Guess the real message here is that the "best ideas" are small ideas; as in relatively easy to do things.

Real "change" would have addressed something like revitalization of highly dense cities and moving Federal support away from single family homes with large lawns to smaller, denser units, or the move away from airport centered/Interstate centered long distance travel towards rail based, or some move away from trucks toward viable alternatives.

That would have been a shock. The list is nice, interesting, would be cool to see implemented, but not exactly sure of if they will have huge effects.

BTW - speaking of smart grids the National Science Foundation had a good podcast on the subject called "Bridges to the Future, Part I: The Smart Grid"

Demand growth in the US is typically projected @ ~1% growth per year in the 'business as usual' scenarios. So all that needs to be done is to get 2% per year energy efficiency & conservation gain over BAU, and it's a net 1% decline/year. So 20% less than today's use by 2030. Maybe a bit less, since the take back principle negates some of it. But less than today's energy use. It won't happen without aggressive policy though. And of course American popular culture isn't helping (a generalization, but one that is too often true).

Ugh. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is an official-sounding organization that many people think is part of the federal government but nothing of the sort. It is wholly funded by corporate interests.
"A powerful business lobbying group" http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce

Anybody remember seeing the ubiquitous Dr. Richard L. Lesher of the US CoC on every other talking head show years ago?

What does it mean to significantly expand oil and gas exploration and production? If the oil and gas companies choose to do that, fine, but let us not provide government subsidies of any kind to do that. We should be aiming for a post oil/fossil fuel future, not a perpetuation of existing dependence. Since capital is limited, let us focus on low and carbon free alterntives.

Lots of the usual talk about so called clean coal. Research into CCS is fine but it is not going to happen on a sufficient scale in any kind of reasonable time frame. Research into clean coal should not be an excuse to continue to rely on coal in the mean time. No more new coal plants and phase out existing plants in conformance with James Hansen's recommendations.

No mention of carbon and/or gas or oil taxes, of course. This is, after all, the Chamber of Commerce. In the mean time, the free market for oil, is destroying their objective in increasing oil and gas exploration and production, not to mention alternatives to same.

Even with tax incentives for energy efficiency, I believe that inertia will prevent most people from actually taking advantage of these incentives, especially since we have gone back to cheap energy. A serious national program would entail a WPA like effort to actually attack this problem on a home by home basis.

Implied in these recommentations is the idea that we just subsidize everything, hoping that something sticks. If the only goal is just to provide more supply of everything, without considering the impacts of each alternative, then maybe that is fine. This is fine if one ignores capital constraints and the environmental impacts of each alternative.

By the way, partnering with private industry on CCS has produced virtually nothing. Industry will get serious when carbon taxes are so high that they fail to develop the technology at their own peril. In the mean time, continued government supported research in this area just perpetuates the literal smoke screen that has been the coal industry and its allies for decades.

We don't need more plans.

We need new people with the guts and ability to implement them.

We act as if the correct plans are hashed out they will somehow become implementable. Wrong.

The people in position to make things happen have a different set of plans, THEIR plans.

The nearly 9 trillion pledged to address the economic crisis could pay off the majority of the 10 Trillion in outstanding mortgage debt in America. What effect would that have on loosening up the consumer economy?

Of course that would spell around 10 trillion in lost virtual blue sky wealth that never existed in the first place, for the banksters so we can't do that.

Not to talk about what that 9 trill of OUR money could be spent on for OUR future.

That should illustrate what is likely to be implemented.

How about we either tremendously scale back our mis-named 'Department of Energy' (DOE) or we forcibly re-direct at least 80% of its taxpayer-funded, non-accountable (classified) level of effort away from creation and maintenance of weapons of mass destruction and put this brainpower and money into developing alternative energy sources, smart grids, and energy efficiency (negawatts).

Our new national security team, from the President on down, needs to wake up and realize that national security, and specifically energy security, is not obtained at the points of our guns but by investing and rolling out the post-oil, post-fossil fuel energy infrastructure. Including eccentricity-powered trains, trolleys, buses, and cars.

Use less; use more efficiently; use home-made alternative/renewable energy sources.

We had better do this fast, as in crash program fast...while we are creating money and blowing it into the wind we might as well create some more and sink it into these kind of investments that will pay long-term dividends....while we still can.

Another reason to move out: we need to lead the World in this. I just saw a mind-numbing show on CNN or whatever yesterday detailing how McDonald's has teamed with some Chines gas station firm to have the rights to build a Mickey-Ds at each and every one of the existing gas stations... Right now McD's has 800 restaurants in China...implementing this plan would result in some 30,000 McD's in China. The next part of the show explained how the Chinese love golf, and how golf courses are proliferating. The next segment after that explained how Home Depot is rapidly expanding in China to serve their new housing market...they showed a housing sub-division that was indistinguishable from our typical US McMansion Suburban gated enclaves. The show explained that underpinning all of this is the huge growth in car ownership and miles driven. Since the Chinese are radically increasing per-person consumption, the least we could do is show them how to do this using the most efficient technologies. With their autocracy, they can make sweeping changing rapidly when they want to...not only in energy efficiency, but sooner or later they will reign in conspicuous consumption as well to bow to reality.

