Here is a related memo leaked from oil companies trying to drum up support for rallies in opposition to the American Clean Energy and Securities Act (Waxman Markey Bill) due to hit the floor in late Spetember. Thought you might appreciate some insight into the planning behind clean energy opposition. Though it does not mention NJ specifically, things seem to be heating up in NJ with interested parties eyeing the Governorship and looking to develop energy like the Purgen One coal plant in Linden, NJ.

I hear opposition often citing an MIT study as proof of the cost, but according to this article the MIT study in question has nothing to do with Waxman Markey and in fact the only current financial projection study on Waxman Markey is the one done by the EPA which actually forecasts the average household will realize a net benefit from the bill.

I was thinking a pro ACESA counter-argument could actually be all the coal and oil givebacks in the bill intended to protect consumers from the very economic backlash opposition is claiming will result. Givebacks I’d actually like to see removed for environmental reasons but I recognize as valuable political fodder in the debate. I welcome anyone else’s thoughts on a strong counter argument. Please feel free to contact me with your thoughts. Thanks.