The private sector will mostly have to lead in the development of the US competitive edge in new energy technologies and in the research, development and diffusion of new technologies. The self-imposed political gridlock of Washington will likely not produce much legislation with the significance needed to push toward a greener and more sustainable future given that the political leadership cannot decide what that means or even whether it is important. The states have a much better chance of being change agents than the federal government. We can already see the changes happening in California, Washington (the state), Oregon, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and many others. Local and municipal governments are taking on some leadership roles. Look at what San Francisco and Boston are doing on this. I may not agree with some of what they are doing, but at least they are thinking and acting on the issues.

Having recently been to the EU and Switzerland I can quiet confidently say that these countries, and many of their cities and communities (or communes in Switzerland), are way ahead of the US. Some of you may remember my comments about Norway, France and Belgium from a previous intervention. Switzerland is even ahead of them.

Switzerland produces all of its electricity from nuclear and hydro. I saw a decommissioned oil power plant near a refinery on the east of Lake Leman that is not being allowed to start to be a gas plant until the carbon issues and other environmental issues are dealt with. There are entire towns that are electric cars only or no cars. The mass transport system of the country is brilliant. It is run on time like clockwork, and just about everyone uses it for long and short trips. It is mostly electrical and from those nuclear and hydro plants. Switzerland is a beautiful country that is well run. Per passenger mile and per ton mile energy costs and carbon output are surely very low by industrial state standards.

It is also a country that focuses on the sustainability of its energy and environmental systems. Interestingly, this is a country that changes its presidents and each year to have each section of the country more equally represented. Most of the major decisions in the country are made by referendum. Note: this has not particularly well in California, but has worked very well in Switzerland. One could wonder why.

An oil expert I met in Geneva told me the following: "These are the smartest people on earth when it comes to running a country." He may just have something there. As I said about Norway and others: we can learn from them. Switzerland is also one of the major hubs of oil trade and trade in other energy and energy-related commodities. If one were to think of a model for energy economics one may stop looking at the deserts and start looking at the mountains and the lake shores of this very clever country.

Can we replicate this? We are also a country of inventors, engineers, entrepreneurs, and future thinkers. We are a multicultural place. And I really think it is differences, not sameness that gives birth to creativity in a place if those differences are not just tolerated, but celebrated.

Could we build a public transport system that could displace the gas guzzlers and pollution projectors in our cities – and reduce our commute times and make like more comfortable and of a higher quality? Of course we can. Think about this the next time you are stuck in your car on the "highway" and you could be taking a walk or zipping along in a clean train reading a good book. Smart railways, tramways, and other public transport could make a huge leap for the US toward a better energy and environment future. And we can do this.

We can and will likely have a burst of entrepreneurial energy in wind, solar, tidal, updraft tower and other greener energy technologies. Nuclear may also find resurgence and it should.

I have also spent considerable time in Egypt lately. They are getting rid of their energy subsidies slowly and carefully, but mostly likely surely. They are also focusing on wind power in various parts of the country. I had many discussions with leadership and others about green energy and alternative energy futures. This is a country of 80 million people who are mostly poor that is progressively running out of oil, has significant gas reserves it would rather not fry too soon, and a potential quite delicate environmental and political future in many ways. This is a country that is in the beginning stages of developing a new energy future, but many people are energized by the discussion. There is even some discussion about nuclear energy, but that issue could fill up another intervention.

We don't need the government to move us to the new energy future. Some subsidies and negative tariffs, etc. could help at the earlier stages, but sooner rather than later the new technologies will become economically viable on their own, first at small amounts, but over the decades greater amounts of our total energy needs. It will take a lot of time, a lot of hard work, and, as usual, a lot of dumb luck to transition into the new energy future.

The #1 rule for the government should be: do no harm. And that should mean mostly: do not distort markets too much and pick the wrong "winners". It should also mean: do not push the time envelope too much because we need time economically, technologically, culturally and socially to adjust to the needed transitions.

We have the multiple looming threats of peak oil, climate change, and economic and financial damage. We should not look at these threats and opportunities as linear or as even mostly predictable. We should also not make decisions based on "feelings" and such. These are very big issues. They have potentially massive costs—and benefits. We are facing an unusually uncertain future on many issues.

