Dear Rep. Markey

SEARCH BLOG: ENERGY BILL

The Boston Globe writes:

Representative Edward J. Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who has led a seven-year, sometimes-lonely push in Congress to raise fuel-economy standards, said yesterday that the bill sets America on the right course.

"It is revolutionary in its impact," he said, noting it mandates the first fuel economy standards increases since 1975.

Markey was deeply involved in the most recent negotiations over the energy bill, which lost significant proposals in the Senate - including measures that would have increased taxes on America's five largest oil companies and called for utilities to create at least 15 percent of their power output from renewable sources. The legislation does increase efficiency standards for light bulbs, household appliances, and commercial buildings.

I wrote this to Rep. Markey:

You've been a strong advocate of an energy policy that creates a new direction for the U.S.

I'm curious now that the present energy bill [automobile mileage] is moving toward signing, what your position is regarding the deletion of the requirement for 15% of electric power to be generated from renewable resources. Obviously, this would have impacted Massachusetts which previously rejected wind turbines off the coast of Cape Code... a perfect location.

I'm also curious about the requirement for a 600% increase in ethanol production which provides a fuel with only 2/3 the energy content of gasoline and increased smog levels. How do you see this consistent with the requirement for increased mileage for vehicles while reducing emissions?

I'm also curious about the lack of expanded drilling permit approvals for natural gas which would be the source of fuel for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles now being developed by nearly every automobile manufacturer. Will that be the next crisis?

I don't see any requirements that all construction by 2020 use geothermal heating and cooling. That is the most inexpensive, efficient, and effective way to save both electricity and reduce carbon output. Why not? Simply because it has no political backers?

I don't see any requirement to start building more nuclear power plants to replace coal and natural gas fired plants. 3rd and planned 4th generation nuclear plants are not only safe, but provide far more reliable electricity production than either solar or wind. I live within 30 miles of the Fermi plant that has been working for decades without problems and catch walleyes and perch within a mile of the plant in water that is clean and safe.

This energy bill is simply a Fire, Ready, Aim approach that relies on a miracle to happen at the end. It's a joke and a farce.

Rep. Markey's automated email sent this:

Thank you for sharing your views with my office. I appreciate your taking the time to write. Due to the high volume of email messages my office receives, we are unable to respond to messages from outside the 7th district of Massachusetts.

But Rep. Markey, your legislative efforts were designed primarily to affect Michigan manufacturers, so you should be more than willing to respond to questions and comments from Michigan residents.

..