The chief component of natural gas is methane, which is more efficient in trapping greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. This became a significant issue when studies found that methane is escaping into the atmosphere in far larger quantities, close to 8%, than originally thought due to leaks in loose pipe fittings.

Two weeks ago, President Obama indicated that natural gas will be a significant part of the energy production vision for this country’s future. It has been suggested that the natural gas production is to increase by fourfold by 2035.

I am torn by the information that I have just read. I have always been a natural gas proponent, but the new studies have me doubting what the right course of action is for this country. If we are to increase natural gas production fourfold, that is a tremendous amount of methane emitted into the air. Add that to the environmental impact the increased amount of gas wells we will have at the time, has me questioning this method. The natural gas industry won’t tighten up on their production with reducing the amount of gas that leaks out into the atmosphere or capture the methane due to economic reasons.  In addition, there are already many natural gas drill sites and to quadruple them has me in a doubtful state.

I do think natural gas can be a bridge to the renewable future combined with energy efficiency. However, a lot more validation of these studies must be done to verify their outcomes in order to be properly implemented.

Our current President is no different than the Presidents before him. President Nixon declared his intent to get us off foreign oil after the Arab Embargo; and President Carter looked to get us off foreign oil after the Iran hostage situation. President Bush made the same statements after the first Iraq war too. We have been saying this for decades but not doing anything about it.

I can’t put the blame solely on our President; look at the opposition he has had to deal with over his last two years. He killed Cap and Trade due to public pressure from the Republicans as it would cost too much. He tried to develop more offshore drilling, but the rig Deepwater Horizon had its accident. Lastly, he has been pushing nuclear production but, with the last episode in the earthquake/tsunami tattered nation of Japan, the public is now skittish and wants to close nuclear plants and never reopen them.

We have been doing a lot of talking, especially my favorite Senator from Michigan who feels we need to increase electrical capacity by 40-50% to meet the needs of electricity demand for the next decade. He is shooting for a long range plan. I don’t blame him for shooting. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, you can start on developing programs for energy efficiency in buildings which constitutes for 60% of our total consumption in this nation.

We need to set our political agenda aside and come up with a realistic plan. It is my humble opinion that this plan must start with being energy efficient, which is something we could all be doing now, without waiting for further technologies to be developed and implemented.

I think 80% is a great goal (knowing that much of the changing climate is attributed to what we put in the air). However, I am skeptical that we can meet this goal if we don’t have a clear plan of action. In addition, our energy needs are rising and the development of clean fuel technologies is lagging. One way to bridge this gap is for everyone to start being a little bit more energy efficient in our lives. We all need to take responsibility of how we are contributing to this problem. We should all examine how we, as individuals, are using energy in our homes and offices and try to conserve more. We can help bridge this gap. It will take effort on all of our parts to start becoming more energy efficient in our everyday lives. For example, I often see buildings using more electricity than is necessary due to inefficient chilled water production or poor lighting design that can easily be remedied. I am also a realist, as these types of reductions will not get us to the 80% but every little bit can help.

Watching some of the news shows such as those on the FOX network who hold the opinion that “Now is not the time to push for the Clean Air Act” just reaffirms my opinion: most people in this country are more concerned with dollars than with saving our planet. I get it – we are losing the race for global financial supremacy to China and India. Frankly, I’m not as concerned about global supremacy as much as I care about what we are doing to this planet. Does it really matter if the Gross National Product (GNP) of other countries is higher than ours? A majority of what they produce goes to the USA for consumption anyway. I understand the idea that if we don’t stay ahead, they will have a better standard of living than us. But, I am not so sure that this is as important as the air we breathe. What is of greater concern is making sure we can leave a planet behind that our kids and grandkids don’t have to clean up just because we were in a race with China over GNP. Enough of the ranting. I need to go shovel my driveway again.

It is true that the cost to generate a coal-fired plant may not be cost effective if in fact, current and more stringent GHG restrictions are passed. And, it is true that increasing restrictions on GHG emissions will cause coal plants to start to upgrade some of their emission controls causing extra costs, which (at some point) could wipe out coal-producing generator plants completely. However, to get to that point, we would need to have an infrastructure in place that could support new types of energy production and a smart energy grid to handle these new green power technologies. I can also say that the jobs that will be created to support all these measures will come from the USA – they just may not be found in Mr. Upton’s district.

