Broad and diverse support for Waxman-Markey’s American Clean Energy and Security Act 4

Support for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is coming in from a broad and diverse range of constituencies, including businesses, unions, elected officials, environmental groups, organizations representing low-income Americans and people of faith and coalitions combining some of those constituencies.

Here are excerpts from letters that have been sent to the Energy and Commerce Committee, most of which are posted on the committee website. 

Dow: “We support your aim to move the bill through the Committee, and we look forward to working with you and others in Congress as this legislation is further considered.”

Exelon: “We may be on the brink of something astounding in Washington. This is due to the hard work and political courage of President Obama, Chairmen Waxman and Markey, Congressman Boucher, Senator Bingaman and many others.”

GE: “On behalf of GE, I would like to offer my support for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The bill represents a strong step toward an energy policy for the United States that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, set us on a path to a more secure energy and economic future, and make the United States the world’s technology leader in energy.”

United Auto Workers (UAW): “The UAW generally supports H.R. 2454 and urges Members of the Committee to vote to favorably report this measure.”

FPL Group: “We are encouraged by all of the recent progress that has been made on the bill, and as such, we support moving it through the committee process and onto the House floor. It is vital that legislation pass this year.”

Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA): “We feel the time to act is now and the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) provides a road map of federal policies to move our country toward building a clean energy economy - an economy that both combats global warming and creates millions of good paying jobs.” 

PG&E: “We believe that the ACESA includes many of the key provisions and concepts listed above, to varying degrees, and we encourage you to support moving the legislation out of Committee.”

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “Our estimate is that setting aside 15 percent of the allowance value for refunds and tax credits for consumers, together with other provisions in the bill setting aside free allowances that the companies receiving them must use for consumer relief, would ensure that the average household in the bottom 20 percent of the population would not experience any reduction in the purchasing power of its budget. We strongly commend you for including this protection for low-income households in your legislation, which we hope the Energy and Commerce Committee will approve.”

United States Climate Action Partnership: “USCAP believes the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA) broadly embraces the approach recommended in the USCAP Blueprint for Legislative Action that we issued in January 2009. While not every USCAP recommendation is contained in ACESA, USCAP urges the full Committee to advance the bill so Congress can continue to build on the progress made by the Committee thus far.”

Clean Energy Group (The Clean Energy Group is composed of Austin Energy, Avista Corporation, Calpine Corporation, Constellation Energy Group, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, FPL Group, Inc., National Grid, PG&E Corporation, Public Service Enterprise Group Seattle City Light):  “We look forward to reviewing the imminent legislative language and hope that the Committee moves swiftly and constructively to advance a bill as a first step toward enacting a national climate change program this year.”

Blue-Green Alliance (United Steelworkers, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Communications Workers of America, Service Employees Union International, Laborers International Union of North America): “As the nation continues to face high unemployment and the threat of climate change, Chairmen Waxman and Markey have shown true leadership on this critical issue. . . Passing comprehensive climate legislation is a critical step forward. The Blue Green Alliance looks forward to working with Congress to make certain that the provisions in this legislation ensure the creation of millions of good, family-sustaining green jobs in the United States and the protection of public health and the environment for future generations.” 

Climate Communities (representing elected officials from Sacramento County, CA; King County, WA; Tacoma, WA; Snohomish County, WA; Montgomery County, MD; Monmouth County, NJ; Sonoma County, CA; Story County, IA; Dubuque, IA; Dane County, WI; New Kent County, VA; Burlington, VT; King County, WA; Stamford, CT; Loudoun County, VA; Washtenaw County, MI; Snohomish County, WA; Savannah, GA; Nassau County, NY; James City County, VA; Annapolis, MD; Santa Monica, CA; Santa Ana, CA; Miami-Dade County, FL):

“On behalf of the hundreds of local governments across America working with the Climate Communities coalition to support national action on climate change, we write to convey our support for the passage of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES) as a strong first step on the path to climate legislation. Local governments are ready to play our part in meeting the climate challenge and creating a clean energy economy, and this legislation will create real incentives for progress and innovation in both the public and private sectors.”

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America: “The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization, is pleased that based on our discussions with the Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Markey and other key offices, the legislation includes non-profits and houses of worship in this retrofit program and we applaud Reps. Waxman and Markey for this important clarification.”

Audubon: “The National Audubon Society strongly urges you to support the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454).”

NRDC: “I urge you to vote in favor of reporting the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) during this week’s markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee. This legislation will create clean energy jobs, reduce our dangerous dependence on oil, and finally limit the carbon pollution that causes global warming.”