Study then new, commit to the old.

How is this energy plan any different than that of the Republican Party?

There is a great new book out called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW by Jeff Wilson. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in alternative energy. www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com

I will only comment on the FF side of this document:

1) no mention of unconventional gas--only gas hydrates
2) focus on offshore
3) CTL (idiotic)

This is basically a special interest (read national laboratories, major oil companies, and Robert Byrdophiles) dominated document. Incredibly ignorant as would be anticipated from a group of people that are not professionals in the energy industry and have no engineering or scientific training.

Obama help us!

8. Increase Renewable Sources of Energy

Even if renewables yield electric power, which we have little need for.

But hey, it sounds like a good idea. Even if it uses up fossil energy, it gives the illusion of doing something positive, and so let's just do it.

Given the source CoC, it is better (by a not insignificant amount) than I would have expected. Of course the devil could be in the details. But this is just one of many documents being throw at the transition team, the fine print may not really matter much.

Under the heading of Reducing Frivolous Litigation, it suggests streamlining the permitting of refineries, a federal siting authority and a review of the Clean Air Act to allow routine maintenance. (This one goes right by me – I have no clue!!)

This refers to old polluting power plants, which have been grandfathered in to allow operation at their old level of pollutants. Current law says that a plant upgrade triggers the death of the grandfathering, i.e. if you upgrade, you gotta bring the whole plant into compliance with modern laws. This has the unfortunate effect of disincentivising minor improvements, including those which might improve efficiency or decrease emissions.

I also suspect there are bureacratic paperwork and permitting hassles, involved with implementing things such as combined heat-and-power (putting the power generation on the industrial site, so the waste heat can be used in an industrial process).

Then there is probably good old fashioned greed, "let us pollute without paying for the externalities". This is from the CoC after all.

Refineries, refineries, refineries. As if our problem was too little refining capacity! Although a couple more heavy oil refineries would probably serve us well, we have more light-sweet refining capability than supply already.

Given that the US Chamber of Commerce is "dominated by oil companies, pharmaceutical giants, automakers and other polluting industries", what should we expect from this list of recommendations? To avoid being assuaged by the soundbite nature of the recommendation headings, let's review some of the details;

1. Aggressively promote energy efficiency

Everyone likes energy efficiency, so they start off with this, ostensibly to build confidence in their remaining recommendations. However, they completely ignore CAFE standards for vehicle fuel economy and only touch on appliances and building codes. While the latter is important, it ignores areas for major improvement in vehicle fuel economy.

2. Reduce the Environmental Impact of Energy Consumption and Production

There first recommendation? Climate policies must not provide a revenue windfall to the government. How does this reduce environmental impact?? All they are saying is "NO CARBON TAX", which translates to more BAU. Next we have air pollution rules should be reevaluated and revised when it makes sense to do so. What kind of recommendation is that?? Sense to whom? Another, permit considerable flexibility in how goals are achieved. I thought there was considerable flexibility now. This says to me, "We want as much wiggle room as possible". Next, To ensure our competitiveness, any new national climate change policy should be conditional on an international agreement that requires full international participation. So if China or India don't want to jump right in, we dump any climate change policies? Please!! The US needs to be a leader in reducing GHG emissions, not an example of how not to do something. If China and India knew we had such a policy, they would just say "No", and the US could say, "Sorry, but we can't if they can't". Another, Congress should remove the cloud of regulatory uncertainty by clarifying that greenhouse gas emissions shall not be regulated under the Clean Air Act or the Endangered Species Act. In other words, remove all authority to do anything about GHG emissions. Nothing I've seen in this section has anything to do with reducing the environmental impact of energy consumption and production; indeed, this section fights for the rights of fossil fuel plants to burn more in a less regulated manner.

3. Invest in Climate Science

Their first bullet is A federal multiagency Climate Change Adaptation Program should be established to examine adaptation and geo-engineering issues. In other words, no climate change mitigation, but just adaptation, like geo-engineering massive seawalls around coastal cities, using the model of New Orleans. Absurd to say the least. Next, Progress in climate science is apparent, but significant knowledge gaps remain, such as the predictive capability of climate models. This is just a veiled stab at saying "we don't have enough to go on, let's study this another few decades". Obviously, nothing we understand in climate science today is helping to guide energy policy in this paper.

