According to the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, globally, the energy supply contributes 26% of greenhouse gas emissions measured in the environment. This does not include transportation (13%), industry (19%) or residential and commercial buildings (8%), among other industrial outputs. The emissions come primarily from coal, natural gas and oil use for heating (most often in the form of electricity). As reflected in transportation, this does not include fossil fuels used for air, road, and rail travel. Although coal and oil may be plentiful, the cost to the environment is significant.

In industry, it appears that some companies are not taking energy use and emissions seriously, or at least the disclosure of emissions (see: Amazon, Apple Among Companies Ignoring SEC Climate Change Risk Disclosure Rules). This is a problem, particularly considering recent findings by the Carbon Disclosure Project that 10% of world’s largest companies (Global 500) produce 73% of greenhouse gases.

So, how do we create stable energy policy that encourages more clean energy use and moves us away from high impact emissions? We saw two steps in the right direction this week in the form of energy and environmental policy coming from the White House. First, Obama announced higher standard for carbon emissions from power plants for the first time in the US. This ground breaking legislation would require the coal industry to lower its emissions to meet that of other fossil fuels, such as gas. Critics point out that the technology to reduce emissions to this level does not exist.  And, that makes Obama’s second proposal that much more appealing to the coal industry. The President announced an extension of a Department of Energy program that will fund loans for technological developments that reduce carbon emissions of fossil fuels, including coal and natural gas. The coal industry now has the resources to develop technology that will reach the standards set by the administration. This was a smart move that drives interest in both pieces of legislation. Access to loans will be more valuable with the looming standards for carbon emission. And, the higher standards are more readily accepted with access to loans to help develop technology that will clean up fossil fuel emissions.

However, cleaner fossil fuels only offer a short term answer. The greater question is how do we encourage transition to renewable energy? As Ann Carlson and Robert Fri suggest in their article Designing a Durable Energy Policy, goals of clean energy policy play outside of the marketplace – in other words, people don’t want to pay more (or be taxed) to have more secure energy or cleaner energy.  That makes the transition to a new energy source difficult to sustain.

There is no easy answer, but I believe businesses have a role to play in bring about the transition. As an important constituency of energy policy, their stance can influence legislators and the public. By adopting renewable sources of energy and demanding reasonably priced clean energy sources, they will affect the marketplace for these products. Sustainability has become a business strategy and part of the culture for many companies, and that can have a broad impact on energy use and emissions. Although some companies do not appear to have made the necessary commitment to move the business world forward, others have, and I think that is another step in the right direction.

There are many pressing concerns for energy policy today.  One could argue that energy independence and security is the biggest.  One could also argue that climate change is the biggest.  For energy independence and security, the EIA reports that we relied on 45% of our oil needs from external sources in 2011.  This percentage has been slowly decreasing.  In June 2013, about 40% of our imports were from OPEC nations.  The Western Hemisphere accounts for about 53% of our imports and the Persian Gulf 23% of our imports.  In effect, unrest in the Middle East puts at risk about 10% of our oil supply.  We have seen oil shocks in the past and were able to endure them.  Climate change is also a very real concern.  While the evidence seems clear to me, scientists are still arguing about the real impacts of human activities.  This only clouds the issue and has limited the impact on the environment from rising to the top.  Perhaps a more fundamental current concern for energy policy today is our own government with the vast partisanship evident in our politics that is preventing any real change.

The basic structure of our federal government is to address the interests of all.  This is well stated in by Sullivan in his description of the legislative process:  “One of the most practical safeguards of the American democratic way of life is this legislative process with its emphasis on the protection of the minority, allowing ample opportunity to all sides to be heard and make their views known.  The fact that a proposal cannot become a law without consideration and approval by both Houses of Congress is an outstanding virtue of our bicameral legislative system.  The open and full discussion provided under the Constitution often results in the notable improvement of a bill by amendment before it becomes law or in the eventual defeat of an inadvisable proposal.”  This concept extends beyond Congress to the executive branch with the President’s veto power and to the judicial branch with the ability to rule a law unconstitutional.  In the end, without creating a coalition, it is difficult to pass a law.