American Rivers, Audubon, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Clean Water Action, Climate Solutions, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environment America, League of Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters of the United States, National Parks Conservation Association, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, Pew Environment Group, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund:

“On behalf of the millions of people we represent, we urge you to strengthen and support the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which sets us on the path toward creating clean energy jobs, reducing our dangerous dependence on oil, and cutting the carbon pollution that causes global warming. This committee vote is the most important in decades, and we hope you will do all that you can to strengthen and pass this legislation.”

National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA): “Climate change will severely impact the operations of these utilities, which is why we strongly support comprehensive legislation to mitigate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the overall approach taken in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES).”

(NOTE: These are excerpts. If you want to know all the details of where any organization stands on the bill, read their entire letter.)

[Original post at http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/broad_and_diverse_support_for.html]

 

Pete is the Climate Campaign Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. mwildfire Posted 5:16 pm
    19 May 2009

    But meanwhile, many of the serious environmental groups are now opposing this heavily watered bill. I kinda wonder if some of the ones quoted in this piece--which looks rather more like a PR piece than what I expect to see on Grist--put out the quoted remarks before it was reduced to its current state. I'm curious what it's like behind the scenes in Grist's office right now--it seems this bill is being heavily pushed, and I wonder if there aren't staffers who aren't happy about that, but get no say?
    1. Royal Enfield's avatar

      Royal Enfield Posted 6:31 pm
      19 May 2009

      MWildfire,  You can't address climate change without broad based consensus.  The serious environmental groups are the ones who are willing to compromise and live and deal in the real world.  This is the absolute last second before we loose our last chance on addressing climate.  I am proud of the movement for not allowing anti-productive divisive contrarian grumbling to decide the fate of our collective goal.  Like it or not, “this is what democracy looks like.” 
  2. mwildfire Posted 5:55 am
    20 May 2009

    So we should accept whatever is politically realistic in a Congress controlled by corporations (including coal and oil companies, which get to veto legislation that might affect their profits), even if the result is fairly close to having no effect on the climate? Scientists are saying we need to cut emissions much faster and deeper than we had even recently thought. This bill will not get us even ten percent of the way to where we need to go. True, it's an enormous improvement over the Bush administration's insistence on doing nothing whatsoever--but irrelevant. I agree that this is the last chance, the last year we can start moving in the right direction. That's why we need to get it right the first time--there is no time left to bark up the wrong trees, subsidizing ethanol and carbon sequestration and bullshit (the idea that corporations can be allowed to pay someone in the third world to do something to reduce emissions, instead of cutting their own, and end up with a reduction in GHG rather than employment for accountants and go-betweens and shysters).You say: I am proud of the movement for not allowing anti-productive divisive contrarian grumbling to decide the fate of our collective goal.Is this because you think "the movement" is reflected in the piece above, or because you are ignoring the bulk of climate activists who are screaming that this turkey must be amended?The you say:  Like it or not, “this is what democracy looks like.”  THAT really rankles, because I was IN Seattle when the expression burst into being, as 5000 angry people from all over the world marched through the streets demanding the release of the hundreds arrested on December 1st, 1999, and demanding that the voices of the peoples of the whole world be heard--that the attempt at even more complete corporate control represented by the Millennium Round of the WTO be discarded. And we sufficiently influenced the third world delegates that they finally refused to be bulldozed into going along--we won! But you're using the phrase to mean we should accept the results of a political compromise in which corporate interests have the major say, a compromise which is way short of what science--and our grandchildren--demand. This may be realistic, but it is NOT democracy. Democracy means the people rule--and in my book, it doesn't mean a people so successfully manipulated by corporate media that half of them now think climate change isn't even real. Permalink
  3. Jeremiah Posted 8:07 am
    20 May 2009

    The proposed carbon tax is a national disaster in the making. Watch for carbon credits to be sold cheap to polluters in favored (Democratic) states, and sold high to everyone else. Companies pass along these higher costs to consumers. The result will be huge increases in the cost of food, fuel, transportation and most everything else, just when the nation is trying to recover from the worst recession since the 1930s. No matter how much money or tax credits Congress gives to alternative energy, it will take decades to make a difference: a substantial project will take years just to get through the environmental impact studies hoops and the NIMBY. Meanwhile we will all be paying more for everything. The Administration and the Democrats in Congress are hoping all this new tax revenue will make the apparent deficit look smaller, but it won't work because they will injure or kill small enterprise in the US. But that's what they want: everyone to work for government owned or controlled companies, belong to unions and toe the line set by big brother. Welcome to Europe in the 1960s. But at least Europe had the Marshall Plan to give them wealth they could not create on their own...

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement