In a close vote Friday, the U.S. House passed a landmark energy security and climate-change bill, a cornerstone of the Obama presidency, but you’d barely know it due to the media frenzy surrounding the passing of pop music icon Michael Jackson.

The energy industry, environmentalists and businesses were paying attention, however, and they were quick to react to the 1,200-page bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2998), which would create a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Many in the industry say the bill doesn’t do enough to promote clean-burning natural gas. Others say it is based on meaningless or faulty science and was passed not because the American people pushed for it, but because the Democratic administration did.

America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA)--a consortium of 26 leading independent natural gas companies that comprise over 40% of total U.S. natural gas production—said: “Unfortunately, the version of the energy bill passed today may have the unintended consequence of making it more difficult for our nation to reach its clean energy goals. For example, its allocation of free allowances to enable continued coal use will lead to the inability of natural gas to fulfill its low-carbon electric generation potential that includes very significant under-used generating capacity already in place. We look forward to working with the Senate to address these concerns as the legislative process moves forward.”

ConocoPhillips said it remains fully committed to national legislation to address the growth of greenhouse gas emissions while ensuring the availability of secure, affordable and reliable energy, but it has deep reservations about this bill.

“We commend the House of Representatives leadership and members for their efforts to advance federal climate legislation. While the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) contains many of the elements intended to balance greenhouse gas emissions reduction with economic growth and national security needs, we do not believe the bill passed June 26 achieves these aims.”

The Houston integrated major said its major beef relates to the way the transportation sector is handled in the bill. “Specifically we support the equitable treatment of transportation-fuel consumers relative to electricity and natural gas consumers, fair and adequate protection for U.S. refining as an energy-intensive, trade-exposed industry, and full recognition of refinery complexity in the distribution of cap-and-trade allowances among refineries. We believe ACESA falls short of these goals.

Further, we recognize that the complex bill has both positive and negative implications for the U.S. natural gas industry. We will…bring forward recommendations aimed at ensuring that U.S. energy and climate legislation takes full advantage of the environmental and energy security benefits of domestic natural gas production.”

Meanwhile, a new survey conducted by Harris Interactive for the API (American Petroleum Institute), outlines one of the main problems the energy industry continues to face.

It found that “that while Americans now recognize the United States will need more energy in the coming years, they continue to underestimate the amount of oil and natural gas that government experts predict will be needed to meet that demand. Conversely, respondents overestimate the role that renewable energy sources will play in meeting future demand, the amount of oil the U.S. imports from the Middle East, and oil and natural gas industry earnings.”

This was the third annual “Energy IQ” survey conducted by Harris Interactive for API. “Americans understand fundamentally that we need more energy to grow our economy but they continue to undervalue oil and natural gas in meeting expected demand,” said Jack Gerard, API’s president and chief executive.