Jul. 12--The U.S. Senate is considering a bill to impose a limit on greenhouse gas emissions that critics say is ill-conceived and poorly timed.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, and Ed Markey, D-Mass, was passed by the House of Representatives in late June with a 219-212 vote. The Senate is working on its own version, which may not be voted on until the end of the summer.

Through the cap and trade program, a facility would have a limit placed on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions it could emit.

Companies that exceed that cap would have to reduce production or purchase unused credits from companies that produce below the cap.

The plan behind the program is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.

Some favor the implementation of a cap and trade system with the hope of reducing the country's carbon footprint, while others consider the bill a job killer and a tax on Americans.

"The thing I like about this bill is it being to use the pricing system to get people to change their behavior," said John Husing, a Redlands-based regional economist who specializes on the Inland Empire.

"If you don't use the pricing system generally people don't change their behavior. What they will do is continue to use fossil fuels and keep us dependent on the same people that are trying to kill our troops."

The bill would be good in

terms of changing foreign policy, but it would drive up the cost of energy, Husing said.

"What that does to the average consumer because energy becomes more expensive is it absorbs more of their income to have less to spend on other things," Husing said.

The bill passed in the House includes billions of dollars in rebates for low-income households, loans to automobile manufacturers and component suppliers as well as the authorization for the Department of Transportation to provide vouchers for individuals to acquire vehicles with a greater fuel efficiency.

"The bottom line is that this cap and tax bill, as I refer to it, would increase the price of energy in all forms, pass it on to you and me and obviously all Americans and increase the price of fossil fuels," said Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Riverside, who voted against the bill in late June.

"All of that will be passed on to the consumers and by some estimates by our own Congressional Budget Office the cost on this is probably going to exceed $100 billion a year by 2020."

Calvert has been pushing the idea of becoming energy independent through nuclear, solar and wind power as well as incentives for businesses to become environmentally conscious.