Learn More


»	Find the Facts FAST

»	Blog

»	In The News

»	Glossary

»	CEP Conversations

We can become more energy secure.

By developing renewable energy sustainably and using less fossil fuels, the U.S. can increase its security.

Got any bright ideas?

If you have opinions on climate and energy issues, let your legislators know.

Passionate about climate & energy issues? So are we. Want to help?
» Donate Today

carbon regulation cep news climate change coal energy efficiency energy policy green jobs greenhouse gases kansas policy renewable energy wind

Blog

CEP Projects

Who We Are


»	Climate Change

»	Renewable Energy

»	SAVE KANSAS... Energy Efficiency

»	Energy Security


»	Energy Tips

»	Protect Natural Resources

»	Work with Legislators

»	Tips for Farms and Businesses

»	Tips for Congregations


»	Write

»	Talk

»	Share

In The News


June 30, 2009
American Clean Energy and Security Act Passes House, 219-212
Late last Friday, the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act passed the House by a vote of 219-212. The bill represents a comprehensive federal energy policy. It includes regulation of greenhouse gases emissions (such as carbon dioxide) that result from electrical generation and other major industrial sources, a federal Renewable Energy Standard that requires utilities to generate 20% of their energy from renewables like wind and solar by 2020, increased energy efficiency for buildings and fuel efficiency for vehicles, incentives for renewable fuels, research dollars for carbon capture and sequestration, plus more. It contained no provisions that regulate methane emissions from livestock operations. Major corporations like John Deere, Caterpillar, and Siemens supported the bill as members of the U.S. Climate Action partnership. Other supporters also included investor-owned utilities. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) ceased to oppose the legislation after receiving emissions allowances. Opponents included airlines, mining companies, oil producers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and others. Many environmental groups and agriculture interests split on the measure. The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) supported the bill. Other environmental groups criticized it as too weak, pointing to an RES weakened by exemptions. Farm Bureau opposed the bill, but the House Agriculture Committee won major concessions on the carbon soil sequestration offsets, a program that would provide additional income for farmers. Reports differ on how much ACES will cost consumers. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2020, the net annual economy-wide cost of the cap and trade portions of the bill would cost $22 billion, or about $175 per household. The nonpartisan, nonprofit American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) estimated that the bill would create efficiency savings of $4,400 per household by 2030. The partisan Heritage Foundation estimated that the cap and trade portion of the bill would impact a family of four an amount of $2,979 annually, from 2012 to 2035. Opinions also differ on job creation. Opponents focus on job losses in traditional energy sectors, while supporters point to the job creation potential in renewables. Studies have suggested that the economic impact of wind development in Kansas will be in the neighborhood of $23 billion and 12,000 jobs by 2030. ACES will now go to the Senate. The Senate has already been working on energy legislation of its own, a package known as the Bingaman bill. An inclusive energy bill could emerge from the Senate by maybe as early as mid-September.

» Return to In The News