Since the beginning of the 111^th Congress, America has waited for its elected representatives to show leadership on clean energy legislation – not only to confront energy supply and price challenges, but also to spur job creation during a time of severe economic hardship. But despite these urgent needs, Congress has failed to begin the transition to a clean energy economy. And in the meantime, the economy continues to stall, and many unemployed Americans are still seeking work.

So as summer turns to autumn, precious little time remains for Congress to tackle one of the most pressing issues facing Americans – and one that Americans want action on. A recent Pew Research/National Journal poll found that 69 percent of Americans believe that “reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources” is very important, in addition to 64 percent who said “creating jobs within the energy sector” is very important.

In other words, the American people understand the problem. They see it when they fill up their gas tanks and when they pay their electricity bills; and they are looking to their elected leaders to provide legislative solutions to address both high energy prices and the stagnant economy.

Americans also are increasingly aware that energy efficiency is our single most effective tool for creating new jobs and producing immediate energy savings for consumers.

And the jobs potential is real: A recently-released analysis by Environment Northeast in Massachusetts assessing the impact of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ((RGGI) in Massachusetts found that the commonwealth’s investment in energy efficiency will save its consumers $321 million and create 2,418 job-years (fulltime jobs for one year), based on a $55.7 million investment in energy efficiency.

While enactment of comprehensive energy and climate legislation will not happen this year, Congress can certainly take smaller but very significant steps in the direction of clean energy and job creation by enacting the following:

1.) Stronger building energy codes;

2.) A Renewable Energy Standard that includes energy efficiency as an eligible resource;

3.) Consensus appliance standards;

4.) Home energy retrofits to make America’s homes more energy efficient; &

5.) Incentives for energy efficiency financing programs &

6.) Tax incentives such as the energy efficiency new homes tax credit.

Given the current political climate and the short time remaining on this year’s legislative calendar, we call on Congress to act on these smaller-scale, but effective, energy efficiency measures that enjoy bipartisan support.

We urge Congress to muster the political will to put aside partisan politics and pass legislation that would create new jobs while reducing U.S. energy use and costs.

With congressional action, we have a chance to create an America that fully deploys energy efficiency and does not rely as heavily on foreign energy sources while also providing an improved quality of life for our children and grandchildren.

The American people are ready to reduce their energy consumption – but they need their leaders to deliver the energy efficiency policies that allow them to do so. Hence the urgency for Congress to enact effective energy measures before the 111^th Congress closes at the end of 2010.

This is a guest post by Teryn Norris, director and founder of Americans for Energy Leadership and senior advisor at the Breakthrough Institute.

Tuesday's White House energy summit drove yet one more nail into the economy-wide cap and trade coffin, with Senator Kerry declaring “we’re prepared to compromise further.” The compromise gaining momentum is a scaled-back, utility-only approach. But if President Obama and Senate leaders want to deliver a real victory on energy and climate policy reform, they should move quickly to advance a third way approach based on major federal investment in clean energy technology.

As Mark Muro of Brookings Institution wrote here, “the latest efforts to gain political consensus in the Senate are continuing to neglect a crucial aspect of cleaning up the country's energy system—technology innovation.” It was President Obama himself who highlighted an innovation-based approach in his Oval Office speech, noting that “Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development – and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.”

Regardless of an economic-wide or utility-only cap, robust federal investment in clean energy technology is a national imperative. In addition to tackling our fossil fuel addiction, it can rapidly drive down the price of low-carbon energy technologies, build new export-oriented and manufacturing-intensive industries, and accelerate the transition to energy independence. The federal government currently invests $30 billion per year in health R&D and $80 billion per year in military R&D. Energy currently receives $3 to $5 billion – less than our national expenditure on potato chips.

A new target of at least $15-20 billion in annual federal energy RD&D investment represents the national “energy innovation consensus” supported by a large and growing number of prominent U.S. business leaders, think tanks, university associations, and dozens of Nobel Laureates. The American Energy Innovation Council is the latest group to support this approach. Led by business titans Bill Gates and Jeff Immelt, and backed by the Bipartisan Policy Center, the organization is calling for $16 billion annually in federal investment. Unfortunately, current proposals like the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act would only provide $2-4 billion per year, as we documented in “The Power to Compete.”

