That's a question the Obama administration is seeking answers to right now as it considers whether to approve any of nearly 20 export applications pending at the Energy Department. It's also a question on the minds of almost everyone who operates in the energy and environment world. Natural gas is a diverse fuel whose renaissance of the last six years has upended decades of conventional wisdom about energy and environment economics and policy.

Even though the administration holds most of the decision-making power on the export issues, Capitol Hill is making sure its voice is heard. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday holds the second of a series of forums on natural gas. This one deals exclusively with the export question. The House Energy and Commerce Committee held a similar hearing a couple of weeks ago. In addition to these official events, policymakers are holding briefings and other smaller events on the topic.

Why is this issue so important? What are the concerns Washington should focus on the most? Prices? Environmental and energy security? How can these seemingly competing concerns be appropriately weighed against one another?

Should Congress seek to pass legislation that changes the law governing exports? Should the administration seek to limit the number of export applications that it will approve? Or should the market be left alone to decide what's best?

But are small-ball measures like this enough to fight climate change? Over the past few years, lawmakers kept trying to "go big" on energy and climate, including enacting a cap-and-trade system. Are more sweeping policies like that and a carbon tax really what's needed to confront this global challenge and to show the rest of the world the United States is serious in its commitment? Or are smaller-ticket policies better than nothing, given that the politics in Washington aren't conducive to more-sweeping measures?

What other small-ball energy and climate policies could Obama and Congress pursue that could--as Wyden says--help put points on the board in Washington's efforts to address global warming?

This announcement comes ahead of the conference that starts in Houston this week--one of the world's biggest meetings devoted to the latest innovations in offshore energy technologies.

America's oil and natural-gas industry isn't the only sector innovating. The Energy Department, especially its Advanced Research Projects Agency, is partnering with universities and private companies on renewable-energy technologies to ensure the United States doesn't relinquish innovations to China and other Asian countries.

What do private-sector technological innovations across the energy sector mean for Washington's efforts to enact energy and climate-change policy? For renewable energy especially, what's the right balance between government involvement and other stakeholders when it comes to innovating technologies?

Does the oil and gas boom put Washington in a reactive, instead of proactive, legislating mode? Why or why not?

When looking at the broad spectrum of energy resources, what technology innovations are the most promising?

There has been an escalating discussion about how tax policy treats traditional energy and renewable energy interests. This is critical in terms of driving investment, economic growth, and environmental performance. Senate and House tax committees are talking more publicly about broader tax reform, but will this be achieved within this Congress?

While oil and gas and renewables have often been pitted against each other, Sen. Coons, Rep. Ted Poe, and other colleagues introduced bipartisan legislation known as the Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act this past week in the spirit of the all-of-the-above energy approach.

If this bill passes, what will be the effect on the renewable-energy industry in terms of attracting new investment and creating jobs? How will renewable power and fuels sources take advantage of the MLP structure if it were to become law?

What legislative pathway do you see as most likely for the MLP Parity Act in light of tax-reform discussions? Is there a path for passing this bill other than absorbing it into comprehensive tax reform?

What would be the likely outcome for the continued utilization of clean-energy tax credits and oil and gas tax treatment?

Will renewable-energy projects use the "exit MLP"--financing projects through debt and then "dropping them down" into MLPs to spin them off? Will other creative structures emerge?

There are several new resources and technologies made eligible in the MLP Parity Act, including carbon capture, biochemical, and energy-efficient buildings. Do you see the MLP tax structure as working well for these approaches?

Whether or not Congress ends up passing meaningful legislation on immigration and guns, and regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on two related gay-marriage cases this summer, the stage has clearly been set for meaningful legislative and public-discourse momentum on these trio of issues.

Why is the momentum in favor of change on immigration, gun control, and gay marriage, but not on major energy and climate-change policy? Or do you dispute that premise?

Should Washington instead try to move forward in the area of energy and climate policy in a piecemeal fashion, as President Obama has said before? Or, does this big policy area require big solutions?

