I have been incredibly busy this week, but I hope that someone can help fill me in on 2 things. I understand what the RPS is attempting to do, but mandates sometimes have unforeseen effects that quickly make them unpopular. Therefore, I think measures need to be in place to make sure that solar and wind technologies are cost-competitive with coal-fired electricity. I am tired of seeing uncertainty over the tax credit for wind. I know that even though wind power has developed quickly, the uncertainty of whether that tax credit would be extended has delayed projects.

My ideal would be adoption of some kind of fossil-fuel tax, as this would level the playing field for all alternative technologies. Even though I think wind, solar, and biomass gasification will be technology winners, I would rather raise the price of the fossil fuel alternative and then level the playing field for all comers. I don't know how many conversations I have had with people like the butanol proponents, who aren't sure whether they qualify for the same benefits as the ethanol producers. It should not be that way. Either broadly define the criteria for who can get credits, or raise fossil fuel taxes. The latter would have the added advantage of spurring conservation steps. But we can't keep putting promising technologies at a disadvantage because their particular biomass route is not specifically identified in the legislation.