On Monday, a joint legislative committee tasked with planning out a 25-year-long, statewide strategy for Missouri's electricity production and consumption met to consider the cost and availability of alternative forms of energy.

The committee, named the Joint Committee on Missouri's Energy Future, was formed in 2009 under House Bill 734, legislation that also required appliances purchased with state money to comply with federal energy efficiency guidelines. By the end of the year, the joint committee must make a report to the General Assembly on state energy consumption, along with legislative recommendations.

A number of academics, state officials, and energy businessmen spoke on Monday about newer energy technologies such as geothermal heating, biomass, solar energy, natural gas, wind energy, and others. Many of those who testified mentioned ways the state government could use tax incentives or subsidies to encourage different forms of energy production.

Mark Templeton, director of the state department of natural resources, said that although Missouri has low electricity costs in comparison to other states, it has a low ranking in using energy efficiently. He said that not much is being done independently by private companies to improve that ranking, pointing out during the hearing that a small fraction, 0.05 percent, of Missouri electricity revenues are spent on improving energy efficiency.

Templeton's suggestions for the committee were to introduce performance incentives in the natural gas sector, energy efficiency standards for new buildings, and other baseline requirements.

"We as a state may say we have a minimum standard for investing in energy efficiency," Templeton said.

Rep. Ed Emery (R-Lamar), one of the more vocal committee members, quizzed Templeton, and others who recommended energy subsidies, at length about the role of government intervention. At one point, Emery abruptly asked Templeton to explain the role he thought central planners should have in energy production versus the one a competitive market should have.

"Whenever we do have something we want to put more central planning in, we label it a market failure," Emery said.

Rep. Jerry Nolte (R-Kansas City), co-chairman of the committee, also tended to focus his questions on additional costs.

Indeed, arguments for different forms of alternative energies were made in financial terms, and the phrase "global warming" was rarely mentioned. Instead, many presenters spoke of the impending federal cap-and-trade legislation that is projected to increase traditional energy costs.

"Fossil fuels will cost more ... we just know it's inevitable," said Dan Eberle, interim director of the Missouri Alternative and Renewable Energy Technology Center at Crowder College. The federal legislation would just hasten the increase in energy prices, he said.

"Currently, it is very difficult to locate an alternative form of energy that is more economically competitive than traditional forms of energy," said Alan Marble, president of Crowder College. A better approach, Marble and others suggested, is to get more bang for every energy buck by supplementing traditional forms of energy with forms tailored to a specific purpose.

Shawn Xu, a research associate professor at the University of Missouri–Columbia, illustrated that method with his explanation of geothermal heating, a process by which pipes dug deep into the earth heat buildings in the winter and cool buildings in the summer. Geothermal heating doesn't replace the need for traditional energy. However, Xu said, constructing buildings with the capacity for geothermal heating is a highly efficient way to heat and cool them, thus reducing overall energy costs.