitted by Kate Offringa, president and CEO of the Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association.

While debate continues over how America can achieve energy independence, Congress is poised to take an invaluable step in that direction - and it's almost slipped under Washington’s radar screen. With little fanfare, Majority Leader Reid has made Home Star an integral part of the revised energy package scheduled to reach the Senate floor in late July.

Why? Because the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act has bipartisan support. Home Star will help America conserve energy while enabling homeowners to reduce utility bills – some by as much as 40 percent. Once fully implemented, Home Star will also safeguard the environment from harmful greenhouse emissions and put tens of thousands of Americans to work. No wonder Home Star has brought together disparate lawmakers and organizations as far removed as the National Association of Manufacturers and the Sierra Club. A dozen Republicans v

Should the Senate work toward legislation that prices carbon emissions in a limited way, or should it seek to pass an energy-only bill instead?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has carved out a small window of opportunity for his chamber to introduce, debate and vote on an energy and climate package before the August recess. He intends to introduce his bill this week and bring it to the floor next week. That package, he has said, will include an oil spill title, a carbon pricing system that targets power plants, and numerous energy provisions.

What clean energy and climate provisions do you think Reid should include in his package? Should the legislation override EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants? Do lawmakers, utilities and environmental groups have enough time to coalesce around anything before Congress adjourns?

The following comments were submitted by Michael D. Olsen, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management at the Interior Department, and currently counsel at Bracewell & Giuliani's Environmental Strategies Group.

On March 31, 2010, in the shadow of a biofuel-powered F-18 at Andrews Air Force Base, President Obama made the case for the expansion of offshore oil and gas development. Some criticized the President for actually taking more offshore energy off the table than putting it on, and others questioned what the President's announcement actually meant. One thing the President said was clear, however, "Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs, and keep our business competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy."

The President was absolutely correct about our need for traditional energy sources. America needs domestic energy, and our demand is the same as it was prior to t

The following comments were submitted by Jack Spencer, a research fellow with an expertise in nuclear energy policy at the Heritage Foundation.

Last week, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), a three-judge panel charged with conducting licensing hearings for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected the Department of Energy’s motion to withdraw the licensing application to construct the geologic repository Yucca Mountain.. This is a resounding victory for the future of nuclear energy. Though the Board’s decision was a surprise, it was the correct decision. Existing statute is clear that Yucca Mountain shall be the nation’s nuclear waste repository. So absent any technical or scientific justification for the motion to

This is a guest post by Teryn Norris, director and founder of Americans for Energy Leadership and senior advisor at the Breakthrough Institute.

Tuesday's White House energy summit drove yet one more nail into the economy-wide cap and trade coffin, with Senator Kerry declaring “we’re prepared to compromise further.” The compromise gaining momentum is a scaled-back, utility-only approach. But if President Obama and Senate leaders want to deliver a real victory on energy and climate policy reform, they should move quickly to advance a third way approach based on major federal investment in clean energy technology.

As Mark Muro of Brookings Institution wrote here, “the latest efforts to gain political consensus in the Senate are continuing to neglect a crucial aspect of cleaning up the country's energy system—technology innovation.” It was President Obama himself who highlig

What climate and energy measures should Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid include in the energy package he hopes to bring to the floor this summer? Last week Democratic senators were presented with three proposals: an energy-only approach, the cap-and-trade plan promoted by Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, and a cap-and-dividend bill. Reid plans to convene the Democrats again this week to discuss those options. Meanwhile, Republicans have introduced a different energy-only bill. Could any of these bills -- or a combination of some of their features -- garner the 60 votes needed to pass? What is most worrisome about these options? What is most encouraging? How do the ongoing investigation and cleanup efforts associated with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill affect the chances of climate and energy legislation?

