that Sen. Webb, of all people, would support this carving out of Virginia for offshore drilling.

As reported in this press release here, over 70% of Virginia's offshore drilling zone is within the U.S. Navy's Virginia Capes Operating Area, the principal training area for air, surface and submarine units as well as a testing area for new vessels, aircraft and weapon systems.  Vital to accomplishing their mission of national defense and used heavily for training Navy and Air Force combat units for the war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, the Navy is strongly opposed to the restrictions and hazards presented by the presence of drilling rigs and related structures.  

And for what???  As the U.S. Department of Interior has indicated, at the most, only 4 billion barrels of oil reserves lie off the entire Atlantic coast--about a 200 day supply based on current US consumption on 20 million barrels a day.  That's hardly worth the tremendous risk to our environment, our local economy and our national defense.

Expanding offshore drilling has been recently demonstrated to have no impact on gas prices.  This past January the United States held two major lease sales in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, yet prices continue to increase.  If indeed opening up new areas for offshore drilling has an effect on gas prices, then we would be seeing lower prices right now as a result.  

More than 41 million acres in the outer continental shelf have been leased for oil drilling, yet just over 8 million acres are in production.  The petroleum industry is using only a fraction (18%) of what it already has access to.  We don't need to open new areas, especially not our coastal areas in Virginia where our local economy (can you say "bye bye Oceana?) and our environment risks losing so much.

With VA heading the pack of states in our region in demand growth, w/o such option to explore for natural gas, by 2015 we may find yet another Dominion coal plant proposal in SW or West Virginia.  Natural gas although a fossil fuel, produces less GHG emmissions than coal, diesel or other petroleum distillates, when used for the generation of electricity, and as well as natural gas used for heating v. electric heat generated thru coal.  

If we weren't so opposed to nuclear, especially nuclear by thorium for its reduction of hazardous waste and weaponization inability, then tearing up the mountains and disfiguring the coastline viewshed with the potential for an environmental mess, can be decreased.  Be forewarn, North Anna's expansion is being constructed for the most part, to meet forecasted needs beyond our state borders to the north.  

This only tells us that there is an obvious transition period b/n today and a future low fossil-fuel consuming economy.  If we cannot bridge this gap with reality, we may mess up and delay our opportunity by increasing the chances of hurting our economic productivity, with an imbalance of too few energy resources.  We must not overlook the fact that the two factors of capacity and reliability are not the same.  

When technology and other issues bridge today with our desire for the future, the market will naturally narrow the resources and policy at the state level will follow in snyc.  

There is no reason we couldn't have a natural gas power plant today instead of the coal one.  As far as new natural gas resources, you can get it from a number of non-conventional places (including coal beds).  

The first thing we need to start with though is demand management.  We can substantially reduce our demand through energy audits and acting on those recommendation.  People are going to have to transition off freon anyway.  If we can accelerate that conversion and at the same time increase the SEER ratings of the replacements, we would decrease peak usage substantially not to mention just base usage.  Once we are close to maximizing our efficiency, then we can discuss increased supply sources if they are necessary.

Smart grid technologies are on their way and despite the existance of and the increased implementation of demand management thru demand response, especially, we will have to wait until a more intelligent grid is ready to be implemented ~ gridwise.  During this waiting period, the transition from today to the future with a low fossil-fuel consuming economy, needs to be bridged with the widest assembly of resources in sync with the region in question.    

As for supplanting Wise County coal with gas, typically gas is used to generate peak demand resources, not baseline.  And to ensure resource & price stability and reliability, it is always the practice to meet capacity with the widest range of resources.  In Virginia alone, we currently have 5 gas generation proposals, three of which have already been applied for at the SCC.  

Whatever your political persuasion, regulators like Va's SCC, FERC, politicans and utilities, all argue too high of an increased in the usage of natural gas generation as an alternative to coal, will only create an imbalance in supply and price and further hurt the consumer.  Despite this acknowledgement, natural gas proposals are increasing as new coal is being shelved, and the price of LNG is headed in the same direction at oil.  Like oil if domestic production is not increased to meet these needs, energy security, electric reliability, and cost becomes compromised.    

This leads us back to the utility industry's required acceptance to include renewables w/i their portfolio of capacity sold to consumers.  While Dominion is only today starting an EEC pilot and is working on meeting is RPS requirements, this doesn't mean, however, we eliminate a resource type or two, before technology gives us the energy future we desire.  We can get there, but the speed people seem to feel industry should move is not realistic.  

