Don’t overlook high-quality, project-based emissions reductions.
By Mike Burnett and Bjorn Fischer
Mike Burnett is executive director of the Climate Trust. Bjorn Fischer is business development manager at the Climate Trust. Contact Fischer at bfischer@climatetrust.org. The Climate Trust is a non-profit committed to providing high quality, project-based reductions and advancing the policies that support them. Its offices are located in Portland, Ore.
The Geopolitical Risks of LNG
To many energy-industry analysts, 2005 is a make-or-break year for the U.S. gas market. If we don't have at least several liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in construction by the end of the year, the country arguably will face serious gas-supply shortages and price spikes beginning in about 2008.1
A holistic, new approach to cost/benefit analysis.
The still-fresh memories of last year's Northeast blackout coupled with rising congestion nationwide have increased awareness of the electric transmission investment shortfall in the United States. Such investment, in the right locations, would have a highly positive benefit-cost ratio. But how much should be spent?
Russia resurrects the Kyoto Protocol and the prospect of either mandatory CO2 emissions cuts for U.S. utilities, or the start of a global trade war.
In June 2001, the Bush administration withdrew an earlier campaign pledge to support the Kyoto Protocol, claiming that the treaty was fatally flawed in not requiring China and India to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and that the science underpinning the treaty was not yet definitive enough to justify the costs of compliance.1
Except for local reinforcements and new generation interconnections, few transmission construction proposals are moving forward.
There's plenty of talk about transmission, says Theo Mullen. "But real action on transmission construction is scant," he adds. "Conferences and reports abound. Projects of all sizes are being proposed. But, except for local reinforcements and new generation interconnections, few transmission construction proposals are moving forward. The vast majority of larger projects are stalled for lack of financial commitment."1
Frontlines
The U.S. faces a near doubling of population this century. Will there be enough power for the people?
On this the 75th anniversary of its publication, -a journal that has sought out the truth through its investigation and understanding, been a place for knowledge and scholarship, and been a medium for intellectual discourse within the energy industry-looks out to the future.
In 2004, the quintessential question remains what it was 75 years ago: How will the energy industry meet the demands of tomorrow?
Three ways to value nuclear power plants for buyers and sellers.
Appraisers don't make the market-they reflect it. But when the market speaks, appraisers listen. The appraiser must use judgment, experience, and common sense to correlate the final conclusion of value for a subject plant, basing the conclusion on market indicators.
Benchmarks
New England's experience may redefine the term.
During the 1990s, capacity margins in the United States declined almost one third, falling from 21 percent in 1991 to less than 15 percent in 2001. In some regions, margins shrunk to less than 10 percent. Concerns grew over electricity reliability and possible upward pressures on electricity prices. However, as new gas-fired power plants began to come on line in the late 1990s, the developing electricity generation capacity surplus began to raise concerns.
An analysis of the timing, location, and mix of new capacity additions that may be needed in the future.
It is universally accepted that there is excess generating capacity in most, if not all, regions in the country. Looking forward, several obvious, and interesting, questions arise: (1) When will new capacity be needed? (2) Where will it be needed? and (3) What types of plants will be needed? As any good economist would say, it all depends.
Greater reliance on gas-fired power implies serious economic, technological, and national security risks.
Over the past two decades, the United States has, by default, come to rely on an "In Gas We Trust" energy policy. Natural gas increasingly has been seen as the preferred fuel for all applications, nowhere more than in the electric generation sector. However, the greatly increased use of natural gas forecast for the electricity sector may not be economically or technically feasible, and it does not represent optimal or desired energy policy.