700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005

Phone: 202.347.0773
Fax: 202.347.0785
info@cassidy.com

The editorial viewpoints expressed are not necessarily reflective of the opinions or position of Cassidy & Associates or of the individuals employed by Cassidy & Associates.

June 30, 2010

Stationary Fuel Cells Important Part of Natural Gas Sector

Tags: , , , — Filed under: Domestic Policy — Terry Paul @ 11:14 am

MIT released an interim report today examining the future of  natural gas as a fuel in an increasingly emissions averse world.

“Natural gas has moved to the center of the current debate on energy, security and climate. This study examines the role of natural gas in a carbon-constrained world, with a time horizon out to mid-century.”

The authors of the study contend that over time market forces driven by a policy focus on low emissions will push energy intensive sectors into the natural gas market.  For more on the report see this piece by Joel Kirkland.

The report focuses mostly on traditional uses of natural gas, such as LNG, deferring a very promising technology to the final report. This interim report is a great first step into future uses of natural gas, but it is important that stationary fuel cells are closely examined. Stationary fuel cells are the cleanest and most efficient use of natural gas. To meet future energy demands while reducing emissions we must embrace innovative technologies that aid our prosperity as well as the environment. Consequently, policy makers would do well to consider fuel cell technology as they seek to reform energy policy.

Sphere: Related Content

June 8, 2010

Energy or Climate Legislation or Both?

Tags: , , — Filed under: Domestic Policy — Tom Dennis @ 3:26 pm

Congressional consideration of legislation to address our energy problems seems to be moving to the front burner again.  With the reality of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as a backdrop, the Senate Majority Leader is calling upon his Committee Chairs to offer up their best suggestions for an energy package that can garner enough bi-partisan support for a successful floor vote (see letter to eight Democratic committee chairmen and June 3 related article on E&ENews PM sub req’d).  The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee bill which passed last year may well be the base vehicle.  The Climate legislation fashioned by Senators Kerry and Lieberman could be one possible amendment, if the Senate considers a bill (June 8 E&E Daily sub req’d).

Regardless of the outcome in this session, the Congress and the Administration needs to chart an understandable course for how we produce, use and conserve our Nation’s energy resources.  Along the way, it’s clear that a price for carbon has to be established.  Without that market signal, industry and the financial community won’t know the rules of the road and will continue to delay making the kind of technology and infrastructure investments needed to put us on a path to dramatically reduce our current energy use.   

A good example would be tail pipe emission standards for the auto industry.  The Obama Administration and the industry agreed to a historic milestone that will result in a significant increase in fuel efficiency and fewer CO2 emissions. This same kind of national approach needs to continue for model year 2017 and beyond, for the auto industry to continue down an innovative path to bring more fuel efficient vehicles to market.  A price on carbon is also important to consumers both to make informed choices on how and when they use energy, not limited to electricity use but also with respect to the type of vehicles they purchase.

There is no single fuel source or technology silver bullet that will serve to meet our energy needs.  In alphabetic order, we need all the biomass, coal, hydro, natural gas, nuclear, solar and wind power generation we can develop.  We also need a massive energy efficiency effort to reduce the amount of energy we use as well as increasing our competitiveness.

We also desperately need an expanded and more efficient electric transmission system that will harness and deliver to market remotely located renewable energy resources, including wind and solar on federal lands in the West and off-shore.  And regardless of where transmission is proposed to be built, we must adopt an “ownership neutral” transmission siting policy that selects the “best” route for high-voltage lines, irrespective of whether that route is on federal, state or private lands. The days of federal agencies objecting to transmission siting on the public domain at the expense of private land owners has to stop.  Last year’s Senate energy bill included provisions that moved us toward developing an improved electric transmission system, however, these critical provisions have been effectively held hostage by the climate debate. 

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico isn’t just a wake up call for the oil industry.  It should be viewed as a signal that it’s time for Congress to act.  The spill is a concrete reminder of only one of many ways our energy system is in need of an overhaul.  Without movement, even if it’s in the form of an incremental energy bill, our country will remain vulnerable to the consequences of an outdated energy strategy.

For those who say only a comprehensive energy and climate bill will suffice and to those who maintain that the market will answer the call to arms, I say this: The perfect is the clear enemy of the good. Unless we get something in place as a cornerstone for our energy future, this debate will remain simply a debate and nothing more.   Environmental organizations and business must strike a new accord and do so now.  To simply adhere to staked out positions will continue to stymie the movement toward energy policies that advance the goals of the environmental community and industry and more importantly the American people.

Sphere: Related Content

April 13, 2010

Supreme Court Departure Likely to Impact Climate Change Legislation in 2010

Last Friday’s announced retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens may have the unintended consequence of also retiring fleeting hopes for the passage of a comprehensive climate change and energy bill during this session of Congress.

It all comes down to the legislative schedule. When one lines up financial reform, the entire slate of appropriations bills, confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice, possible focus on immigration reform and climate change, it’s hard to see a path forward on the calendar.

The Senate returned today from their two-week spring recess facing a legislative agenda overloaded with must-do business; and, while many would argue that climate should be on that list, there are undoubtedly a few senators in tight re-election races who might just be happy enough to let climate legislation slide into next year.

It’s not a matter of should we or shouldn’t we; it’s a matter of can we or can’t we get it done before August recess, after which lawmakers will have to return to take up appropriations bills. Fortunately, there are still a number of legislative opportunities through which to positively impact the energy debate. It’s just that they aren’t going to be so obviously attached to this one big bill.

That said, considerable uncertainty exists within the energy and financial community, and it’s affecting investment decisions for the commercial deployment of a range of new technologies.  Absent movement on either climate legislation or a smaller energy-only bill, this uncertainty will likely continue.

Story: The Hill, Kerry, Graham differ on Supreme Court debate’s effect on possible climate bill, by Ben Geman

Sphere: Related Content

Powered by WordPress