The West Is The Best

Those accolades for The West, specifically California in this case, are less about geography than accomplishment in this mention.

I just finished moderating two of the four panels at the Western Energy Summit in Mountain View, just outside San Jose. That's my tiny image in the middle of the head table, black suit, surrounded by great minds and impressive titles. One of the main themes at the summit,"California clean-tech research rocks!" That's my paraphrasing at work and not the official session title, as you might guess. In any event, it's difficult to argue against relevant accomplishments of the California public and private sectors.

(here's a link to the Western Energy Summit agenda)

Among the panelists during my two sessions, the directors of the Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, Pacific Northwest, and Sandia National Laboratories. Also on hand, additional big guns from NREL, Berkeley, and Livermore. Remember, this is the atmosphere in which Steven Chu not only emerged to become Energy Secretary but also where he won his Nobel Prize. Impressive advancements seem to abound at the labs, though much of the accomplishments fly under the radar. Perhaps that's preferable for the work horses behind the glass.

(links for Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories)

During my sessions, we found some clear areas of consent among these participants. Whether you compare it to The Manhattan Project or The Apollo Project, the clean energy revolution carries great urgency and gravitas. Secretary Chu is the right kind of leader to give the labs what they need to rise to the energy and environmental challenges we're now facing. One of our greatest resources, and one that is easy to take for granted, lies within the talent and potential of U.S. students. Indeed.

We have a few of my interviews with summit panelists up right now on our website, with more discussion to follow. Also, by August 3rd we should have both of the panels I moderated available in their entirety. You can find everything at CleanSkies.com.

If you didn't recognize it, the inspiration for the title of this particular post comes from "The End" by The Doors. Man, it's astounding to me that Jim Morrison's lyrics about the blessings of The West and the seven-mile snake were published 42 years ago. Seems like far less to me, but then again my generation's mass introduction to The Doors came from Val Kilmer playing The Lizard King in the 1991 Oliver Stone movie.

Val's hair was perfect for the part.

What's In Waxman?

OK, so now that I've read that Post Title again, it occurs to me that the current health care debate may prompt you to consider the question literally. What is in Henry Waxman, and how much should you have to pay for the MRI to find out under a viable health care plan ?

No, I probably should've titled this "What's In the Waxman-Markey ACES Act Climate Legislation And What Does It Mean To Me?" But that's not especially wieldy, is it? And my current blog template doesn't especially encourage such character-rich titles. So, what is in Waxman?

This week, I attended a "power breakfast" (The National Journal Group's name for the event, not mine) with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has just lobbed a 1,400-page climate bill over to the Senate and now he's coiling to send a health care measure that way as well. Oh, and he has a new book to shill. Here's the portion of his discussion dealing with climate change legislation.

Anyway, the question about Waxman-Markey comes from a former classmate of mine, Alain Nana-Sinkam. In his words, "What should a layperson like me know about this bill?" Clearly, Alain's a curious and thoughtful taxpayer. And he was a terrific high school small forward, I should add.

So, let's approach this from a taxpayer's point of view. In short, are you willing to pay more for your electricity to cut our country's carbon emissions? Kind of depends upon your take on the cause of global warming, I suppose. And it certainly depends on how much that "more" really turns out to be. There, simply put, is where the political divide is focused.

Opponents of the climate bill (and more specifically, opponents of a cap-&-trade emission reduction plan) say you, American Taxpayer, will see significant jumps in your expenses. The Heritage Foundation's analysis of the legislation (the mid-May version) predicts The ACES Act would raise the average family's energy bill $1,500 and your inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by almost 75%. If you'd like to hear both sides of that contention, I moderated a debate between one of the report's authors, Dr. David Kreutzer, and Public Citizen's Tyson Slocum on The Energy Report back in May.

Then there's the testimony the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee heard this week from members of the Obama Administration. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said her agency and the CBO estimate the average family's "net cost" to be less than 50-cents a day by 2020, or roughly $180 a year. Then Energy Secretary Steven Chu cited the same sources, but came up with an annual coast of 22-cents to 48-cents a day ($80-$175).

So, like most well-contested issues here in Washington, it may be a matter of whom you believe. I'm not taking sides here, but Secretary Chu is a Nobel-prize winning scientist. So I assume he's, you know, pretty good with numbers and all.

Oh, and an addendum to this lengthy answer to your original question, Alain. Majority Leader Harry Reid just pushed back his timeline for bringing the Senate version of a cap-&-trade bill to the floor, so maybe we'll revisit this conversation when next year's version of the climate bill moves through the House.

You can catch my coverage of the discussion with Rep. Waxman and his response to my question about the cap-and-trade revenue lost under his plan on the Clean Skies News site. Here's the first story, a q-&-a immediately after the event. And then the more complete piece from that day's edition of The Energy Report.