Partisanship is certainly very evident today with the lack of an approved federal budget since 2009.  Lowry noted a correlation between partisanship and energy policy.  He further noted that shock events such as high energy prices have driven salience in Congress and resulted in bipartisan support that resulted in strong regulatory policies.  However, the price shocks caused by oil have been short lived.  Oil is easy to transport and producers release more oil when prices are high.  This in effect reduces the price of oil and our desire to continue to pursue the energy policy after we no longer feel the sharp pain in our wallet.

Energy policy is especially challenging since fossil fuels have a high energy return on investment.  In essence, fossil fuels create economic value that is not matched by other sources of energy.  As a result, fossil fuels are widely used in many applications across our society such as power generation, transportation, and common products such as plastics.  All of these products have long supply chains, long term infrastructure investments, and many jobs dependent on them.  To put a product at risk when the product is adding value will create a challenge for our law makers who have constituents in their district that are dependent on those jobs.  As a result, some lawmakers will fight the legislation often blocking it completely or diluting it to the point of no effect.  This issue is at the root of the problem.

As noted by the lesson 4 reading material, a bipartisan coalition is needed to pass an energy policy.  As a result, the coalition represents legislators from many areas that have constituents that represent different energy sources or views.  This ends up creating a policy that attempts to appease each energy producer.  As a result, if the goal is to reduce fossil fuel consumption to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the bill may need to contain language to explore new areas such as Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the off shore regions previously protected to gain the support of oil dependent lawmakers.  Bending to the exploration of new fossil fuel sources is counter to the goal of reducing fossil fuel sources since new sources only serve to keep fuel prices low and reduce the incentive to invest in the alternatives.  As a result, the policy fails to provide any clear direction.  In the end, the many factions served by a wide bipartisan policy make it easy to attack which reduces its durability as discussed by Carlson and Fri.

To be successful, the policy ultimately needs to provide value.  Otherwise as shown through history, if the new energy does not provide value or a new desirable feature, there will be no market force to cause the shift from the efficient and inexpensive fossil fuels in use today to an alternative energy source.  How do we convince people that the carbon released to the atmosphere or energy independence is more important than continuing the use of fossil fuels when their job may well be tied to fossil fuels?  Until this can be done, partisan forces will fight against effective energy policies.  The way forward today is through small consistent steps built upon prior successes to slowly move us away from fossil fuels.  This change has been slowly moving forward since the 1970’s and will likely take several more decades.

In summary, the most pressing concern for energy policy today is partisanship.  This is because partisanship will block any effective energy policy in today’s environment.  Partisanship has created a stalemate.

Energy Information Administration.  Energy in Brief: How dependent are on foreign oil?  www.eia.gov.  10 May 2013.

Sullivan, J.  How Our Laws are Made, Revised, and Updated.  United States House of Representatives Presented by Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, July 24, 2007.

Lowry, W.  Disentangling Energy Policy from Environmental Policy.  Social Science Quarterly, Volume 89, Number 5, December 2008.

Carlson, A., and Fri, R.  Designing a Durable Energy Policy.  Daedalus, 2013.

This weekend I was reading through a new policy proposed by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) in Pennsylvania to regulate the oil and gas industry. The regulations were posted on August 27, 2013, and the Board is taking public comments for 60 days. Apparently, an advisory board met many times over the past few years to develop this and other legislation relevant to the oil and gas industry in the state. I’m curious to know more about how the policy was developed and how the public comments will influence the final regulations.

Energy Policy vs. Environmental Policy

At first glance, I was thinking about the new regulations as energy policy for the state. Considering the source of the regulations (PA Department of Environmental Protections), the policy, of course, has many environmental aspects too. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between environmental and energy policies, particularly when a policy includes elements of both. According to the DEP website, the goals of the legislation are to:

Ensure the protection of public health, safety, and the environment.

Protect public resources to minimize impacts from oil and gas drilling.

Modernize the regulatory program to recognize advances in extraction technology.

Specify the acceptable containment practices to prevent spills and releases.

With a focus on health, safety and the environment, the policy includes elements of energy and environment. I’m still trying to determine which it is.

Should we keep energy policy and environmental policy independent?

William Lowry (2008) notably argued in  Disentangling Energy Policy from Environmental Policy that the two types of policy should be developed independently because the inclusion of environmental elements in energy policy makes the policy politically contentious and ultimately inhibits good policy development and implementation. Traditionally, the purpose of US energy policy is to ensure that citizens have access to an adequate supply of energy, to keep the costs of energy low, and to work toward energy independence. Environmental policy, on the other hand, tries to minimize the impact of business, personal, government and other actions on the environment as well as offer ways to encourage responsible use of environmental resources. When the two intersect (energy and environment), Lowry argues that they can work against one another.

