Today the Bureau of Land Management announced the lifting of its moratorium on solar energy applications on federal land.

"We are happy to see that BLM will continue to process solar applications. With consumers facing rapidly increasing energy costs, the United States cannot afford to delay solar projects any longer." Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) President Rhone Resch said in today's statement. Click here to read his more from SEIA.

The Bureau of Land Management issued a press release saying:

"We heard the concerns expressed during the scoping period about waiting to consider new applications," said BLM Director James Caswell, "and we are taking action. By continuing to accept and process new applications for solar energy projects, we will aggressively help meet growing interest in renewable energy sources, while ensuring environmental protections." Click here to read more from BLM.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, an independent opinion research group has released a nationwide study finding that "amid record gas prices, public support for greater energy exploration is spiking . . . and an increasing proportion (of people taking the survey) also says that developing new sources of energy - rather than protecing the environment - is the more important national priority.

The survey's found that an increasing number of support for energy exploration came from groups that previously had "viewed this as a less important priority."

Click here to read the entire survey.

The Bureau of Land Management has struck a blow to the alternative energy industry by placing a moratorium on new solar projects on public lands.

The New York Times reports that BLM says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western States. Click here to read the entire article.

The U.S. Energy Department has released its Annual Energy Outlook 2008 report with projections to 2030 this week. The following excerpt is under the title, Oil Production:

There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the future of unconventional crude oil production in the United States. Environmental regulations could either preclude unconventional production or raise its cost significantly. If future U.S. laws limited and/or taxed greenhouse gas emissions, they could lead to substantial increases in the costs of unconventional production, which emits significant volumes of CO2. Restrictions on access to water also could prove costly, especially in the arid West. In addition, environmental restrictions on land use could preclude unconventional oil production in some areas of the United States.
Click here to find all of the reports.

Today, Jim Jelter of Marketwatch covers the reports in his column. He says:

The Energy Department reasons that much of the supply tightness currently gripping the market, whether real or imagined, is likely to ease as major new oil fields come on line in Brazil, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia and even here in North America. That would signal a fundamental shift in the supply-demand picture, even though output would need to increase by about 12 million barrels a day -- over half the 20 million barrels of oil the U.S. currently burns in a day -- to keep pace with global demand.

Investors have a choice in the weeks and months ahead. They can either pay attention to underlying fundamentals in the marketplace or, like Macbeth, they can continue to listen to witches playing on their innermost fears and succumb to madness. Click here to read more from Marketwatch.

The Senate Republicans have managed to defeat the renewal of the critical solar energy credits six times now.
President Bush's latest scheme to get Saudi Arabia to pump more oil toward an addicted nation has been put into motion and Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times doesn't mince words when he tells us in his column Sunday that it is hard for him:

"to find the words to express what a massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy this is. But it gets better. The president actually had the gall to set a deadline for this drug deal."

That deadline is Independence day. A day that many Americans watch parades and set fireworks off in the darken hours celebrating freedom from oppression.

Click here to read Friedman's column.

Click here to read the Monday's Washington Post's article headlined. "White House welcomes Saudi oil output pledge."

The addict-in-chief isn't the only Republican addicted to oil. Read Charles Langley's December 2007 blog. Pete Domenici at that writing was the top recipient of dollars from oil and gas companies, electric utilities, and natural gas transmission and distribution corporations. Now, according to www.opensecret.org, Domenici has received over $168,000 for campaign finance cycle 2008 from the oil and gas industry alone.

Earlier this week the president of SEIA (The Solar Energy Industries Association) Rhone Resch released a statement about his disappointment "that the Senate has once again failed to reach a bipartisan consensus that would allow this important legislation to move forward." More.

He is speaking about the Energy Independence & Tax Relief Act, H.R. 6049.

Monday, a New York Times editorial had urged the Senate "to begin to redeem itself, by approving a bill to extend vital tax credits for renewable fuel sources like wind and solar power." More.

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that the Senate blocked debate of the bill leaving the fate of the credits uncertain. More.

On Wednesday, Politico.com explained the whole thing to us in an article that shed some light on the hostility and partisan bickering. More.

The San Fransciso Chronicle brings the discussion home to California where the potential loss of revenue is great:

William Morin, director of government affairs for Santa Clara-based Applied Materials said that without a steady policy of tax incentives most manufacturing will continue to go overseas. More.

Click here to see the voting record for the Senate for H.R. 6049.

In six months the investment tax credits, meant to stimulate investment in solar energy, and the production tax credit, meant to encourage investment in wind energy, are set to expire unless congress makes them a priority and renews them.

So far the quarreling in Congress hasn't abated.

If you haven't had an opportunity to read Thomas Friedman's op-ed piece that ran in The New York Times in late April, I'm recommending it and providing a link.

Also, and more importantly, here are links to the Senate and to the House of Representatives. Let them know where you stand on solar incentive programs.

I don't own a Playstation 3 nor do I own a Plasma TV. This is not to say that I haven't been caught gazing at a plasma screen with definition so intensely sharp that I'm nearly mesmerized to the point of ignoring the price tag of the huge shiny object and grabbing an available pick-up truck (setting aside the current cost of gas) and loading one of these babies up into the truck to bring home.

The practical side of me says I'd have to not only rearrange the furniture in my home to accommodate my newly purchased trinket, but I'd also have to buy some bulky console to welcome this creation of clarity. I'll be honest, I'm not keen to the idea of added housework. Of course, a Playstation 3 might set me back about $400 initially, for me on its face an unnecessary extravagance, but I bet I could use my new Plasma TV console to store the Playstation thus satisfying my practical soul in the process. My credit card could use a little trip outside of my wallet and a spring cleaning, even in summer, is good for the soul.

But wait, before I jump in with tax rebate in fist, I should compare the monthly operating cost of the Plasma TV and the Sony Playstation. Choice, a non-profit, independent group, whose aim is to tackle the issues that really matter to consumers, publishes the weekly, monthly, and even yearly costs in electricity and dollar cost per kWh, the comparison price used is very close to what San Diego Gas & Electric customer's (SDG&E) pay.

Left on, I find that I can easily add $19 for the TV set and $20 for the Playstation to my monthly expenses. If I run around and switch the power off from my new toys when I am done with my fun, my monthly cost will be practically no burden at all.

SDG&E has an interactive home on their website showing that my Energy-Star rated refrigerator can cost as much as $12 per month and my electic dryer can run as much as 71 cents a load. 

Visiting Choice's site I'm finding that some televisions can consume more energy than an appliance. I couldn't help but look at the cost of my computer being up and running all day even while I am at work miles away. If I used the recommended energy savings instructions in a year's time, I could afford two tanks of gas at today's prices. Really something to consider.

An interesting article appeared in the Business Day section of Thursday's New York Times highlighting liquefied natural gas, LNG, and longstanding assumptions that are now being questioned by experts. Some excerpts are below:

"A few years ago people looked at L.N.G. as a solution to North America's gas needs," said Nikos Tsafos, an analyst with PCF Energy, a consulting firm. But today we see that there is less L.N.G. around than people expected, and there is more competition for the L.N.G. from markets that are willing to pay more than the United States."

..................................................................

Just about the only place where demand for L.N.G. seems not to be growing is the United States, an abrupt shift from expectations as little as one year ago.

Click here to read the entire the New York Times article.