This battle is far from over this year. The American people know that wind works for America and they want Congress to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill now that includes a strong national Renewable Electricity Standard. Americans understand that a strong RES will mean new manufacturing jobs, less dependence on imported energy, and more pure, clean, affordable energy for our country. A recent national poll on this subject found that a majority of Americans -- 56% -- disapprove of the job Congress is doing on renewable energy and 67% believe Congress is not doing enough to increase renewable energy sources such as wind.

A substantial majority of Americans -- 82% -- believe the nation’s economy would be stronger (52%) or the same (30%) if we used more renewable energy sources like wind.

A substantial majority of Americans -- 77% -- support a national Renewable Electricity Standard. This support extends across party lines--65% of Republicans, 69% of Independents, 92% of Democrats.

We have to make sure that Congress gets this message and acts this year. The U.S. wind industry is in a very competitive situation. We are growing, but we’re competing against countries with binding renewable targets. If we are to keep up, we need to commit to long-term sustainable and predictable policies.

In the high altitude of decisions made by the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, no one can know for sure why immigration or any other legislative matter would be elevated over a climate bill. But we do know this: opposition to the reported waivers of the 40-year-old successful Clean Air Act in the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham proposal has been growing rapidly as people begin to understand that any Senate global warming action must have a science-based bottom line. The American people are tired of cutting deals for deal’s sake when the only beneficiaries are Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Nukes.

The clean energy and climate legislation so vital to our country has been temporarily delayed, but leaders in Congress and the White House are working to get this back on track. It's vital they succeed.

Nearly a year has passed since the House approved comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation to create jobs, cut our oil imports in half and reduce the carbon pollution that threatens us all.

Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman have spent six months working with their colleagues to put together a companion bill the Senate can pass. They have brought together business and labor leaders, national security experts, economists, diplomats, environmentalists and more. Together, they've forged a bipartisan consensus for change.

The President strongly supports this effort, as he reaffirmed last week when I heard him speak in the Rose Garden on Earth Day.

We have a historic opportunity here and we must find a path forward on this vital bill.

Now isn’t the time to get distracted by an energy-only bill. It simply wouldn’t get the job done. Some of the approaches being discussed could actually increase carbon pollution. Some would create only a fraction of the clean energy jobs that a comprehensive bill would, and would reduce U.S. oil imports by a small portion compared to what an energy and climate bill could achieve.

A comprehensive clean energy and climate bill is what America needs right now. I know a tough legislative battle lies ahead. But all parties are still engaged and the process is moving forward. The Senate leadership and the White House have made a strong commitment to action this year.

And after all that Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman have invested in creating this bipartisan legislation, a path to success remains.

Sen. Graham’s decision to step away from the climate negotiations is a set-back, certainly, but it needn’t be the death knell for comprehensive, clean energy legislation this year. Graham’s retreat does not negate the incredible progress toward consensus among business and environmental leaders that has been made through the tri-partisan effort of Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman, nor should it be allowed to adversely impact other important efforts to craft meaningful clean energy policy that are underway in the Senate.

It is my great hope that we will see the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman team together again before much time goes by. That would be facilitated by have the bill sent to the Environmental Protection Agency for modeling and analysis, which would start the clock on a six-week process that is required prior to Senate consideration of such a bill.

But importantly, KGL is not the only legislative option for moving comprehensive clean energy legislation forward.

Last year, Sens. Bingaman and Murkowski worked on a bipartisan basis in the Senate Energy Committee to report the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA). ACELA contains a renewable energy standard for utilities, building energy codes, appliance efficiency standards, incentives for industrial and residential efficiency retrofits and efficiency information disclosure programs. We at the Alliance strongly support this legislation, which allows us to use our cheapest, quickest and cleanest resource for meeting energy demand and tackling global warming – energy efficiency. And ACELA, if enacted, will have a big and positive impact, reducing energy consumption in the U.S. by nearly 4% by 2030 and reducing carbon emissions equivalent to taking nearly 40 million cars off the road.

