I just read a news headline from the Washington Post that stated, "On Energy, Obama Finds Broad Support." The press release that was issued from the Progressive Media went on to declare how people largely support higher energy costs if it means less dependency on foreign supplies.

However, with the Devil in the details, a closer look at the debate raises serious questions. First, the article confuses electricity generation with imported oil. Imported oil is only a single part of the energy issue. Electricity generation is not accomplished in the U.S. by burning oil. It comes from hydro, coal or natural gas. Solar and wind generation is gaining favor and volume but they are still minor sources. Also, the numbers from their own poll indicate that support rapidly fades if the price of energy increases by more than $10 per month. With gasoline prices alone, a typical family will see prices increase by that much with the swings we have seen the past few years.

Let's just focus on electricity generation for now. Those people in favor of a cap and trade system continue to pronounce that increases in energy costs are "inevitable." Why? We have abundant supplies of coal and natural gas. Wind and solar energy could be phased in as the technology becomes more affordable and once installed, those prices should be pretty fixed. However, if the politicians force a switch to use a technology that is not market ready, it certainly will cost more. My bet is that it will be much more than $10 per month. Remember that the EPA told us it would only cost 3 cents per gallon to formulate a summer blend. That same summer, we saw increases of 25 cents per gallon. Today, we can't tell because we can get those fluctuations as normal price changes every week.

Nuclear generation is also a very cost efficient method of generating electricity. Opponents point out that we don't have a way to store the wastes and the costs keep going up. Well, we had a place to put the wastes and those same politicians closed it before it could ever be used. Those same politicians keep adding requirements to building nuclear facilities. Did they think those changes would be free? Our nuclear plant power stations have a very good track record. However, opponents always remind us to look back at Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island. Three-Mile Island was contained and I don't think anybody was seriously hurt. Chernobyl was a disaster but there were lessons learned and that was one incident from how many plants worldwide?

Back to the point I wanted to make. I don't know about you, but I have taken a number of steps in my home to reduce energy usage. According to my electric bill, my usage has gone down. A really good thing because my bill has continued to go UP.

Electricity is what I would call an essential commodity. Everyone needs it and uses it. Not too long ago, politicians decided the best way to keep a lid on costs was to eliminate a government bureaucracy and open competition. Sounds idyllic. However, the winners were private companies that wanted to increase profits and the public lost. In the end, additional layers between the generator and the user were added and each of them needs to make a profit. After all, that is why any business exists. However, the difference between utility companies in the past those today is that a publically traded company today must increase its profits each year to continue to remain viable. Imagine the stock value of a company that held profits at a certain level.

While I do not advocate government run programs, we did have agencies that were called Public Service Commissions. They were comprised of people (usually not politicians) that knew something about the business they oversaw. It was their responsibility to watch a public utility and make sure the public interests were met. In this case, electricity would flow efficiently to each home. Systems were maintained and the latest technology was used. Profit margins were held at a specific level. Each time a utility wanted to raise rates, they had to apply to the PSC and show what was needed, why it was needed and how the money would be used. Prices did not wildly swing and generators did not go out of business. Today, business have to be reminded that tree limbs need to be trimmed. They pay a fine, a few years later, they cut back on the activity to save money and outages return until they get too bad and they are again told they need to trim the limbs. You know, a business cycle.

However, this model should only be applied to essential goods and services. Without growing profits, there would be no improvement to technology. For example, telephones would not be an essential service. Although we do not live without them, we could easily enough. But, if telephones had continued to be regulated by a PSC and Ma Bell had not been broken into pieces, we would not have cell phones or PDAs hanging on our ears.

To me, cap and trade is just another attempt to make something look good but in the end will just be a boondoggle (please look that one up) to fatten the bank accounts of a few and add a hidden tax on the rest of us.