I will admit that the current presidential administration has affected me personally in the areas of increased taxes and health insurance, which I am not happy about. What would make me even more unhappy would be to see the good things that this administration has done (such as making tighter restrictions on what we put in the air) being attacked for no good reason. It just doesn’t make any sense.

The jobs will not go overseas. What will happen is that the types of jobs will shift to more innovative technologies in this country, such as electric cars and solar panels. Jobs will also be created when coal plants choose to retrofit their facilities to provide reduced GHG, which will create tax revenue. It will be years before the effects of the EPA will affect the coal miners jobs. By that time, our economy will have recovered and jobs can be made available domestically, as well as abroad.

Let’s put our efforts on being a smarter country and being more energy efficient. Our focus should be on moving forward instead of savings jobs, just for the sake of saving jobs.

The challenge with renewable energy is integrating it into the power grid. With the emergence of smart meters, we can see where the power is going at any given place and time. This will help to put a focus on generating plant production at the right place and at the right time. With that said, renewable energy does not have the luxury of turning itself on or off (reducing the demand that could be placed on the electrical grid). In addition, the business model for renewable energy is most effective when it is operating for the longest time possible.

Renewable energy should be baseloaded with the power generation plants to pick up on any energy swings. Smart meters would be able to anticipate when those swings will happen. The dilemma occurs when the renewable energy source does not produce enough to reach the level they were intended to produce. This can happen when units go down for maintenance, break down or don’t produce enough megawatts because the wind is not blowing or the sun is not out.

Programs like demand response can help lessen the high demand on the power grid. Having a program to reduce the peak load on the grid through end-user participation is helpful. However, when the response event comes at an inopportune time or cannot be incorporated due to other circumstances, this puts additional variables into the equation that makes renewable energy less desirable or predictable.

Energy monitoring is a great way to promote energy consumption awareness to determine the Where, Why and at What point a facility is using energy. This will allow for energy efficiency awareness and enable facility operators to be proactive. But once again, the end-user must know what to do with all the data that they are receiving. Knowing where your energy consumption stands is great, but knowing what to do with all the data once you have it is the key to energy reduction. Finding a solution to analyze the data will really help a facility to control its energy consumption. The amount of data produced is astronomical and unless the data is analyzed and trended on a regular basis, it will be of little to no value. A process needs to be developed that addresses how to use analyze and interpret the data.

All of these items and their challenges are important as we move forward to solve this country’s energy needs. These challenges can not be avoided and they need to be navigated with viable solutions. Coordinating all of the solutions together will put us in a better position for our electric infrastructure. Always have a contingency plan so that you don’t fail to plan; and be prepared so that you don’t plan to fail.

Ironically, on that same flight, I read two stories in the paper. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring a New Mexico coal-fired power plant, with one of the nation’s worst emissions records, to upgrade their emissions controls (Coal Plant Would Get New Controls). A local politician was up in arms over the fact that the utility company had to spend $717 million to make this upgrade. He indicated it would cost close to 1,000 jobs and that the government should not make the plant perform the upgrade. Meanwhile, he ignores the fact that this upgrade would add jobs as the technology and installation would be performed by American citizens. Jobs don’t disappear – they just shift from one politician’s region to another.

In the same newspaper, Governor Christie of New Jersey threatened to pull the State of New Jersey’s portion of funding for the new rail tunnel to New York City for reasons that are, in my opinion, politically fueled and nothing more (Christie Halts Train Tunnel Citing its Cost). The tunnel is said to reduce the congestion of commuters into Manhattan and remove thousands of cars off the road that would have normally driven. Gov. Christie asserts that “the state just cannot afford its share of the project’s rising cost”.  However, halting the tunnel project would also cost the region an estimated 6,000 construction jobs.

I think these two politicians need to talk. One wants to hold onto jobs for the sake of sacrificing our air, while the other wants to eliminate jobs due to political constraints.  Both are willing to sacrifice our environment for political gain. I don’t understand the mentality that some people are willing to put other issues ahead of protecting our environment. I am not naïve; I understand that the economy is not robust. We all need to survive this recession and move on. But, why should we sacrifice the environment in the process?

Proponents of Proposition 23 believe that the government should not be spending money on carbon reduction; that our focus should be on putting Americans back to work. They believe that the bill would cost the state jobs and raise energy prices.

