Heh Jerry - I agree with BOTH your suggestions! I do hope that the Club pushes a gas tax - not so much as to reduce fuel consumption, but to compensate for the increased fuel efficiency standards - that is, the increased efficiency results in less fuel tax collected - 16% of which is directed to mass transit, thanks to the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, which President Ronald Reagan approved on January 6, 1983. (The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 provided that one-ninth (about 1 cent per gallon) of the fuel tax revenue would be deposited in the Mass Transit Account. This provision has been amended several times. Effective October 1, 1997, the deposit to the Mass Transit Account is 2.86 cents per gallon of most taxable highway motor fuels.) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/fifahiwy/fifahi07.htm#note69 It would only need to be modest - Clinton increased it 4.3 cents in 1993, and Bush I and Reagan both increased it a nickel. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/Federal-Gas-Tax-Rates.htm

Great piece, Kady, thanks for sharing. It seems like new coal plants are governed by EPA rules - which may or may not apply depending upon when the plant began construction - that's where Prairie State has its advantage - being 'grandfathered' before new EPA rules take effect, and the price of competing fuels, primarily NG. Did I put that right?

I'm puzzled by this article. My knowledge of coal demand in India and China is that it will remain high for the forseeable future - is this article trying to show why that is not the case due to increasing coal prices? In U.S., the only future of the coal industry lies in exports.....

Great update, Jesse. What about this six-month extension that Speaker Boenher is suggesting? (http://www.planetizen.com/node/57116) I realize that a new bill would be preferable, but an extension without the "three anti-environmental poison pills - automatically permitting the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline, preempting EPA from requiring the safe disposal of toxic coal ash, and gutting our nation's environmental review process" that you mention above would be preferable to the House extension.

Ridership is highest it's been (for non-summer month) for Caltrain (commuter rail, San Francisco-San Francisco, http://www.caltrain.com). In fact, in today's local paper: Ridership continues climbing at Caltrain For 21 straight months, ridership is up at Caltrain and total ridership in April was the highest it has ever been during a non-summer month, according to a staff report that the Peninsula Joint Powers Board will hear today. .... http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?type=lnews&title=Ridership%20continues%20climbing%20at%20Caltrain&id=235753

I join the celebration - great job done by our Green Transportation Team. Now that vehicles themselves will be greener, let's get to work on "ensuring that American's have transportation choices - rail, transit, buses, biking and walking and smartly designed and efficient communities that allow us to reduce overall transportation emissions over the years to come." This will indeed be difficult. An increase in the gas tax would really be helpful. If we can change our thinking from looking at oil addiction to looking at auto-addiction, just think of all the other improvements will come with driving less, walking and biking more, and perhaps even boarding a high-speed-train, or a neighborhood shuttle or van!