The time to rely on the pros, the engineers, the venture capitalists and the future thinkers, such as Amory Lovins and his people at RMI, is now. Short-sighted politicians looking at the next election cycle should be the last people we should rely on to make the important decisions. If there are any long-term, creative and strategic political leaders out there on these issues they should step up and be heard. We need you more than ever before.

America has a history of leadership in the technological revolutions that change the world. We won the race to put a man on the moon, and we led the world in creating the Internet. Yet in the clean energy race, our global competitors are winning. And that means we could lose the chance to create millions of American jobs in new clean energy industries.

While the Senate has delayed action on climate and clean energy legislation, the rest of the world is moving on aggressively. China just announced it plans to set up a domestic carbon trading program. And it is backing up these efforts with serious investments in clean, renewable energy. Last year, China invested nearly twice as much as the United States in clean energy technologies, and has now installed nearly as much renewable energy capacity as the United States has.

It's wrong that the open checkbooks of fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists obstructed progress on legislation, while poll after poll shows a majority of Americans do want to act. The global race to invest in clean energy is on — and the climate crisis is not going away. And the United States is falling further and further behind.

Our path forward is clear. We must take every opportunity to adopt policies that reduce harmful carbon pollution and encourage investment in clean energy. We need to support a strong renewable electricity standard — such as a mandate for 25% renewable electricity by 2025, which could create jobs for American manufacturers. We need to support goals to reduce America's oil use, backed up with stronger fuel economy standards and an improved transportation infrastructure.

Federal policy is also needed on other programs. We must back efforts to improve energy efficiency, such as the Home Star, Building Star and Rural Star programs, to provide rebates to consumers — which would create jobs and save money at the same time. We should extend tax credit provisions that promote energy efficiency and renewable energy. And we should prioritize research and development in renewable energy technologies. The American Energy Innovation Council, which includes members Bill Gates and John Doerr, is focused specifically on reasserting America’s energy technology leadership through robust, public investments in the development of world-changing energy technologies, and is an example of the kind of attention and commitment needed to further long-term clean energy innovation.

While all of these policies and efforts would be helpful, we cannot lose sight of our larger goal: A limit on carbon pollution that would encourage the private sector to transition to clean energy. And our leaders should oppose attempts to weaken the laws we already have that protect the air we breathe and the water we drink.

The clean energy revolution will shape the global economy in the 21st century. And we should seize the opportunity to lead it.

Success in any race means going in the right direction.

In the clean energy race, that direction must provide reliable energy to sustain economic growth in addition to reducing carbon emissions. That means we need not only wind, solar and biomass, but also nuclear energy and fossil fuels -- especially the cleanest fossil fuel of all, natural gas.

Renewable energies are essential, but serve the country best when they are paired with natural gas. Natural gas works in tandem with wind and solar, ramping up quickly and dependably to match swings in customer demand when there’s little wind or sun. Not only is natural gas a steady partner for intermittent renewable energies, it is particularly good at providing critical 21^st century ancillary electricity services that regulate voltage and frequency so that computers and electronic equipment keep humming smoothly along.

While policymakers deliberate options and climate proposals, the market is already moving us along the path of clean energy through technology and efficiency gains. For example, natural gas companies are leaders in the development and use of carbon capture and storage (CCS): four out the five existing commercial-scale CCS facilities in the world are natural gas CCS projects. In the field, natural gas producers have voluntarily reduced their methane emissions for each of the last 15 years through the Natural Gas STAR Program, even though natural gas production has increased. And individual households use 40 percent less natural gas today than they did 40 years ago.

When it comes to natural gas, we are on the right course in the clean energy race.

This comment was submitted by Teryn Norris, president, of Americans for Energy Leadership, and Daniel Goldfarb, program director of the organization.

U.S. economic leadership is at a crossroads. Recent outlooks suggest we may experience long-term stagnation and unemployment comparable to Japan’s lost decade. Yet while we have suffered an economic crisis produced by our own financial sector – losing millions of jobs, trillions in economic output, and further damaging our industrial base – China has largely shrugged off the global recession with high levels of growth and self-financed stimulus, all while purchasing billions of Treasury bills to finance our own deficit.

Meanwhile, as Breakthrough Institute and ITIF documented in “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant,” China and other nations are establishing dominance in one of the largest growth industries of the century. According to World Economic Forum, the global clean energy market will reach $450 billion annually by 2012 and $600 billion by 2020. Full market potential for clean energy products is much larger, with one analysis estimating Chinese market potential alone at $500 billion to $1 trillion. No wonder President Obama declared in the State of the Union, “The nation that leads the clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.”

