Waxman-Markey HR 2454 was written in such haste that many sections are incomprehensible. As written, HR 2454 will result in litigation for years to come; and this will retard economic development.

An example is Section 610 (a) (13) (B) iii concerning whether electric generation equipment can be installed on an existing dam. The relevant text reads: "The hydroelectric project installed on the dam is operated so that the water surface elevation at any given location and time that would have occurred in the absence of the hydroelectric project is maintained ..."

A strict reading of this sentence would say that electricity could never be produced at such an installation. When water flow increases, such as when it rains, water levels will rise, but if the hydro generators are operated the water level can't rise as much as it otherwise would. Even if the difference can't be measured, the theoretical result is obvious - water levels would have risen by some additional fraction of an inch if the generators hadn't been run.

In the same section there is language concerning fuel cells. The text reads: "Greater efficiency with which the fuel cell transforms fuel into electricity as compared with sources of electricity delivered through the grid ..."

The sources of electricity delivered through the grid could be hydro, nuclear, coal, wind or a mix. How will it be possible to establish whether a fuel cell is more efficient than electricity from the grid with a mix of constantly changing sources? Or if only compared to wind, fuel cells would never be approved.

Here are two badly drafted sentences from a single section of HR 2454. How many more are there in a bill that is 1,428 pages long, drafted in haste by staff members lacking the necessary scientific or engineering background?

Donn Dears

Geneva