The President is right. America needs a comprehensive policy that will define the right mix of incentives that will support our energy and economic future. This does not mean a simpleminded, either-or choice between traditional fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) and “clean” fuels (solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels). We need, instead, a commitment to the wisest use of all available energy sources. Our issues of environmental responsibility, national security, and economic efficiency are each of fundamental importance.

In addition to addressing nuclear, oil, natural gas and other energy related topics last week, President Obama focused on employment and on economic vitality. (He said the word “jobs” more than 23 times in his “State of the Union” message.) The President clearly understands that measures to strengthen our domestic energy industry go hand-in-hand with efforts to stimulate our economy and ensure its long term viability.

For America’s economy – and the economies of all developed nations – traditional energy and alternative energy are essential to economic growth. In the United States, renewable energy sources make up about one tenth of our energy portfolio; 90 percent of our energy comes from traditional fuels. With the right incentives, lots of investment, and focused attention, in eight to ten years, our use of renewable energy could double; at which point renewable energy could make up 16 percent of our energy usage, and 84 percent would be from traditional fuels. Because our energy use will be dominated by traditional fuels for the foreseeable future, to successfully navigate the 21^st Century Washington would be wise to give substantial attention to improving our use of traditional energy sources too. Both traditional fuels and alternative fuels offer advantages that we can’t afford to miss.

That brings us back to the original question: “Can Obama re-energize Congress to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill?” If the people of this nation let the Congress know that:

1. they want to go back to work;
2. they want their long term future protected,
3. they want our national security improved; and
4. they want American to continue to be an inspiration to the world.

Then the President can spend the afternoon shooting hoops with the guys.

During his State of the Union address, President Obama made a strong case for the Senate to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year.

It is clear that no legislation can make it through this Senate under the current rules without serious compromises, but the United States cannot afford to sit on the sidelines. The Senate needs to follow the House’s lead and pass a bill that cuts global warming pollution enough to stave off the worst consequences of climate change (pdf) and provides the framework we need to promote America’s clean energy industries.

Comprehensive legislation would strengthen national security, protect the health and welfare of the American people, and keep the United States competitive in the global marketplace. It would be negligent in the extreme for the Senate not to act.

President Obama’s State of the Union acknowledgment that offshore drilling for natural gas can be part of our energy solution was a welcome signal on the part of the administration. We only hope that it was a serious signal that the administration wants to encourage offshore drilling, and not a smoke signal.

Accordingly, we look to the administration to move forward in allowing assessments of our natural gas resources in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The U.S. has natural gas in abundance, with at least 250 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of recoverable natural gas estimated to lie under the OCS. Drilling for natural gas can be done safely and following environmental laws. In 2005 two devastating hurricanes swept an area of the Gulf of Mexico where 20 percent of the nation’s natural gas is produced and, despite dramatic damage to natural gas pipelines and offshore rigs, there was no environmental damage from natural gas.

Natural gas is a critical part of the economic and environmental solution for the U.S. It is produced domestically, low in emissions, employs several million people, provides about 25 percent of our energy and generates billions in revenue to the economy. Natural gas can do even more for this nation if the President and Congress will allow us that opportunity.

President Obama has said “words must mean something.” And they should. Yet, for his SOTU promises about nuclear power and oil and gas development to have meaning, his Administration will have to take the necessary actions to translate that pledge into concrete results.

Oil and gas development does not have to be limited to vast resources located just off America’s coasts. Our country has a great deal of onshore potential too, especially in Alaska. If the President is serious about keeping investment and jobs at home and reducing the problems associated with oil imports from unstable regions, he will need to take steps to align leasing rules, tax policy, and environmental standards to allow industry to achieve our untapped potential. The failure to do would equate to a self imposed embargo.

Every incremental barrel of oil produced domestically is a barrel we don’t import. Great production also means more well-paying, long-lasting jobs in the US energy sector plus additional employment opportunities in supporting industries. This promise of hundreds of thousands of new jobs becomes even more appealing when you consider that oil exploration and production isn’t even a primary environmental concern any more.

Nuclear power also holds much promise. Currently, it’s more expensive than fossil fuel electric power. At least part of that higher cost is due to bureaucratic procedures and bottlenecks associated with licensing, siting, litigation costs, the lack of standardized design, and uncertainty about government policy, especially waste disposal. Streamlining the regulatory process, removing barriers to investment and development, and making it harder for the plaintiffs bar to engage in unjustified litigation would help the nuclear industry move toward being more cost competitive.