The United States must quickly pursue a new growth agenda, and clean energy technology offers one of our greatest opportunities. For over a decade, the primary goal of U.S. climate and clean energy advocates has been to establish a strong carbon pollution cap. This agenda is dead for the foreseeable future, and precious time has been wasted. The United States must quickly pivot from pollution regulation to an aggressive clean energy competitiveness and innovation agenda, and we can begin with new leadership in the next Congress.

Securing our competitiveness in this sector requires a comprehensive industrial development strategy (see our report, “The Power to Compete”), including robust and targeted federal support for clean energy research and innovation, manufacturing, and domestic market demand, as well as infrastructure, education, and industry cluster formation. This is necessary for a range of technologies, including but not limited to onshore and offshore wind, solar PV and thermal, advanced geothermal, hybrid and electric vehicles and batteries, carbon capture and storage, nuclear, smart-grid, and high-speed rail.

Fortunately, this approach includes several incremental, actionable components that can garner greater support than comprehensive and controversial cap and trade. The first is research, development, and demonstration (RD&D), which is necessary to invent new clean energy technologies, components, and manufacturing processes; improve the cost and performance of existing technologies and processes; and demonstrate proof of concept for advanced and higher-risk systems. The next Congress can start by increasing federal clean energy RD&D to at least $15-20 billion per year and making the R&D tax credit permanent. This target represents a growing bipartisan consensus and contrasts with the $30 billion federal budget for health research and $80 billion for military R&D, and only $3-5 billion for energy R&D today.

These strategic federal investments, and those identified below, can be financed through a variety of modest revenue streams, such as offshore drilling royalties, an oil import fee, reduced fossil fuel subsidies, or a small fee on fossil fuel electricity. For example, an “energy security fee” of $3.50 per barrel of imported oil would raise approximately $15 billion annually; reduced fossil fuel subsidies as proposed by the administration could generate upwards of $35 billion over ten years; a utilities electricity fee could raise at least $2 billion annually, as included in the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act; and royalties on new offshore continental shelf drilling could raise more than $100 billion over twenty years.

The second piece is clean energy manufacturing, which can be a powerful engine for middle-class jobs and wealth creation and is essential for scaling our industry, establishing long-lasting supply chains and clusters, and reducing our trade deficit. The federal government can accomplish this through low-cost financing, tax incentives, technical assistance, and direct investment. Congress can start by extending the 48C advanced manufacturing tax credit, creating a revolving manufacturing loan fund similar to the Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology (IMPACT) Act, and leveraging the Department of Commerce’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

Third, strong domestic demand will attract leading companies to locate manufacturing, supply chain, and R&D operations at home; accelerate learning-by-doing to achieve improvements in price and performance, as well as manufacturing processes; and incentivize U.S. firms to invest in clean energy technology development and deployment. Even without a carbon price, we can stimulate demand for advanced technologies with direct government procurement, especially through the Department of Defense, and through a clean energy deployment administration, renewable portfolio standard, and targeted feed-in tariffs. Unlike a carbon price, these policies can be designed to favor less-mature technologies and achieve rapid learning curves and economies of scale.

Beyond these three core components, at least three other supportive mechanisms are necessary: enabling infrastructure, education and workforce development, and industry cluster formation. For infrastructure, developing a smart electricity grid is necessary to integrate and manage renewable power; electrical vehicle infrastructure, such as charging stations, is necessary to electrify transportation; and rapid mass transit like high-speed railways is necessary to improve transportation efficiency and reduce reliance on personal vehicles.

Education and workforce development is necessary to replace the currently declining energy workforce, which could experience up to 50 percent retirement rates in the next five or ten years, and to accelerate clean energy research and construction. The next Congress can act by fully appropriating the Department of Energy’s applied science and engineering education proposal, and build upon this with a National Energy Education Act. Finally, explicit policies to develop regional industry clusters is necessary to accelerate clean energy innovation, from basic research to technology commercialization, and to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers and suppliers.

The United States has a successful track record of catching up in strategic industries. Decades ago, after trailing Europe in aviation and aerospace, we raced ahead through sustained federal support for aviation technology development. After Sputnik was launched, we invested heavily in education, science, and technology, leading us to win the space race. When Japan took the lead in the semiconductor industry, we formed SEMATECH to reposition ourselves as the global market leader. We can and must do the same today in clean energy, and in the aftermath of cap and trade, there’s not a moment to waste.