In Obama's budget for fiscal year 2014, the funding levels for the three agencies responsible for energy and environment policies--the Energy and Interior departments and the Environmental Protection Agency--are similar to those he proposed last year. The Energy Department's budget would see an 8 percent increase from 2012, with much of that going toward renewable-energy and efficiency programs. Funding for fossil-fuel programs would decrease. As he has in every budget since entering the White House in 2009, Obama calls for a repeal of oil and natural-gas tax breaks. The Interior Department's budget would also see an increase, albeit a smaller one at 4 percent. The department ramps up funding for the Land and Conservation Fund and provides more money for oil and natural-gas permitting programs. EPA gets the short stick: Its budget is down 3.5 percent compared with 2012 levels. Backing up Obama's rhetoric committing himself to action on climate change, EPA's budget in this area saw a slight increase from 2012 levels, from $476 million to $477 million. EPA's plan to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act brings with it a host of challenges concerning both the budget and political opposition.

What do these budget figures mean for Washington's fight over spending? What changes in funding levels in these areas should lawmakers and Obama seek? The budget priorities of congressional Democrats and Obama are far apart from those of congressional Republicans. Can any common ground be found in these budgets, especially as they relate to energy and environmental policy?

That's the debate playing out in Washington and around the country right now in the wake of an oil-pipeline spill in Arkansas. The ExxonMobil-owned pipeline accident, which spilled at least a few thousand barrels of oil in a Little Rock suburb, is a stark reminder that energy production comes with unavoidable risks. Ironically, the spill occurred a little more than a year after President Obama signed a law strengthening the nation's pipeline-safety regulations.

Is the Arkansas oil-pipeline spill reason enough not to build the oil-sands project? How can Washington and the private sector work to ensure such a spill never occurs with the Keystone XL pipeline?

What does the Arkansas oil-pipeline spill say about the risks inherent in fossil-fuel production and transportation? Are these risks really unavoidable?

How, if at all, should Congress change the renewable fuels standard?

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., last week released the first in a series of white papers on Wednesday seeking input on how--or whether--Congress should change the mandate for production of biofuels as gasoline blends.

The Renewable Fuels Standard, which requires increasingly large amounts of biofuels each year, was part of a comprehensive energy bill signed by President George W. Bush in 2005 and expanded two years later during a drive to make the country more energy-independent. Most of the mandate is currently met with corn-produced ethanol; advanced biofuels made from products other than corn are not coming to market as quickly as the law had originally envisioned. The mandate came under intense bipartisan scrutiny amid last summer's historic drought, which sent corn prices soaring.

Should Congress try to fix the mandate? And, if so, what are the major areas lawmakers should focus on? Should lawmakers instead try to defend the policy as it stands? Or, should lawmakers just eliminate the mandate?

Are there other policies, such as a low-carbon fuel standard, that could achieve the same end as the RFS without some of the concerns lawmakers cite about the biofuels mandate? 

Over the past few months, Washington and the rest of the country have become increasingly aware of hackers attacking the Internet components of the country's economy. Last week, White House Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said cyberattacks are now among the top threats to national security.

One disconcerting threat would be a cyberattack on the infrastructure controlling pipelines moving oil and natural gas, or the electrical grid that powers the entire country. Experts say that a big cyberattack could cause blackouts and other disruptions stemming from the country's dependence on energy resources.

In a sign of how integral the energy industry is to the cybersecurity debate, President Obama invited several top energy executives to a meeting at the White House last week on the topic. According to Bloomberg News, the meeting included Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, American Electric Power CEO Nicholas Akins, and Marathon Oil CEO Clarence Cazalot Jr.

Despite the growing alarm about cyberattacks, Congress has not passed legislation that would strengthen the country's ability to prevent such attacks. Obama signed an executive order last month to strengthen the nation's cybersecurity, but Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said last week that the order was not enough and that Congress must act too.

What more does Washington need to do to ensure that the country is protected from cyberattacks? What are the pros and cons of recent legislation proposed in Congress to strengthen the nation's cybersecurity? How can Washington strike the right balance between guarding against cyberattacks and protecting the privacy of companies and individuals?

Will it take the occurrence of a major cyberattack to get Washington to act?

