Scott Sklar

US commitment and stamina to address its energy problems has been unpredictable and reactive. When energy prices are high or when the global energy suppliers experience political instability, policy initiatives are passed. As soon as prices stabilize and political instability calms, political and consumer amnesia sets in. The weakest industries in the political system are the ones that have been intermittently sacrificed. In the mid-1980's, both the residential solar credits and utility-scale wind credits were allowed to expire, and thousands of US jobs lost. In the mean time Scandinavia built a world class large-scale wind industry followed by China. While the largest majority of Americans in virtually every poll want renewable energy, unless policies are sustained so these industries can scale-up manufacturing and deployment and ultimately financing, they will never reach their potential. Wind and photovoltaics have begun to enter this scaling-up threshold primarily due to State policies such as Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, environmental credits, and System Benefit T

The US Congress passed an energy bill which set a 36 billion gallon goal for biofuels of which 22 billion gallons would come from non-food feedstocks, leaving a 3 billion gallon increase from the 'then' 8 billion gallon per year production. The 10 percent blend of alcohols with gasoline supplant the higher-cost octane-enhancing aromatics (toluene, zylene, benzene) which are carcinogenic. USDA and other technical organizations have stated there is a positive energy balance to corn-based ethanol. But more importantly the USA has a 2 trillion pound annual farm waste problem and human waste adds another 8 million tons of sewage waste per year. Manure from a dairy milking 200 cows produces as much nitrogen as is in the sewage from a community of 5,000-10,000 people, and annual litter from a typical broiler house of 22,000 birds contains as much phosphorus as is in the sewage from a community of 6,000 people. A 2008 report by scientists from the Carnegie Institution and Stanford University stated using vacant lands for energy crops, instead of converting existing croplands or clearing

As natural gas fracking has boomed, federal, state and local governments have been forced to intervene in a reactive mode. Aside from activities on federal lands, the only role of the federal government should be involved is in environmental analysis and regulation for air and water quality, and impacts on geology (earthquakes and tremors). Since the environmental and geological impacts do cross state borders, federal involvement is required to insure public health "now and in the future" is not impinged by this activity. The public needs transparency so they can be assured of their safety and health. For State governments, they need to establish liability benchmarks, so that natural gas fracking and extraction sites which create unintended problems are borne by the industries and not by the taxpayers. For local governments, they need to address siting issues which is their domain - both existing and future - to insure sites don't become brownfields or toxic fields of the future and harm economic growth. Local governments must be involved in insuring long term water a

Coal is declining for four very solid reasons, not really connected to each other. First, is the availability of lower cost natural gas, as well as the fact that natural gas generation plants are just lower cost to build and in lower megawatt output increments. Second, as electric grids become more sophisticated, those electric utilities want options as to the variability of output of electric generation plants -- and natural gas generators are easier to "dial up and down" than most other options. Third, State Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards and State Clean Air Act Implementation Plans favor high value energy efficiency, renewable energy, and natural gas in a combination of States where over 60 percent of US electric ratepayers live. And Four, existing and imminent clean air and clean water standards do have some impact - but the looming threat of further legal action on the other heavy metals and carcinogens coming out of smoke stacks and coal ash storage ponds. The potential for coal evolving into the "tobacco" of energy sources even without the added b

Welcome to the 21st century. EPA finally decided that the "business as usual" approach for the coal generation industry, should come to an end. The dirtiest coal generation plants were grandfathered in the Clean Air Act due to pleas by the industry that they would be retired in the 1990's. They weren't. EPA has decided not to address the other heavy metals, other than mercury where the evidence was beyond overwhelming. EPA has decided to overlook the portfolio of carcinogens released in the air and water from coal mining. So EPA took the middle ground, using the natural gas standard as "the best available fossil generation" as the emission standard. By the way, that's not clean. By the way, heavy metals will still be emitted. By the way, all the carcinogens will be emitted too. But the EPA decision is a step in the right direction, albeit a compromise, and overlooking all the other "nasties". Congress should stay out of it, but the Republican leadership will gnash and lament how horrible it will be an undermine 'life as we know it' - no different