The clean energy race has important national security, economic and environmental implications for the U.S. A few months ago I was in China and had the opportunity to learn firsthand the investments the country is making to put millions of electric vehicles on the road and gain a competitive advantage in the manufacturing of advanced batteries and electric cars. Interesting to note that China will offer subsidies of $8,800 for all-electric vehicles and $7,300 for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as part of its goal to get 500,000 of these vehicles on the road by the end of 2011.

The House and Senate both have pending energy proposals that will move more plug-in electric drive vehicles onto U.S. roads, boost domestic manufacturing of advanced batteries and vehicles. The House Ways and Means Committee energy jobs bill includes incentives for investment and consumer purchases of medium and heavy duty electric drive and recharging infrastructure. The Senate bill, S. 3663, which likely will remain on the Senate agenda into the fall, includes funds and plans for speeding national and regional deployment of plug-in electric drive vehicles. Every market advance of electric drive will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is a threat to our economy and our environment.

The Administration doesn't have to wait for Congress to build on their investments, however. We recently joined with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, and the Edison Electric Institute to call for the Administration to create an electric drive vehicle task force to provide a forum for public and private sector coordination, address challenges for large scale deployment of plug-in electric vehicles and develop consumer awareness and education efforts to accelerate the adoption of these vehicles in the U.S. Led by the Department of Energy, the task force would include federal and state regulators, standards organizations, utilities, environmental groups, consumer groups and electric drive industry stakeholders.

Why this much focus on electric drive vehicles? Put simply, we cannot afford to import nearly 60 percent of our oil annually. Our third largest supplier is Venezuela—a country whose leader routinely threatens to cut off oil supplies to the U.S. The U.S. consumes 25 percent of the world’s annual oil production yet has just 3 percent of the known reserves according to the U.S. Department of Energy. As we know from the Gulf oil disaster, increasing domestic oil drilling is expensive and presents significant environmental risks.

We spend more than $1 billion a day on imported oil. If we fueled more of our vehicles with electricity, we would spend more of our energy dollars domestically. In addition, the U.S. has the opportunity to lead in the development and production of batteries and electric vehicles and infrastructure. The manufacturing of advanced batteries, electric drive cars and charging stations is creating jobs across the U.S., from Michigan to Delaware to Indiana to Tennessee to California. The first mass market cars—the Nissan Leaf, an all-electric vehicle, and the GM Volt, a extended range electric vehicle will be available by the end of this year. By 2012, consumers will be able to chose from 15 different vehicles. These energy-saving, clean vehicles will be made from established manufacturers including Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, and U.S. start-ups such as Tesla, Coda and Fisker.

The widespread adoption of electric drive vehicles will reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector. Plug-in electric drive vehicles, even fueled by the existing grid, emit one-third less greenhouse gas emissions than conventional vehicles on average. And as the grid relies more on renewable and clean energy, the environmental benefits of electric vehicles become even greater. This is a race we can’t afford to lose.

The US is at serious risk of failing to create a clean energy future. Such a failure would undermine our nation's future in a way that few defeats -- even on the battlefield -- can do. As long as we are dependent and addicted to coal and oil, as long as American families and businesses have no other way to get to work, run their factories, power up their laptops and light their homes, this country will face a future of steadily escalating, security destroying weakness:

-- jobs exported by the million

-- foreign policy controlled by our oil suppliers

-- escalating climate disruption

-- steadily increasing energy bills

-- accelerating environmental and public health degradation

It's very bad news that we won't have comprehensive energy and climate legislation by January. It's worse news why: because oil and coal have been able to leverage their old alliances with manufacturers, utilities, aregulators and ideological reactionaries to block not only cap and trade legislation, but any meaningful step forward towards clean energy. -- in Congress or elsewhere. The federal banking authorities ganged up with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to shut down the right of cities and states to help their citizens fund energy efficiency and reenwables off their property tax bills. The Tennessee Valley Authority's wildly popular Generation Partners program which helped homeowners install clean energy technology has run out of funding.