If the nuclear industry cannot compete once the playing field is leveled, government should not provide any additional subsidies. But it deserves a fair shot, no unnecessary bureaucratic uncertainty that complicates planning and investment. To alleviating that, lawmakers must make a decision on waste handling and stick to it. If all of that is not sufficient for the industry to raise private capital and compete with other energy sources, then American taxpayers should not be expected to provide the equivalent of a bailout. Special interests are lobbying to parlay the existing $47 billion loan guarantees -- intended to jump start new investment -- into demands for another $100 billion. (Washington went down this road when it created moral hazard in the mortgage market; the public’s still dealing with the consequences of that poor decision and shouldn’t be put at risk by another.)

That brings us to Obama’s natural gas pledge. In recent years, technological breakthroughs have unlocked enough potential reserves to meet our needs for a century. Making greater use of those reserves will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide time for R&D to bring forward technology for meeting our future power needs in the most cost competitive way.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama formally abandoned his campaign promise on new nuclear plants. In 2008 he endorsed only continued operation of existing nuclear power plants. New ones would have to wait until safety, waste, and proliferation concerns are resolved. The latter two concerns are arguably more acute than before he took office. The Obama administration has rightly abandoned Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear waste – it is, in my judgment, the worst site that has been investigated in the United States. But his Commission on nuclear waste has not even begun work; it will be 2012 by the time it issues its final report. As for proliferation, the former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency noted in 2008 that “"You don't really even need to have a nuclear weapon. It's enough to buy yourself an insurance policy by developing the capability, and then sit on it. Let's not kid ourselves: Ninety percent of it [new interest commercial nuclear technology] is insurance, a deterrence.” So is the U.S. going to go back to “do as I say and not as I do”?

Further, while expressing concerns about deficits, the Obama administration is opening the spigot for more loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants because Wall Street won’t finance them. They are just too risky. A single project is often more costly than the entire net worth of many electricity generating companies. They don’t want to bet their companies on nuclear. But they are OK with betting taxpayer dollars. Given that the underlying relationship between energy demand and economic growth is changing (quite apart from the recession), many nuclear projects are likely to be abandoned. Some already have been. This would be “déja vu all over again.” Every nuclear power plant ordered after the first energy crisis in 1973 was abandoned, leaving ratepayers and bondholders on the hook. This time it will be the taxpayers.

Worst of all, nuclear will not materially help with global warming. It takes too long and too much money to build a single plant. Purusing nuclear takes so much money that it will sideline renewable energy and efficiency to marginal roles. “Clean coal” will only make it worse. I support the development of carbon sequestration but it should be developed with biomass energy sources not new coal plants..

The energy plan laid out by President Obama closely resembles the approach in a letter sent to him by Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham. It is largely a roadmap for more pollution, proliferation, radioactive waste, and deficits. Sadly, the President abandoned a very sound policy on new nuclear power plants adopted during his campaign. It is time to restore it.

President Obama is correct that we need energy innovation and clean-energy jobs to solve the climate crisis and invigorate our economy. But a clean-energy economy does not include continued reliance on dirty coal and further risky drilling for oil in fragile offshore areas. We cannot solve the problem with business as usual, but instead need the change that Candidate Obama promised. The president has not used his bully pulpit to advocate a bright line goal for greenhouse gas reductions. Scientists have determined that reducing carbon pollution to 350 parts per million (ppm) is necessary to preserve a livable planet. 350 ppm must be the bottom line for all climate and energy policies. The president already has the tools he needs under the Clean Air Act to begin the required pollution reductions. It is just common sense that new climate legislation must add new tools to get the job done faster, building upon, and not rolling back, our foundation of successful environmental laws like the Clean Air Act. Setting binding science-based limits on U.S. carbon pollution through the existing Clean Air Act is the best and quickest way to address the climate crisis and ensure that America does not fall behind in innovation and opportunity.

We're encouraged to see that President Obama has turned his focus to jobs and opened the door to offshore oil and natural gas exploration and production. All credible projections indicate that this nation will need more of these traditional energy resources to power the economy for many years to come.