What I am talking about in terms of demand management is available right now.  You don't need a smart grid for these things.  Energy Audits everyone can get right now.  Insulation upgrades are available right now.  Higher SEER rating A/C units available today.  Higher AFUE rating furnaces again available today.  Higher efficiency appliances in general are available from water heaters, to dishwashers, to refrigerators, etc...  We can decouple utility rates right now.  Is the majority of the existing housing stock in NoVA and Hampton Roads properly sealed and insulated?  Do all of these homes have the most efficient heating and cooling units and appliances?  Do people unplug energy hogs (i.e. standby power users) when they aren't using them?

We help low income people a little through Weatherization Assistance Programs, but we could do a whole lot more to expand these programs.  Decoupling alone would at least get the utilities on the right side of the equation.  Right now if they don't have standard or higher throughput, they don't get recover their fixed costs or their rate of return.

like renewables, we are plenty of time away from reaching the impact of EEC while a smarter grid is developed.  

realize that I was not referring to DSM programs.  I was referring to controlling demand, which EEC does.  And again EEC can be done right now by everyone.  You reference the Virginia Energy Plan below.  If you look at the EEC section, they are talking about what is technologically feasible right now.  The technological potential reduction in demand is 39,465 gigawatt hours.

I upgraded the existing insulation in my townhouse.  And so far, I have used 22% less electricity than June of last year.  Now, I haven't done a CDD comparison to normalize the usage.  But that is still pretty good, I think.

tx2vadem,  

Is there anything the GA could do to further incentivize and/or support weatherization efforts?

see Virginia's Energy Plan 2007.

Topping the list of planned strategies to increase EEC, is nothing more than education.

expand the program which is primarily funded through the state's allocation of federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).  According to the VEP, they weatherize 2,000 homes a year at about an average cost of $2,800, which can save 30% or more.  This program serves mostly people living under the federal poverty level.

I think we realize that many people in Virginia don't have $3k laying around to improve the seal and insulation of their homes or upgrade inefficient appliances.  That is why I think if we really want to achieve energy efficiency quickly, we need the state to subsidize these improvements for most Virginians (as of 2005, median household income in Virginia was $54k).  That requires an expanded program and more money going to it.  And we will have to focus on rental properties too.

And that's just the residential space.  You will need a program to serve small business owners too.

Also, we could better enlist the utilities to serve in this role.  First, would be completely decoupling their rates from throughput.  Second, would be incentivizing them through their rates to setup more robust EEC programs.  We could use these EEC programs to share the administrative burden of the subsidization program above.

You may disagree with Senator Webb over the substance of his decision on off-shore drilling .. but you cannot question his motivation. Senator Webb is not in the pocket of the oil industry, and he would never make a substantive decision for political reasons.

Even if he thought it could cost him the VP nod, Senator Webb is committed enough to take a politically damaging position to help people cope with the burden of high gas prices.

I personally am not sure this drilling will help, but I dont doubt Senator Webb believes that for a second, and thats why he is once again putting his political future on the line to do what he thinks is the right thing.

Virginia is lucky to have a great Senator like Jim Webb!

Why not?  Even a good Senator is capable of acting on the basis of questionable motives.  

In fact, Senator Webb himself has insisted that we, "[b]e just as shrewd and ruthless in [our] demands on our leaders as the political wizards who are running these campaigns are in their strategies to get your vote."  
See: http://www.raisingkaine.com/sh...

I'm happy to give the "ruthless" part a miss, but all of our elected and appointed representatives need to be questioned constantly, both "shrewdly" and otherwise.
 

Webb is independent, and he's one of the few politicians I still fully trust.  I am not sure of my own position on the drilling issue but I'm glad that he considers each issue on its merits, and not on what the party line is.

"Webb wants his home state to have the right to explore for energy off Virginia's coast. His staff insists his proposal pertains only to natural gas, and not oil, and that it is completely in line with the state's other two leading Democrats - Gov. Tim Kaine and former Gov. Mark Warner, who is running for Senate."

Sounds good to me.

the chances that Obama picks Kaine or Webb for VP?

then it should only increase Webb's chances

who knows though?  I think Obama may come up with someone we haven't been discussing...  politics is a fun sport to watch!