The next year or two are not going to be a rehash of the last two. The big question on the table is not going to be whether or not we find a mechanism to make carbon polluters pay their bills -- that's clearly going to wait. But we can still make remarkable progress, we can for a number of years make enough progress, without a price on carbon -- as long as we solve the financing bottleneck that is choking clean energy. Coal and oil are established, incumbent industries. They have captive customers, subsidized operations, and access as a result to the cheapest possible capitol. Wind, solar, geothermal and high energy performance technologies like zero emission homes and electric cars are start-ups. Their capital needs are greater, and their access to capital smaller.

We can keep up in clean energy, but now that we can see that a price on carbon is a few years away, clean energy finance has to become our first and primary focus. And coal and oil will be standing in the way, trying once again to strangle the future.

Yes, the U.S. can keep up, and even become the world’s leader. The real question is, will we seize the opportunity?

The U.S. wind industry is at a turning point. Either we will expand upon the rapid gains made in recent years or give up those gains to foreign competitors. Whether we adopt the right national energy policy – namely, a strong Renewable Electricity Standard – will determine which path we follow.

We have a once-in-a-generation chance to attract manufacturing facilities at a time when the global wind industry is building out its supply chain and making decisions on where factories will be located. American workers are uniquely qualified to lead the world in wind manufacturing, given our historic experience in related manufacturing industries.

A recent report sponsored by AWEA, the United Steelworkers and the Blue Green Alliance seized on the RES as a key tool in the effort to create manufacturing jobs. Furthermore, in a recent letter sent to Congress, a group of manufacturing companies wrote, “The U.S. cannot expect manufacturers to continuously commit to new manufacturing facilities and take the risk of investing billions of dollars when the U.S. itself is not willing to commit to renewable energy.”

The need for an RES is underlined by recent news in the industry.

- In the first half of 2010, the U.S. wind industry installed 700 megawatts (MW) of new capacity, down 71% from last year and even 57% below 2008 (http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/07-27-10_AWEA_Market_Report.html). In addition, new orders going forward beyond 2010 have almost dried up.

- In the second quarter of 2010, China attracted more clean energy financing than Europe and the U.S. combined, according to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). Financing of wind turbines, solar panels, and low-carbon technology in China climbed to $11.5 billion, 72% higher than last year. U.S. investment in clean energy for the quarter measured $4.9 billion; Europe's, $4.5 billion.

Businesses and investors carefully watching to see if the U.S. passes legislation to show a commitment to supporting renewables. The handwriting on the global wall could not be starker. Thirty-seven nations around the world have adopted long-term, binding renewable energy targets. Without similar certainty in the U.S. we will continue to lose jobs to other countries, especially skilled manufacturing jobs. Right now the wind industry employs 85,000 workers, with enormous potential to grow. A national RES and other policies to promote clean energy technologies will create over 275,000 jobs in the wind sector alone.

Congress must act quickly to pass legislation that includes a strong national RES. There is bipartisan support for this idea—and we know there are more than 60 votes in the Senate now for a strong RES. The economy can’t wait, job creation can’t wait, and America can’t wait.

Assuming that energy and environmental legislation will not pass this year, the best thing for Congress and the Administration to do for the time being is to support the States and regions to do what they are doing: building the foundation of a national clean energy policy. All is not lost because Congress could not pass a climate bill this year. Over time, we are hopeful that the House and Senate can put together a well-designed federal plan for reducing carbon emissions that builds upon the ongoing work at the regional, State and local levels.

But there are risks that our Federal colleagues should keep in mind. This should not be about action for action’s sake. Rather, we need to take into account what has already been achieved at the State level and find ways build upon these successes. It is now more important than ever for the industry and consumers to reengage with officials at the State level to craft clean-energy policies that best suit their needs. We should not lose sight of the fact that if we continue building the groundwork at the State and local level, we can save time and money when Congress eventually adopts a national plan.

At our recent Summer Meetings last month in Sacramento, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the State-level activity on clean energy and said these efforts will spur a federal response sooner rather than later. In the meantime, he urged our members to continue implementing innovative programs to make our country cleaner and more energy efficient. So once again States will pick up the slack and do all they can to spur clean-energy development.

NARUC does believe, however, that a federal blueprint will be needed to reduce emissions and protect consumers as soon as broadly-supported, well-designed legislation can be enacted. We expect to work with our Federal colleagues to reach these goals and in so doing, help create well-understood, workable policies that will reduce uncertainty and foster investment.

