Gov. O'Malley has convened stakeholders from across the supply/demand spectrum to talk about how to plot an energy strategy (mainly electricity) for Maryland. Impressions so far:

-- O'Malley's kickoff spiel very cosmic. Talked about the "challenge we face as a state, as a nation and as a species..." And: "These are not just kitchen table issues. These are life and death issues for our planet."

-- Guv threw bones to both populists and capitalists. Power companies need stability and must "know that when investments are being made they will be able to recoup their investments," he said. On the other hand, Maryland "must declare our independence from large, centralized power generators." "We are all one Maryland," including electricity producers, but "people of this state have a right to know they aren't being gouged."

-- State energy czar Malcolm Woolf commits an economics misdemeanor. Observes that California kilowatt prices are more than 50 percent higher even than the newly jacked-up prices in Maryland. Then notes that electricity demand in California has been flat, adding that if Marylanders consumed electricity at the rate of Californians, "they would save 42 percent on their electric bills." In a fantasy world, yes. But Californians use less juice BECAUSE it is expensive. You need high prices to moderate demand, and that's not going to save anybody 42 percent. One must account for both the X axis and the Y axis on the demand curve. 

-- Controversy from the getgo. The first speaker from the panel, MaryPIRG's Terry Harris, suggested a "public benefit fund" that could invest in energy conservation etc. Mike Powell, representing Maryland industrial electricity consumers, essentially said: And you'll finance the fund by levying a surcharge on my clients? Forget it.