Of course, he was not arguing against regulations of the energy industry, and the example of the recent PA regulations may not be a good one in this context. Maybe a better example would be national legislation such as the Energy Independence and Security Act from 2007 which provided funding for training for green jobs. Although green jobs are needed, some would argue that they should not be funded through energy policy.

That’s one perspective, but here’s what I think. There are advantages to including environmental elements in energy policy (and discussions about policy). First, one of the biggest hurdles in developing good energy policy is overcoming the lack of public will for energy policy when the economy is strong and the price of energy is low. However, I believe that including environmental values in the debate about energy could be a way to create a sense of urgency in good economic times, when cost and availability are not driving policy. I think we are seeing this with the calls for policy to help address issues of climate change. Although the cost of energy may not motivate changes in policy, the concern about the impact of fossil fuels on global warming may help spur some policy changes that move us toward renewable resources.

And, second, I think that our recent understanding of the link between energy use and global warming makes the inclusion of environmental elements in energy policy imperative. Energy policy that considers only resource availability, cost, and energy independence without addressing the impact of energy is not sustainable (and I would argue not ethical).

It is good to see PA address important issues regarding waste water treatment, public land use, and safety related to abandoned mines (all of which are in the regulations). So, regardless of whether the new regulations in PA are energy policy or environmental policy, they appear to be good policy for the state.

I am pessimistic about the ability to craft policy that meets both our energy needs and goals while serving environmental ones as well in the near term.

As noted by Lowry in Disentangling Energy Policy from Environmental Policy, the partisan vote gap has increased over time.  This partisanship is only increasing the difficulty in achieving consensus.  Without consensus, the policy will never pass the legislature and become policy.   The perceived importance of an issue will drive salience and consequently consensus.  The salience is often achieved through market forces and shock events.

In today’s environment, we still see shock events in the crude oil market caused by unrest in the Middle East (the Arab Spring is a good example where the spot price of BRENT rose from around $90/bbl in December 2010 to around $123/bbl by April 2011 according to EIA data).  These events are similar to the shocks created by OPEC in the 1970’s that spurred our nations drive to energy independence (which has not yet been achieved).  However, the energy shocks are relatively short lived which ends up taking our focus off the energy problem.  Additionally, market forces are the strongest driver.  With the progress in domestic energy production through shale gas, energy prices have been relatively stable which maintains the status quo and reduces the drive toward effective regulation.  Finally, we are in the midst of tight fiscal constraints which would push against new policies that would incur a new cost while other programs are being cut.

Regulatory policies would put one group at a disadvantage and bring in politics.  The republican and democratic parties are strongly divided and have difficulty agreeing on most topics from the budget to international conflicts.  As a result, the legislative process remains locked in a stalemate.  The politics of the energy industry are heavily in favor of fossil fuels due to the large companies whose existence is based on fossil fuels and the lower cost of fossil fuels relative to other energy sources.  To propose policy that moves away from fossil fuels in favor of a better environment would encounter the force of a powerful fossil fuel lobby.

So what is needed to move forward with an energy policy that is also and environmental policy?

Given today’s environment short of a major enduring shock, a key aspect of creating an energy policy that is also environmental policy is properly framing the issue.  A clear and compelling argument needs to be made to convince the legislature to pursue the policy.  As the logical first move in a policy process, problem definition sets debate; it also predicts solution. Different definitions lead to different solutions.  The problem statement should start on the foundation already formed through existing energy and environmental policy.

The policy should look to slowly move forward since the ultimate solution will take decades.  Creating a large change will meet heavy resistance from existing powerful groups.  Small changes are more likely to pass.  Existing infrastructure will age and require replacement in time.  Relative energy prices will continue to slowly rise due to the slow depletion of easily accessible fossil fuels.  This will increase the cost of fossil fuels and the equation will shift in favor of the alternatives.

