Energy-environmental issues in the Northeast: a view of future developments

• Main Author: Meier, P.M.
• Language: unknown
• Published: 2015
• Subjects: 29 ENERGY PLANNING; POLICY AND ECONOMY; ENERGY POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; ENERGY SUPPLIES; REGIONAL ANALYSIS; NORTH ATLANTIC REGION; AIR POLLUTION; BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS; COAL; COST; FORECASTING; NATURAL GAS; NUCLEAR ENERGY; PETROLEUM; POLLUTION CONTROL; SULFATES; CARBONACEOUS MATERIALS; ENERGY; ENERGY SOURCES; FLUIDS; FOSSIL FUELS; FUEL GAS; FUELS; GAS FUELS; GASES; GOVERNMENT POLICIES; NORTH AMERICA; OXYGEN COMPOUNDS; POLLUTION; SULFUR COMPOUNDS; USA; North Atlantic
• Online Access: http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5981047; https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5981047

The notion that energy/environmental conflicts will constrain the attainment of national energy policy goals is one that is quite fashionable, especially in industry circles. Moreover, when one presently compares current national/regional scenarios produced by the Department of Energy, with projections and expectations of the regions and states themselves, significant differences occur, differences that are often attributed to inadequate attention being given by federal energy planners to local constraints. But since a large number of such local constraints tend to be of an environmental nature, the conclusion that environmental constraints prevent attanment of national goals is often very easy, although quite simplistic. This paper presents one view of the nature of such conflicts, particularly as they apply to the Northeast. A fairly broad set of issues was examined to illustrate the complexity of the problem, and to dispel some widely held views that are patently false. The conclusion is that the energy future of the Northeast must be viewed with continued pessimism, and that the lack of political consensus that has hampered rational policy is, in large part, a reflection of the lack of scientific knowledge, and the lack of data on even the current situation. Moreover, this is compounded by the frequent mismatch between the geographical area affected by a particular policy or energy project and the jurisdiction of the institutional framework available for resolution of issues. 28 notes.