From my limited point of view I feel that in addition to large scale projects like "The Pirkins Plan", an important aspect is to make it economicly attractive for indiviuals to participate by installing what ever small source conversion they can.  We should have learned that relying on a singal source to fuel our society makes us vulnrable.

If people have solar thermal/voltaic colectors, wind turbines, micro hydro, or any other form of collectors and they have electric, rechargable or fuel cell, or hybred (hydrogen fuled) vechels soon the need for some form of energy market will become aparent.

Currently their are the electric power grids.  in most U.S. states where the regulators allow what is called "net metering".  If an electric customer has some form of grid connection that SYNCRONISLY provides power along with the utility, that meter runs more slowly.  If that customer gerenated power exceeds the customers demand, the excess flows backwards thru the meter causing it to run backwards so at the end of the meterreading cycle, the meter shows the "net amount" drawn from the grid.  Because the power prduced by a customers "ambiant collectors" is not at the same time as the customers demand; The grid is redistrubiting the power from those who have excess to those that have need.  Their are two drawbacks of this.   1.  inorder to get the utilities to agree to net metering it was agreed that if the meter showed a negitive net, the customer put more kWh into the grid than used from the grid, the excess was free to the utility.  2 When grid connected systems become common, these utilities will realize, they are in essence buying back your extra power AT RETAIL PRICE!  What would happen to a REP (Retail Electric Provider) with 100 customers that ALL had systems that returned to the grid just as nuch as was drawn.  The REP would endup billing for no power at all!

Another thing to consider about net billing.  As it currently stands, there is no incentive for someone to produce extra renewable power. 

In this society of ours, I have been dumbfounded by our collective lack of foresight on many matters, but especially energy policy. I lived in Chicago for a number of years and thought, "Why don't these skyscrapers have small wind turbines on top of their roofs"? And now, in Reno, Nevada, the city council has passed the annexation of a remote, former rural ranch as an alternative energy focused developement project. I don't get it!

I would rather see Reno and other American cities put resources first into existing areas before expanding through urban sprawl. Why don't we help existing homeowners convert their homes to energy efficient, energy independent places? Same with business in existing sites. I see sprawl as antithetical to an energy independent future. Let's take care of what we have already built, improving the energy standards of stuff already built.