The US public and the US political system are living in their own fantasy. These US mindsets are framed in the 1960's when the United States was the biggest global economy by far and the largest producer of energy. Petroleum, uranium, natural gas, and coal are now global commodities which are driven by the highest bidders and the highest users. No more can the United States flex its energy production and large markets to impact energy pricing. China, India, Brazil, and the European economies have equal stature in the global energy picture. Since President Obama became President of the United States, oil rigs have increased by four times - quadrupling domestic oil drilling. In fact, all of our natural gas and petroleum rigs are more than all of the rest of the world combined. But as supply increases so does demand – and there is no way to ignore that capitalistic principle. The US has 3% of the world’s population using 25% of the world’s resources. But now with rapidly increasing economies exemplified by China and India, about a third of the global population

The government has a role in insuring a diverse portfolio of energy resources for the national security and economic welfare of the public. But that means the government should not subsidize mature technologies in mature markets by mature companies - which means the $70 billion of subsidies for petroleum, natural gas, coal and nuclear should come to an end immediately which would save $1 trillion over a decade. The government should subsidize newer technologies in immature markets, but as they mature begin ramping them down and then out. It would be unfair to zero out the wind production tax credits, but rather to establish a transparent ramp down over the next 15 years would probably be great public policy assuming you closed out the traditional energy credits. President Reagan proposed just that but by the time the Congress was done, the traditional energy industries kept all their subsidies while the residential solar credit for homeowners was ended putting 90,000 people out of work in the mid-1980's. Targeted tax credits to expand or drive certain results is also valid publi

While I respect the Chairman of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, I have to state from a public policy standpoint that this proposed CES bill has no value. While natural gas, pre-fracking, may be the cleanest fossil choice, the point of a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) or clean energy standard (CES) should be to drive the cleanest newcomers into the marketplace. Natural gas is one of the older energy options and one of the lowest costs. The market is poised to uptake natural gas as the prime source for electric generation now. So all this inclusion in a CES does is to insure there will be few renewable energy options. The CES also fails to set some proportion for high-value energy efficiency which is another critical policy lapse. And while combined-heat and power is included, other high-value options like geoexchange, solar thermal and daylighting, among others (including net-zero energy buildings and infrastructure) should also be steadfastly encouraged. While the generation of nuclear power does have a lower carbon threshold, the mining of uranium doe

The nuclear industry is not poised for its renaissance after more than 30 years of stagnation, and the nuclear projects in questions are unique in that they have attracted federal loan guarantees and are in a State with a state utility commission willing to accommodate the industry. Nuclear power plant costs are ballooning while natural gas prices are plummeting. O&M and security costs for nuclear plants are several orders of magnitude higher than natural gas generation, and nuclear waste costs are the highest of any waste of any energy technology. Aside from concerns about terrorism, including cybersecurity, nuclear plants cannot be ratcheted incrementally higher and lower as with natural gas plants. With a weakened economy, the chance that the highest cost energy will have a resurgence is rather comical. Yes, there will be a few plants, but after their price tag is known, there will be few followers.

The most important quote for green energy is the President declaring that he will not step back from the commitment. And while there is no chance a Clean Energy Standard will be passed during an election year, far more importantly is protecting the existing tax incentives for energy efficiency and the portfolio of renewable and alternative energy technologies including fuel cells and energy storage, as well as resurrecting the 1603 credits that expired in 2011. The wind industry, now a major employer in the Midwest, particularly Iowa, Kansas and Michigan, raises the stakes and brings in mid-west Republicans to help broker a deal. So while Obama's lofty goals won't be met, the critical investment issues are now an elevated priority. The counter-move that the President threw out was the conventional energy subsidies, over $70 billion a year by some counts, for coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy -- mature technologies by mature companies in mature markets - that not only add to the deficit but distort the market for the newer entrants into the market. So the drama unfolds, b

The Keystone Pipeline has been mired in controversy from the very beginning, due to major lost of ancient forests, insatiable consumption of water as well as its pathway over critical aquifers under the US bread basket, and exaggerations over the actual employment numbers. An unusual coalition of conservative farm groups, environmental scientists, and environmentalists joined forces to raise alarms. The only non-industry employment study dropped the project's claims of millions of jobs to 2,500 part time jobs to build the pipeline. While carbon intensity is extremely higher, the proponents have claimed that it's a small part of overall US fuel, so it will have minimal emissions impact; and then claim the opposite stance that the pipeline delay will have major energy impact. But the temporary killer is that Congress tried to accelerate the regulatory process during an election year which oversteps Administration authority - and there was no way that was going to work, no matter what the merits. The President made a smart decision - do not undervalue risk, review judiciously, sugge