Last month, Sen. Lugar (R-IN) announced his Practical Energy and Climate Plan with the goal of increasing energy independence and developing a diverse and efficient domestic fuel mix, without a carbon cap. The proposal focuses on strengthening vehicle efficiency standards, improving industrial energy efficiency, advancing building codes and mandating clean energy standards for utilities – all of which will reduce energy use, move us toward use of cleaner fuels and of course lower carbon emissions.

And the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act, introduced by Sens. Cantwell and Collins, represents yet another bipartisan effort to cap upstream emissions from carbon-based fuels, auction allowances and return auction proceeds to every American through a uniform dividend.

With so much work being done, and with multiple attempts to bridge the partisan gulf that has opened in the Senate, the Alliance remains optimistic that a bipartisan, comprehensive clean energy bill – one that uses energy efficiency as a fundamental tool for achieving its goals – can be forged this year. And we are working hard every day to make this prediction come true!

Buy is the ACES and KGL approach. Buy votes with expensive subsidies for certain constitutencies and technologies. And leave a cloud of ongoing policy uncertainty for business (since free lunches are hard to take away). Build is CLEAR. Build a policy that simply addresses the problem of co2 emissions (with coincident benefits like jobs and energy independance). And create certainty for business since easing policy would mean cutting voter's CLEAR dividends. KGL's fall was, in a sense, entirely predictable after the BUY approach to healthcare left a bad taste on all sides. Business leaders and environmental NGO's should use Graham's departure to convene serious CLEAR discussions. After all, the USCAP partnership they formed 3 years ago is failing. Why not try a new approach? And one with intrinsic appeal for conservatives who favor less taxes and minimal government intrusion in private markets.

With the Senate so close to the goal line on a new energy path for America, we can’t call a time out now. Every day our Senators fail to pass clean energy & climate legislation, we put our economy, our national security & our environment at greater risk. The Senate needs to stay focused and finish the job.

Conservation & clean energy supporters already completed the pass no one thought we could, when the House approved the American Clean Energy & Security Act. With a tripartisan coalition led by Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman & Lindsey Graham, our team in the Senate is just as strong.

As President Obama said in his State of the Union address in January, "The only reason we are [here] is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and grandchildren." Americans are demanding the millions of jobs, energy independence, and clean air & water that comprehensive legislation can deliver. Inaction is too costly, and the challenge is too urgent. Our leaders must seize this moment to act now.

The weekend’s news from Senator Graham is testament to the dysfunction of Washington these days. Here is a well-meaning conservative Senator who has weathered attacks from the right for his leadership on a critical issue that impacts not only energy and environment, but also economic recovery, jobs and national security. After surviving the pain of developing a tri-partisan proposal, why did he back off now? Did he get cold feet at the alter, or did the Democratic leadership let him down by flirting with another more alluring issue (immigration)?

For industry observers to the process, most shared Senator Graham’s disappointment at the potential scheduling shift from energy and climate to immigration – because we’ve known that our biggest battle was with the clock. We’ve waited (sort of) patiently in line for six months in the Senate, behind Health Care and Financial Regulation. But seeing Immigration cut in line ahead of us didn’t feel right. We all know that adding immigration and a likely Supreme Court nomination to an already crowded agenda means almost impossible odds for meaningful climate legislation. So what does it all mean – and what should the Senate champions of climate legislation do now?

Congress should not give up on climate and energy legislation. The issues haven’t gone away, and the problems are only getting worse. There may still be a window of opportunity in the Senate later this year, and Senators Kerry and Lieberman should pursue it – and urge Senator Graham to reconsider.

