I am considering the selection of witnesses for the April 4 Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee hearing for my column this week and I have a few questions.

Other than ACCF, the panel seems loaded with companies and organizations already in the tank for carbon caps and global warming alarmism -- the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, was not invited although it submitted thoughtful comments on the merits of GHG regulation. Was there something wrong with its comments?

Will anybody testify against carbon caps and alarmism? Does one need to believe in carbon caps to testify?

How many environmental activist groups does it take to have a quorum? Does the Committee believe that environmental activist groups are qualified to set national energy and economic policy?

Did the Committee try to broaden the range of groups testifying? What's more important to the Committee: expertise or activism?

Does the "bi-partisan" label merely reflect the fact that Domenici is an R?

Is the testimony of the Pew Center really needed since Pew members Shell, Exelon and GE will be testifying? What does Pew know about "trading and international competitiveness" anyway?

Is the panel essentially saying that "everyone agrees on carbon caps, its just a matter of picking winners and losers or assigning profits and losses?"

I see that World Resources Institute will testify -- will it be commenting on its recent conclusion that GHG regulation will have no impact on climate in the foreseeable future? BTW, what does WRI know about "trading and international competitiveness?"

Do the eight large companies slated to testify represent in the Committee's mind some sort of cross-section of American business? Who will be reflecting the views of small- and mid-sized businesses? What about those on fixed incomes that will be harmed by higher energy prices?