SEC. 203. ENERGY EFFICIENT MANUFACTURED HOMES.

 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to assist low-income households residing in manufactured homes constructed prior to 1976 to save energy and energy expenditures by providing support toward the purchase of new Energy Star qualified manufactured homes.

(C) SINGLE REBATE.—A rebate described under paragraph (1) may not be provided to any owner of a manufactured home constructed prior to 1976 that was or is a member of a household  for which any other member of the household was provided a rebate pursuant to this section.

(D) ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS.—To be eligible to receive a rebate described under paragraph (1), an owner of a manufactured home constructed prior to 1976 shall demonstrate to the applicable State agency that the total income of all members the owner’s household does not exceed 200 percent of the Federal poverty level for income in the applicable area.

(E) ADVANCE AVAILABILITY.—A rebate may be provided under this section in a manner to facilitate the purchase of a new Energy Star qualified manufactured home. (4) REBATE LIMITATION.—Rebates provided by States under this section shall not exceed $7,500 per manufactured home from any value derived from the use of emission allowances provided to the State pursuant to section 132. 13 (5) USE OF STATE FUNDS.—A State providing rebates under this section may supplement the amount of such rebates under paragraph (4) by any additional amount is from State funds and other sources, including private donations or grants from charitable organizations.

According to information I have read, the bill "supports" going green by offering an emissions-offset program, where companies may purchase credits towards renewable energy to offset their dirty energy. The problem lies in the fact that conglomerates will have limitless purchasing power (the bill states explicitly that it imposes no regulation on the trade/ purchase of credits). Smaller companies will be forced to invest in greener practices during a time in our economy when profits mean the difference between life or death. To a smaller emissions contributor, a costly production overhaul will be the only direction to take that will not involve a hike in product/ service prices. Larger companies will have the option of buying more pollution rights, which will only postpone the problems that the bill intends to solve, while providing hefty competition for the struggling "little guy."

Any added costs to the manufacture of a product or service will have to be cut somewhere. Profits can be saved by decreasing the production cost (cheaper manufacturing i.e. outsourcing, pay cuts, or downsizing) or by passing the additional costs along to the consumer. Either way, with an economy teetering on depression and unemployment at an alarming high, American consumers are not the winners.

Let me ask you this... if our planet were truly in a reversable slide toward total destruction because of something we humans are doing then why would we play these games?  Wouldn't you just outlaw pollution all together?  This is just another way of further controlling private industry and private property.  If this passes people will wake up when they find out that they can no longer sell their homes until they bring them up to "energy star" standards.  You know... those little square yellow stickers that you see when purchasing a refrigerator or hot water heater?  That is exactly what is being proposed.

CG 10/3/09