4. Increase R&D funding of clean advanced energy technologies

DOE should provide opportunities for businesses and venture capital firms to work within the national laboratories to identify and create business plans to commercialize new advanced energy technologies being developed by the laboratories. Interestingly enough, the Bush Administration severely cut these opportunities for renewable energy, while expanding them for nuclear and 'clean coal'. Seeing as how Renewable Energy is in 10th place on the overall list of recommendations, it sounds like little would change. DOE should establish and Congress should fund an Electric Energy Storage Initiative to coordinate and fund research into energy storage technologies with the goal of developing cost-effective technology capable of storing 50 to 100 MW of power. There are already hydrosuch units in operation for solar thermal electrical generation; while other technologies should certainly be explored, we should be focused on making more of the ones above, not just hand-waving. Congress should create a Clean Energy Bank of the United States (CEBUS), a quasi-governmental entity, The DoE already has such a charter; why should we create another entity, especially one that is unaccountable?

5. Significantly Expand Domestic Oil and Gas Exploration and Production

This whole section is a joke. Next...

6. Commit to and expand nuclear energy use

DOE should create a strategic reserve of low-enriched uranium from its existing inventory to guard against supply disruptions.

So they admit there is a problem with independence of uranium supply! Funny how this is somehow considered a step towards energy independence... I'm not opposed to the expansion of nuclear energy, though do not by any measure see it as "The Answer", or even the largest part of the answer.

7. Commit to the Use of Clean Coal

First, there needs to be something that can be called "Clean Coal" before it can be used. Since the Bush Administration dumped the FutureGen program, it shows the lack of commitment even a pro-coal administration has to this high-risk gamble. So wanting us to commit to something that doesn't exist is an odd recommendation.

The federal government and the private sector should capitalize on opportunities to partner with other governments and overseas businesses to advance CCS technology. This is a vague, obtuse recommendation that provides nothing in the way of an actionable recommendation. The President and Congress, working with the private sector, should establish a fund managed by fossil-based utilities . In other words, have a carbon tax, but give it to the utilities to do as they see fit. Given their past track record (recommending the termination of the New Source Review above, this will likely end up with more BAU.

8. Increase Renewable Sources of Electricity

This almost seems an afterthought after all the other measure much higher on the CoC's priority list (Oil, Coal, Nuclear).

As directed by EPAct2005, the Minerals Management Service should issue regulations for the development of renewable energy projects on the OCS and should continue to process permits for these projects in the interim.
??? Are they talking wind here? Only a recommendation for offshore wind? What about solar, geothermal, onshore wind, tidal, wave power, etc?? This is extremely weak support for renewables at the Adminstrative level. Congress should extend for eight years the renewable energy tax credits and establish a phaseout period of four years. The first part is commendable, as short term tax credit renewals prevent significant investment. It's unclear why there would be a phase out planned for a specific time. Congress should amend the renewable energy tax credits to include other effective technologies. Wind, geothermal, wave, tidal, “closed-loop” bioenergy,"open-loop" biomass, incremental hydropower, small irrigation systems, landfill gas, and municipal solid waste (MSW) are already included, so there's nothing specific here from the recommendation. Congress should increase annual funding for wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean programs at DOE from the current level of about $250 million to $450 million. While better than the current level of funding, all of these renewable sources together only receive less than half the funding that clean coal receives. If anything, each of these technologies should each receive as much or more than would 'clean coal'. Congress should extend the existing Clean Renewable Energy Bond program to enable public power systems and electric cooperatives to seek alternative financing mechanisms for clean energy projects that are not eligible for production tax credits. Again, what ARE these technologies they refer to?

9.Transform our transportation sector

DOE and the Department of Defense should continue to work in partnership to develop and deploy technologies to ensure a domestic supply of alternative fuels for military use. One easy way to do this is to employ measures to reduce the civilian demand for transportation fuels. Nowhere in here is rail infrastructure discussed, whether long haul or metropolitan area mass transit. Nowhere is fuel economy addressed. There is a smattering of biodiesel and plug-in hybrid talk, but nothing in the way of transforming the transportation sector.

10. Modernize and Protect U.S. Energy Infrastructure
11. Address Critical Shortages of Qualified Energy Professionals

Sure, motherhood and apple pie.

12. Reduce Overly Burdensome Regulations and Opportunities for Frivolous Legislation

Here's the real crux of the polluters' wish list. They want to kill the New Source Review, which would allow continued grandfathering of the worst polluting coal plants, instead of actually bringing them up to the already low standards in place now. They also want to "streamline the permitting process for refineries." We at TOD know that demand for refinery capacity will go down, so this is a non-starter.

13. Demonstrate global leadership on energy security and climate change.

About all they say here for climate change is, 1) Allows each nation to develop its own path to meet strong environmental and economic development goals. 2) Considers growing energy needs, circumstances, and resource endowments. In other words, leave us alone on climate change, we'll do what we think the circumstances call for ("hey, look at all this coal!"), and we'll plan to expand oil and coal production/use.

If I were Obama, I'd see this paper as a disqualification for General Jones, as a National Security Advisor has to see that any level of energy independence has to consider demand reduction, not demand growth, as an imperative for national energy security. This is nothing but a wish list for the nation's utilities, not a plan to transform our energy infrastructure.