How big of an impact will Pennsylvania’s Natural Gas Energy Development Program have on the state’s effort to move toward energy independence? Should a program like this be replicated in other states and/or at the federal level?

Currently 11 of the 18 states that require disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals allow companies to use FracFocus as their reporting method. FracFocus was also proposed by the Bureau of Land Management as a method of reporting fracking chemicals used on federal and tribal lands.

The Harvard Law School report identified shortcomings in three areas of FracFocus:

1. Insufficient information on the timeliness of submitted chemical disclosures;
2. Insufficient substance of disclosures, and no state-set minimum reporting standards;
3. A lack of a sound definition for a trade secret regime, resulting in inconsistent trade secret assertions.

The Ground Water Protection Council defended FracFocus, stating, “We believe the research done by the Harvard team fails to reflect the true capabilities of the FracFocus system and misrepresents the system’s relationship to state regulatory programs” [EnergyWire]. Other supporters of FracFocus have been highly critical of the Harvard report.

What is your view of FracFocus and the criticisms levied against it by the Harvard Law School report? What are the costs and benefits of using FracFocus as a regulatory compliance tool?

This bill has the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs and save consumers billions of dollars during the coming years. A study conducted last year by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy indicated that last year’s version of this bill could have created 80,000 jobs and saved consumers $4 billion dollars annually on energy bills by 2020, with a potential to reach 159,000 jobs and $20 billion in annual savings by 2030.

ESICA uses a variety of low-cost tools to reduce barriers for private sector energy users and will drive adoption of off-the-shelf efficiency technologies among the largest energy consumers. It will strengthen model building codes, train next generation high-efficiency building designers and operators, and kick start private investments through the Commercial Building Energy Efficiency Financing Initiative. It will also enhance R&D and technical assistance to help manufacturers reduce energy costs and improve competitiveness. And it will encourage supply chain energy efficiency. It will also require the federal government, the largest consumer of energy in the country, to implement energy saving techniques that will save taxpayer dollars.

Support for this bill includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Alliance to Save Energy, among many others. This renewed push for energy efficiency has broad, bipartisan support. The American people deserve an energy policy that is good for the economy and the environment. The Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act is exactly that.

What are your views on the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act? Do you have recommendations for improving it?

• Public disclosure of all fracking chemicals before fracking begins
• Presumed liability of the oil and gas drillers for any environmental contamination near fracking sites, until proven otherwise
• Restrictions on venting and flaring of natural gas

The bill’s supporters believe that it outlines an effective compromise that could open up the region to what the EIA estimates to be 11 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. Henry Henderson, Director of NRDC’s Midwest Program, had this to say about the bill: “While far from perfect, as written the bill is hugely important to start putting protections for Illinois communities and our economies in place right now. In particular, the bill provides many critical protections that are lacking in other states’ piecemeal fracking rules. And as composed now, it would create new, stronger model standards here that could drive future debates about fracking in other states, and set a higher floor for any future federal fracking rules.”

According to the Chicago Tribune, Kyna Legner, Illinois field director for Energy In Depth, which provides research and outreach as part of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, added her take: “We know shale development can be done safely and responsibly, and it’s good news for hardworking Illinois families that we could finally start seeing some new investment in our state again. I think that’s why you see such broad support for Rep. Bradley’s bill, from industry and the environmental community alike.”

What is the best approach to dealing with the fracking issue? Does this bill create a blueprint for federal, state and local regulation?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Transport Safety Administration (NHTSA) have released new rules for a corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard that will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon and reduce vehicle greenhouse gas emissions to 163 grams of carbon dioxide per mile by 2025. The EPA is establishing national GHG emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, and the NHTSA is establishing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Both programs will give flexibility to manufacturers to achieve compliance, including the use of a credit trading system and incentives for producing zero emission, plug-in hybrid, and compressed natural gas vehicles. 

“[The fuel standards will] strengthen our nation’s energy security, it’s good for middle-class families and it will help create an economy built to last” Obama stated. Transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, said the standards would save Americans $1.7 trillion in fuel costs, resulting in an average savings of more than $8,000 a vehicle by 2025. A coalition of 13 auto manufacturers have come out in support of the rules, along with the United Auto Workers Union, who said the rules would expand the auto market, and environmental groups, who lauded the projected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and oil imports. 

Are these rules the most efficient or cheapest way to increase fuel economy? What are the unintended side-effects, positive or negative, of mandating higher fuel economy standards? 

The U.S. electric grid is one of our nation’s most critical infrastructures—none of the other 17 critical infrastructures will function properly without it. America’s grid is vulnerable to widespread blackouts of extended duration from any and all of the following threats: cyber attack; solar geomagnetic storm electro-magnetic pulse (EMP), coordinated physical attack; nuclear EMP; or a pandemic. It is critical that we in Congress send the message that it is in the interest of national security that every community and institution, especially our military, reestablish their capabilities to be self-sufficient independent of the electric grid.