It is no surprise that the Senate energy bill released last week by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was a disappointment for environmentalists and the renewable energy industry, given its absence of a price on carbon and a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). The adoption of these policies, as we have mentioned, has the potential to stimulate hundreds of thousands of clean tech jobs and reduce our unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels, which has become ever more acute following April’s catastrophic Gulf oil spill. Without them, we risk losing high-skilled and high-paying manufacturing jobs to other countries, notably China, where such progressive and inviting policies already exist. We can’t afford to set a precedent where traditional R&D activities, which have historically been this country’s “comparative advantage,” follow suit.

While the Senate’s action represents a setback, we are a long way from writing off America’s clean energy future completely. Progress is still being made on several fronts to maintain U.S. competitiveness in the clean energy sector. Recently, the House Ways and Means Committee released an outline of its proposed energy tax package that would extend an uncapped 48C advanced energy manufacturing tax credit for solar, and there are still champions in Ways and Means, including Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), that are working to make these solar credits refundable. Moreover, we are hopeful that an energy tax package will emerge from the Senate Finance Committee sometime in the fall to be attached to a tax extenders bill or other legislative vehicle.

The important takeaway in all of this is that the fight for clean tech leadership and energy security/independence is far from over. The administration, while criticized for its relative silence on the days leading up to the Senate energy bill’s unveiling, has ratcheted up its support for clean energy once again, calling for a renewed push for comprehensive climate and energy reform. The president, in remarks following a bipartisan leadership meeting last Tuesday, candidly referred to our current energy policy as “unsustainable,” which would only expand the window for China to “race ahead to create the clean energy jobs and industries of the future.”

We can’t let that happen. It wasn’t long ago when the U.S. dominated the world in the areas of clean energy manufacturing and investment. Now, for the first time in our history, Asia is leading us in clean energy investments. The longer we sit on our hands, the worse the situation will become. The time is ripe for the U.S. to establish and execute a national clean energy competitiveness strategy that is founded on the pillars of clean tech research and innovation, manufacturing capacity and domestic markets. If we choose not to seize the moment, we can expect not only an increase in imports of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, but renewable energy equipment as well.

Today, nearly every energy business competes in a global market. One consequences of this is that the leading companies will move towards the countries where there is a dynamic, growing market.

The U.S. has been a focus of renewable energy investment and innovation. We have seen sustained growth in nearly all renewable energy technologies over the past five years, due in large part to state-level Renewable Energy Standards and federal Tax Incentives. But the US market appears to be faltering as these policies appear to be reaching their limits.

What can Congress do? If Congress can't pass a national RES, then they need to find the political will (meaning 60 votes) to extend the federal tax incentives provided by the stimulus bill (ARRA). ARRA credits start to expire as soon as the end of this year!

What can the Administration do? Re-double their efforts to move the bureaucracy along faster in approving new projects. Long delays are hampering the growth of renewable technologies in the US. Stifling bureaucratic delays also drive companies overseas.

It's also important to recognize that clean energy technologies are not just wind and solar. Geothermal power is fast growing clean energy technology both in the US and around the world. It is one of the renewable energy fields where US companies are still considered to be world leaders. If US geothermal firms have sustained support from Congress and the Administration, they can maintain their status as world leaders while providing clean, reliable geothermal power and providing the jobs that come with along with that status.

No matter how much we fret and wring our hands, others are seizing the day and pulling ahead of the U.S. in the race to develop clean energy technologies – or, at least that is the perception.

Throughout history, Americans have embraced the development and deployment of new technologies. We, as a nation, have constantly risen to the technological challenge with ingenuity and a “can-do” attitude. From the electric light bulb, to the construction of Hoover Dam, to the development of wide spread communications, to putting a man on the moon, we take pride in leading the world in developing and deploying innovation.

It seems that we have lost sight of the need for innovation on a dramatic and all encompassing scale. The outcomes related to choosing the wrong path are too frightening for us to contemplate, so we do nothing. As a result, our current “do-nothing” strategy draws us into the arms of whomever has the technology we need – regardless of the cost. And so, it would seem, America is lagging behind in the race to develop clean energy technologies.

But, it depends on which race we are talking about: The sprint to improve and perfect the clean energy technologies we currently employ? Or, the full scale marathon to achieve a world-changing supply of readily-available clean energy?