This third-way approach can be a political winner for Congressional Democrats, Republicans, and the White House alike. Even before the Gulf oil spill, a poll by Pew Research in March found that 78% of the public favors increased government funding for research into clean energy technologies. When compared to alternatives such as carbon pricing, technology investment fairs as the most popular energy policy proposal. For Democratic leaders, this strategy would allow them to meet general public demand for reform while still satisfying their environmental base with a major achievement on clean energy. It would allow Republicans to offer a serious, pro-business alternative to cap and trade and “drill baby drill” that would boost the economy. And it would allow the White House to declare victory on President Obama’s original campaign promise to invest $15 billion per year in this sector.

Of course, Republicans tend to shy away from any proposal to increase government spending, but clean energy is a strategic national resource with too much associated risk to be borne by the private sector alone. Republicans should also remember the strong conservative precedent for these types of public investment. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan oversaw enormous investments in scientific R&D and military technology, respectively, to maintain U.S. competitiveness. More recently, it was Newt Gingrich who in 2008 called for the National Science Foundation's budget to triple from $6 to 18 billion to specifically help foster green technologies. And after Tuesday’s bipartisan meeting, it was Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) who noted, “Republicans would work with the White House on legislation to boost electric vehicles, nuclear power, and boosting energy research and development.”

The moment is urgent. As this week’s Time Magazine cover story notes, “Clean power could be to the 21st century what aeronautics and the computer were to the 20th, but the U.S. is already falling behind.” After decades of energy stalemate, in the midst of yet another oil crisis, it is time to seize the opportunity and secure America’s energy leadership once and for all. Federal investment in energy RD&D is a strategy for U.S. climate security, energy independence, and economic competitiveness, and it can deliver the bipartisan victory our country needs today.

President Obama’s direct involvement in passing climate and energy legislation is crucial both for the future of the world and his presidency.

With growing concern from elements in his core supporter base that he’s injected far too little energy into the climate debate, the President has to take a lead on what is surely the issue of the century.

I witnessed his uncharacteristically lackluster performance at the UNFCCC Summit in Copenhagen, which some say helped to “bury the deal.”

His articulate and enthusiastic references during his election campaign about the need to combat climate change raised expectations among the environmental movement that the next resident of the White House was going to make things happen on this crucial issue.

But when it came to the crunch, it appeared that Obama was content to have Congressmen Waxman and Markey and Senators Kerry and Lieberman battle the climate, while he used the weight of his office to push through his healthcare reforms. It appeared as though he subjugated climate in favor of health, believing that he could only fight one battle at a time.

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon blowout, the Obama administration must now be kicking itself for not being seen to embrace the energy issue with the same gusto as health insurance. Had the President shown similar enthusiasm for energy reforms, he would surely have attracted less criticism for his handling of the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.

Instead of taking the lead, the Commander in Chief looked powerless in the face of torrents of crude oil gushing into the Gulf. And for a man who’s thought through the climate change debate more than many other politicians, it was disappointing and surprising to hear such lack of specificity when he finally mentioned the need for clean energy measures in his first Oval Office address.

Barack Obama knows how to push through legislation better than most. Healthcare didn’t go entirely his way, but his relentless campaign to win support on Capitol Hill impressed some of the most jaded commentators.

Now it’s time for Obama to bring his magic to the energy debate. The oil tarnished shorelines of Alabama, Louisiana and Florida are the loudest of wake-up calls signaling that it’s high time for U.S. federal legislation to help accelerate advances in clean energy technology.

Now is the moment for the beacon of bipartisanship to roll up his sleeves and get talking passionately and persuasively to legislators of all political colors about encouraging clean alternatives to oil.

Measures are urgently required for the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter to seriously begin the process of weaning itself off of oil.

Corporate America has taken some major strides to reduce its climate-damaging emissions. Business surely needs and deserves a legislative framework to support its journey towards a green energy future.

