The Congressional Budget Office has a new report out on energy security that’s sure to spark conversation.  Much of that will seem muddled and polarized – not because of the speakers, but because of the nature of the report itself.  Let’s start with its basic premise:

“One widely used definition of energy security – and the one used in this report – is the ability of U.S. households and businesses to accommodate disruptions of supply in energy markets. Households and businesses are ‘energy secure’ with respect to a particular source of energy if a disruption in the supply of that source would create only limited additional costs.”

CBO is correct that the cost of energy matters, but having actual energy also matters. The report notes, for example, that the U.S. lacks “alternatives... more »

Keith Hennessey with a reminder:

"If (when?) battery technology leaps forward to make hybrid or electric vehicles a significant share of the market, then electricity and its sources will begin to act as significant substitutes for gasoline and diesel fuel. At that point R&D to reduce the cost of solar power, wind power, nuclear power, hydro power, and natural gas power could start to affect the price at the pump enough for you to notice. But until then fuel and electric power are for all practical purposes separate issues, and when an elected official’s response to high fuel prices is more research on or subsidies for some form of electric power production, he is either confused or misleading you. More from the EIA here.

But until then fuel and electric power are for all practic... more »

According to reports, members of the recent protests that have descended on lower Manhattan and Chicago plan to rally at the final State Department public hearing for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, scheduled Friday in Washington, D.C.

Certainly, the public square is big enough for all voices. Here are some others being heard on the Keystone XL, from Lincoln, Neb., Topeka, Kansas and, below, from last week's public hearing in Austin, Texas:

It's important to hear what these folks are saying: energy security, energy reality and, of course, jobs.

Oil from Canadian oil sands represents abundant energy from a secure source, our friend and ally to the north. As Bobby Petty said, more oil from Canada directly bears on the United States' access to reliable supply. Canadian oil is a key part o... more »

Here's U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Canadian oil sands and the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring synthetic crude from Alberta to U.S. refiners:

Deep down, the secretary is a scientist, but he's also a diplomat. Knowing the decision on the pipeline (and by proxy, oil sands) belongs to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Chu refrained from directly answering the question. Still, he said a lot:

• "Having Canada as a supplier of our oil is much more comforting that to have other countries supply our oil." Right! Better to build on our energy partnership with a neighbor and stable ally than some others, who are neither. With the right policies - including the Keystone XL and oil sands - 92 percent of our liquid fuel needs could be supplied domestically and from Canada by 2030. Comf... more »

Question: Why do some insist on making the energy debate a zero-sum game? Going forward, the United States should be marshalling all of its energy resources and resist arguments that pit one kind of energy against another. Global energy demand is going to continue rising, drawing on existing and emerging sources and underscoring the wisdom of an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

Unfortunately, the point is missed by some. For example, in this post Mother Nature Network blogger Karl Burkhart lauds a proposed Wyoming wind farm while criticizing the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring oil from Canada's oil sands region to U.S. refiners. The headline, "How would you spend $7 billion," plays off similar price tags for the two projects, suggesting a choice must be made between them.... more »