I wonder if this signals that he already knows he won't be the VP pick...

Without critizing any other poster here, let me just say that it is deeply offensive to any of us who supported and voted for Jim Webb to hear others speculate on whether his VP ambitions, or lack thereof, factored into his decision on drilling.  The reason that Webb is so popular is because he just isn't that kind of politician.  What you see is what you get.  He takes the principled position, consequences be damned.  Look at his tenure as Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan-Weinberger terms and you will see what I mean.

Webb supports national gas exploration off-shore because he is smart enough to know that there is no simple solution to such a complex problem as we face with sustaining our modern economy while looking to the future of our planet.  No, we can't simply drill our way out of the problem, nor can we simply conserve our way out, or windmill our way out.  Each of these solutions, taken in of itself, will prove to be impractical and will fail.  But a synergetic combination of exploration of domestic fossil fuels, conservation, and renewable energy sources where the total life-cycle impact is a net gain offer us some hope that we can minimize our environmental impact while maintaining our economic well-being.  

besides the issue of 72% of VA's drilling zone being in an are that the Navy objects to, drilling off-shore Virginia makes no economic sense.  

1.  Virginia lacks drilling platforms, pipelines, terminals, storage facilities, and other energy infrastructure.  Conversion to production of Virginia's undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas resources lying off Virginia's coast would require both time and money, and given the amount recoverable may not be economically attractive to develop.  

2. Imagine the same dollars otherwise invested in drilling infrastructure spent instead on offshore wind. There are studies that indicate that a wind farm the size of Virginia Beach placed 12 miles of our coast, could produce as much as 20% of the entire Commonwealth's energy demand.  These are farms placed outside of the Navy's VA Capes Operating Area.  

3.  The revenues ($200 million/yr) that Sen. Wagner envisions from offshore drilling going to transportation funding, comes from both drilling for oil and gas. It also ignores the 72% of VA's drill zone that the Navy opposes. Dr. James Koch of the Center for Regional Studies has estimated that under the revenue sharing scheme (for both oil and natural gas) contained in last year's DOER Act, Virginia could gain $150 million in royalties each year.  However, if opposition by Navy was respected and drilling was not conducted within the critical Virginia Capes Operating Area, estimated royalties would drop to $42 million a year - a drop in the bucket considering our total demand.

4. There is no leasing scenario or regulatory framework that would allow development of natural gas and not simultaneously promote the development of offshore oil. "This puts the camel's nose under the tent," as my boss is quoted saying in The Hill.

5. Production in the Atlantic region started in 2011 (as proposed) would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices until 2030 - hardly a source for Virginia's current transportation crisis.  Starting in 2020, total natural gas production from the lower 48 OCS is projected to decline.

6. Four times more natural gas is available in areas already open to drilling than in waters protected by the moratorium, and the industry is using only a fraction (18%) of what it already has access to.  We don't need to open new areas for drilling.

7. The risk associated with offshore exploration/drilling would affect not just Virginia. Any environmental damage would spread far beyond Virginia's coast. It would affect Maryland and North Carolina. You can't just ethically do this on a one-state-only basis.  Both Maryland and North Carolina remain adamantly opposed to offshore drilling.  Senator Elizabeth Dole has continued to oppose lifting the moratorium.

8. Finally, there is an environmental cost (which translates to financial costs for clean-up/mitigation) to even just exploring for natural gas. Once exploratory drilling commences, the toxic drilling discharges and other routine drilling impacts are similar for either oil or gas exploration and eventual oil or gas development.  Normal drilling operations generate an average of 180,000 gallons of waste muds containing toxic metals such as mercury and lead, per well, with most being dumped into surrounding waters.  Each drilling platform also normally discharges hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic "produced" water every day containing benzene, arsenic, lead and other pollutants.

Bottomline: Why explore for something that we don't want to develop anyway. There's too little for such a high cost and it hijacks our resources that could otherwise be spent developing cleaner, greener energy.  The all important transitional energy source is meanwhile otherwise the huge number of fields already open to drilling.  

However, your premise is based on two false assumptions that have hobbled solutions to the energy crisis since the 1970's.  First, it is not "either or."  We don't need to choose between fossil, renewable, and nuclear energy sources.  All have a potentially important role in our energy policy.  Second, it is not a matter of "if not today, then never."  Just because offshore exploration will not affect fuel prices at the pump this year, does that mean that we should do nothing and wait until we run out of imported oil?

