It is possible that the so-called "cap and trade" bill will be approved when it comes to a vote in the House of Representatives. If that happens, it will be because some lawmakers did not vote in the best interests of their constituents.

Central Pennsylvanians, however, should know that their congressmen want to see the bill soundly defeated.

U.S. Rep. Glenn "GT" Thompson, R-Pa., is "against the measure because of extreme costs," a spokesperson in his Washington, D.C. office said Monday. "In the Fifth District we have to drive everywhere we go and many of my constituents cannot afford to drive hybrid cars," Thompson said in a statement published on his Web site. "We have to heat our homes with fossil fuels during the long winter months. This legislation, if enacted, would force our electric bills to skyrocket."

U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., represents the Ninth District. He shares Thompson's opinion of the legislation. In an editorial posted June 1 on his Web site, Shuster says, "Cap and trade is a bait and switch. It won't cut greenhouse gas emissions or make America stronger with 'green jobs.' In reality, this plan would result in our unilateral economic disarmament by killing jobs at home and shipping them overseas ... The average family in Pennsylvania will see a $3,100 jump in their annual electric bill through this national energy tax."

Shuster and Thompson are exactly right in strongly opposing this measure, formally known as HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. It is co-sponsored by two congressmen, Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., who have no interest in protecting areas of the country that would be hurt badly by the measure. Pennsylvania is one of those areas.

"Cap and trade" is intended to lessen emissions of "greenhouse gases." To do so, it would force many industries, including coal-fired power plants, to pay huge sums for emissions permits or to adapt their plants to meet new rules. Those costs would be passed on to consumers.

Because our state relies heavily - almost exclusively - on electricity from coal-fired power plants, "cap and trade" would cost us billions of dollars in higher utility rates. Area families would pay at least hundreds, possibly thousands, of dollars more a year for electricity. The added burden for some businesses could force them to close their doors.

It has been estimated that the cost of "cap and trade" to consumers would be about $646 billion during a 10-year period - though it could be much more. That cost would be borne almost entirely by Pennsylvanians, West Virginians and others where coal is a primary fuel.

Initially, "cap and trade" emissions permits were to be auctioned off. But the bill has been amended. In its current state, only 15 percent of permits would be auctioned. The remaining 85 percent would be dealt out by the government - which has an obvious anti-coal bias.

Beyond any reasonable doubt, politics would be part of the process of handing out permits. Politics already is part of the process. Liberal supporters of the bill are worried that the bill will not be approved. To gain votes, they have been granting concessions to lawmakers representing various special interests. According to one report, it was agreed that the automobile industry will receive billions of dollars from sales of emissions permits. That will help gain support from Michigan lawmakers. According to another published report, farm-state lawmakers have demanded concessions intended to lessen the bill's impact on the agriculture industry - and possibly to help ethanol producers.

It has been suggested that party discipline is a factor for some Democrat lawmakers attempting to decide how to vote on "cap and trade." Their party controls the House. Its leaders can hand out favors to representatives who go along with them - and can punish those who do not.

But members of Congress are in Washington to serve their constituents - not their party leaders.