The President should be consulting widely with all of the key climate change stakeholders, including innovative companies and environmental NGOs to seek their ideas. He should publicly commit to devoting a significant amount of remaining time during his first term is finding legally binding solutions to curb climate change.

The Deepwater Horizon accident may have unleashed the most heinous man-made environmental impacts, but this is nothing compared to the future manifestations of global warming if we don’t take remedial steps now.

If President Obama is so keen to have Wall Street pay for its misdemeanors, and now for BP to provide unbridled compensation for its wrongdoings, isn’t it time he called for a renewable energy R&D tax to be imposed on the fossil fuel industry?

As we approach the Independence Day of our country, isn't it finally time to break our dependence on fossil fuels?

I don't mean that we can accomplish that tomorrow, but shouldn't we begin? As former President George W. Bush said recently at AWEA's annual conference, our nation is addicted to oil. We are reminded daily of the heavy price of that addiction, from the tragedy of oil washing up on our shores to our long-term military deployment to ensure access to the strategic oil supplies of the Middle East.

As someone who has spent her career working for as well as regulating the oil and gas industry, I do not suggest this lightly. I believe this industry will continue to innovate and prosper and serve America well even as the resources decline. We will continue to "drill, baby, drill" for the foreseeable future. But there are big risks involved here for America, in fact a lot to lose, if we do not act now to diversify and break our primary dependence on fossil fuels.

The wind industry, a brand new manufacturing sector being built in America, is at a crossroads, with hundreds of thousands of existing and potential American manufacturing jobs in the balance and with businesses and investors watching. They are watching to see if the U.S. will finally decide to act, as over 30 countries and the majority of American states have acted, by enacting legislation to move to more renewable energy and efficient energy use.

The first quarter of this year saw more fossil fuel generation installed nationwide than new wind generating capacity. More new coal-fired generating capacity installed than wind, more petroleum generation than wind, and more natural gas electric generation than wind. This is a reversal of a trend over the last several years.

All options must be on the table in order to craft legislation that can attract 60 votes in the Senate. However, provisions to advance renewable energy and efficiency policies have historically enjoyed bipartisan support and can drive successful passage of energy legislation by Congress this summer. Efficiency and renewable energy are critical to building a vibrant economy and creating jobs, as well as avoiding carbon emissions and strengthening our energy security.

AWEA has joined with a coalition of other renewable energy and energy efficiency groups (see http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/06-16-10_New_Energy_Coalition.html ) to recommend at least four fundamental provisions that will be critical to any successful package:

* Robust and predictable tax and other financial incentives for projects and manufacturing, including extension of the Treasury Grant Program.

* Energy efficiency codes and standards, including an energy efficiency resource standard (EERS).

* A strong Renewable Electricity Standard (RES).

* Renewable energy infrastructure provisions.

Let's leave America more independent and free than we found it. Let's actually act to declare our independence this Independence Day.

So now it looks like Senate proponents of an economy-wide cap-and-trade climate bill are preparing to settle for a narrower emissions cap in the electric power sector.

Yet another concession to lawmakers' skittishness about pricing carbon, the scaled-back approach will not please the absolutist but it does have the virtue of realism. It always seemed a bit of a fantasy that a comprehensive carbon pricing scheme could reach 60 votes in the Senate this year. And for that matter it's possible the narrower approach really could amount to a first step toward a broader system for reducing emissions, as Eileen Claussen and Jim Rogers, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Duke Energy respectively, wrote in an op-ed in Politico last week. Incrementalism isn't always timidity.

And yet, for all that, there is every reason to worry that the latest efforts to gain political consensus in the Senate are continuing to neglect a crucial aspect of cleaning up the country's energy system—technology innovation.

As we and many others have been saying for years, the nation badly needs to sign up for a new push for energy system innovation that seeks countless efficiencies but also triples to quintuples today's anemic baseline level of federal energy innovation R&D. (For some great discussion of this need see recent posts by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, a group of 34 Nobel Laureates, NYT Dot Earth blogger Andy Revkin, and Teryn Norris of Americans for Energy Leadership).