The best near term approach would be to support research and development of alternative energy and provide incentives for alternative energy.  This would move us forward on the learning curve to develop more cost effective alternatives to fossil fuels to reduce our carbon footprint and help the environment.  This would also slowly build the needed alternative energy infrastructure and supply chains to replace the fossil fuel currently in use.  As the alternative energy business grows so will the alternative energy political lobby.

My capstone project is an example of a small step that is more likely to be adopted in today’s current environment.  In my capstone project, I am proposing state level support for solar improvements to single family homes at the state level.  This program is intended to be complimentary to federal policy found in section 206 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act which provides up to 25% or $3000 residential energy credit for renewable energy equipment per dwelling.  While this policy does not overtly address environmental issues, it is complimentary to environmental policy since it is designed to reduce residential electric consumption.  This will in effect reduce the use of fossil fuels which currently account for 68.3% of our electric generation so far in 2013.  For perspective, hydroelectric and renewable sources account for only 12.5% of our electric generation so far this year according to the EIA electric power monthly.  This policy is intended to be another small step on the long road toward energy independence and reduced fossil fuel usage.  This policy is intended to be palatable to diverse interest groups due to prior exposure through the existing federal policy.

Lowry, W, 2008.  Disentangling Energy Policy from Environmental Policy.  Social Science Quarterly, Volume 89, Number 5, December 2008.

Energy Information Administration, Aug 2013.  Electric Power Monthly.  www.eia.gov

I just started reading the book The Power Surge: Energy, Opportunity, and the Battle for America’s Future by Michael Levi. From what I gather so far, he recommends that the US not focus on the “next” energy source with an eye toward transitioning from oil and gas to wind and solar energy. Rather, from his perspective an “all in” strategy is the best way forward, meaning that both new energy sources and fossil fuels be pursued simultaneously and leveraged in a way that helps the country move toward energy independence. This means developing new energy sources while seeking ways to make fossil fuels cleaner and more efficient. I’m not sure I agree with everything in the book so far, but it has me thinking about what his recommendations might mean for US energy policy.

Historically, energy policy has presented a challenge due to the artificial fluctuations in energy prices, often tied to unrest in the Middle East or the manipulation of pricing by OPEC. We have seen this play out again in recent weeks. A report published in early September found that the “primary drivers of higher crude oil prices over the past five weeks included an uptick in unplanned crude oil production outages and increased tensions in the Middle East.” As the US weighs a military intervention in Syria, energy prices appear, once again, to be in jeopardy. Most US citizens agree that moving away from dependence on oil from the Middle East is in our best interest.

As the Congressional Research Service notes, the debate around energy policy hinges on long-term vs.  short-term focus and a drive to increase supply vs. encourage conservation. Sometimes the best choices in this area are the least popular. As the report says:

An energy policy that would most effectively shield the nation and the economy from the worst effects of supply shortages would be a policy that might well deny the nation the full benefits of cheap and plentiful energy when markets are stable.

Although the book by Levi recommends developing new energy sources and pushing for cleaner fossil fuel standards, others believe that the only way forward it through transitioning to new sources. Historically, we have seen transitions in energy and technology – including the coal-powered steam engine, electricity, and petroleum use; however, projections suggests that a significant transition to new clean energy sources, such as wind or solar, would take decades in the current environment. That may be too late to prevent long term impact of global warming. As a recent article in the New York Times explains, “we have a lot of mainstream science that says if human society keeps burning fossil fuels with abandon, considerable land ice could melt and the ocean could rise as much as three feet by the year 2100.”

Considering that little has changed since the Congressional Research Service reported to Congress on Energy Policy: Historical Overview, Conceptual Framework, and Continuing Issues in 2004, the chances of a complete transition to a new form of energy seem unlikely at best. Rather, the policy of the current administration seems to parallel Levi’s, pursuing many energy sources at once.

Finding ways to balance the pursuit of multiple energy sources while encouraging meaningful change in current policies certainly raises challenges. However, some states appear to be pushing for alternative management processes. For example, California Public Utilities Commission has been encouraging power companies to increase energy storage to more efficiently manage the greater demand for energy in peak times. According to a recent TriplePundit story, California Moves Forward on Energy Storage, management of energy in this way “makes for better utilization of clean, renewable power, and, by extension, less pollution and carbon emissions.”

An important dilemma in the use of electricity as an energy source is the seasonal peaks of usage and the inefficiencies that it brings. Policies that encourage energy storage as well as clean sources for electricity generation will help work toward that balance.