Apparently, there is a little known and little spoken of the laser called the National Ignition Facility (https://lasers.llnl.gov/). As the world´s largest and highest-energy laser (it has been under construction for the last thirteen years) it’s goal is, for the first time ever, to fuse the hydrogen atoms' nuclei and produce net energy gain – the same fusion energy process that makes the stars shine and provides the life-giving energy of the sun. The audacious aspect of the whole thing is mind boggling. Imagine the astounding impact that a ubiquitous fuel supply would have. And, imagine the potential to rid ourselves of almost all of the pollutants from fossil fuel generation and spent fuel from conventional nuclear power plants at the same time thereby freeing ourselves from concerns about greenhouse gasses and the Yucca flats of the world.

Why haven’t more of us heard about the National Ignition Facility? Perhaps because its commercial operation is twenty, thirty, or even more years away. Is that too long of a wait for us? Maybe, or maybe not – we just don’t know. One thing is for sure though; no other country is in the midst of constructing an energy technology quite like this (The current French ITER project aims to employ a tokamak to produce controlled thermonuclear fusion power – which is completely different from laser technology – with testing to commence in 2019). The National Ignition Facility is located here, in America. Being designed, built, and funded by Americans. The National Ignition Facility is scheduled to demonstrate the fusion ignition later this year. Then, it needs to be tested, scaled and made reliable – all of which are engineering issues as opposed to theoretical physics.

So, are we really behind?

The “race” to develop “clean energy” however it might be defined is in fact not a race but a policy challenge to spur technology and knowledge development. Defining it a race creates a faulty image that could encourage the wrong policies. Developing the next generation of energy systems should be viewed as a decades-long policy process with the end result being very expensive. Consequences of pursuing radically new energy systems must be fully understood because they could be economically stifling if the focus is primarily on the near term and achieving emission levels of some past period.

While other countries may be deploying so called “clean energies”, the US remains the leader in the development of advanced technologies. We can maintain that leadership with the right public policies, policies that encourage innovation and economic growth. If the US regains robust levels of economic growth, adopts policies that encourage innovation while also placing a higher priority on science and engineering education, we should maintain our global leadership in technology for a long time to come. Making the R&D tax credit permanent and lowering our corporate tax rate – currently ranking the second highest in developed -- world certainly be helpful steps.

The term “clean energy” implies no carbon or environmental impact. On that basis, there is no such thing. While wind and solar may not produce carbon emissions, their environmental impact, including carbon emissions in production, is not zero. It would be more appropriate to talk about cleaner energy, energy that produces a smaller carbon footprint on total systems or “well to wheels” basis.

Energy is desired for its attributes and contribution to economic growth and an improved standard of living. As an input to production cleaner energy has to be reasonably priced, abundant, and reliable or else the production of domestic wealth will be less. A Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) or low carbon fuel mandates along the lines being now discussed will drive up the cost of energy to consumers and commercial users. That will have an economic impact and do very little, if anything, to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide.

The goal of shifting to low and no carbon energy sources requires a long term strategy that recognizes the near term limits of fuel substitution and the long lead time to develop new energy systems. In the meantime, we can slow the growth in carbon emissions by finding ways to make nuclear power more competitive, encouraging power generators to retire older coal fired plants and replace them with natural gas facilities, and looking for ways capture more energy from geothermal and hydropower sources. As hybrid technology continues to evolve, its use will expand and emissions from mobile sources will decline or grow more slowly. Further, policy makers should pay more attention to the export of energy technologies to developing countries because they are the major source of emissions growth in the future.

While pursuing the goal of low or no carbon energy systems, policy makers should not ignore the near term. Over the next few decades, at least, fossil energy will continue to dominate our energy budget. Producing more domestically and producing it efficiently without onerous impediments will contribute to stronger economic growth and job creation which should be our primary priorities.

So, the flickering chimera of a climate bill centered on a cap-and-trade system finally flickered out last week -- perhaps for a long while.

Which is really troubling. Instead of an economy-wide carbon pricing system or even a utility sector-only one, the nation will be lucky to obtain from Congress some modest oil-spill response measures, some oil industry regulatory responses, and some incentives for home energy efficiency retrofits and natural gas vehicles. No major energy efficiency standards seem in the offing. No new renewable energy standard seems on the docket. And as to any other of the dozens of powerful ways to begin accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy in which clean energy becomes cheap, well they are not here or at all forthcoming.