Imagine where we might be today if sometime during the past 30 years we had begun to explore safer, lower impact nuclear generation, renewable energy, and apportioned use of fossil energy all as a comprehensive energy solution instead of bickering over the Seabrook, NH, nuclear plant, banning all offshore drilling, and gulping up billions of barrels of Saudi sweet crude as if there was no end to the supply?

How can drilling for natural gas affect "fuel prices at the pump"?  There are very few natural gas-powered vehicles on the road today.

With all due respect, are you trying to trivilize this discussion?  Energy is energy.  If natural gas replaces oil that is used for electrical generation or home heating, doesn't that lower demand for oil?

Compressed natural gas (CNG) is not going to supplant American's demand for gasoline.  And unless there is an equivalent trillion plus cubic feet of natural gas akin to Russia's reserves lying off the coast of America, it is not going to substantially diversify our sources of energy or reduce the price or demand of petroleum products.  

To your earlier point, we don't consume a great deal of Saudi production, we primarily import from Canada and Mexico.  The only reason Saudi Arabia holds such a high place in our importers list is that they discount their oil.  It is cheaper to move crude across the gulf from Trinidad and Venezuela than from Saudi Arabia.  In fact, it is cheaper to move it from Angola, Equatorial Guinea, and Nigeria than Saudi.  VLCCs can not fit through the Suez and have to travel around the Horn of Africa.  And considering that marine fleets are fueled by heavy fuel oil another petroleum product, it cannot be cheap to move great distances anymore.

As Eileen and others have pointed out, drill, drill, drill is the same old, same old.  Americans are modifying their behavior to use less petroleum and that is the right direction.  Fossil fuels are finite products and rather than focusing on supply, as we have done for so long, we need to start focusing on conservation, efficiency, and diversification of sources.  We have spent so much time focusing on fossil fuel supply, before we have more discussions about that I want government to provide some demand management solutions.  Then I am happy to discuss supply.  Demand is the issue.  We are 1/20th the world population, but we consume 1/4 the world's petroleum production.  And we have to contend with China and India who are growing at a much faster pace than we are.  Is there enough petroleum supply on the planet to satisfy Chinese and Indians consuming at a per capita rate that we do even if we open every square mile of the surface area of the planet to drilling?  No.  See, supply is not the issue.

As Eileen and others have pointed out, drill, drill, drill is the same old, same old.     The only ones calling for the U.S. to drill its way out of this energy crisis, are nutbags like Sean Hannity.  Encouraging more drilling only adds to the mix of solutions out there.  

Americans are modifying their behavior to use less petroleum and that is the right direction.    Every little bit does makes a difference on the demand-side as you say, but this is true on the supply-side as well.  

Fossil fuels are finite products and rather than focusing on supply, as we have done for so long, we need to start focusing on conservation, efficiency, and diversification of sources.    We have been, start with Vision for 2025 - The National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency.  But while demand nonetheless grows because we are and want to be a robust & growing nation, this doesn't mean we eliminate new supplies while seeking diversification.

We have spent so much time focusing on fossil fuel supply, before we have more discussions about that I want government to provide some demand management solutions.     There is plenty of that which has been proposed and mandated, but it doesn't happen at the flip of a switch - it takes time to filter down to the end user on a wide scale.  

Then I am happy to discuss supply.  Demand is the issue...supply is not the issue.     Innovation and advances with technology and human habits will come around full circle, and by 10-25 years from today, we'll reach the desired point provided we do not get caught up in some geopolitical strife or economical turmoil.  Until that time, we have to bridge today to the future with the widest array of resources to avoid disrupting the economy and derailing these energy goals.  

While we complain and criticize the current administration which has given us $4+ gas at the pump, are we lining up the next president to give us $8 or $12 gas at the pump by keeping our solution too narrow?  Drilling won't bring gas back to $2 a gallon, but like changing driving habits, drilling for oil & natural gas, will do alittle bit amongst a slew of other things.  And while we explore today, new resource would come online by 2015, which helps prevent the harm to our energy security, reliablity and affordablity, which may decrease significantly by that time more so than today.  We need to accept this transition but it goes both way, before our energy consumption is truly clean, efficient and independent by 2025-2030, and beyond.    