Last time I checked, oil company profits just set record highs. If Proposition 23 is passed, I am not sure how this measure would create jobs. If the battle is over jobs, I would think retrofitting their plants to reduce their emissions and energy consumption would create more jobs than would be lost. I also find it hard to believe that if a person had to pay an additional $2 a week on gasoline, he would be forced into bankruptcy.

The bigger issue for me is the fundamental reason why they are trying to defeat A.B. 32 in the first place. Is cleaner air and reduction of global warming not important enough? Or, will the people that are making money hand over fist in this industry by having their pockets lined by special interest groups triumph again? If they took the money they are pouring into defeating A.B. 32 and put it towards reducing emissions, oil companies would spend a lot less, and more savings would be passed on to the customer.

Sadly, consumers remain largely uninformed on what needs to be done to reduce energy consumption, which would also reduce the amount of carbon emissions that are released into the environment. One would think that consumers would want to reduce their energy consumption since the added benefit would be a reduction in their utility bills. However, with the economy in the state that it is in, people are unwilling to dole out money upfront to reduce energy consumption, (e.g., to conduct an energy study of existing facilities, equipment upgrades, correcting maintenance issues, etc.) even if this investment would be returned in 6 months.

The economy has put a crimp on our long term outlook and not given us a path to make the improvements that are necessary to reduce our energy bills. For example, the banks have put a limit on the amount of larger equipment financing – which is essential to finance an energy efficiency project.

The one place left for us to turn to for help is the government, but there always seems to be a catch. Rebates and incentives have been limited, at best. Money that has been allocated for energy spending hasn’t hit the streets. Even the general buzz on the internet as of late is, “Where has all the stimulus money gone?” The truth is it has not been spent (Energy Funds Went Unspent, U.S. Auditor Says) as is stated in the NY Times. According to an article in The Wall Street Journal (White House Under Fire for Unspent Infrastructure Cash), less than 30% of the stimulus money has been spent for shovel ready projects. If the government were to begin using these earmarked funds for what they were intended, the boost could help the economy in the short term and provide some long term benefits to the environment. Instead, it has decided that the stimulus money is better spent on repaving roads that are infrequently used or that have already been repaved in the last five years. I do have to admit though – that fresh asphalt sure is smooth.

As a professional in the engineering/construction industry, I feel it is my duty to be the impetus for change. This is why this blog was created, why speaking at conferences to educate building owner’s as often as possible is important to me, and keeping well informed on any government action is a top priority – all to push forward the great benefits of being energy efficient. Which leaves us with this question, “What can you do?”

Demand response programs allow for buildings to be part of the smart grid and curtail their energy usage during peak demand to reduce the load on the grid. Customers can qualify for incentives from their utility companies by participating in a demand response program.

In the event of high demand on the electrical grid (like 100+ degree weather days), the utility company would call certain customers to reduce load in their building to help curtail the large demand that is on the electrical distribution system. It is a great way to try to reduce the burden of electrical generation through the utilities area. It allows plants that produce power efficiently to stay on longer and reduce the amount of power generation that is old, inefficient, and costly to the environment.

Some utilities still don’t have such a program which is counterintuitive to the larger picture of reducing costs, providing customers with costs savings options, and helping the environment.

We all need to be part of a demand response program. Why not get paid to help the environment?

‘Cap and Trade’ created a structure to gradually decrease, or cap, the amount of carbon emissions allowed by major emitters of pollutants (such as power plants). These companies would need to report the amount of carbon emissions they put into the atmosphere. Each company is given an allowance (i.e.: credit) of emissions they are permitted to release. Those who released less carbon emissions would keep their credits. However, those who exceed their cap must purchase carbon credits from those who have spare ones; in effect, paying for the right to pollute.

Our lawmakers have now decided to put together a program that is more economically diverse. Once again, Washington has done their job of creating more bureaucracy to yet another item this country so desperately needs. Global climate change needs to begin with the United States. Our success is key to getting other countries to buy-in on the idea.

Letting ‘Cap and Trade’ fall apart is wrong. Yes, the program was not perfect and was one more way of taxing our businesses. But, it was something and right now we have nothing. Now we get to wait until lawmakers determine which special interest groups they can serve, instead of doing the right thing and curbing emissions.