PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 24, 2009
Clean Environment and Stable Energy Market Act of 2009 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to require covered persons (i.e., coal producers, oil refinery operators, and producers and importers of other greenhouse gases emission substances) to purchase a federal emission permit (denominated in carbon dioxide equivalents) from the Secretary of the Treasury for the sale or use of a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission substance. Exempts from such requirement GHG emission substances to be used: (1) as material in the production of another article by such person; or (2) for noncombustion agricultural purposes. Requires the Secretary to impose a GHG emission permit equivalency fee on imports of carbon intensive goods.
Requires the Secretary, after consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Secretary of Energy, to establish a price for obtaining a permit for a year based on a determination of the dollar amount necessary to ensure that the demand for permits does not exceed the GHG emission allocations for such year. Requires the Secretary to publish a five-year price schedule for permits by January 1, 2010, and every five years thereafter. Authorizes the Secretary to modify the schedule.
Sets forth a formula to determine the national GHG emission allocation limitations for 2011-2050.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Provides for refunds of permit fees to specified: (1) permittees that use GHG emission substances in a manner that will make a negligible or no contribution to global warming; and (2) exporters of carbon-intensive goods.
Imposes a tax on covered persons who fail to obtain a required permit.
Establishes in the Treasury the Climate Protection and Economic Security Trust Fund where revenue raised from permit sales shall be deposited.
Applies this Act to the sale of any GHG emission substance after December 31, 2010.
People & committees
Rep. McDermott, Jim [D-WA-7] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Referred to House Energy and Commerce
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Ways and Means
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1683 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1683 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1683 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1683 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.