I look forward to reading more of the book. I’ll share any good insights that I find.

Parallels:  What do energy transitions and public policy have in common?  Do you notice any issues raised in the CRS report that remain persistent today, almost a full decade later?  Any which have been resolved?

Energy Transitions and public policy:

Historically, energy transitions occur because man finds a new energy source that is either cheaper or provides a better benefit.  Man is usually rather short sighted and looks for ease of use and profits.  A look back at the industrial revolution clearly shows effects of our energy usage that was not seen at the time.  The heavy use of coal created air pollution and acid rain.   Oil became a cheap alternative to replace coal for many energy applications.  We are starting to realize our global impacts from the use of fossil fuels.  Carbon is released into the atmosphere and is assumed to be partly responsible for global warming.  While the transition away from oil to another energy form will likely happen on its own in a market economy as oil becomes more difficult to recover from the earth, in order to stem the tide of carbon release, public policy is needed to create the incentive to move to other energy sources at this point in time.  Additionally, with the industrialized nations consuming about half of the world’s energy and comprising about 15% of the world’s population, we face a bigger global challenge.  The developing nations (85% of the world’s population) are predicted to have a population increase of 45% by 2050 compared to a 4% population increase for industrialized nations.  This population increase combined with an easier diffusion (rapid development) of current oil based technologies into the developing world will create an enormous demand on fossil fuels by the developing world.  The difficulties in establishing effective energy policy at the national level will only be further complicated at the global level.

Persistent issues today:

Most of the issues raised by Bamberger in the CRS report still remain.  It would appear that little progress has been made to completely resolve the complex issues facing our energy systems and oil demands.  While new oil sources such as shale oil recovered by fracking are being pursued, that does not solve the oil dependency problem.  It just brings another source on line to offset the eventual conclusion.  There has been progress in automobile efficiency standards but the problem is not solved.

The crude oil markets show price instability based on production changes in the Middle East.  There are many historical examples of Middle East events impacting the price of oil.  In 1973, the OPEC oil embargo caused oil prices to rise from $4/bbl to $12.50/bbl.  In 1979, the fall of the Shah of Iran caused oil priced to rise from $15.85/bbl to $39.5/bbl.  In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait and oil price increases from $16/bbl to $36/bbl.  Even today, this problem persists. Beginning in December 2010, the Middle East was faced with a series of riots, demonstrations, protests, revolutions, and civil wars known as the Arab Spring.   According to BP records, the Middle East accounts for about 32.6% of the world’s oil production.  Additionally, Africa accounts for about 10.4% of the world’s oil production.  The Arab Spring unrest put at risk Middle Eastern and North African oil production.  According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data, the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil marker increased from $89.15/bbl to $109.53/bbl and North Sea oil tracked by the BRENT marker increased from $91.45/bbl to $123.26/bbl.  It is clear that disruptions in oil production and unrest in the Middle East still impact the price of oil.

We operate in a free market economy.  As a result, supply and demand largely drive the price of oil.  Energy policy will influence the price of oil but is not the main driver.  In times of generally lower oil prices, the incentive for incorporating newer and more efficient technologies does not exist because of the high energy return on investment (EROI) for fossil fuels such as oil.  Oil price spikes drive efficiency and investment in other technologies as they become temporarily more cost effective.  As noted in the CRS report, cost has been a better driver for innovation than regulations which have shown mixed results.  This principle has remained persistent over the last decade and I expect it will remain persistent well into the future.  Man shows a tendency to do what is best at the current moment (i.e. will make the most money).  As a result, it takes government regulations to shift the incentives and build the infrastructure for the future to prepare us to move away from oil as the easily accessible oil reserves are depleted and the cost of oil continues to rise in the future and reduces the EROI making other technologies more competitive.

Bamberger, R., 2004.  Energy Policy: Historical Overview, Conceptual Framework, and Continuing Issues.  Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress.

Thank you for the warm welcome to the class. My name is Denise Bortree, and I am an associate professor in the College of Communications here at Penn State. I was just granted tenure in July, and as my husband says, I am on to the next big adventure, which is learning more about sustainability management and policy. This is my first class in the degree, and I’m eager to get started.