The oil and gas industry stands ready to work with the administration and Congress to create jobs and secure the nation's energy future. If the government were to provide an opportunity to develop more domestic oil and natural gas, the industry could create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, as well as generate $1.7 trillion in revenues for federal, state and local governments, and supply American consumers with affordable and reliable energy.

Today the oil and natural gas industry supports 9.2 million U.S. jobs and adds more than $1 trillion to the national economy. With the advent of new technologies that are unlocking clean-burning natural gas from shale formations, it's clear that the industry has potential for more growth.

Unfortunately, the climate bills approved by the House and passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will be counterproductive to the public's interest in restoring a robust economy. The bills also pick winners and losers among the nation's energy mix and ignore economic and energy realities. As studies have shown, the bills could destroy jobs, sharply increase energy costs, and transfer greenhouse gas emissions to other countries that do not have stringent climate regulations.

It is time for a restart. With double-digit unemployment and a weak economy, government and industry should work together to develop new proposals that protect the environment, encourage job creation, improve U.S. energy security, reduce the deficit, and provide a much needed boost to the economy.

A few months ago, Business Roundtable released a report – Unfinished Business: The Missing Elements of a Sustainable Energy and Climate Policy – that outlined key areas policymakers must address in their effort to craft effective, workable climate and energy legislation.

I’m proud to report that the President touched on many of our priority issues in his State of the Union address. He called for greater energy efficiency, for expansion of nuclear power and for investment in new coal technologies. Critically, he also called for “tough decisions” to be made on expanding development of our nation’s domestic oil and natural gas resources.

This is a very positive signal from the White House, and it underlines what we have been saying all along; namely, that policymakers must take on climate and energy challenges with a broad-based approach, utilizing all resources at our nation’s disposal. We can’t do it with wind alone or oil alone – rather, we must leverage a diverse portfolio of technologies, traditional sources and alternative fuels to reduce emissions and enhance energy security in an economically sustainable way.

We look forward to working with the President to turn these forward-looking promises into concrete solutions for American families and businesses.

President Barack Obama reiterated in his State of the Union address last night his vision to get America running on clean energy. “Providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future,” he said, “because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.”

He used the annual address to advocate for a clean-energy investment agenda that would create jobs and reduce carbon pollution. The Obama administration’s efforts began on January 20, 2009, and it has already produced benefits. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which became law on February 17, 2009, includes $70 billion for clean-energy investments and will create nearly 900,000 new clean-energy jobs. One million low-income homes will be weatherized because of ARRA, and wind, solar, and other renewable electricity generation will double by 2012. ARRA also included $20 billion in clean-energy tax cuts for wind and solar power investments and the purchase of ultraefficient cars.

President Obama made it clear that more is needed for short-term recovery and long-term economic growth. He proposed to “put more Americans to work building clean-energy facilities—and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean-energy jobs.” The latter program would promptly create jobs in retail sales and construction. And it could be a down payment for a program to retrofit 50 million buildings—40 percent of all buildings—by 2020. Accomplishing this larger goal would create 625,000 jobs and save the typical family $300 to $1200 in lower electricity bills.

The president also urged the Senate to act quickly to pass comprehensive, bipartisan clean-energy and climate legislation. He told the nation that the United States needs “a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”

Obama also urged the Senate to pass strong bipartisan energy and climate legislation to increase national security and bolster U.S. competitiveness overseas, saying, “Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China’s not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany’s not waiting. India’s not waiting. These nations aren’t standing still. These nations aren’t playing for second place.”

China, Germany, and other nations are, indeed, racing ahead of us to develop and produce the clean-energy technologies of the future. China is now a world leader in solar, wind, electric cars, and high-speed rail technologies. And China is the leading producer of solar photovoltaic cells even though the technology was invented and perfected in the United States. The U.S. market share of PV cell production dropped from 45 percent to under 10 percent between 1995 and 2005. But the investments sparked by ARRA, combined with legislation to reduce carbon pollution, will help the United States keep up this race.

America’s dependence on foreign oil hurts our economy, helps our enemies, and puts our security at risk. A recent CAP analysis found that one in five barrels of oil consumed in the United States come from nations that are “dangerous or unstable,” according to the U.S. State Department. It is essential that we invest in clean-energy technologies and reduce global warming pollution to lower American consumption of foreign oil. As conservative Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) recently noted, “The idea of not pricing carbon, in my view, means you’re not serious about energy independence. The odd thing is you’ll never have energy independence until you clean up the air, and you’ll never clean up the air until you price carbon.”

