Below are a few letters received ay EnergyBiz Insider on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.

________________________________________

Unregulated Power Companies 'Stable' - March 05, 2010

Historically, power companies were unregulated. They served customers well and remained economically stable. There is definitely a place in the modern world for unregulated power companies. Repealing the law that prohibits private power lines across private property lines could open the door for adjoining neighbors to develop their own microgrids and micro-power generation systems.

Harry Valentine
Columnist/Commentator/Researcher

Energy Efficiency Funding - March 08, 2010

Very timely article.

With the pressure that building owners face from increasing vacancy rates (almost 20 percent), decreasing rental rates (40 percent in many markets) and losses in asset values ranging from 30-50 percent depending upon market, building owners are in dire need of help. Our network of service providers are reporting that it is becoming difficult to sell energy efficiency projects whose payback is more than one year even with creative financing. Consequently, we are advocating that our network focus on low and no-cost opportunities to reduce utility bills in commercial buildings. You are well aware of BOMA's BEEP program and its benefits to members.

Service providers should take heed and realize that focusing on these low/no-cost measures can save their customers significant amounts of money. We are typically seeing savings of 10-20 percent. Not bad in a 200,000-square-foot building spending $2/sq ft on energy. Saving 20 percent on an annual energy spend of $400,000 generates an annual savings of $80,000. Much of the cost of realizing those savings can be borne within the existing service agreement that the building owner is already paying for.

Associations like the MSCA and ACCA understand this and are now training their members in the efficacy of modifying their existing service agreements to incorporate energy savings. By reorienting their members in this direction building owners benefit. They are able to realize the longer term value of maintaining and extending the life of their heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting assets, but by focusing on energy, they can fund such services (and more) by generating immediate savings on their energy bills.

Jim Crowder
CEO & President
Air Advice

Ensuring Nuclear Safety - March 10, 2010

Thank you for the informative rundown on the nuclear energy business.

The phrase "Ensuring Nuclear Safety" is crazy. It cannot be done. Nukes are the biggest mistake in history. Let's be honest, profit and convenience of electricity come before safety. To think that we really need the energy the nukes provide (or that coal provides) is the essential mindset problem facing modern civilization and is our downfall. Putting the genie back in the bottle is impossible, but our best hope is to babysit the mess as collapse of our unsustainable civilization ensues and fades into history -- a permanent history of nuke danger.

Jan Lundberg
Oil Industry Analyst

The Greening of Brownfields - March 12, 2010

One alarming disappointment, which I trust will eventually be acted upon, was the site of Piketon, Ohio for a nuclear generating facility. Enriching uranium since the `40s; this sister facility to Oakridge and Paducah, represents an absolute natural for a nuclear generating facility. Having location and infrastructure to carry out the necessary processes, for these locations is a slam-dunk. I will be very surprised if that transition does not occur in the future at either Oakridge or Piketon.

Furthermore the developments of the processing of the fuel, the reuse and reprocessing of the waste has resulted in once was a 55-gallon barrel twenty years ago is now in a coffee can, the ultimate handling and disposal issues are improving continuously.

The "greenest" energy, right at this point, is nuclear; making your brownfields even "greener".

Mark S. McCloy
Director Marketing
CE Power Solutions, LLC

Now we are thinking. These are the ideas that make sense. Of course, construction on the lands means the site may still need to be disturbed so it becomes important to allow for the collection of some materials on site (contamination remaining there and managed as not to affect surrounding properties).

In the case of properties where it is feared rain water may lead to runoff into non-polluted sites or filtration into aquifers, installation of solar panels with storm water collection troughs would make a lot of sense. If allowed to think, the engineering community can help solve nearly any challenge for these properties. The first and perhaps biggest hurdle seems to be clearing which is the inability to do anything with the site unless you completely clean it up.

Luis G. Vargas, Jr., P.E.
Sr. Director of Energy Services - Southeast Region
Engineering Director - Tampa Office
GAI Consultants, Inc.

Too often coal-fired power plants have been maligned by environmental extremists. They confuse the public, media and elected/appointed officials. Based on recent experience, a coalition of multi-interest groups (labor, economic council, and regional developers) have shown how byproducts from coal-fired power plants can be used to remediate brownfields and enhance commercial development of abandoned industrial sites -- at a 75 percent cost savings.

• Stabilized contaminated dredgings were used as a cap and structural fill enabling harbor deepening and waterfront development.
• Additional jobs are created via such development projects -- securing support from local populations enhancing political climate.
• Value added of byproduct utilization enhances Project Permitting and Public Acceptance.

Dr. Richard W. Goodwin, P.E.
Environmental Engineering
Consultant

Obama's Agenda - March 15, 2010

President Obama's agenda is way off target. Government cannot rebuild an economy -- only the marketplace can do that.

Proponents of nuclear power as a "green" energy should remember, nuclear power plants are not particularly efficient thus they reject a lot more heat to the environment. One needs to consider the effect of the extra water vapor a nuclear plant puts into the atmosphere as it is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.

Byron Wooldridge

From our vantage point, we're not seeing the President take particularly bold action on energy. Rather the administration seems to be playing the politically challenged hand it's been dealt and covering the bases by doling out support (money and kind words) to all sectors and technologies -- Ms. Sullivan's "thousand flowers" plan.

While Secretary Chu is the right guy for the job and does not mince words about the catastrophic consequences for continuing down the carbon path, the White House continues to pander to the oil and gas and coal industries. If we get cap-and-trade at all in Mr. Obama's first term it will be in name only.

I'm willing to believe that the President is biding his time to find the right political moment (certainly after healthcare legislation has passed) to roll up his sleeves, grab the podium and make the "we're going to the moon by the end of the decade" speech regarding energy policy.

I am just disappointed that in the meantime, his understandably necessary political shuffling is given credence as being real energy policy and "the right priorities".

Christopher Huntington
Vice President, Business Development
SkyFuel Inc.

I entirely agree with your premise that the Obama Administration has emphasized the development of clean technologies and renewable energy. It gives the Administration too much credit, however, to claim that the Administration "spearheaded" the effort.

If you go back in time, the ARRA was passed just weeks after Obama took office. In fact, the ARRA began to take shape after the TARP funding bill was passed in October 2008. Indeed, once lawmakers passed the TARP bailout bill, lawmakers realized that a larger stimulus bill was needed and work began in earnest on that bill.

This bill could only progress so far, however, in light of the election and the end of the 110th Congress. Furthermore, Congress had largely given up on the Bush Administration and no one in a Democratic Congress had the desire to send a large stimulus bill to a lame duck President who was not well regarded. So, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid continued the pressure to develop a stimulus bill for Congress to take up and pass when the 111th Congress convened in early 2009. Administration officials, including the first cabinet members, were consulted, but the real details of the ARRA emerged on Capitol Hill.

What is true is that the Administration has followed through on the implementation of the ARRA (and other stalled programs such as the DOE loan guarantee program from the 2005 EPAct). Here, the Administration deserves due credit for meeting the goals and mission set out in the ARRA, which your article notes in detail.

So, while the Administration took the ball and ran with it, it's a little bit of a stretch to give them all the credit for drawing up the play.

David A. Fitzgerald

Respond to the editor.