29 Mar 2006 Panel Not Happening: Is the Mandatory Program Necessary?
Stacked-deck events like this would never happen if the GOP controlled Congress:
March 28th, 2006
29 PANELISTS INVITED TO PRESENT DETAILS ON PROPOSALS AT ENERGY COMMITTEE’S BIPARTISAN CLIMATE CONFERENCE
Twenty-nine panelists have accepted the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee’s invitation to amplify on the proposals they submitted for the committee’s April 4 climate conference.
Next Tuesday, the Energy Committee will host a day-long conference (9:30 a.m. to noon and 2:30 to 5:00 p.m.) to address the challenge of how Congress might go about creating a mandatory trading program to control U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Conference guidelines will be included on the committee website, www.energy.senate.gov.
[BACKGROUND: Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), the committee’s chairman and ranking member, invited interested parties to submit comments as part of the committee’s bipartisan effort to find common ground on the next steps for addressing domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Last month, the senators issued a “white paper” that included four basic questions about design elements of a mandatory market-based greenhouse gas regulatory system.]
Panel 1: Business Perspectives on Policy Design
Duke Energy Corp.
General Electric Co.
Panel 2: Analysis of Domestic Design Options
American Council for Capital Formation
Center for Clean Air Policy
Congressional Budget Office
Electric Power Research Institute
National Commission on Energy Policy
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
Resources for the Future
Panel 3: Perspectives on Domestic Design
Alliance to Save Energy
Clean Energy Group
Edison Electric Institute
Generators for Clean Air
National Mining Association
National Rural Electric Cooperative
Natural Resources Defense Council
Panel 4: Trading and International Competitiveness
American Electric Power
Chicago Climate Exchange
Climate Policy Center
World Resources Institute
How ironic that a panel promoting the buying and selling of emissions credits will be sharing space on the news pages with the trial of the men who saw big profit potential in the idea as early as 1995.
But perhaps I am too cynical. Surely none of the above have a conflict of interest.