JunkScience.com

From Carbon Control News:

The natural gas pipeline industry [in the form of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)] is drafting a legislative proposal for revising [Waxman-Markey] to … allow the industry to pass-along the cost of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to its customers without an explicit approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)…

While merchant power generators, utilities, and a number of other entities receive free allowances under the Waxman-Markey bill, pipeline companies do not. The INGAA spokespeson says the industry is not requesting free allowances, but instead is calling on Congress to allow the cost of purchasing allowances to be directly passed along to consumers, arguing that the allowance costs should be reflected in the delivered product.

“Unlike other industrial sources, we can’t simply raise our prices to reflect allowance” costs, the spokesperson says, noting that a pipeline company would need to go to FERC and formally request it, initiating a proceeding that can take a year or longer.

Instead, INGAA wants pipeline companies to be able to charge rates that “track” the fluctuating price of carbon allowances. Opening a new rate case would also “make the entire rate base subject to challenge and uncertainty,” something the companies want to avoid.

Here’s a novel thought: Why not oppose Waxman-Markey instead of trying to buff that legislative turd into a popsicle?

From Politico.com:

Three House Democratic leaders who were whipping members on the climate change bill gave tens of thousands in campaign cash to party moderates around the time of the 219-212 vote on June 26, according to Federal Election Commission records.

From the Sunday Times (Perth, Australia):

“While the fuel sources of renewable energy are inexpensive, the other costs associated with it are not, including the initial infrastructure cost, network costs, back-up generation and the like which are factors in the full cost of renewable energy,” Synergy head of corporate affairs Andrew Gasper said.

Will President Obama be the building inspector-in-chief?

The ‘Greatest Generation’ may have enough left for one more fight.

Baltimore Gas & Electric’s request for an expedited regulatory review of its smart meter installation program ran into the third rail of American politics last week — the AARP.

AARP Maryland filed a letter of opposition to the fast-track process asking for a full hearing, according to the Baltimore Sun (July 28).

The Sun reported:

“The problem is what’s not in the filing,” said AARP Maryland’s advocacy director, Hank Greenberg. “There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.”

Only with an evidentiary hearing, with sworn witnesses and testimony by experts, would the public be “able to substantiate whether there are savings and whether some of the claims in the filing can be verified and backed up,” he said.

In its letter, AARP also raises concerns about a “time-of-use” pricing scheme also included in BGE’s filing. The utility proposed charging about 16 cents per kilowatt-hour from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays from June through September and 10 cents for other times during that period.

Not only should AARP be concerned about smart meters — a.k.a., energy rationing via high prices — the seniors’ advocacy group ought to be concerned about the Waxman-Markey climate bill now being considered in the Senate.

While Waxman-Markey will raise energy prices for seniors (and everyone else), it won’t increase their fixed retirement incomes.

The ‘Greatest Generation’ may have enough left for one more fight.

Baltimore Gas & Electric’s request for an expedited regulatory review of its smart meter installation program ran into the third rail of American politics last week — the AARP.

AARP Maryland filed a letter of opposition to the fast-track process asking for a full hearing, according to the Baltimore Sun (July 28).

The Sun reported:

“The problem is what’s not in the filing,” said AARP Maryland’s advocacy director, Hank Greenberg. “There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.”

Only with an evidentiary hearing, with sworn witnesses and testimony by experts, would the public be “able to substantiate whether there are savings and whether some of the claims in the filing can be verified and backed up,” he said.

In its letter, AARP also raises concerns about a “time-of-use” pricing scheme also included in BGE’s filing. The utility proposed charging about 16 cents per kilowatt-hour from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays from June through September and 10 cents for other times during that period.

Not only should AARP be concerned about smart meters — a.k.a., energy rationing via high prices — the seniors’ advocacy group ought to be concerned about the Waxman-Markey climate bill now being considered in the Senate.

While Waxman-Markey will raise energy prices for seniors (and everyone else), it won’t increase their fixed retirement incomes.

This week’s failure of the Obama administration’s cash-for-clunkers program — it ran out of money within a few days of starting — should give us all pause.

If the Obama administration and Congress can’t design, fund and execute the relatively simple task of giving away taxpayer money to people who buy new cars, then what can we expect from their 1,400-page Waxman-Markey bill that completely rewrites national energy policy?