This Resolution has received support from first responders and national security experts, including former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former National Security Advisor Robert “Bud” McFarlane, Chuck Manto, lead, EMP SIG of Infragard, the Reserve Officers Association, and the Reserve Enlisted Association. Mr. Woolsey has said that the bill “will encourage America’s best-in-the-world hackers, inventors, engineers, first responders and entrepreneurs to help lead the rest of us toward having a much more resilient electric grid.  Local communities and organizations that take steps to generate 20% of their electricity load independent of the grid will strengthen our national security by becoming more self-reliant and self-sustaining.”

The federal government’s acknowledgement this summer of a 17-fold increase between 2009 and 2011 of cyber attacks on American infrastructure by criminals, hackers and other nations underscores the urgent need for action. However, there are significant regulatory and political obstacles for federal government top-down initiatives. That is why it is of critical importance that individuals, communities and organizations take steps to move forward to secure themselves and mitigate against threats to our electric infrastructure. I’d like your input about how we can do so.

Specifically: What technical, policy and political challenges stand in the way of the United States realizing a fully 20% distributed electricity system that can operate independent of or in partnership with owners and operators of grid assets? Who/what are key stakeholder(s) and organizations that may be supportive? How can the U.S. move toward such a system most cost-effectively and expeditiously? In addition to disaster preparedness, what secondary benefits would come with such a system? What are other key questions, second and third order effects to consider?

“My bill would reduce carbon emissions, and it returns all the money to consumers and deficit reduction. Businesses want this kind of predictability, consumers need to be protected, and we need to step up and address our climate and fiscal issues,” McDermott said in a press release.

Although carbon pricing legislation has been largely out of federal political discourse since 2010, it has seen a recent revival from both sides of the aisle. Former Congressman Bob Inglis (R-SC) recently announced the “Energy and Enterprise Initiative,” an effort which will, among other things, push conservatives to adopt a carbon tax. However, a Senate hearing last week demonstrated that the debate over the science of global warming is far from settled in the minds of some GOP legislators.

What policy goals would a cap-and-dividend program accomplish? Would this bill accomplish those goals as well as another might? What secondary impacts would you expect this bill to have? What accounts for the recent resurgence in focus on climate legislation?

That drop in financing helped inspire the creation of the 1603 Program, and renewable developers fear that with the end of the Program – the application period for which ends on September 30^th, 2012 – a similar drop in renewables financing may take place.

The NREL report gives some credence to these fears, collecting renewables industry insiders’ analyses of the impact of the 1603 Program’s expiration. Many of the report’s contributors expect reduced renewable project development, as developers’ options for obtaining funding are narrowed. The report anticipates three primary consequences of the Program’s expiration: industry consolidation “as well-funded developers acquire smaller firms”; reduced investment for innovative projects; and a slowing of new investment as projects become more expensive to develop and developer returns decrease.

The Senate Finance Committee appears unlikely to extend Section 1603 when the mark-ups are finalized this week.

Are tax incentives the most effective way to spur project development? Do the returns on these renewables projects, in terms of capacity installed and jobs created, justify the cost of the program? Should it be the role of government to support industries through these types of programs?

Senate Republicans recently unveiled the “

Provisions of the bill would:

• Suspend U.S. EPA rules on refineries, pending a gas prices study
• Impose a minimum threshold on the amount of oil and gas leasing each year
• Reverse a Bureau of Land Management permitting reforms established under Obama
• Exempt certain offshore wind development from environmental planning requirements
• Open the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Virginia coastline to drilling
• Increase the amount of revenue states eventually will receive per year from drilling off their coasts to $750 million
• Allow TransCanada to build the northern leg of the Keystone XL Alberta-Texas crude pipeline

The bill closely resembles another by the same name that passed through the House in June. E&E News reports “The Senate bill includes virtually all pieces of the House companion, except for a provision requiring that new lands or waters be opened to drilling if the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is tapped.”

Is this bill good policy? What elements of the bill do you support or oppose? 

Some have criticized the bill as a threat to the environment and unfair to coastal states that oppose drilling off their shores. Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), the Natural Resources Committee’s ranking Democrat, stated that the committee has already proposed five similar bills that were “all far too extreme to pass the Senate, and not a single one has been signed into law.”

The bill’s proponents argue that the Interior’s leasing plan restricts drilling on 85% of offshore resources during a time of high gas prices and insecure oil supplies. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar disputes that claim, saying the DOI’s plan “focuses on the areas that contain the overwhelming majority of the resources rather than simply opening areas for the sake of achieving an imaginary acreage threshold.”

Do you support this bill? Why or why not? What would expanded offshore licensing mean for the oil market? For energy security? The environment? The economy?