The two prime issues distorting the energy markets are the $50 billion plus per year of federal subsidies for conventional energy sources, subsidizing mature technologies, in mature markets by mature companies; and the requirements for the traditional generation plants to minimize their emissions and wastes, addressing their intense impact on human health and ecosystems. The idea that EPA should allow the traditional industries to sustain their emissions where when new control and mitigation technologies are now available, is not good public policy. The position the traditional fossil industry is fostering that EPA should reconsider rulemaking because of the multi-billion dollar impact of the potential rise in prices in less clean forms of energy. But as EPA has pointed out, the death and health impact is borne by the American consumer at a far greater cost than what would be absorbed in the electric bills. In addition, if traditional energy is continued to be heavily subsidized and be allowed to delay their negative health and environmental impacts - the result distorts a

In October 2011, the International Energy Agency warned of ballooning world fossil fuel subsidies: "Global subsidies for fossil fuel consumption are set to reach $660 billion in 2020, or 0.7 percent of global gross domestic product, unless reforms are passed to effectively eliminate this form of state aid, according to the International Energy Agency. The IEA estimated such subsidies at $409 billion in 2010, compared to $312 billion in 2009. Oil products had the largest subsidies at $193 billion in 2010 while $91 billion went to natural gas." The Union of Concerned Scientists released a report, “Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies,” found that more than 30 subsidies have supported every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to long-term waste storage. Added together, these subsidies often have exceeded the average market price of the power produced. US fossil subsidies come in many forms, from oil depletion allowances and intangible drilling costs, overseas refining credits, special treatment on coal royalties, to name a few. Ac

Clean energy is not headed for a crisis, but there will be some challenges. This week the Worldwatch REN21 report was released which validated that in 2010 half of the new electric generation coming on line globally was renewable, and even in the US, renewables comprised 25% of new electric generation. Private sector investment exceeded $211 billion globally into the renewable energy industries which matches the recent PEW study cataloging global private sector renewable energy investment at $269 billion.

Aside from the investment tax credits for energy efficiency and many of the renewable energy projects expiring in 2016, only the wind credit is up for expiration in 2012 which is causing some angst within that industry and their investment community. But with Congress likely keeping federal subsidies for petroleum, coal, natural gas, and nuclear - which costs taxpayers a minimum of $39 billion per year, it is unlikely that wind will be on the chopping block.

The market driver for renewable energy is that electric utility costs are increasing, electric power quality

Over the last 36 months, over 100 new US renewable energy and energy efficiency manufacturing plants have opened in the United States. According to a report by Ernst & Young. Global private sector investments in the renewable energy sector reached a record $243 billion in 2010, an annual increase of 30%,. On Oct 13, 2011, Reuters reported that “wind farm and solar park financing surged to a record $41.8 billion in the third quarter, even though clean energy share prices and the European economy slumped, a report by research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance”.

A new report released in September (2011) by The Pew Charitable Trusts stated, “Globally, 2010 clean energy finance and investments grew by 30 percent to a record $243 billion. The United States received $34 billion in equity last year, a 51 percent increase from 2009.” But a 51% increase isn’t shabby. A new report shows that the US is central to the global solar supply chain. In 2010, US solar firms achie

Politicians have the propensity to ignore risks and march forward and we have

weathered waste from nuclear weapons in our groundwater, coal ash in our

llakes, the savings and loan fiasco and recent economic meltdown, poor preparation

and response to Katrina -- all costing taxpayers bilions of dollars. Economists have

estimated the seafood industry to contribute $5.8 billion and 78,500 jobs to the

Alaskan and US economy and add tourism and hunting atop these statistics. Before

we rush to drill, we need to absolutely sure we don't destroy the wealth livelihood of

other Americans especially when 24 recent studies conclude the US can meet all it's

energy needs with high-value energy efficiency and renewable energy.