H.R.2454 - American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Sponsor: Henry Waxman / 111th Congress

Title
111th Congress - To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy. hidemore...
Summary
To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy. (by CRS)
Status
The bill was voted on in the House on June 26, 2009

Customize

Customize the interests supporting and opposing this bill

To remove an interest, click the Remove button next to its name below this box.

To add an interest, choose one from this list:

To add an interest, click Support or Oppose.

You can share your customized pages with other people by sending them the URL for pages about this bill. Other MAPLight.org users will not see your customizations unless they use the URL you send them. To save your customizations for your next visit, create a free New Account, then Sign In.

Done

Interests who did want this bill to become law included these interests and specific groups:

Interests who did not want this bill to become law included these interests and specific groups:

Contribution data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)

Comments RSS feed

On the floor next week? by LCV, Jun 16, 2009 (3:31pm)

Word around the Hill is that this is going to hit the House floor next week…can anyone confirm?

Reply to this comment
Reply to this comment close
[ Tags ]
[ Tags ] close
[ Spam ]
[ Spam ] close

Negotiating Climate Change by David Thompson, Jul 22, 2009 (6:39pm)

Weighing in at more than 1,400 pages, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) has been hailed by many as the most significant piece of climate legislation in United States history, but it is also the target of fervid criticism. Much of the contention can be attributed to the clear role that lobbying and industry influence played in shaping the convoluted legislation. For instance, a coalition of environmental and consumer advocacy groups, including such organizations as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Public Citizen, denounced the bill, saying, “it erased all doubt of who will benefit most from it: Big Business.” But ACES’ sponsor, Henry Waxman, defended the concessions that were doled out to various energy-intensive industries and caused the Bill to inflate to over double the size of the original 648 page draft because, he states, “[t]ackling hard issues that have been ignored for years is never easy.” Regardless of whether ACES is considered to be a necessary compromise or corporate welfare, it undeniably demonstrates the overwhelming influence money has in today’s political milieu.
Unfortunately, many of the concessions seem to underscore the Bill’s intent. Representative Rick Boucher showed his support for the coal and utilities lobby by pushing for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) subsidies as well as billions of dollars in allowances for utilities. By creating an independent research agency called the Carbon Storage Research Corporation, ACES would utilize “competitively awarded grants, contracts, and financial assistance” to “establish and administer a program to accelerate the commercial availability of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies and methods.” Ultimately, the research and implementation of CCS technology, under ACES, would cost consumers about $10 billion so that coal companies could continue operating and constructing coal plants without shouldering substantial cost increases. Several groups also oppose subsidies for CCS because the technology has is a long way from viability on a large scale.
Not surprisingly, the agriculture industry proved to be a major obstacle to the Bill’s passage, but industry support was garnered by the last minute incorporation of an amendment proposed by Agriculture Committee chair Collin Peterson. The oil industry received support from Rep. Raymond “Gene” Green, who introduced an amendment that substantially benefits the oil industry by simply striking the word “sources” and replacing it with “emission points.” Although it may seem like an insignificant adjustment, the change will allow companies to received allowances by cutting emissions at a single point by 50%, rather than decreasing their overall emissions. But oil still decries the bill and will continue to lobby aggressively as climate legislation moves through the Senate. Already the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources released a summary of its own legislation that promises to increase production of offshore oil reserves and build an Alaskan gas pipeline.
Oil is not the only industry that has expressed discontent with the Bill. Despite its own aggressive lobbying efforts, the nuclear industry received very few concessions. ACES does, however, provide funding for research into “the use of thorium-fueled nuclear reactors for national energy needs.” Yet, like oil, the nuclear industry appears to have significantly more support in the Senate, which claims that any comprehensive climate legislation should express “a sense of the Congress on the importance of nuclear energy and authorizes additional research on recycling of spent nuclear fuel.”
Of course, the bill is not filled entirely with big business concessions. It is certainly refreshing to see a piece of legislation that bolsters the solar industry so prominently. And there is a decent support within the bill for public transportation and job creation. Rep. Bobby Rush successfully pushed for an amendment to provide nearly $1 billion for energy-related jobs and job training for low-income workers and new subsidies energy-efficient public housing.
There is still a long way to go in the Senate before the United States enacts a comprehensive piece of climate change legislation. During that time hundreds of thousands of dollars will flood Capitol Hill as lobbyists from each and every industry attempt to secure a piece of the pie. Undoubtedly, the final version of the Senate’s Bill will include billions in handouts for many of the nation’s biggest corporations – or biggest bidders – many of whom are also the nation’s biggest polluters.
(For a more detailed analysis of the role that Oil, Nuclear, and Agriculture played in shaping the bill, visit http://maplight.org/how-money-watered-down-the-climate-bill)

Reply to this comment
Reply to this comment close
[ Tags ]
[ Tags ] close
[ Spam ]
[ Spam ] close

HR 2454 by captains01, Jul 29, 2009 (12:25am)

I am intersted in knowing how this bill if passed will affect the average american financial?

Reply to this comment
Reply to this comment close
[ Tags ]
[ Tags ] close
[ Spam ]
[ Spam ] close

NO envirnonmental groups listed by Anonymous, Aug 26, 2009 (5:53pm)

why did you not list any environmental groups that gave money – sierra club etc…?

Reply to this comment
Reply to this comment close
[ Tags ]
[ Tags ] close
[ Spam ]
[ Spam ] close