EPA: Americans Can Have Lower Utility Bills, More Jobs For ¢25 A Day

US Coungresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-California). Photo: NP's Website

US Coungresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-California). Photo: NP's Website

By Dolores M. Bernal, NEWS JUNKIE POST

The results of a study announced on Tuesday, shows that Americans could enjoy cleaner air, save money on utility bills, and see substantial job growth for about ¢25 more in taxes a day.

The study, conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), examined the monetary burden on taxpayers if the American Clean Energy Security Act of 2009 (ACES) was adopted.

ACES or H.R. 2454 was introduced this year by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-California). Waxman and other supporters of the bill believe that the legislation will create 1.7 million “clean-energy” jobs, reduce the US’ dependence on foreign oil, cut global warming pollution, and increase the country’s competitiveness in the green technology global market.

Democrats welcomed the timeliness of the study’s results as they prepare for debating the bill on the House floor this week.

“Today’s report puts to rest the misleading attacks that have been leveled against a clean energy economy at every step,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California). “This historic legislation is the product of months of consensus building to achieve an effective and affordable transition to a clean energy future.”

The EPA’s study compliments the announcement by the Congressional Budget Office on Friday that the average American household would spend only small amount of money each year to fund and reap the benefits of H.R. 2454:

The net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household.”

The above figures could also translate to about $3.36 per week—about the cost of one pound of 93 percent lean ground beef,” according to the Center For American Progress.

But Republicans and industry lobbyists have vehemently opposed the bill from its very start arguing that it will lead to job losses and do nothing to clean up the environment. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, one the main lobbying organizations that opposes the bill issued a statement Tuesday saying that the debt incurred from the legislation will last for decades.

If enacted…[it] would be the biggest tax increase in the history of the world and the biggest government intervention in people’s lives since the Second World War…

The energy price increases required by H. R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, are not a one-time event, but will go up steadily year after year until at least 2050.

Democrats will have a bit of an uphill battle trying to gain more votes for the bill’s passing. The House of Representatives remains divided with about 107 members undecided; 170 voting “yes” and 158 voting no, according to the latest E&E Daily predictions.

But Pelosi and her democratic colleagues may go into the debate a little more confident with the backing of the EPA study and the Congressional Budget Office’s findings.

“The return on our investment is great. We will create millions of clean energy jobs, cut carbon pollution that causes climate change, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and increase our national security,” Pelosi said.

A summary of ACES can be found here.



14 Responses to EPA: Americans Can Have Lower Utility Bills, More Jobs For ¢25 A Day

  1. Vote -1 Vote +1bill bo
    June 25, 2009 at 10:17 am

    The government takes enough money from us. No thanks

  2. Pingback:

    Vote -1 Vote +1popurls.com // popular today

  3. Vote -1 Vote +1Josh S
    June 25, 2009 at 10:23 am

    Great. Another $175 to the gov’t. Next week they’ll have another amazing plan that will only cost every American $175 a year. If it’s so incredibly cheap and easy, maybe they should take that 25 cents a day out of the few dollars or so I already spend a day on taxes. Novel idea.

    • Vote -1 Vote +1jimbo33
      June 25, 2009 at 10:48 am

      Before you complain you should at least do your math correctly !! The total is $93.75 per year !! All these complainers and so little intelligence!!!

      • Vote -1 Vote +1EvilPoliticians
        June 25, 2009 at 10:57 am

        Being smarter than all of us, you know it won’t cost you much more to pay our share for us. Come on – it’s only another 25 cents for you to make up for my ignorance.

      • Vote -1 Vote +1davecjr
        June 25, 2009 at 11:20 am

        The $175 a year and 25 cents both come from the article above. Jimbo33 didn’t have to use his math, he just used the federal governments math!

  4. Vote -1 Vote +1ds
    June 25, 2009 at 10:26 am

    transition to clean power costs less today than tomorrow.