Clean-energy reform has united many Democrats and some Republicans, progressives and conservatives, blue states and red states. A poll released last week by Republican pollster Frank Luntz found that 43 percent of Republicans “definitely” or “probably” “believe climate change is caused at least in part by humans.” Another poll out last week by Joel Benenson, President Obama’s 2008 pollster, found that 58 percent of likely 2010 voters support comprehensive global warming legislation as well. Respondents also said they were much more likely to vote for senators who supported such legislation and more likely to oppose those that do not. These two polls and others are evidence that Americans across the political spectrum want clean-energy and global warming legislation.

New Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell delivered the Republican response to the State of the Union and urged adoption of Bush-Cheney-Palin energy policies. His energy plan would primarily rely on more offshore oil drilling and higher oil company profits, while opposing reductions in global warming pollution. Following big oil’s agenda by pursuing offshore oil drilling is no panacea for our oil dependence. The Department of Energy determined that even drilling for oil and gas in the newly opened Outer Continental Shelf and the expansion of shale gas production would still require liquid fuel imports of 45 percent in 2035. The most cost-effective solution is to reduce demand for oil by making cars and trucks much more fuel efficient, and to transition to cleaner nonoil fuels, including electricity, natural gas, and advanced clean bio fuels.

The State of the Union showcased President Obama’s leadership and the need for moderate senators of both parties to cooperate to adopt comprehensive clean-energy and global warming legislation that would create jobs, increase energy security, cut pollution, and increase economic competitiveness.

Note: This response was written by both Weiss and Susan Lyon, a special assistant for energy policy at CAP. This was originally posted on CAP's Web site.

I cannot begin to lay predictions on whether the President’s proposal will rally corporate America to get behind climate change legislation, but I can tell you that natural gas utilities and their customers stand ready to continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as they have for the past 35 years.

Wednesday night, the President clearly articulated the need for increased offshore oil and natural gas production, but he missed the opportunity to highlight the sustainable and immediately accessible resources of clean, abundant natural gas to be found throughout America that can be brought to market now. These resources will not only play a lead role in meeting the goals of a clean energy economy but are integrally tied to securing a measure of energy independence and creating millions of American jobs.

That is not to say, however, that natural gas is not the only solution - no one fuel, renewable or otherwise, holds the answer - but it is a major part of the solution to a clean energy economy and to our energy security . The truth of the matter is that we need to develop all of our resources and the technologies to bring them to market. This is precisely why we routinely advocate for research and development programs and increased fuel diversity. And, we will continue to advocate for these things amongst a host of other proposals, like total emission measurement, that we know will make a meaningful and lasting difference in our quest to meet the challenges ahead.

So while corporate America may or may not rally behind a climate change bill, we will rally around solutions that bring the sustainable resource of natural gas to all of America’s homes and business.

The following comments are from Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

The President’s remarks on energy were a muddle. On the one hand, he called for “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.” On the other hand, he called for a cap-and-trade bill. Cap-and-trade could boost demand for gas in the short run (at the expense of coal), but would immediately suppress demand for oil and eventually make natural gas uncompetitive too. This one-foot-on-the-brakes, one-foot-on-the-accelerator proposal is not centrist; it is incoherent.

President Obama says he supports “building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.” But few if any new nuclear power plants will be built until policymakers agree on a place to store the waste. Taxpayers have already spent billions of dollars on the proposed storage site at Yucca Mountain, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and President Obama are opposed. The President gave no hint that he’s changed his tune on Yucca or figured out an alternative, so his remark on nuclear power looks like a rhetorical sop to Republicans.

The President said “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.” Based on what evidence? Spain leads Europe in taxpayer-subsidized investments in wind and solar power, yet a study by Spanish economist Dr. Gabriel Calzada found that the subsidies destroy 2.2 jobs for every 1 job created. If subsidizing “clean energy” is such a potent economic stimulus, then why, asks Dr. David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation, is Spain’s unemployment rate (19.4%) almost double that of the United States (10%), France (10%), and Portugal (9.8%)?

President Obama says that U.S. leadership in “clean energy” depends on enacting a cap-and-trade bill “with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.” Did you get that? These technologies can’t compete unless the government rigs the marketplace against fossil fuels. Betting our economic future on such underperforming technologies is not smart.