Should Congress strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions? This week, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is expected to call for a vote on a disapproval resolution that would strip the EPA of that authority. Other senators are proposing slightly different approaches. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., would delay the EPA's carbon dioxide regulations for two years. Meanwhile, Sens. Robert Casey Jr., D-Pa., and Thomas Carper, D-Del., would allow EPA to regulate only the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, such as power plants and oil refineries. They would exempt small businesses and farms. Should Congress endorse one of these options or applaud EPA for tackling a climate-change problem?

The implications of the BP oil spill, now considered the worst in U.S. history, are increasingly being felt in Washington. Last week, President Obama extended the moratorium on new deepwater drilling for six months and halted oil exploration in the Arctic and off Virginia's coast. The White House ousted the head of the Minerals Management Service. Coastal state lawmakers rushed to provide federal relief for residents and businesses hurt by the environmental devastation. Others in Congress saw the spill as an opportunity to advance electric cars.

What policy and political changes should Washington embrace as a result of the oil spill? Will the spill convince Congress to pass a climate bill or more limited energy legislation? Will it impact the November congressional elections?

Earlier I inadvertently posted comments attributed to Brian Wynne, president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association, but they weren’t made by Wynne. We’ve since deleted them, and we’re sorry for the error.

Should the government clamp a moratorium on new offshore oil and natural gas drilling until more is known about how the Gulf of Mexico spill could have been prevented or minimized?

Key congressional Democrats are urging the Obama administration to halt current oil drilling in the gulf, postpone planned drilling off Alaska, and abandon plans to drill off the Virginia coast. Meanwhile, a group of Gulf Coast lawmakers from both chambers is asking the administration to lift the ban on shallow-water drilling. The month-long suspension imposed by the administration is set to expire May 28 when the Interior Department issues its safety report on offshore energy production. There are seven pending drilling permit applications, two in deep waters and five in shallow.

Should the administration extend the current suspension? Should it be broadened to current and/or future drilling operations in the Arctic Ocean, off the East Coast and other parts of the gulf? Can the U.S. afford to curb its offshore drilling, given its dependence on oil?

Updated at 7:47 a.m. on May 17.

Can the climate and energy bill introduced last week by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I/D-Conn., garner enough votes to pass the Senate?

The two senators unveiled their comprehensive legislation without their Republican partner, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Under the bill, electric utilities would be required to buy emission allowances as soon as the trading program kicks in, while energy-intensive and trade-sensitive manufacturers wouldn't be covered until 2016. The bill would give coastal states the right to veto offshore oil and natural gas drilling. It also would pre-empt EPA and state regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and impose a carbon tariff on imports coming from countries that don't have an emissions reduction plan.

What measures would you like to see added to or removed from the bill? Will Graham's absence from the bill's rollout be detrimental to its prospects? How will the ongoing investigation into the gulf oi

The following comments were submitted by James Marvin, retired Navy SEAL Commander, who works for an alternative energy company in Seattle, Wa., and has advocated for climate legislation as part of the veterans' climate group Operation Free.

The United States has to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will become to address the issue. Whether the American Power Act will carry the day, or some other legislation already introduced, remains to be seen. Doing nothing though, is not an acceptable answer and whatever the solution turns out to be it has to be pragmatic and it has to be timely.

Where you stand is where you sit and from where I sit our country’s dependance on foreign oil is a national security issue. It is costing American lives and one could say it is costing America itself. Comprehensive energy and climate legislation, no matter whose it is, is where we have to go as a nation. It will provide incentives for new energy solutions. It will put a price on pollution.

How can the U.S. reduce its dependency on oil -- both foreign and domestic?

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill has spotlighted the risks that accompany offshore drilling, and environmental groups have responded by demanding a ban. Advocates of drilling in U.S. coastal waters counter that this country needs to become less reliant on imports from the Middle East. Forty percent of the energy consumed in the U.S. comes from oil. And 70 percent of that oil is imported.

Will the massive oil spill in the gulf have any impact on the U.S. relationship to oil? Will it spur more investment in so-called clean energy? Will it improve the prospects of climate and energy legislation?