But the climate and energy issues are too important to settle for half a loaf. It would be better to wait for a comprehensive solution next Congress than to pass an energy-only package this year. The types of “energy only” policies sought by the energy industry will only unleash the massive clean energy investment that we need if the nation adopts a carbon reduction policy that sets the rules of the road for new energy infrastructure. An energy-only approach doesn’t resolve the uncertainty of how EPA regulations – as required under a 2007 Supreme Court decision—will impact investments. For example, in the power sector, companies need to know their greenhouse gas obligations before making major investments in a new fleet of power plants or major retrofits. The same is true for major investments in plants by energy-intensive industries. If Congress fails to legislate, then EPA is bound to act on greenhouse gases using its current tools – which are blunt and not fit-for-purpose. Should that occur, companies are going to face regulations with little flexibility, locking them into higher-cost solutions. Gradually, as companies are caught up in those regulations, it will be even more difficult for Congress to unwind in a fair way. When a new law is proposed in the future, a set of companies will be already locked into high-cost solutions – and it won’t be fair for their competitors to get the advantage of a new climate law that offers more flexibility.

However, if the Senate fails to act this year, it should pick up in January where it left off. The policy model, with an emissions trading program for big emitters as its centerpiece, is the right one. This Congress, this approach succeeded in winning a majority in the House of Representatives – and it passed the key Senate committee. Despite the fatigue from this year’s effort, the Senate should commit to undertake comprehensive climate and energy legislation as its first order of business next year.

The big political question is whether next Congress will be any better. Some analysts believe that a larger number of vulnerable democrats face re-election this year, making it a particularly difficult year politically. But next cycle, the President will face re-election as well. Comprehensive climate legislation is very difficult to complete in a single legislative year – given the time it takes to complete subcommittee, committee and floor action in both chambers, plus a House-Senate conference. So next year, the Senate leadership should push to act early in the year so that the opponents don’t “run out the clock” again – and force tough decisions in the “silly season” of a Presidential election year.

Before this weekend, a great amount of uncertainty already surrounded the climate legislation on which Sens. Kerry, Graham and Lieberman had been collaborating for months. In the wake of Graham’s decision to exit these negotiations, that uncertainty has exploded. The potential demise of KGL raises the standing of other proposals, such legislation being crafted by Sens. Lugar and Voinovich or the energy-only bill by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).

Putting aside for a moment the myriad of other measures certain to be included in each of these measures, voters should take notice of any emissions trading language. No matter how it’s masked -- by clever rhetoric or new names -- cap and trade provisions and the allowance purchase requirements they entail must be seen for what they are: a hidden tax on energy and a shackle on economic growth.

Instead of being honest about needing to put a price on emissions through, for instance, a linked carbon fee, Congress ran from this critical goal at the first mention of the term “tax.” Under the other option, cap and trade, legislators will undoubtedly attempt to buy off opposition with costly provisions for special interests. (The public already witnessed these kinds of political antics in the wheeling and dealing that accompanied the House Waxman-Markey bill.)

That means rather than offering a direct and transparent measure with proceeds returned to taxpayers, Congress and the special interests lobbying them are pushing for a complex system that will enrich traders and those with the resources to game the system while imposing unnecessary costs on American business and consumers.

As Americans also saw with the House legislation, cap and trade proposals often impose impossible emissions reduction mandate. However, no one -- not Sen. Kerry, not Rep. Waxman, not even the global scientific community -- yet knows how to reduce emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. This uncertainly is due, in large part, to all of the variables that will influence economic growth, its composition, and the energy mix and energy intensity far into our future.

What is absolutely certain is that any serious attempt to cut emissions to meet these extreme goals will further damage a weakened economy and raise the cost of energy significantly. Just the 17% goal would require removing 1 gigaton of carbon from our economic system -- the equivalent of doubling the miles per gallon of every car on the road, building over 100 nuclear power plants, or building over 300 clean coal plants. A little common sense (and a cursory review of the European Trading Scheme -- the very system serving as a model for similar US proposals) should make it clear that can’t be done.

As a consequence, all sorts of schemes to turn non-compliance into compliance will explode onto the market. A whole new world of offset markets will come into being with lawyers and accountants joining traders in making money with compliance gimmicks. That has certainly been the case with the ETS. All the while, capital will seek more investment friendly environments. Productive facilities that don’t absolutely need to be here won’t.

