Replies

I think we should all post what the traitors wrote us in support of this travesty. I am in the process of replying. Notice the part in black. This man takes us for a fool. Of course, the consumer isn't taxed directly. They will, however have to pick up the increased cost forced on energy providers.

I picked red for the font color in honor of the communist rant. Here's mine:

Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation's energy policy. I appreciate your comments and having the benefit of your views.

On June 26, 2009, I voted for the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act (H.R. 2454), which passed the House by a vote of 219-212 and awaits consideration in the Senate. Contrary to many of the charges leveled against ACES, this bill will not raise your taxes nor will it "kill jobs." In fact, as a state that generates the majority of its electricity from nuclear power and low emissions natural gas we are uniquely positioned to benefit from ACES. In addition, Connecticut already participates in the central elements of ACES; namely, a regional cap-and-trade system that began in 2008 and a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) that was signed into law a decade ago and is stronger than ACES.

As passed in the House, ACES establishes a national renewable energy and efficiency standards that requires utilities and states to produce 20 percent of their energy though renewable sources, as well as new building and appliance efficiency standards. In addition, it creates a market-based cap and trade system aimed at reducing carbon emissions by our nation's major polluters by 17 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. This system, which would begin in 2012, would set a cap on national pollution levels and allow emitters of greenhouse gases and carbon pollution to purchase credits sold in a market based approach. As a result, this new system will give polluters a choice between purchasing the credits that will let them continue to pollute, or invest in the clean energy technologies that will reduce emissions, create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that ACES will raise $846 billion over ten years from the sale of carbon credits. Over half of the revenues (55 percent) will be invested towards relief to consumers - lowering the cost to power, heat and cool their homes and businesses. Nineteen percent would be used to help energy intensive industries, like steel, iron and paper, transition to cleaner operations and protect American jobs, and 13 percent would be invested in clean energy technology development and deployment. Let me make on thing clear: this legislation will not raise taxes on consumers, not by one dollar.

As I noted above the central elements in ACES - a Renewable Electricity Standard and a carbon pollution capping system - are already in place in Connecticut. For example, Connecticut is a charter member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a regional greenhouse gas capping effort among 10 Northeastern states. This system, which was signed into law in 2005 and began to operate in 2008, has already held four auctions of carbon allowances to date. The most recent auction, held on June 17, 2009, yielded $4.7 million for Connecticut's clean energy and energy efficiency programs, bringing the state's total revenue to nearly $18 million since the system started. In addition, Connecticut has already set itself towards a goal of having 20 percent of its energy produce through renewable technology - 5 percent more than the standard set in this bill - enacted through a 10-year old state law.

You may be interested to know that ACES is supported by the nuclear energy industry, both nationally and in Connecticut, because producers of nuclear energy will not have to purchase emissions credits. This positions the industry well against those producers who generate power through coal and petroleum based processes, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that there will be twice as many new nuclear power plants by 2025 under ACES than if the bill is not signed into law. Connecticut already generates almost half of its electricity from nuclear energy, and, along with our stronger renewable energy standard and existing regional cap and trade system, will be a model for other states looking to adopt economically feasible alternatives to energy production that contributes heavily to climate change.

There have been some claims that ACES would cost households over $3,000 a year in increased rates - even though the authors of one commonly cited study call the misrepresentation of their work "just wrong." Instead, CBO found that the net economy-wide cost of the bill would be modest annual amount of "about $175 per household." The EPA also found also that the bill would "substantially accelerate the deployment of clean energy technology that will create new jobs," for the household cost of "$80 to $111 dollars per year," just 22 to 30 cents per day or $7 to $10 per month. The CBO and EPA analyses, however, do not take into account the long-range savings from improved energy efficiency and the benefit of addressing the challenge of global climate change, which would likely lead to additional savings in energy costs for households and businesses.

On a national scale, this legislation will revitalize our economy by creating new green jobs, and increase our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. We are currently sending $400 billion overseas for foreign oil each year. This legislation - which has been under consideration in the House for several months, has been the subject of dozens of hearing in several committees, and was approved and publicly available since it was reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee on June 5, 2009 - is an important step towards ending our dependence on foreign oil and spurring innovation in clean technology to ensure our nation's competitiveness around the world. By embarking on a path to grow jobs here at home we can prepare our workforce to compete in the global marketplace which is already starved for new energy sources. Doing nothing, after years of delay and inertia to break with foreign oil, is simply not an option.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please be assured that I understand your concerns, and will keep them in mind as Congress continues to debate this bill and our nation's energy policies. Should you have any additional comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future. For more information on my views on other issues or to see what I have been working on in Congress, please feel free to visit my official website at www.house.gov/courtney and sign up for my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,

JOSEPH COURTNEY Member of Congress