Miles and others may feel McCain and his allies are delighted with Webb's agreement to join Warner.  But from my perspective, this may only bolster Webb's VP candidacy because it closes the gap a bit b/n the two sides' energy agendas.  Remember Barack Obama co-sponsored a senate clean coal legislation in 2007 with Republican Sen. Bunning (KY).  Among other things this bill encouraged the development of ccs technologies, but that hasn't hurt his popularity among the environmental left has it?  

Floodguy, we have a fundamental difference on the scope of the problem and what needs to be done.  There are not enough resources on the planet to allow the 5+ billion people living in the developing world to live as we do on a per capita consumption basis.  Every little bit that we might add to supply is minuscule given the massive growth in consumption of China and India.  It is a world market for crude oil and LNG.  If China, sitting on a massive pile of dollars, is offering the highest prices for petroleum, it will be going to Qingdao and not the Port of Southern Louisiana.

We need a dramatic shift.  The American people are making that move.  And either we do this on our own through our own individual means or we do this collectively with government assistance.  

On demand management, you say there has been plenty of that proposed and mandated.  I'd be interested to hear what those things are you're referencing.  In terms of efficiency programs, California does tons more than Virginia does.  And to your point about it taking time to filter down, that need not be the case.  There is an existing bureaucratic infrastructure in both the public and private sectors to accomplish these objectives, we only need to spend the resources to get things done.  And if we are allocating resources to find additional supply, those are resources that could be going to do other things like transitioning us away from fossil fuel use.  Every dollar spent has opportunity cost.

I don't think less of Webb for sponsoring this legislation.  My criticism of his positions doesn't necessarily affect my satisfaction with him as a legislator.  I would also add that Webb and Obama are not perfect; and I don't come to the table with that expectation.  Consequently, I am not disappointed when we don't agree on everything.  Last, on balance, a Democrat is going to be much better on these issues than a Republican.  I would expect McCain to continue to gut the EPA at industry's request.  I'd expect him to continue to open federal lands to unfettered exploration, mining, and clear cutting of forests.  

The fundamental difference you have is that you are assuming a position of mine, which I do not hold

There are not enough resources on the planet to allow the 5+ billion people living in the developing world to live as we do on a per capita consumption basis.

I think I differ from you in the fact that gov't can't or shouldn't seek to solve every problems, or major problems such as this.  Their track record has been abysmal.  During the 70's decade, national policy was to encourage coal-fired generation.  Gov't can and should and is enabling the market, aka Americans and American corporations, to find the solutions.  Investments in R&D and incentives has been happening and will continues to occur.  

The Manhattan-style project, in terms of our energy revolution, is all ready underway, but gov't and industry simply don't have the knowhow to move any faster.  There are obvious financial, market, engineering, environmental, and infrastructural hurdles impeding industry which must be resolved - and this takes time.  Forcing it will only cost more, potentially affect the economy and possibly push back the goal-line.  I believe from my research both for pleasure and investment, I think what you and I want will slowly take shape over the next 15 to 25 years.  

By that time, if you or anyone else were to request more exploration for oil or LNG, then I would have to strongly question that.  But during this transition period from today until then, energy policy shouldn't add any stress to the markets, and that's where we obviously and sadly differ.  This transition can best be accomplished by facilitating the implementation of all types of resources, led by market forces, both for fossil or against, before technology and human consumption habits carry us over the goal-line.

Can we fight against a new coal plant, while many old coal plants are being retired, then fight against natural gas generation, then nuclear expansion, all while wanting to sustain an economy which will provide the financial vigor to carry industry thru this energy revolution, while every American purchases an electric plug-in hybrid in their garage?  No we can't...not now...but gradually we can.  

My perception is one which tries to understand climate and industry, because the way I see it, in order for progress to happen, both political and market sides must partner.  Unfortunately, many hold an energy stance which ignores industry and are unknowing of industry's willingness to go green.  Check out my latest diary.

PS - This diary we are posting under, is about Webb's stance to encourage offshore exploration for natural gas for the purpose of electric generation and as a heating fuel, not for the exploration of petroleum off the coast of Virginia.  

Can we fight against a new coal plant, while many old coal plants are being retired, then fight against natural gas generation, then nuclear expansion, all while wanting to sustain an economy...

