John McCain, Barak Obama and T. Boone Pickens all have energy plans. They have a lot in common, but few new ideas. They all fail to address and confront the major reasons why the United States energy situation is such a mess. We introduce you to the four elephants and explain why tackling them will lead to a better energy future.

The Elephants in the Room
In honor of the late Randy Pausch, I'd like to begin talking about the "Elephants in the Room" and encourage the Presidential candidates and other renewable energy advocates to also do so. If we don't acknowledge their existence and deal with them, they will continue to be a growing threat to the U.S. economy and security.

The four elephants are:

1) Opposition to Energy Projects aka "Not willing to Sacrifice,"
2) A Congress that passes laws that pit energy against the environment,
3) Over reliance on energy supply options and no trust in consumers, and
4) Lip Service paid to the "Fifth Fuel" of energy efficiency and demand response.

Opposition to Energy Projects aka "Not willing to Sacrificezz"
Almost everything mentioned in the Obama, McCain and T. Boone Pickens energy plans has been in play in former President Clinton's and George W. Bush's administration. Former Vice President Gore has also talked about this for years too.

Take a minute and ask yourself why there seems to be so much talk and so little concrete progress? How come we're not reducing our dependence on oil when almost every plan and politician seem to be embracing renewable energy and acknowledging the threat of global warming.

The real reason we have not moved forward has less to do with a lack of technology or money. We simply have no stomach for "sacrifice" when it comes to energy projects. Some of us even go to great lengths to stop certain energy projects. These elitists reason that someone else in a less desirable community should foot the bill and put up with the environmental impacts. Perhaps the Canadians can mine more oil sands and flood the market with oil. That way we can consume as we've always done.

If you doubt what I'm saying, just Google "opposition to energy projects" and you will see that almost every kind of energy project in this country and the world is being opposed by communities and groups with very parochial agendas. Renewable energy projects are not immune either. This really surprised me given all of the histrionics about solar, wind and other renewable energy projects that the public supposedly wants.

Some States like Texas are synonymous with wind energy. In fact, Texas has surpassed California in wind energy projects. That's Texas has encourage both wind turbines and the necessary power lines to the power from the remote areas to where its needed in the urban areas.

Other areas may have a good wind resources or great solar resources, but to make those projects work, new and high voltage power lines have to be built. Building interstate power lines is very problematic given public and State opposition and even though a 2005 energy law created national transmission corridors.

Congress passes laws that pit energy against the environment
Congress has played a real trick on all of us. They pass well meaning laws in a vacuum and then blame government agencies and the private sector for energy shortages. In contrast to other countries, in the U.S. the private sector owns most of the power plants, high voltage power lines, natural gas and gasoline pipelines and other energy infrastructure.

The recent Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007 are two great examples. These laws are not perfect, but they recognized the challenges and created programs to make things happen. The major problem is that when Congress passed these laws they included language that discussed the bills' relationship to other laws. Here's what they have said in the Energy Independence and Security Act:

"Except to the extent expressly provided in this Act or an amendment made by this Act, nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this Act supersedes, limits the authority provided or responsibility conferred by, or authorizes any violation of any provision of law (including a regulation), including any energy or environmental law or regulation."

Here's the short translation: Unless we have said otherwise, every other law (environment or otherwise) is alive and well and must be complied with.

The above language adds years and millions of dollars to efforts to develop energy projects. It pits the agencies charged with implementing the energy law against those who's mission it is to implement the environmental laws passed years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in a thorough environmental review. I just draw the line when the environmental review is done several times at both the federal and State level, takes a decade to complete, and when the lead agency's decision is challenged in the courts. With the "tail wagging the dog," is it so strange to understand why we look abroad for oil and natural gas to power our country? I think not and now after 30 years of little or no activity, electric utilities will file 18 applications in 2008 to build large nuclear power plants with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to meet future electricity demand.

Over reliance on energy supply options and no trust in energy consumers
The State and Federal government are very much into supply side options. Sure they believe that conservation will help and renewables would be nice if they are cost effective. However, these officials are also realists. They have little or no control over whether consumers will conserve energy, undertake energy efficiency improvements or that renewable energy projects will be built. They are also keenly aware of the public opposition to most energy projects, especially power lines that are necessary to transmit electricity across State lines.

Federal and State officials are also aware that most of the energy generation and transmission infrastructure is owned by the private sector. While we've diversified our electrical energy generation, progress has been slow to open up the electric transmission systems that energy utilities own to other generators.

Given all of the above uncertainty, federal and State officials fall back on energy projects they are familiar with and that traditional utility companies want to propose and build. These include easy to site natural gas-fired power plants, coal and now even nuclear power plants in some parts of the U.S.

Lip Service paid to the "Fifth Fuel" of energy efficiency and demand response
Every energy expert in the world knows that energy efficiency and demand response programs make the most sense economically. No energy suppy option, even if it is renewable, can compete with them and the environmental benefits are obvious.

Yet, the federal government and most State governments have not aggressively required electric utilities to implement demand response programs. Luckily, State energy officials and progressive electric utilities in California, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, and Michigan have the most aggressive demand response programs that allow consumers to take control of their electricity destinies. Despite a great deal of study on demand response programs, the federal government has been slow to move aggressively in this area.

In the next few days, I provide a review of the Barak Obama's Energy Plan [PDF], John McCain's Lexington Project and T. Boone Pickens Energy Plan. Please explore other energy articles that I've written. The more you know, the more you'll be able to save and affect your energy use.

Your comments are always welcome and encouraged. To leave a comment, please Join our community. Learn more.