But he doesn't so he has no choice.

is the result of Obama relying of industry lobbyists. He needs to do his own research and listen to the altenergy forces. While he would like to think the maintenance of the middle class is the most important issue we face, our choice for future energy supplies and methods will play a far greater roll in the bigger picture.

Personally, I think they have too much influence. In any case, Obama has shown no leadership when it come to an energy policy.

> This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members
> who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages
> contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group.

How is a lack of an energy policy or clear environmental direction on the part of our administration not related to issues of the environment and energy?

It seems to me our government's energy policy, or the lack of one, should be straight down the fairway in this group. I believe the same can be said about our environmental regulations and how they are developed and administered by the EPA.

For what it's worth, I strongly believe in responsible environmental regulations and I want us to have a healthy environment. I majored in Environmental Engineering and I'm a registered professional engineer. I love the outdoors and spend a lot of time backpacking, fishing and occasionally hunting in the Adirondacks. I don't want to see the environment trashed anymore than anyone else on this board does.

A little background: I've worked in the electric power business for almost 29 years and I've developed and built hundreds of megawatts of natural gas fired generation both in this country and internationally. I managed almost 1,000 megawatts of gas fired generation in the northeast for more than 5 years and I've done development work on about 250 MW of wind generation in Texas. Those are the highlights, there's a lot more. Right now, I'm advising a private equity fund that plans on investing up to $1 Billion in low carbon energy infrastructure in North America (renewables like solar and wind, gas fired generation. midstream gas and electric transmission). They are paying me a lot of money to advise them on many of the things that are regularly discussed here. I apologize if it seems like I'm bragging, but I'm trying to establish that I do have a strong interest in energy and the the environment, and also have an informed opinion, even if the majority of posters here don't always agree with me.

Many times I read postings here that, IMO, are untrue or slanted. I think many posters here have unreasonable expectations for renewable generation that even the DOE's Energy Information Adminitration would not agree with. Lot's of times, only half the story gets discussed. Let's take fracking - there is a lot of study work ongoing, but the results have been conflicting. The Duke University study concluded that fracking contaminates groundwater which validates the (preconceived?) opinion of many posters here. For that reason, it gets cited regularly. To my knowledge, I'm the only poster that has put the Penn State study up for discussion. That study looked at more wells, over a larger geographical area and was done after the Duke study. It was also done after Pennsylvania upgraded the requirements for casings on gas wells. Penn State's conclusion was that fracking did not cause groundwater pollution. Does it violate the group's purpose to point that out?

Last week, one poster made the statement that wind could compete with $3 gas and cited a 7 year old NREL piece that was based on $8.47 gas to substantiate it. His post was inaccurate and I called him on it. Should I have not done that?

I could go on with other examples, but I think you get my point. I think there is value in discussing all of the facts around a particular issue and addressing inaccurate information or unreasonable beliefs. If I do post something that differs from the majority opinion, I'm prepared to defend my opinion. I would think that should lead to an informative, interesting discussion that all would benefit from. Why would you not want that?

At the time I posted, I'd just been catching up after a few days
absence and one of the things that I'd noted was your defence
of increased fossil fuel extraction & usage (especially defending
fracking) so when you posted the mildly anti-environmentalist
comment that I replied to ...

>> And alternative energy and the environmentalists don't lobby as well?
>> Personally, I think they have too much influence.

... I thought I'd remind you that 1) this is a group not a forum
and 2) support of fossil fuels is not "sharing similar interests
and viewpoints" for environmentalists.

That is not in any way to say that you should not point out factual
inaccuracies (e.g., your correction of the $3 gas comment) or that
you should not re-post the Penn State study (it has been brought up
before as the only piece of research that supports the gas companies
argument) and I thank you for providing the background information
that explains why you have the strong ties to the gas/electric topics.

I also appreciate the polite manner in which you responded and look
forward to reading other information in the future.

I wholly disagree with this remark: "Obama has shown no leadership when it come to an energy policy."

Power in the US government rests with the legislature. The President's carbon reduction plan was destroyed by the oil companies through actions in the Senate. Or inaction

Further, can you describe just how the "alternative energy and the environmentalists ... have too much influence"? I think that is what you are saying. You tell me. In my experience, when we lobbied for a renewable energy portfolio standard in Ohio, the four electricity companies hired every lobbyist and former representative that they could find in this state. We had about five full time professionals, including some new and young people.

BTW, we were lobbying for much more, like efficiency and affordable rates for the poor and disabled.