Utilities have had an 8 year reprieve to get ready for this (Bush delayed the
scheduled roll in on limiting emissions)....they all knew it was coming and
spent their money on lobbyists rather than on technology to clean up their act.
I would have no pity for them..and PUC's should grant them no rate increases.
They also delayed and refused to contract with biomass, wind, and solar small
providers who wanted to grid tie and provide power to the grid. They will have
to be "persuaded" to go green....but, the time has come. Let's "persuade" them
with cap and trade. If it costs more than a lobbyist, they will install the
technology...and they can save money on lobbyists in the process. No further
need.

Yeah, it's cost effective because you and I will be the ones paying for it. Why
don't we encourage someone with the motivation and the money to do it instead?
It's interesting that Pickens isn't in the media much. Why is that? His
"alternative" seems to be a decent one.

havent you heard? man made polution doesnt exist. jeez, get with the program.

there is always an excuse with doing something new, its called fear

One of the controversies with cap and trade is the question of who pays for the
pollution allowances. The utilities do not want to pay for these permits in an
auction and are pushing their favored politicians to “grandfather” them in
with free pollution allowances. Free allowances could be pure gravy to a cleaner
utilities’ bottom line and potentially cheaper than replacing old equipment
for heavy polluters. Unfortunately, this reduces the market-based incentive to
restrict emissions. Politicians, of either party, who care more about campaign
contributions from utilities than they do about reducing pollution may attempt
to block cap and trade legislation by inserting a free allowance provision to
kill the bill without offering viable alternatives. Please see my recent article
on utility stocks and funds at
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10476066/1/sorenson-bullish-on-att-american-water
-works.html.

Down the road it's probably not a bad idea, but considering we have a severe
recession to climb out of this might not be the best time to move away from our
cheapest forms of energy. Cap and trade would hurt the poorest among us in the
form of higher energy prices in order to subsidize more expensive alternative
energy sources that can't currently support themselves in the open market.

Just a guess :)

Differing political agenda.