Meanwhile, competitors forge ahead with regulations, incentives, creative financing tools, and strategic investments designed to capture the Silicon Valley of the next, low-carbon economy.

So where do we go from here? Some alternative ways forward remain, but none with such broadly catalytic potential to change habits and investment calculi across the economy, and none alone likely to win the United States the clean tech race.

Stronger federal and state regulatory efforts will be one way forward. Here the EPA looks poised to play a significant role at the national level, but piecemeal regulations and patchwork of state efforts won’t create the sort of stable investment environment that the transition to a clean energy economy requires. Using government and especially Department of Defense procurement more strategically to increase demand for low-carbon solutions and accelerate deployment could serve as another lever too.

And now more than ever the federal government must pile onto clean tech innovation with large R&D investments. The nation badly needs 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. Expert consensus suggests that federal government should invest at least $15 billion a year in federal energy R&D. Cap-and-trade was never going to solve the nation’s and the world’s energy challenges alone. The federal government still needs to ramp up support for investment and research in new, breakthrough technologies that can radically reduce the carbon-intensiveness of the economy and make clean energy cost-competitive.

However, it bears saying right now that the demise of cap-and-trade only underscores the urgency of locating the significant, dedicated revenue streams needed for clean energy investments, research, deployment, and transition costs if the U.S. is not to miss out on the clean energy economy entirely.

Some will most regret the loss of the best chance we may have had for several years to raise the price of carbon emissions and so stimulate new and cleaner behavior across the economy. However, at least equal to that disappointment is the loss of a top candidate for generating the needed innovation revenue—tens of billions of necessary investment money. And the longer term costs to national prosperity of this dithering on climate, energy, and innovation matters—while other countries rack up first-mover advantages in technology after technology—are likely as grave as yet unknown.

This is a guest response by Don Furman, senior vice president for external affairs at Iberdrola Renewables.

Last year, for the first time ever, China built more wind farms than the United States. Here in our home market, three of the top five wind energy producers are European. And the “nuclear renaissance” we’ve been hearing so much about? It’s happening. Elsewhere. More than 50 new nuclear plants are being built around the globe, compared with one here.

The United States hasn’t lost the clean energy race, but we’re falling further behind. The question is what we’re going to do about it.

So far, the answer is not much. For all of the political rhetoric in support of clean and renewable energy, the fact remains that the United States has no price on greenhouse gas emissions, no national renewable energy standard, and no transmission superhighway to carry renewable energy to population centers. We say we want clean energy, but let’s not kid ourselves: The policies we have in place in the United States today are still incredibly pro-carbon.

The simple fact is that clean and renewable energy do not compete on a level playing field with fossil fuels, and until we put a policy framework in place to enable them to do so, we will struggle to compete in energy industries that we invented, such as wind and nuclear power. Here’s what has to happen.

First, we need a price on carbon. Only with the proper economic signals in the marketplace can we build a world class clean energy industry in the United States. Right now, carbon is not priced, which makes fossil fuel generation look artificially cheap. With a gradually escalating price on carbon that reflects the full social costs of burning fossil fuels, low-emissions fuel sources can compete on fair terms with their high-carbon counterparts.

Second, we need a national Renewable Energy Standard (RES). Even if Congress acts to put a price on carbon at some point, it will be many years before the price rises to a level sufficient to enable clean energy to deploy on its own. An RES that requires power producers to get a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources is the necessary bridge from our high-carbon electricity system to the low-carbon future.

Third, we need a stronger federal role in ensuring that high-voltage transmission lines get built. Renewable energy is most abundant on wind-swept plains and sun-baked deserts, but it takes transmission lines to transport it to the nation’s cities. We need legislation to give the federal government siting authority for electric transmission, just as it has for other critical national infrastructure such as railroads, interstate highways and natural gas pipelines. And the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should use the authority it already has to ensure that the cost of building new transmission lines is shared broadly and fairly.

With the right policies in place, NextEra Energy would invest significantly more money in clean energy. Regarding wind energy, we think we might invest about $2 billion more per year. Regarding solar, we think we might invest an additional $1.5 billion a year. To provide a sense of the jobs potential of these investments, consider that over the past five years we’ve invested more than $18 billion in clean energy infrastructure and created roughly 60,000 direct and indirect jobs. If we invest an additional $3 billion a year or so on clean energy, that’s roughly 50,000 jobs over five years.