All the top Cabinet aides overseeing Obama's energy and environmental policies are leaving, and the president has announced his choices to replace them: Sally Jewell, chief executive of the outdoor-gear retailer REI, for Interior secretary; EPA's current assistant administrator for air and radiation, Gina McCarthy, as the agency's administrator; and MIT professor Ernest Moniz as Energy secretary.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a confirmation hearing for Jewell last week, and hearings are expected soon for McCarthy at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Moniz at the Energy and Natural Resources panel.

With Congress gridlocked on energy and environmental policy, any major progress Obama hopes to make on these issues will likely be done within EPA and the Energy and Interior departments, in coordination with White House aides, including Obama's top energy and environment adviser, Heather Zichal.

What do Obama's picks say about how ambitious he hopes to be in the next four years? What agency will be the most active in forming policy? If these nominees are confirmed by the Senate, what advice would you give to Jewell, McCarthy, and Moniz as they prepare to accept Obama's key energy and environment Cabinet posts?

Before sequestration kicked in on March 1, the White House warned that the cuts would slow down the Interior Department's process to review oil and gas permits; media reports have said the Environmental Protection Agency's oversight of Superfund sites, oil spills and pollution laws could also be at risk.

Are these concerns overblown? Or have they not been mentioned enough? What other energy and environment programs could be at risk? How will Washington and local governments be able to document how much, if at all, sequestration has impacted their programs, including energy and environment policies?

Washington is familiar with this kind of fiscal fight, with each party adamant its position is more right than the other's. Each time, policymakers seem to come to some sort of last-ditch solution, but no such solution ever creates a sense of long-term policy certainty that the private sector has said it wants from Washington. What kind of impact do these continual fiscal showdowns have on energy and environment policies?

The 1,700-mile, tar-sands project has come to symbolize much more than a pipeline. Almost five years after the project's first step into the regulatory process, Washington is still fighting about its fate.

To some, the transcontinental project is an engine for economic growth and its approval would be a sign that Obama is serious about boosting the economy. To others, green-lighting the pipeline means game-over for combating global warming because the project would carry carbon-heavy tar sands.

The State Department is not expected to make the necessary national-interest determination on the pipeline until at least spring of this year. Obama is likely to make the final call on the project, a decision that could slip into the latter half of 2013.

What does the pipeline mean for both the U.S. economy and efforts to curb climate change? How could the decision affect America's relations with Canada, our northern neighbor where the pipeline originates?

What does the battle over this one pipeline mean for future efforts to build energy infrastructure?

Sizing Up Obama's State of the Union Address

In his State of the Union address, President Obama challenged Congress to act on climate change  - but declared that if lawmakers don't act, he will.

He did not detail how, specifically, he'll use his executive authority, but his speech appears to set the stage for a series of cabinet actions, starting with Environmental Protection Agency regulations on both new and existing polluters.  

How much can Obama achieve on climate change without Congress?  What will be the impacts - environmental, economic and political? What obstacles and challenges stand in the way?

Increasing energy efficiency can be a powerful catalyst to turbo charge our economy and make us more competitive. Efficiency and productivity gains have a long track record of helping consumers and businesses reduce the amount of energy they are using. In fact, without efficiency the U.S. would need nearly 50% more energy than we use today, according to the Alliance to Save Energy. Until now, most of the attention has been paid to how we can save energy, rather than how we can get more out of the energy we use, and how increasing energy productivity can boost the economy. Understanding how to leverage efficiency gains to create a more productive energy economy is something that can yield huge benefits.

The Alliance Commission on National Energy Efficiency Policy has been studying various technologies and policy options to create a set of policies that would provide a blueprint to double energy productivity over the next 20 years. On February 7, I will join my fellow commissioners in unveiling recommendations on how to achieve this goal and "get more bang for our energy buck". This "Energy 2030" plan provides policy solutions through investments, modernization, and education and includes an in depth analysis that shows how these gains in energy productivity can increase U.S. GDP up to 2%, create annual savings of $327 billion, and save the average household $1,039.

Energy efficiency is also one area in energy policy which has a long history of bipartisan support. In the final days of the last Congress, lawmakers approved energy efficiency advancements and voted to extend energy efficiency tax relief through 2013. I hope that this Congress can work together in a bipartisan manner to produce a robust energy efficiency plan that will result in positive impacts across our economy.