Kate,

After having listened to six hours of testimony I am of the impression that an energy bill will not pass in this poltical environment if it includes Cap and Trade. I doubt that a single Republican will vote for this. Most of the 50 Blue Dog democrats will not vote for this. If Cap and Trade is included, this bill will not pass in either congress. That is a political reality. We have an opportunity to craft an energy bill which will pass, and we should make hay while the sun is shining.

There is broad congressional and popular support for all efforts which will lead to reductions in the use of fossil fuels in a way which does not endanger US jobs. There is also broad support for efforts which will lead America toward greater energy independence.

My view is that the US could now initiate meaningful action which would soon result in significant reduction in America's use of Carbon Fuel without Cap and Trade. I think Cap and Trade or any form of Carbon taxing should be stripped from this bill at this time and left as a separate issue for a period of time when Congress is less concerned about jobs. That may take require waiting only a few years. If this Cap and Trade is not removed from this bill, it will fail on the house vote if it ever gets that far and America will loose an opportunity to create a meaningful energy policy. If Cap and Trade is removed, America can go forth with the following initiatives which I believe will have a significant impact on America's use of fossil fuels over the next several years.

Continue to promote and fund support for the development and use of Wind, Solar and all other alternative energy and sensible bio fuel work. Very few Americans disagree that Wind and Solar can play a meaningful role in our energy future.

Increase gas mileage regulation (CAFE) on new automobiles. The numerous technologies which are now available to accomplish this are impressive in their potential. Clean Diesel, Plug in Electric, Natural Gas powered Internal combustion engines, etc.. Lighter more streamlined designs etc.. These are exportable technologies which could be exported.

Promote conservation efforts. That is where the immediate low hanging fruit is. Two of the highest uses of Electricity in the world are lighting and air conditioning. We already know how to make lighting more efficient. Replace all light bulbs with CFLs. I did that last year at a cost of $200. As a result, I now save about $6/month on my electricity bill. Most of my friends have not even thought about doing this. As for Air Conditioning. The use of air conditioning can be reduced in most homes today by simply raising the thermostat a few degrees and using more whole house fans, overhead fans and evaporative coolers. These are low tech, solutions which can be employed today in nearly every home and office. And, other technologies such as combining evaporative cooling with modern A.C.s in one unit could emerge quickly if there was some form of government support for the use of this technology.

Fund the development of a more efficient electric grid. This is absolutely necessary to enable the use of more Solar and Wind energy. Steven Chu said so yesterday and I agree. Doing that also lowers the cost of Electricity because the end result will be the construction of fewer Electric power plants. Look at your own electric bill with this fact in mind. The cost of fuel portion from coal or natural gas is only $17 to $34/month per 1,000 KwH from the energy source. I am siting this figure only to make this point. More than 80% of the average electric bill is the result of support for the entire cost of the infrastructure, not the fuel cost. Fewer utilities will result in lower the cost of the average utility bill because it is the construction, maintenance, interest, labor, and insurance of these facilities which creates 90% of the cost. For all who want to verify this by looking at their own bill, I give you the following facts so that you cal easily do that. To convert KwH to BTUs: 1000 KwH = 3.4 million BTUs. A average ton of coal in America contains 20 M BTUs and Nat Gas delivered to the front gate of an electric utility now cost about $5/M BTUs (NG plus Pipe Line cost). A typical ton of coal delivered to the front gate of a power plant (freight included) now costs, on average about $50/ton in the USA, which is about $2.50/1 M BTUs. The efficiency of conversion at the utility from burn to electricity is about 1 for 2. It requires an input of 2 KwH of coal or Nat. Gas to deliver 1 KwH of electricity to a home. Look at your own electric bill, and using these numbers and you will understand why the cost of infrastructure is so important. For those who don't want to work out the math themselves, I offer this average, for every 1,000 KwH (3.4 M BTUs) of your utility bill, the fuel cost is in the range of $17 (coal) to $34 (nat. gas) or 1.7 to 3.4 cents per KwH for fuel. The remaining cost of your bill is the result of all the other costs that are necessary to support the functioning of the infrastructure necessary to deliver the electricity to the front door of our homes. For my bill, the non fuel costs equal 85% of my bill. A more efficient grid electric grid has the support of nearly every congressman. We can get this done now if we remove Cap and Trade from this bill.

Promote the use of Natural Gas for transportation. One therm of Natural gas which typically costs between ($5 and $10/MBTUs) has the energy content of 7 gallons of gasoline. Nat Gas also produces 50% less CO2/BTU. Commercial vehicles such as postal service trucks, UPS, Cable Service, Taxi Cabs etc., for the most part, fuel up before leaving home base. That solves the problem of distribution. We need to create incentives for the US auto industry to make these vehicles available right off the line. Doing that would add very little cost to the price of a commercial truck. The US has an enormous supply of Nat Gas. These commercial vehicles could ultimately morph into hybrid electric vehicles which use nat gas along with batteries to even further reduce greenhouse emissions.

Committee leadership has indicated all along that they intend to markup next week, and have not stated otherwise to date. That said, they need to give 36 hours notice before markup begins. It's not on the schedule yet, so it's not clear what date it would begin. They could begin markup on some of the titles earlier in the week though and then move to the more contentious titles later -- the ones that still need the blanks filled in. So right now we don't have schedule, but all indications are that they intend to start next week sometime.

Cheers,

Kate

It is not worth being “appalled” over.......

“A poster who was once appalled!

Got so mad he nearly bawled.

Pay more for gas

you stupid ass

is the message he angrily scrawled.”

Salzman... as a great American, you should relish the opportunity to find and save all of those poor godless souls who are still sinners at heart.  Not everyone who visits Grist will sing from exactly the same sheet music.  We are, more like a "rock fest" than an orchestra!  Those of us who commute  a hundred miles a day, might actually find expensive gas to be uh.. what's the word, oh yeah...... EXPENSIVE.  The choice is not always as simple as choosing to ride a bike to work over driving.   For those who have long daily commutes, cheap gas may actually seem to be more of a reasonable goal than a horrible sin. 

C'

"Mark Crisson. the CEO of the American Public Power Association, joined the call for a safety valve and suggested that the committee remove from the bill a renewable electricity standard and tough emissions controls for new coal-fired power plants."

Uh huh. Yeah, that'll do something about climate change, all right. Increase it.