In the end, these bills will probably boast little additional offshore drilling and little new nuclear power generation. The worst parts of these proposals will get worse, and provisions that have some merit will either disappear or be weakened to the point of being worthless.

This type of legislation will only exacerbate public cynicism because, once again, voters will see how deceptive our politicians can be in constructing means to transfer wealth from average Americans to special interests.

We’ve come too far to give up on a clean energy future.

We can’t afford to let climate change proceed unchecked. We can’t allow China and India to beat us in the race for clean energy development. We need to tap into our country’s vast renewable energy potential and create new American jobs. And we must do more to curb our addiction to oil.

The House passed comprehensive climate and energy legislation nearly a year ago. And Sens. Kerry, Graham and Lieberman were on the cusp of introducing similar legislation that could make it through the Senate. We have never been so close to putting this country on track to dramatically cut heat-trapping emissions and reduce our oil dependence. Climate and energy legislation has survived dozens of premature eulogies. This is a murmur, not a heart attack. Senators need to overcome their political disagreements and do what’s right for our country.

The energy-only bill from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee isn’t enough to get the job done. For one, it would not spur renewable electricity development beyond what we already expect to achieve under current state and federal policy. The bill is simply not an alternative to comprehensive climate and energy legislation.

The American people -- and people around the world -- are anxiously waiting for the Senate to act. The latest science is pointing to ever more dire and costly consequences of climate change. The Senate is the last hurdle to clear. We need to make that jump this year.

Characters:

• The Three Mouseketeers:

1) Wily Conniver … he’s learned all the wrong lessons from all the right people (e.g., John McCain, Strom Thurmond, and Bill Clinton).

2) Legacy Man … this lead mouse lost the big race to a fat cat with half his intelligence. He wants his due.

3) Middle Arms Man … loves and is defined by his two favorite expressions: a) “if both sides disagree, I must be right”; and b) “peace through annihilation.”

• Laurel and Hardy: These 21st century environmental heroes differ mostly in approach. Fat Oliver Hardy believes the truth is so because he speaks (or farts) it. He will sit on you if you disagree. Stan Laurel sees the big picture very clearly but just doesn’t understand the terms of the debate.

• Butch from Little Rascals: He doesn’t like anybody but his thug pals (think Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck) and Darla (whether this is Sarah Palin or a ditzy blonde Fox news reporter is unclear). If anyone dare stray outside the norm, Butch is there to pound them.

The Story:

Everyone was working together to solve the world’s problems. Then Butch threatened to beat people up. Consequently, Laurel began to ask simple questions that no one had the answers to. Hardy tried to squelch Laurel but Legacy Man knew this was ethically wrong and attempted to intervene. Legacy Man was consequently sucker- punched by Middle Arms Man and the Yale boxing club. Darla, predictably, manipulated Legacy Man and Middle Arms Man to make up, which they did like the tiger handlers Siegfried and Roy. However, by this time, Hardy, Homer Simpson and Arnold Schwarzenegger were whipping Laurel around the ankles with hot wheel tracks. Adept at dancing, Laurel did manage a few good quips such as “You are as faithful as Tiger Woods” and “Lindsey Lohan has more substance than you” but soon ran out of gas and money. Butch was too distracted by Tiger’s mistresses and Lindsey’s girlfriends to keep attacking. Just when Legacy Man and his band of sincere but naïve followers seemed close to victory, Wily Conniver announced that he thought they were finding “W’s Lord”, not solving the “world’s” problems, and dropped out of the clique. Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan began a Broadway musical run entitled, “I Told You So.” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. A plague of invasive fire ants, starlings and white tailed deer proliferated from the chaos. The democratic masses stepped back, scratched their heads and pondered the next steps. Laurel bought a gas mask and invested heavily in non-coastal Canadian real estate with Amy Goodman.