My research focuses on two areas of communication: corporate sustainability communication and nonprofit communication.  Recently I have been looking at volunteerism in the sustainability sector, which overlaps both areas of research. I’m confident in my knowledge about communication, both internal and external to an organization (I have a master’s and Ph.D. in mass communication), and I’m excited to be getting more formal training in sustainability management. I see my research benefitting from a greater depth of knowledge about sustainability practices and policies.

Before moving to State College in 2007, I spent 10 years in Jacksonville, Fla., and six years in Columbia, SC.  For nine of those years, I worked in the corporate world in finance, marketing, and communication management. It was great preparation for what I do now. I teach in the advertising/public relations department in the College of Communications. Most often I teach undergraduate classes in writing and campaign development. The classes are hands-on and teach writing and strategy skills for organizational communication. In the campaigns class, students work with local nonprofit organizations to develop and implement public relations campaigns. I truly enjoy being able to connect student learning to service projects in the community.

When I’m not writing or teaching, I love to cycle. I picked up the sport four summers ago – I hopped on a bike and haven’t looked back. Centre County has great roads for riding, lots of rolling hills and few cars. This summer I decided to take the commitment up a notch, and I joined a charity ride from Pittsburgh to Delaware Beach. In total we road about 450 miles in seven days. It was amazing!

Currently, I live in State College with my husband and daughter (8 years old). My daughter enjoys gymnastics and art. She is on a recreational gymnastics team this year, and she loves it. My husband works for a company in Atlanta but telecommutes from our house (which works out well for us). A few years ago he took a World Campus class too.

I’m looking forward to this class!

This blog post is a test of my ability to create a new blog thread and will document my first attempt to do so.  I hope this is helpful to someone trying to use this blog site for the first time.

To post a new blog thread, there is a “+ New” block at the top banner of the blog site.  Clicking on the + New block opens a new post window if the user is logged into the blog site and authenticated.

My first attempt at using the +New block required me to re-authenticate myself and resulted in the following message:

“You attempted to access the “Sites At Penn State” dashboard, but you do not currently have privileges on this site. If you believe you should be able to access the “Sites At Penn State” dashboard, please contact your network administrator.

If you reached this screen by accident and meant to visit one of your own sites, here are some shortcuts to help you find your way.”

I went back to the blog a second time and tried the + New block again and got a screen titled “add new post.”  This screen has a subject line and area to type a blog posting.  There is a section to the right side that allows the user to select save draft, preview, move to trash or publish.

I entered a subject line and the description you are reading and selected “publish.”

Sincerely,

Robert

Hi there!  My name is Brandi, and I’ve authored this course and will be teaching it this semester.  I’m looking forward to working with you as we try to understand some of the large scale issues (and hopefully solutions) to some of our most pressing energy challenges.  This semester (FA 2013) is the first time the course is being offered and therefore it is still in development.  I hope that you’ll find the content and structure to be challenging but user friendly and be patient with me as we work out any kinks we might encounter along the way.  It’s a bit of a dress rehearsal of sorts!

But let’s talk a little bit about who I am outside of the classroom, because I have all my professional-related experience in the meet the instructor section of the course website.  I think it’s important in our journey together this semester that we recognize and appreciate that we’re all people outside of our roles of students and faculty.  We have lives, and they take up time and brain space too.  And, our experiences outside of our professional and academic lives help shape our opinions and interests in these fields.

I’m an environmentalist, through and through.  I’m always trying to make sure that my impact on the planet is as light as it can be given my good fortune of being the citizen of a developed country.  So, I’m not perfect but I try to be mindful.  I drive a hybrid, but I’ve flown to Hawaii multiple times.  Tradeoffs.  It’s all about tradeoffs.  🙂

When I’m not working, I enjoy spending time with my little girl, Claire.  She’s 19 months old as we begin the semester, and a ton of fun.  My husband and I also have a terrier mix named Vinca – but Vinca has taken a bit of a back seat since Claire’s arrival.  Lucky for us, she’s a good sport about that.

I love to paint – and I don’t mean art.  I love to paint rooms.  I know, that seems pretty strange, but I really enjoy it.  I painted our entire house within a few months of us moving in, and I’m always volunteering to help friends with painting projects.  I know it’s weird.  Some people would rather fill out tax forms than paint, but I find it relaxing and love the huge transformation with minimal effort.

Welcome to the class!  We’re going to have a great semester.