[McGINNIS] Time now for the MIX, and more on the nation's aging pipeline system and some other topics. Joining us this week for theMIX, Joe Romm from the Center for American Progress, an "energyNOW!" contributor and blogger for climate progress. From Austin, Texas, author Robert Bryce. He's with the Manhattan Institute. The most recent book he has out is "Power Hungry." And Sheila Hollis is another "energyNOW!" contributor and a partner at Duane Morris, that's a law firm in D.C., and a long-time energy lawyer. Thank you all for being here. So, we heard Dan's piece. Robert, let me start with you. Should folks be alarmed about how close they might live to a natural gas pipeline?

[BRYCE] Well, look, the California incident shows that more work is going to have to be done on safety. This is a continuing concern, but all of that said, pipelines still are the safest way to move hydrocarbons. And despite the fact that we've had a big increase in the mileage in pipelines here in the U.S. and now have over 2 million miles of pipeline, data from PHMSA, the federal agency that your correspondent mentioned, shows that, in fact, the number of serious incidents is declining. So, we're going in the right direction, but clearly, as we move forward and want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, natural gas in particular is going to play a big role, so we're going to have to rely heavily on the gas pipeline network.

[McGINNIS] Certainly, nobody would disagree that more safety, more inspections is a good thing. I guess it comes right down to who pays, Joe. It costs a lot to dig up these pipelines, replace them, do more inspections. Do you say there's a better use for those funds?

[ROMM] I think there's no question the industry is going to need to pay. They put in the pipelines, they're the best able to inspect them. I think the larger lesson here, though, is that fossil fuels explode, they're dangerous. There's a cost that often isn't included in the price. We've seen disasters in offshore drilling, in the coal industry this year, and natural gas. The point is we're going to need tougher regulations and more oversight, and ultimately someone is going to have to spend a lot of money on the entire aging infrastructure of this country.

[McGINNIS] We all know who that's going to be. Sheila, does this really come down to whether natural gas is the right road to go down?

[HOLLIS] I think we're in it pretty deeply, certainly right now, and it is being viewed by most -- not all -- as a transition fuel and a fuel that, because it's domestically available and easily available and there is an infrastructure in place right now that's providing service, not just with respect to directly to the consumer's homes for heating and cooking, but also to the electric generation arena, where there's a very large amount of natural gas being used in the electric generation arena. Because it emits less carbon emissions than other forms of fossil fuels, it is viewed by most as a highly attractive alternative. But, all that being said, obviously we have a very huge pipeline system. Robert said it, it is a massive system, it's old. It started going in, many times, in the 1940s, 1950s. It requires continuous monitoring and it is being monitored. I think the issue is going to be, what is the appropriate level of penalty, what steps can be included with respect to monitoring of the pipeline that aren't there now, who has jurisdiction, how do they exercise it?

[BRYCE] I would agree with all that except the idea that gas is a transition fuel. This is the fuel we've been looking for. It's relatively low cost, it's clean, abundant, it's domestic. And now, thanks to the shale gas revolution, the U.S. has more natural gas than it knows what to do with.

[McGINNIS] I need to move on to our next topic, about what's called the dirtier fossil fuel -- coal -- and, in particular, mountaintop removal mining. There was a recommendation just made by an EPA regional administrator that the agency veto a permit for Arch Coal to move forward on one of the biggest mountaintop removal mining projects yet. And, of course, mountaintop removal is that method where the coal companies blast off the tops of mountains to expose the coal seams. They take the coal away. They push the debris, which often has toxic elements, into the valleys and streams below, burying them. A lot of people say it pollutes the water there and causes health effects. Joe, we have seen what it has done to the mountains of West Virginia. What's your thought about the need for coal, particularly coming from these mountains?

[ROMM] Well, look, we do have a lot of natural gas and we should be starting to reduce coal consumption and increasing clean energy, energy efficiency, natural gas. There's no question that this causes great harm to the citizens of Appalachia. In fact, there was a study done by West Virginia University which found that the cost in early deaths from mountaintop removal are five times that of the benefits to Appalachia. There's just not a lot of jobs created when you're destroying whole mountains.

[HOLLIS] I think it is one of these incredibly difficult issues where the passions are going to run high. You need jobs, the economy needs to be strong. At the same time, you need to be incredibly sensitive to the beauty and the culture of West Virginia. So it is a dilemma that is going to be fought out for a long time.

[McGINNIS] Robert, does this speak to the issue of coal from the mountains? Can we do without coal from the mountains, or overall?

[BRYCE] Well, the short answer is that we can't do without coal in the near-term, either here in the United States or globally. All that said, I'm opposed to mountaintop removal mining. I'm glad the government made this decision. It's a point that I make in "Power Hungry," my new book. I've been in coal mines and strip mines and underground mines, and there are a lot of ways we can get coal out of the ground without blowing the tops off these mountains.

[McGINNIS] Let's get to our final topic. Some campaign ads are focusing a lot on energy now. I want to give you a sampling and get your reaction.

[GOVERNOR BUTCH OTTER, IN AD] We're told never to look straight into the Sun. But if we could, you know what we'd see here in Idaho? Jobs. Lots of 'em. I've made alternative energy research a top priority, and we're among the leaders in the nation. Today, we have projects in wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and nuclear.

[MARK STRAMA, IN AD] We can do the same thing in renewable energy and ensure our prosperity for the next hundred years. Let's put solutions above ideology and Texas above politics.

[ANNOUNCER IN DEBBIE HALVORSON AD] ...and even voted for a national energy tax that could cost families $1700 more per year and could kill over 120,000 Illinois jobs.

[ANNOUNCER IN AD] Boucher voted for Pelosi's Cap & Trade Plan with higher energy taxes and prices. That could kill over 50,000 Virginia jobs.

[ANNOUNCER IN AD] We generate electricity through coal, but Joe Manchin passed a law that eliminates 25% of coal usage in our power plants. It's Obama's Cap & Trade bill, West Virginia style.

[McGINNIS] Sheila, how important is energy in this round of elections?

[HOLLIS] I think it's a very ironic situation with respect to energy in this circumstance, because you've seen the issue boomerang back. It was obviously, and is, a high priority on the Obama agenda. However, the way it's being used is against the House members who voted for the House climate change bill.

[McGINNIS] Joe, energy was so front-and-center in 2008. Did it reach a peak then, seeing the failure of energy and climate legislation? Do you think it will have its day again? This is only a fraction of the ads that are out there.

[ROMM] You know, cap-and-trade, I think, the climate bill is a tiny piece of what's going on in most places. If you want to know where clean energy is front and central, it's in California. There's a proposition -- Proposition 23 -- to overturn their state's premier climate and clean energy law. And that's the single vote I think people should look for, because that's the vote that's energizing people on clean energy and climate action.

[BRYCE] What is interesting, to see how the momentum has swung away from cap-and-trade. It was just 16 months ago that the House narrowly passed this pork-laden cap-and-trade bill, and now a lot of Democrats are running as fast as they can away from Speaker Pelosi.

[McGINNIS] We're out of time. I want to thank Robert Bryce for being here. Joe Romm, Sheila Hollis, thank you for your insights. We really appreciate you joining us for the MIX.