[Editor note: Mark Krebs has been a leading advocate (see here) for free-market decision-making between natural gas and electricity in homes and places of business, challenging the ‘deep decarbonization’ push of energy interventionists to disciminate against fossil fuels at point of use. This is the first of a two-part post.]

“Grid reliability should not eclipse energy reliability; especially during weather emergencies. Yet, much of the discussion looks like more of the same rent-seeking by interests looking for rebuilding damaged electricity infrastructure with inherently unreliable wind and solar generation based ‘microgrids’.”

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is undertaking an in-depth review of the laws and regulations affecting electric energy. Much of that review is through a series of hearing that started last July. The objectives for this series of hearings were officially stated as follows:

Today, the nation’s electricity industry is undergoing a period of transformation due to technological innovation and market competition, creating tremendous benefits to American consumers.

“Back in 1977 when the US Department of Energy (DOE) was established, a major part of its mission was to help protect American from the OPEC cartel. While the mission has changed in recent years towards mitigating ‘anthropogenic’ climate change, a trace of consumer focus still exists and should be reemphasized.”

“With a renewed focus on energy consumers and less on environmental cronyism, DOE can gain newfound respect from the American public and help drive a resurgent economy.”

On February 24, a Presidential Executive Order, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, was signed by President Trump which, according to Bloomberg News, “will impose additional oversight on government regulations, designating officials within government agencies who will monitor rule-making and identify needed policy changes.”

Earlier on Wednesday, January 25, 2017, E&E Daily published an article titled “Barton, Perry to team up on plan to ‘revamp’ agency.”…

“No more thousand-page ‘Technical Resource Documents’; those are too heavy to lift, let alone read. No more ‘too big and too expensive to analyze’ proprietary models and data bases that take a team of computer scientists to maintain and operate. No more ‘too big to sue’ tactics of intimidation of anyone who dares to challenge DOE’s ‘energy efficiency’ hegemony.”

Part I yesterday summarized the June 10th hearing from the major presenters. Part II today presents the highlights of the remaining assorted written comments where they provide additional insights not specifically covered above:

1. Joint comments by the National Multifamily Housing Council, National Apartment Association and National Leased Housing Association

These comments focused on DOE’s shortcomings in its ongoing efforts to ban non-condensing furnaces.  The following excerpt nails it.

“It is not possible, let alone cost-effective, to install a highly efficient condensing furnace.

“DOE and its environmental allies are trying their best bypass the adaptation of full fuel-cycle analyses through their jihad against carbon; which includes natural gas, or at least its direct use. Apparently, natural gas is still considered to be “clean,” but only if burned in electric power plants.”

MR:    Tell us about your interest in the energy efficiency debate from a natural gas perspective.

MEK: When I was a medic during Vietnam, I saw the crucial need for reliable and affordable energy in third-world countries I served in, such as vaccines for refrigeration.  So researched and became aware of the term “appropriate technologies,” and I began reading works by Dr. Ernst Friedrich “Fritz” Schumacher. One book was Small is Beautiful.

While Schumacher wasn’t exactly advocating free markets, his writings certainly endorsed free, locally directed, choices as opposed to the imposition of central government dictation of energy programs.…