Senator Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on Thursday said the chamber's work on the so-called "cap-and-trade" energy bill would be delayed for at least a month, which means the bill will remain in committee at least until after the August Congressional recess.

There was no stated reason for the delay, but bloggers sympathic to the cause put out word that Boxer has been forced to deal with a more immediate problem--a shortfall in the highway trust fund. The more likely reason for the delay is that she lacks the votes to craft a bill that will pass.

This is good news, of sorts, for the home-building, real estate and construction industries. While most of the press attention has been focused on the carbon "cap and trade" (a.k.a. "cap and tax" on the right) provisions of the energy bill passed last month in the House, little attention has been paid to what the House version of the bill would do to the cost of building, and selling, a home.

To be sure, the carbon emissions regulations would almost certainly lead to increased costs for all currently practical sources of energy, particularly electric rates at utilities that rely heavily on coal. But when taxpayers learn that the bill, as passed by the House, will require them to spend many thousands of dollars to bring their home up to national energy code standards before they can sell it, not to mention adding significantly to the cost of new construction, they are bound to balk.

Back when the house passed its version of the bill, a product of California Democrat Henry Waxman, speculation was that the Democrats needed to sway only 15 or so votes to get to the 60 vote majority they will need to pass the bill. Earlier plans to fast-track the bill by attaching it to a funding package that is not subject to filibuster were dashed by resistance from conservative Democrats.

In a not-unexpected move, Senator Robert Byrd (D.-W.V.), from a coal-producing area in a coal-producing state, announced July 8 that he would vote against cap-and-trade. Additionally, China and India, two major contributors of greenhouse-gas emissions, refused to go along with the agreement to limit global warming among the G8 nations meeting in Italy this week.

At the same time, President Barack Obama's approval ratings took a sharp turn downward among the electorate. A plurality of those surveyed by Rasmussen--42%--said they believed the cap-and-trade bill would hurt the economy.

Surely, Senators have seen these numbers, and, even though they are not quite always running for reelection as are members of the House, they do pay heed. Thus, the energy bill and the health care bill suddenly appear to be in some trouble, and there are doubts that the former could be passed at all this year. And they really haven't even started passing the tax increases that will be necessary to pay for the massive--and massively ineffective--spending programs they have passed at Obama's behest.

This all adds up to a window of opportunity for the home building, real estate and commercial construction industries to get the word out on what exactly the energy bill passed by the House would do. The various associations should get together and produce a valid study that shows exactly how much each phase of the energy code in the House bill would cost each homeowner. That study should be promoted in a relentless national advertising campaign once Congress returns from its summer recess.

But home builders should not rely just on their national and regional associations. Surely some of you CEOs out there are on a first name basis with your Senator.

Unfortunately, there are no big builders in Maine, where both Senators, though Republican, are beholden to the disproportionately large number of "back to the land"-ers up here among whom being able to say one lives "off the grid" on organic food and who save water by not bathing is a badge of honor. These two mean two more Democrats need to be turned against their party. Senator John McCain (R. Ariz.), a past proponent of cap-and-trade, may be a problem as well.

Of course, if you want to add 50% to 100% to the cost of building a home by 2014, well...