American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
- Marketing, Advertising, Sales & PR
- Accounting, Taxation, and Reporting
- Professionalism & Career Development
Law, Transactions, & Risk Management
Government, Legal System, Administrative Law, & Constitutional Law Legal Disputes - Civil & Criminal Law Agency Law HR, Employment, Labor, & Discrimination Business Entities, Corporate Governance & Ownership Business Transactions, Antitrust, & Securities Law Real Estate, Personal, & Intellectual Property Commercial Law: Contract, Payments, Security Interests, & Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Insurance & Risk Management Immigration Law Environmental Protection Law Inheritance, Estates, and Trusts
- Business Management & Operations
- Economics, Finance, & Analytics
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Definition
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is an energy bill that came into existence in the 11th United States Congress. Its creation was to help establish energy policy and an economy-wide climate to assist in addressing climate change issues. The United States House of Representatives approved the act with 219-212 votes on June 26, 2009. Nonetheless, the bill did not reach the Senate House for the members to vote and discuss.
A Little More on What is the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
Waxman-Markey bill was another name for this bill. The origin of the name was from its authors Henry A. Waxman Representative of California and Edward J. Markey the Representative of Massachusetts (both democrats). During the creation of this bill, Waxman was serving as the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Markey was serving as the chairman of that committees Energy and Power Subcommittee.
What did the ACES 2009 Act Target?
The Act had a cap and trade system that set targets for emissions. The targets in this act paralleled that proposed by President Barack Obama on cutting down greenhouse gases by 17% between 2005-2020. The act had a market-based incentive geared towards reducing carbon emissions. It mandated combined energy efficiency standards and renewable electricity requiring that by 2020, 20% of electricity sales be met by energy efficiency and renewable energy. There was a series of policies in the ACES bill whose aim was to promote increased energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, improved standards for appliances and light fixtures, and changes to building codes. Also, allowance from carbon credits sale would provide funding for a number of energy efficiency initiatives. The bill was believed to help businesses and people to become extra efficient as well as encourage the adoption of energy-efficient technologies. The bill was seen to stimulate energy-saving investments, hence benefiting the economy. There was a projection that by 2030, the bill could deliver net energy bill savings worth $350 billion while generating additional job opportunities amounting to 424,000. In addition, improvement to the bill was seen to encourage high levels of investment in energy efficiency hence delivering net energy bill savings worth $4000 billion by 2030 and about $470 billion by 2050. It would also generate over 2 million additional job opportunities by 2050.
Supporters of the Bill vs. Dictators
The bill received support, especially from major environmental organizations such as the Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and the National Wildlife Federation. These organizations rallied their support behind this bill in their effort to protect the environment by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Support for this bill also came from the corporate. Companies such as Dow Chemicals, Pacific Gas, and General Electric gave their letters of support, to show their solidarity. Although the two Democrat representatives wrote the bill, it got the support of a group of Republican representatives that were in full support of environmental protection. However, even though the bill got much support, as you will expect, it also received opposition from individuals and organizations. For instance, Greenpeace did not support it, claiming that it had no adequate protection for natural resources or climate. Other individuals and organizations that opposed it expressed their concern over its cost. They saw the cost of the bill to be higher than the benefits it is supposed to bring.
Reference for American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Acthttps://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/2454https://aceee.org Topicshttps://www.wri.org/.../2009/.../american-clean-energy-and-security-act-key-elements-...https://www.investopedia.com Insights Laws & Regulations
Academics research on American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
TheAmerican Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009and its Enlightenments to China [J], GUO, J. W., LI, Q. H., & ZHOU, Y. B. (2010). The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and its Enlightenments to China [J].Energy Technology and Economics,1. The U.S. energy strategy has undergone tremendous changes since the new administration took office. On June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which aims to reduce Americas foreign oil dependency, decrease greenhouse gas emissions and stimulate the economic recovery. This paper introduces the background and the main contents of the Act, and puts forward recommendations in promoting the clean energy development in China. Emission reductions under theAmerican Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, Larsen, J., & Heilmayr, R. (2009). Emission reductions under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This analysis provides an assessment of reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that could be achieved by Title III of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) sponsored by Chairmen Waxman and Markey released on May 19, 2009. This assessment is an update to a previous analysis released on April 21, 2009 and reflects a significantly revised reference case recently released by the Environmental Protection Agency. To account for the effects of different components of H.R. 2454, reduction estimates are divided into three scenarios: Total emission reductions under just the two proposed emissions caps (the cap on hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) consumption and the economy-wide cap). Total emission reductions under the caps and all other complementary requirements, including emission performance standards for uncapped sources and required components of the supplemental reduction program through 2025. A range of potential additional reductions that could be achieved through the 1.25 offset requirement for international offsets and supplemental reductions beyond 2025. Key findings: The pollution caps proposed in the ACESA would reduce total GHG emissions 15 percent below