At least you received a response from Congresscreature Lance. I sent a hand delivered letter to Mark Kirk and I am still waiting.

On July 10th, 2009 at 9:29 pm, sandspur said:

Here is Rep Lance’s email to me regarding Cap and Tax:

One map shows that New Jersey ranks third behind only California and Washington state in a possible windfall from sale of allowances to other states — realizing $104 million.

And where does this windfall for your State come from, Congressman Lance? The working people of the other states, Congressman??

It looks like Congressman Lance has voted to screw the working people in the other 49 states of the Republic. I question his patriotism, his ethics (he was obviously bought), and his fitness to serve.

Total Recall.

On July 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pm, madmonkphotog said:

I made a slight correction for you.

Sometimes a perfectionist comes in very handy!!

So are you saying that it’s OK for the government to start coming into houses built after 2014? Is that what you are saying? Jackboots are fine, five years from now?

And when, btw, has NJ last built a nuclear plant? Do you remember that one that Marrill Creek Reservoir was built to cool? We’re still waiting.

And those “strict environmental laws” you mention are the reason why industry has FLED New Jersey.

So, the question is: what was in it for you, personally? Because for both New Jersey AND the nation, this legislation absolutely stinks on ice.

Thank you for contacting me in opposition to H.R. 2454, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act.” I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me.

I voted in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act because the legislation greatly benefits New Jersey. The measure also moves us closer to a national energy policy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, ensures our national security and leads to a path toward cleaner energy.

BENEFITS FOR NEW JERSEY:

“New Jersey would be a big winner under cap and trade, because emission standards here already are very stringent, allowing state firms meeting them to sell carbon or ‘pollution’ credits to others out of state.” (Daily Record, July 8, 2009)

Much of my support for the energy bill stemmed from the fact that New Jersey greatly benefits under the legislation.

New Jersey does well under the bill because we have invested in new, clean energy technologies like nuclear power that have reduced greenhouse gas emissions and created thousands of jobs. In fact, businesses created more than 25,000 such energy-related jobs in New Jersey alone.

According to the Star-Ledger, New Jersey is a “big winner” under the energy bill:

“..[M]aps, produced by the GOP leadership, that showed the winners and losers among the states. New Jersey is a big winner.

“One map shows that New Jersey ranks third behind only California and Washington state in a possible windfall from sale of allowances to other states — realizing $104 million.

“The other map.shows New Jersey as one of only 10 states that would not face increased costs for products as a result of the effort to lower carbon emissions.” (Star-Ledger, July 6, 2009)

The energy bill has been endorsed by a number of New Jersey’s leading businesses including PSE&G, DuPont, Johnson & Johnson and Petra Solar because they firmly believe the legislation would strengthen our state economy through innovative and sustainable job creation.

Former New Jersey Governor Thomas H. Kean personally telephoned me to urge my support for the legislation. I was honored to have received Governor Kean’s request.

You can find more information about how New Jersey benefits by visiting my congressional website lance.house.gov.

LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD:

New Jersey and the Northeast are well ahead of the curve on many of the key elements of the legislation before the House. ??

Here at home, the state of New Jersey is already subject to limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the ten-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. And our state renewable portfolio standard is more aggressive than the federal program contained in the bill.

I believe it is time for other states to follow New Jersey’s leadership and do their share to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate development of low-carbon energy sources and green jobs. By leveling the national playing field New Jersey businesses and consumers will benefit by playing under the same rules as those in other states.

Also, our air quality will improve as other states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, move toward low-carbon energy sources.

COST:

There has been much discussion about the cost of the energy bill should it become law. While there have been both conservative and liberal analyses of the bill, I relied upon the following cost-estimates.

First, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration suggested New Jersey residents might see less than a $50 increase in 10 years, owing to the fact that the state already has similar regulations in place.

Second, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated nationally people would expect to see a $175 increase in annual energy costs by 2020. This is a national average over the next decade. New Jersey would not even see this level of increase because we already rely heavily on clean energy technology.

After reviewing these two non-partisan estimates, I concluded that the costs to New Jersey’s citizens would be minimal and the benefits great.

MISPERCEPTIONS OF THE ENERGY BILL

I have heard from a number of misperceptions about the energy bill.

Claim: “The legislation will mandate home efficiency standards in which the government will come in and inspect a home before it can be sold.”

New and existing houses and commercial buildings built prior to 2014 would not be affected by provisions in the energy bill.

Claim: “There’s nothing in the bill for nuclear energy.”

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI.org) representing our nation’s nuclear industry wrote:

“The nuclear energy industry welcomes the inclusion of provisions promoting greater use of clean-energy technologies, including nuclear energy, as part of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. House members are to be commended for including within H.R. 2454 provisions that will accelerate deployment of clean-energy technologies.

“The legislation can help stimulate construction of the advanced-design nuclear power plants that our nation needs. These provisions can help mobilize private capital and facilitate debt financing on reasonable terms for the first wave of nuclear plant projects to help reduce uncertainties and ultimately lower the cost to consumers of the electricity produced by these new energy facilities.” (NEI press release, June 26, 2009)

Claim: “The energy bill will add to our already growing national debt.”

The energy bill adds nothing to our national debt. In fact, the legislation covers its own costs and actually brings in revenue for consumers through rebates and tax credits as well as to invest in more clean energy and energy efficiency innovation.

MY FISCAL RECORD:

For my part, I am proud of my fiscally conservative record in Congress.

I am working hard to stop out-of-control spending and borrowing mandated by the federal stimulus, the congressional budget and the 9,000-earmark omnibus appropriation bill – all measures that I opposed on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Soon the Congress will turn to healthcare where I am firmly opposed to a single-payer public option. Instead, I am taking a leading in crafting a fiscally responsible health care reform alternative.

A few of my fiscally responsible votes include:
o Voting against the $1 trillion stimulus package;

o Voting against President Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget plan;

o Voting against the $500 billion omnibus spending bill;

o Voting against this spring’s $350 billion TARP bailout legislation;

o Voted against the $106 billion war supplemental measure that included billions of dollars for the International Monetary Fund;

o Voting to cut billions of dollars in wasteful and duplicative government spending; and

o Voting against raising the federal debt ceiling from $9.815 trillion to $10.615 trillion – an $800 billion increase.

IN CONCLUSION:

After careful analysis, including reading the bill and listening to the floor debate on the subsequent 300-page amendment, it is my strong view that my vote in support of the energy bill was cast with New Jersey’s best interests in mind and is consistent with my long-standing record of fiscal and environmental responsibility.

Best personal wishes.

Sincerely,
Leonard Lance
Member of Congress