This has been precisely the position of the Sierra Club and others since the 1973 Oil Embargo.  No new coal fired plants, no new nuclear plants, and no off-shore exploration.  It is the "conserve our way out of the problem" mantra that makes just as much sense as drill, drill, drill.

Energy efficiency is the most logical, cost-effective and needed first step.  First you stop the bleeding before you administer more long-term cures.  

I agree with pursuing balanced solutions, but just capitulating to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries at a time when we are doing almost nothing substantial to stop the massive waste of energy in America would be a mistake from both a political and a technical perspective.

It is duly noted the potential EEC has.  If fact I have suggested here that VA should follow CA, and make EEC the top ranked resource in load order.  EEC has many merits.  

EEC is the cleaniest, the cheapest and most readily available resource.  EEC doesn't obstruct viewsheds or watershed or coastline regions.  EEC does not cause the condemnation or devaluation of land or private property.  EEC has no physical footprint and can only have a net overall positive affect on the environment.  EEC is not subject to any geographic limitation or geologic boundary, and is available for implementation wherever electriciy is delivered and consumed.  For this reason, when utilities approach state utility boards, they should first prove all available resources in EEC has been exhausted, before any new proposal for new generation or transmission.

However, like renewables, the massive impact of EEC can not be delivered without the implementation of a more intelligent grid.  

I agree with pursuing balanced solutions, but just capitulating to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries ...
It sure seems that what, but how long has it been since our last nuclear power plant?  How long has there been a new refinery or expanded one?  

We also have all read or heard about the 10 - 12 or so coal proposals shelved by other utilities noted here on RK.  The substitution for these coal proposals have been mostly switched primary to with gas-generation.  This among other factors is driving the price of LNG in the footsteps as oil.  Here in Va, there are 5 proposals for new gas generation on the table, 3 of which have applications at the SCC.  And with Va being made into one of the energy exporter for the NE, it appears to me all of our state's leading political figures on both sides of the aisle, see LNG exploration as not only an economical benefit, but one which doesn't create an imbalance but corrects one in the making, which industry, consumers, and regulators would easily embrace.  

Kindler, I think all of us in the discussion are pretty much on the same page.  I believe, however, we must not forget our desire to reach homeplate without first touching the other three bases in order, will only result in an automatic out.  

on saying that EEC cannot be delivered without a more intelligent grid?  For better managing peak demand usage, that is true.  But overall reductions in consumption from efficiency and conservation are not predicated on a smart grid.

"Why do you insist on saying that EEC cannot be delivered without a more intelligent grid?"

I don't think I wrote that?  I don't believe that whatsoever, but as I have posted, EEC cannot be maximized, ie reach its full potential as a resource, without the implementation of a more intelligent grid.  Can adding insulation, weatherstripping, new energy star appliances, programmible thermostats, reducing phantom loads, etc., make an impact?  Yes it can, but those savings too, will not fully surface either for another decade or two, because it will not be mandated onto the end user - on the product and building manufacturing sectors, yes, but to you and I, no.  It will take that long for capital investments to naturally filter thru residential and non-residential consumers.  (Hence the importants not to disrupt the economy beyond what the fuel crisis is not creating.)  Soon, however, the next wave of appliances other than refrigerators and freezers, will come equipped with smart switches which at the end-users option, can communicate with the local utility provider.  At the non-residential level, the width of this type of application grows.  

Similarly, renewables which supply intermittent capacity, can be brought into the energy fold beyond their most suited geographical regions.  With the smart grid, EEC will offer a much cheaper, cleaner, and quicker alternative backup resource, since a smarter grid can maximize EEC savings more effectively and on a far broader scale than without.

"For better managing peak demand usage, that is true.  But overall reductions in consumption from efficiency and conservation are not predicated on a smart grid."

Overall meaning what?  Full savings, full potential, then no.  Yes, a smarter grid will have a great impact as it manages demand during peak usage, but it will also be used to manage off-peak capacity.  A smarter grid will be used to facility EEC resources to supplement and/or back up intermittent renewables, or supplant fossil generation on code red type days.  As of now, the immediate resource to backup intermittent renewable capacity, is mostly gas and in some cases, is and will become semi-retired coal.  A smarter grid will also aid the utility industry to better manage transmission congestion, which causes great spikes with the cost of delivering capacity during peak usage.  