The trouble with the new utility-only approach to emissions reductions, however, is that none of its proponents are saying anything that makes it seem likely that an adequate slice of the potential revenue the narrower system might generate will be reserved for technology innovation.

In fact, it's pretty obvious that with few emissions allotments to auction off much less revenue would be generated through a utility-only program than under an economy-wide pricing system.

That's a problem because not only do we need to get a lot more money into the innovation system as soon as possible (so new technologies can roll out in time to help reduce climate change in this century) but because a smaller revenue pie will only intensify the inevitable interest group scuffle over the money to the detriment of the R&D claim.

And so the possibility of a scaled-back climate and energy bill—while a disappointing reminder of how hard transforming the U.S. Energy system is going to be—really doesn't change the fundamentals of the present juncture. Bill by bill, the energy innovation remains an afterthought, the potential yield for R&D remains paltry, and the temporary burst of investment applied through the stimulus package continues to look like a one-shot wonder without follow-through. In that sense, what bears watching is not just the breadth of whatever carbon initiatives emerge in the coming weeks but their seriousness about financing a new push for energy innovation.

But don't take it from me. Listen to Daniel Kammen, an energy and policy expert at the University of California at Berkeley whose remarks in another great post at Dot Earth I will defer to as a closing. Writes Kammen--

“...the 800-pound gorilla in the room is not being addressed: what plans or political will or results exist to justify and maintain ...funding levels post-ARRA stimulus?”

The key issue is to develop a sane and calm path from where we are now—with a large amount of short-term funding—to a strategy for long-term investment in energy science and technology that has a clear management plan to bring these to the market. Right now many federal agencies are awash in funds, but as the ramp-down happens, infighting and battles over which program is better on merits, or better-connected politically, will emerge.

To avoid this we need clear energy and climate legislation (which could be combined or could be separate) and a national strategy. That would send important priority and marching orders across agencies, and allow an orderly evolution, not a destructive scramble.”

Reports of last week’s Democratic caucus exude more characteristics of political theater than serious legislative planning. Just consider its descriptions as “inspirational,” “thrilling,” and “the best caucus I’ve ever attended” -- terms that do not normally come to mind when thinking about a Capitol Hill caucus on energy issues. There may not have been a script, but the rhetoric was so closely aligned that it felt incredibly artificial.

The next few weeks should be telling. Senators Rockefeller, Lincoln, and Nelson have shown no signs of feeling the “thrill” of the caucus. To paraphrase Wild World of Sports, a number of Democrat Senators may be sensing the agony of defeat rather than the thrill of victory from any climate legislation that they are pressured to support.

The president, whose poll numbers continue to sink, has to decide how hard he is willing to push his already embattled caucus ahead of what looks to be a very challenging election year.

Recall the blowback from House passage of Waxman/Markey shortly before the August recess in 2009 (one year ago on the dot) and the difficult period it began for moderate Democrats who voted for it. It is hard to imagine that the President will ask embattled colleagues to walk the plank on controversial climate legislation after the bruising and controversial legislation on health care, financial reform, and what will be a tough confirmation process for Elena Kagan. Add to that the increasing anger at the Administration’s slow response to the Gulf oil spill and the turmoil of last week’s sacking of General McChrystal. Perhaps the best thing the President and Senate leadership can do is begin the spin for an easy letdown.

Talk of combining Kerry-Lieberman cap and trade with oil spill reform legislation to put Republicans in a bind shows that climate legislation is not only controversial but that it cannot stand on its own merits. The American people deserve better. And it’s doubtful that they would respond well to such a legislative gimmick.

While talk of a double dip recession seems to be subsiding right now, cap and trade legislation combined with what looks like big tax increases next year could make double dip a reality in the months to come. The President and Congress need to focus on job creation, capital investment, and consumer confidence -- not energy or climate legislation that fly in the face of economic, energy, and technology realities.

The late senator, Everett Dirksen, once observed that when he felt the heat, he saw the light. Senators have been feeling a lot of heat over the past year, let’s just hope that they have seen the light.