  5. Vote -1 Vote +1Don T
    June 25, 2009 at 10:38 am

    The 25 cents a day is only the tip of the iceburg, that is what the governemtn will collect directly. The additional cost of GPD and job destruction make this bill likely to cost every american family thousands of dollars a year. How about trying a little fact checking and perspective in your reporting.

  6. Vote -1 Vote +1Russ
    June 25, 2009 at 10:44 am

    Jeez… people are so ridiculous. Taxes are the way to pay for everything. Without taxes you wouldn’t have roads, power lines, sidewalks, almost everything you use EVERYDAY you wouldn’t have. Oh but wait the state will take care of them for you. You are absolutely right! But then the state you live in will hike up it’s taxes to pay for the shit that the federal government just stopped paying for.

    Stop your bitching. I bet you spend more money a day at mcdonalds than this is asking. And for once think about someone other than yourself. People are so selfish it’s amazing anything ever gets donated. We have taxes because without them there wouldn’t be enough money to pay for shit. Don’t want taxes? Then legalize pot instead. Tax the pot that your neighbor is smoking and you’ll have more than enough.

    Now quit your belly aching and for the love of whatever you call holy stop being a selfish bastard.

  7. Vote -1 Vote +1jdog
    June 25, 2009 at 10:48 am

    Wow, how great… this chang… wait. According to the FULL text of the numbers published by the Congressional Budget Office that published the numbers, the stucy contains 2 VERY large disclaimers 1) this estimate is only for one year in the near future (i.e. not a year where the limits are high and the full effect of the TAX would be felt) and 2) does NOT reflect ANY of the impact at all that this will have on GDP. Man, I love headlines that tell how great something is until you actually READ THE FINE PRINT.

  8. Vote -1 Vote +1SW in Palmyra NJ
    June 25, 2009 at 10:52 am

    Just like the 1 cent sales tax was suppose to reduce my realestate taxes in NJ.
    Started giving rebates to control the vote, now they’re gone.
    My realestate taxes are still going higher and now the Dems have imposed higher sin taxes.
    Give me a break, I’m tired of paying more and more taxes so that the corrupt politicians can spend it on bailouts, pensions, more government workers and social programs. They don’t even know where all the bailout money went.
    They were going to save GM and the auto industry by throwing billions at them, GM could have went into bankruptcy without government help.

  9. Vote -1 Vote +1wikiBuddha
    June 25, 2009 at 10:58 am

    I have not taken the chance to read this (awefully lengthy) bill and have not taken a stance of support or opposition of it. I lean slightly toward objection, however I do believe the government needs to subsidize “clean” energies in order to make them widely available.

    One thing I vehemently oppose is “cap and trade” legislation. I fail to see its effectiveness. What I gather is that it is essentially an imaginary market that serves no purpose to actually curb pollution, but to put more money into people’s hands that don’t deserve it.

    I would like to see less of an emphasis on centralizing our energy sources and I would also like to see legislation supporting or encouraging more wind power, which seems largely to depend on somehow making the wind turbines more aesthetically pleasing. I find old-school windmills rather charming myself. Despite the production of “noise,” I also consider the motion of the windmills to be meditatively satisfying as well.

    With solar, a smart-grid may be a necessary component. But, I’d like to see much more emphasis on personal ownership and for each home/property to provide a portion of the energy generation (think cloud computing).


  10. Vote -1 Vote +1RET Jr
    June 25, 2009 at 11:01 am

    Give me a break! This is just sophistry. This, from a government that still collects a telecommunications tax to fund the Spanish American War!

    Cap and trade is rubbish – BHO and company blew it when they severely curtailed Hydrogen. When will you sheeple learn that the government is not the answer?

    I eagerly await the day that we producers pack up and leave you looters to freeze in the dark…

  11. Vote -1 Vote +1EvilPoliticians
    June 25, 2009 at 11:03 am

    If politicians put in some guarantees that costs would go down, the sell for tax increases would be an easy sell. This includes national healthcare. Of course the politicians are too smart to do something like that.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login