That doesn’t mean it falls under the domain of the NSA or NSC. It doesn’t, except perhaps terrorist- or war-related foreign energy problems.

I suppose if the NSA didn’t have very many problems to focus on he could dabble in unrelated issues. Fortunately or unfortunately, General Jones will find that traditional military security issues will be an 100-hour-a-week+ job.

Team Obama: New National Security Adviser, Jim Jones, Puts Energy First
Posted by Keith Johnson

U.S. presidents have been talking about energy security and searching for an energy policy since Nixon was popular. By tapping General James Jones as his national security adviser, President-elect Barack Obama is indicating that the great energy debate will take place at the epicenter of U.S. national security—and that the outcome of that debate will look more like “all of the above” and less like a “green revolution.”

For Gen. Jones, formerly the Marine commandant and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, “energy is a national security issue, and it is an international security issue of the highest order.” Gen. Jones is the president and chief executive of the Institute for 21st Century Energy, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In November, the Institute offered Mr. Obama a roadmap for bolstering U.S. energy security as a key component of increasing its national security. (Our colleagues at Washington Wire have more on the national security team announcement.)

The Institute’s business-friendly approach advocates more of everything—more domestic oil and gas, more nuclear power, more coal, more renewable energy, and above all, for the federal government to cut through regulatory thickets that have hamstrung U.S. energy modernization in recent years. The key message from the Institute’s transition plan is that U.S. economic and security interests have suffered due to the lack of a comprehensive national energy plan that addresses how we can get more energy and how we can use less.

The only thing Gen. James doesn’t countenance is more of the same: “We are in a race against the clock and complacency is our greatest enemy. If we do not take this challenge seriously, America’s economic prosperity, national security, and global standing will be at risk. The status quo is not only an option, it is a recipe for failure.”

One of the Institute’s other recommendations for the next president? The creation of an energy-policy chieftain who will sit on both the National Security Council and the National Economic Council to make sure that energy is the common thread uniting disparate government policy.

http://blogs.wsj.com/ environmentalcapital/ 2008/ 12/ 01/ team-obama-new-national-security-adviser-jim-jones-puts-energy-first/

It is very clear that it would be very desirable to stop coal usage, but effectiveness of possible strategies to get that done seem to be an important debate. I tend to think that a somewhat business friendly, and therefore somewhat consumer friendly, approach could be more productive than trying to impose mandates and taxes to get rid of coal. So it might be a good thing to include the power of national security interests in the mix.

In general, the lower the cost of oil, the lower will be the cost of competing energy sources like natural gas. For example, cheaper oil could mean that propane can be made more plentiful and that can help alleviate demand for natural gas. If that can make natural gas cheaper, then it can begin to compete with coal. If we can squeeze two to three times as much electricity out of the natural gas burned, then the use of coal will end naturally. This improved “squeezing” would come from distributed cogeneration in my scheme of things.

I recall that you approve of cogeneration. Even so, my scheme of distributed cogeneration does not seem to get much traction with you. Of course it depends on changing motor vehicles, but the good news is that such change does not carry a high investment cost beyond the cost of normal car replacements. In my thinking, I weigh that against spending trillions on large scale wind or solar projects, where the prospect of getting the public to fund that kind of projects seems dim.

A system that all departments of government could support might have a decent chance of getting implemented.