In June the House of Representatives passed the ‘The American Clean Energy and Security Act” that was introduced in April.  The Waxman-Markley Bill has failed to arrive at the President’s desk, as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel promised back in April.  Progress has slowed in the Senate for various reasons.  The most prevalent cause for the delay is its exorbitant mandate it would set upon the states found in the Renewable Energy Standards (RES).

The Renewable Energy Standards portion of the bill provides for a one-size-fits-all mandate to “Ensure 10 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.”  There is one problem. . . Hoosiers don’t live in the Silver State.  In 1997, Nevada passed a measure requiring utilities to have a one percent total consumption of renewable energy.  In 2001, Nevada even expanded upon this with a measure upgrading the percentage to 15 percent by 2013.  So, how is it a fair assessment for states to be required to adhere to the same standards across the board when all states are in different stages of improving their RES?  The answer is that it isn’t.  Indiana cannot as efficiently adhere to these standards as some other states when most of its current power comes from a combination of coal and natural gas.  This portion of the bill sets an unreasonable standard at a time when Americans and Hoosiers cannot afford dramatic increases in energy costs.  If implemented, Hoosiers across this state will suffer greatly.

(Read more after the leap)

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) claims that this bill is deficit neutral.  Upon further reading it also lists in a footnote, “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.”  The New York Times broaches the concept that a trade war with China could result from the tariffs on imports included in the bill.  The Wall Street Journal even avows that costs would be higher for low-income families.  With all of this evidence pointing to reasons to kill this legislation it should not be a shocking reality that Rahm Emanuel was wrong in his assumption that this egregious bill would be on the President’s desk by the end of this year.

Indiana needs to strike out against this new mandate by contacting Washington representatives, as many others already have; including numerous Farm Bureau branches, congressman, and Senator Evan Bayh.

This is horrible legislation that doesn’t efficiently serve its objectives.  Since we as a state are greatly impacted by this new mandate, we should speak up before this act is passed by the Senate.  We have one last chance to stop this legislation before it is solidified, and I encourage you reach out before it is too late.