AB 811 was the big first step, and was signed last fall.

Palm Desert and Sonoma County are already moving forward with assessment districts, and more will follow.

More importantly, however, is that both AB 811 and SB 279 do not favor solar only. In terms of $/kWh energy efficiency improvements such as weatherization, increased attic insulation, and duct sealing offer much more to the typical homeowner than solar panels do.

Especially in urban areas, where roof space is less available than suburban or rural communities, it makes the most sense to install solar after the energy efficiency improvements have been made.

In the Rosenfeld Curve article you mention, the authors specifically compare their findings to the CEC estimates. What they find is that CEC's conservation claims track very closely to the "unexplained" discrepancy between California and the Country as a whole.

While it may be unreasonable to assume 100% of the "unexplained" difference is policy driven, the comparison also leaves out spillover effects which would serve to lessen the "unexplained" savings in their methodology (which the authors also mention.)

Thank you, however, for linking the article, which, I think, is required carbon/energy geek reading.

It would be much better if the congressmen were acting on behalf of the people financing their campaigns rather than the person whom over half the country voted for.

More to the point, Obama ceded ground, he did not demand loyalty, he demanded tit for tat: I take out the photo-banning provision, you give me the votes.

That may not be exactly what the founding fathers had in mind, but it certainly has some semblance to the spirit of compromise. Something that is still sorely missing.

Glenn is a very consistent and intelligent voice, which is why I enjoy his opinion. What I find simultaneously commendable and frustrating about him, however, is his reluctance to see shades of gray. This vote was in many respects congress doing precisely what they are supposed to do.

...I have a lot more respect for my brother and sister reformers in Tehran than I do for most Americans. Maybe it's time to take the message directly to DC, grassroots-style.

This is precisely the kind of lack of perspective I am talking about. There is a huge gap between suppressing people's right to vote, speech, and assembly and arm twisting congress, or even suppressing government documents.

This is the compromise I am willing to make: I would gladly accept meaningful health care reform if it meant all of the Bush torture documents never saw the light of day. Glenn, and many others of you, might not. Personally I think it comes down to how optimstic/pessimistic/naive/jaded you are about government.

Would I like greater separation of powers? Yes. Do I think that this arm twisting and obfuscation of the Obama administration is the end of the republic? No. And no, I don't view Obama as a Messianic figure, I view him as a smart, and very political creature, who just happened to be far and away the best choice available last year.

Glenn,

Thank you for making my point so cleanly. I have no problem with Obama using the transparency issue as a pawn to be sacrificed, because I believe there is only so far it can go. With the technology available to news organizations and society as a whole, I trust the government can be kept in check (and keep up the good work, seriously.) You on the other hand are presenting it as an either or. Either the government has complete transparency, or we are no better than Mussolini. I can't stand either-ors.

And lastly, I don't know which C-Span you are watching, but our government is far too incompetent to enforce a police state.

What, exactly, do you find so horrifying? That I have differing priorities than you? Isn't expecting the world to conform to your ideals just another form of tyranny? Where, in my saying I'd prefer health care reform before greater transparency in government do you make the leap that I am placing personal comfort over the lives of others?

Unfortunately, many of Glenn's readers exhibit the same blind conformity to his ideas that Glenn decries in his articles.

I don't know.

But I do know Obama has said he thought the disclosure issue could easily be seen as a partisan witch hunt.

I know he has consistently said health care is his top priority.

I know he is a very talented politician, and even he might not be good enough to get meaningful health care reform.

And so, I believe Obama would be much "better" on this issue if he weren't set on health care reform.

Also,

I believe Glenn and some of the commenters here are giving members of congress way too much credit.

I believe that Glenn and some of the commenters here are overstating the potential impacts of these actions.

Who funds the entire Democratic Congressional Caucus with the exception of the progressives -- (hint: it's not "grass roots, labor, and some middle-class elements").

If you don't know the answers, you can find them in about 30 minutes total here:

http://opensecrets.org/

How can you write this in the comments of an article where you are feigning outrage that congress is not voting their conscience?

Meaningful health care reform:

A health care system that provides quality health care for everyone (see: Canada.)

I'd prefer a single payer system, but I don't think that is going to happen, which is OK as long as the government run health care runs the other insurance companies out of business.

Allowing for OTC drugs to come in from over the border or torte reform does not count.

And, I said above, I'm not sure he can pull it off. But I think it is worth the risk, A) because I think it is that much more important and B) I think the impacts of the lack of transparency are being overstated.