Because many European countries and many U.S. states mandate the sale of electricity from “renewable” sources, there is a growing global marketplace for wind and solar technologies. But this does not mean that cap-and-trade would make U.S. “clean tech” firms more competitive.

On the contrary, one reason China is the world’s leading manufacturer of solar panels is that it does not put a price on carbon. This assures Chinese manufacturers’ access to low-cost electric generation fueled mainly by coal!

President Obama and his energy advisers would do well to ponder the conclusion that MIT’s Thomas Lee, Ben Ball, Jr., and Richard Tabors come to in Energy Aftermath, a retrospective on Carter-era energy policies:

The experience of the 1970s and 1980s taught us that if a technology is commercially viable, then government support is not needed and if a technology is not commercially viable, no amount of government support will make it so.

I was deeply heartened to hear President Obama make such an impassioned appeal to America’s lawmakers last night about the need to invest in a clean energy future. He clearly understands that in order to create the jobs necessary to bring us back from the brink of double-digit unemployment, a focus on developing homegrown renewable sources of energy is imperative. The solar industry, in particular, has the potential for generating tens of thousands of well-paying jobs right here at home for Americans who desperately need them. The technology is here. The resources are here. And yet progress on the clean energy front has been lackluster. As countries like China are blazing ahead in the renewables race, the U.S. is stalling. The President perhaps said it best when he remarked: “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.”

The United States still has not missed the opportunity to be that leader, but the window is closing fast. What’s needed are the incentives and long-term policies that will make a clean energy economy more than just a pipe dream, but an American dream.

We stand behind the President’s commitment to advance a comprehensive climate and energy bill in the Senate and are hopeful that legislation can be passed this year. Inaction is no longer acceptable; it’s time to get moving.

There is little doubt that the Obama Administration looked at the odds of success this year for health care reform and a cap-and-trade climate bill and reconfigured its legislative priorities. Our industry is cautiously optimistic over the President’s decision to not aggressively articulate a desire for mandatory carbon controls in his state of the union speech. He alluded to House-passed climate legislation, but focused primarily on incentives for new technology and achieving greater efficiencies through innovation, something our member businesses excel at daily. We applaud that approach because it positively engages domestic industry across the board rather than singling out one sector to the benefit of another. It also provides the United States with a real opportunity to lead the world both economically and environmentally by driving the development of technology that we can share with other nations as opposed to following the old command-and-control policy that has essentially failed in Europe and has delivered no meaningful environmental benefit.

Where the President can truly reach a strong and immediate consensus is in the area of expanding domestic energy production, as he stated last evening. The technology to safely explore for energy offshore is far ahead of where opponents to increased exploration suggest it is. We applaud the President for being open to increasing oil production within our own borders, but caution that other policy proposals for climate change, taxation, and improving air quality must not work against this objective. Increasing the tax burden on domestic energy producers, for example, would only result in limited to no reinvestment into exploration and production. A cap-and-trade climate law would only weaken domestic refiners, thus any additional crude oil produced here at home would need to be refined overseas and sold back to American consumers through the global fuel markets. Attempting to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act would take an already bad step further by directly impacting consumers in their daily routines by federally enforcing what vehicles we can drive, how we can mow our lawns, or how our homes can be constructed and powered.

We also applaud President Obama for focusing on job creation, but new jobs should not come at the expense of existing jobs. New “green jobs” should be viewed no differently as existing or new “red, white and blue jobs,” and environmental or financial policies should be crafted with the objective of job preservation – not substitution – in mind.

Our hope this year is that the Administration and Congress will engage with the domestic oil, gas, refining and petrochemical community to explore new means for preserving and creating jobs while harmonizing our national energy and environmental policies.

A few quick numbers on the impact of US climate policy, courtesy of the ever terrific MIT team: With no new nuclear or CCS available, by 2050 real electricity costs rise to 28 cents/kwh (from 9 today) and market consumption is 4.3% lower in 2050 than it would have been without policy. If, however, we exploit a nuclear cost advantage, these electricity cost and consumption effects are reduced by over 60% (17 cents and 2.7% respectively). The President opened the door to an emissions cap that will boost domestic energy and jobs, with a very modest price tag. And based on the actual costs of other pollution abatement relative to the (inflated) estimates up front - American ingenuity and innovation can probably do a whole lot better. We can also help de-risk the fat tail of severe climate damage for ourselves and poorer nations.