Can we please make it Friday? I take it I’m not the only reader who’s been on pins and needles over this. My wife may divorce me if I start one more discussion with “well, still no word back from the Ag Committee.”

They want – EPA to be restricted from using ILUC in its calculations.
Offsets to be COMPLETELY under USDA, but the problem here is that opening up offsets too much will hurt farmers in the end. There won’t be an international market for US farmers’ offsets, among other things.
Changing the allocations package – Peterson wants to further reduce the number of permits that are auctioned initially, and many of the industry groups are lobbying for delaying the switch from free to auction.

The offsets and allocations are a major, major blow to the bill.

[JR: I'm glad you know the details of what are being negotiated. The rest of us will have to wait. What they want and what is being negotiated are to very different things. The allocations are not a major, major blow to the bill. Not even one "major." The offsets are certainly not how I would've written them but in the real world, not even a major blow.]

What is an environmentalist, anyway?

[JR: I am not someone who focuses on promoting policies or actions for the purpose of protecting the environment. See Let’s Dump “Earth Day.” My focus is protecting the health and well-being of humans, which, it must be said, does it require a livable climate. Many of my best friends are environmentalists ]

“On the efficiency side it would allow me to put capital to work on GridSmart [AEP's smart-grid initiative]. And instead of being a net buyer of renewable energy from third-party generators, I’d begin to be a net builder of renewables. It’s the same issue as always: I’m satisfying a state or federal renewable requirement, and my customers’ rates are going to go up anyways, so why shouldn’t my shareholders get the benefit of our building that new generating capacity rather than buying the electricity on the market?”

Of course their rates would go up to pay for it, but that doesn’t sound like a bad thing under the circumstances. What’s most interesting here is that (as far as I can tell) the outcome being discussed isn’t a direct requirement of W-M at all, but rather something that will come about as a product of regulatory pressure and utility self-interest.

Also, isn’t AEP one of the very utilities that Peterson claims to be worried about?