A fully implemented smart grid will bring a different real-time pricing model, which will give incentives to move from peak demand to off-peak.  This is why decoupling revenue from sales is not being advocated by smart grid consumer groups or industry.  A more "dynamic" pricing model will not cloud long-term planning as decoupled revenues from sales could create, and it still provides the pricing model most desired by industry.  A smarter grid will also lower spikes and smooth the demand curve, narrowing the peak and baseline generation, substantially reducing utility investment for new or expanded generation and transmission.  

Please, don't view my opinion as one that belittles the impact of, or the need for EEC or renewables.  Its quite the opposite.  But if EEC and renewables had no hurdles other than investments, then yes, the target goals would be higher than they currently are, and sooner.  There's a reason why NAPEE's EEC goal is only 30% as far off as 2025, and not 2015.  

I said our differences were on scope and solutions, which they are.  I didn't say that you think fossil fuel reliance is sustainable.  I was just putting my view of scope out there.  As to the discussion, I don't think anything we have discussed is off topic.  

Finally, on government's role, I don't think government can solve every problem either.  But addressing major problems is exactly the role of government.  Where the market has failed to provide, it is exactly those areas that government has a role to play.  Government can coordinate a response to major problems in a way that private industry cannot.  If I believed that Milton Friedman was right, then I would be voting Republican.  In a Utopian free-market system, you would not need government intervention in the economy because there would be no externalities, no information asymmetry.  But such a market does not exist.  

If natural gas replaces oil that is used for electrical generation or home heating, doesn't that lower demand for oil?

According to the US Dept of Energy's Energy Information Administration, over 12 times more oil is used for transportation than for residential use and electrical power generation combined.

So the impact on oil prices would be, to use your word, trivial.

but the same can be said of individuals conserving electricity by turning off unused lights or switching to cfl's.  

1. You're saying that getting that natural gas to market would involve a substantial investment of infrastructure in Virginia. Sounds good to me! Jobs and investment will be good for Virginia's economy.

2. That is a logical fallacy. 'This one thing is bad because some other thing might be more good.' You might as well say that the American Heart Association is pointless because they aren't doing anything about AIDS in Africa.  If there's money to be made in off-shore wind power, then people will do that as well.

3. Forgive me for putting a lot more credibility in Jim Webb's estimation of what is good or bad for the Navy than I do in the opinion of some random, if well-spoken, person on the internet.

4. You're telling us that it's illegal to extract natural gas without drilling for oil? No offense but I just don't believe that. Give us a source and I'll read it.

5. Sounds like you're making the case in favor of drilling now. If natural gas production in the lower 48 is going to start to decline in 2020, then we'd really better get cracking right away on ensuring our future supply.

6. Ok, then it shouldn't be an issue. Why would a gas company spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars opening up a new area if they are aren't anywhere near maximum output from the areas they've already invested in? You think they want to flush money down the toilet for fun? No, they aren't stupid. If your information is correct and there are no other important aspects of the situation that you have omitted, then opening this new area for drilling shouldn't be a problem, since nobody will ever actually drill there.

But really this point of yours is in direct conflict with what you said in item #5. Which is it? First you say that we're running out of natural gas and use that as an excuse for why we shouldn't drill for more, and then you turn around and say that we have far, far more natural gas than we are even trying to use and you use that as an excuse for no more drilling. Which is it? You are contradicting yourself.

7. It's not being done on a 'one state' basis. The entire Senate, including 2 Senators from each state, will have to vote on it in order for it to become law. This isn't Virginia shoving something down everyone else's throats without their having a say.

8. That is data that conflates natural gas drilling and oil drilling. Show us environmental data for just the natural gas and then it will be useful in weighing the pros and cons.

Now I'm not necessarily all gung-ho for drilling for natural gas off of Virginia's coast. I'm just not prepared to demonize Jim Webb for his position on it and certainly will not come down against him based on shell game logic.

Since when does disagreeing with one of Jim Webb's positions constitute "demonizing" him?  I have great respect for Webb, but when we believe, based on our knowledge and values, that he's wrong about something, we certainly have both the right and the responsibility as citizens and constituents to raise an objection.  

My personal feeling is that we need to push our government to make a serious commitment to energy efficiency, and not make major concessions to the oil, gas and coal industries until we have that commitment enshrined in our laws and infrastructures. Otherwise, those companies will just keep winning at the expense of the environment and future generations.