Do It Now: Still Time for Congress to Make Progress on America’s Energy Policy

When Senator Reid’s “Spill Bill” was introduced prior to the August recess, many were disheartened by the absence of a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) or an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) within the bill. It was especially disappointing because we are in one of the deepest recessions our nation has faced in a long time, and putting more money back into the pockets of Americans through energy efficiency should be a priority to rejuvenate consumer confidence, investment and spending. An RES combined with energy efficiency, such as the one contained within the legislation introduced by Sens. Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Brownback (R-Kan.), would be a welcome policy for a majority of Americans who today are continuing to experience higher bills and declining incomes.

Given the state of the economy and the current economic uncertainty, an RES with energy efficiency should muster enough support for passage this year. The real question is whether our leaders will show the necessary urgency to achieve passage. States know the need, and more than 30 have already passed some form of an RES with great success.

In our view, a key to the success of this legislation is the inclusion of energy efficiency as an allowable use toward the RES. The new bill specifies that following a petition from a governor, energy efficiency improvements may count toward compliance, up to 4 percent of a utility’s energy production by 2021. This is excellent news for Americans struggling to make ends meet, because Americans who have not in the past had any help to reduce their energy use would become eligible to benefit from utility energy efficiency programs.

While America has made great strides toward growth in the use of renewable electricity and energy efficiency, it is past time to finally prove to American businesses that our country is committed to making greater strides in the future. If anything, the broad range of cosponsors who have signed onto this legislation should indicate the support that an RES and other energy efficiency measures have in the U. S. Senate.

Given that it is an election year, and the partisan divide is at an all-time high, we hope that policy makers can see this bill for what it is: a bill that is truly good for all the American people. With so few days left in this Congress, the U.S. Senate should show leadership and pass this bill and other bipartisan energy efficiency measures now, for the benefit of the American economy and the American people.

Cap-and-trade is dead because the public finally caught on that it is a stealth energy tax, a big reason being that it makes coal - the most economic electricity fuel in many markets - uncompetitive.

That's exactly what a Clean Energy Standard (CES) would do. "Clean" essentially means "anything but coal.” Instead of pricing the carbon emissions from coal, as a cap-and-trade program does, a CES simply prohibits coal from competing with other energy sources for a specified portion of the nation’s electricity market.

Yes, I know, coal with carbon capture and storage qualifies as “clean,” but carbon capture is unlikely to be commercially viable any time soon. Thus, a CES would effectively ban some – perhaps most – investment in new coal capacity. Just like cap-and-tax, a CES would demoralize the coal industry and scare off potential investors.

I haven’t seen Sen. Graham’s specific proposal. From the descriptions, however, a CES is very much like the Renewable Fuel Standard (ethanol mandate) and the Bingaman-Brownback Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). In each case, politicians tell industry what to produce and how much. All such schemes bear an eerie resemblance to the production quota featured in Soviet five-year plans.

Sen. Graham is correct about one thing – a CES is more internally consistent than an RES. If your goal is to build a low- or zero-carbon energy system, then it makes no sense to leave nuclear energy out of the quota. Indeed, nuclear power probably has a lower carbon footprint than wind and solar have, because nuclear does not need to be backed up by coal- or gas-fired generation when the wind doesn’t blow and the Sun doesn’t shine.

Although Graham’s proposal would do much mischief if enacted, I am happy to see it drain political support from its more prominent cousin, the Bingaman-Brownback RES. My advice to both sides is, “Let’s you and him fight!”

A renewable energy standard (RES) is an expensive energy standard. Renewable sources that are economically viable would not need mandates to force consumers to buy them.

The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis adjusted the Energy Information Administration’s projected energy costs for various sources in 2016 to account for the variability and remoteness of the major renewable energy sources—wind and solar. With these adjustments, swapping one megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity from coal or natural gas combined-cycle generation to onshore wind drives the cost up from about $79 to $177. Offshore wind is worse at $218 per MWh. Worse again are solar thermal at $284 and solar photovoltaic at $423 per MWh.

Heritage analyzed a generic RES that starts at 3 percent of total power generation in 2012 and rises by 1.5 percent per year. Such an RES would destroy 1 million jobs by 2020, when the standard reaches 15 percent. Average family income drops by $2,400 per year, and by 2035 these families’ share of national debt would grow by an additional $10,000.

Adding nuclear power to the options for renewables could moderate these impacts, but the mandates still aren’t good for the economy. Banging your head three times with a hammer is better than banging it four times, but it would be best to quit hitting yourself altogether.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is floating a clean energy standard that includes nuclear power and "clean coal" as part of an energy mandate in addition to renewable energy. Here is a statement from the senator. And below that are the basic provisions of the bill.

“The RES introduced by Senators Bingaman and Brownback short-changes nuclear power, a safe reliable form of clean energy. It is essential that nuclear power be fully embraced in any clean energy standard. It is long overdue for our country to experience a renaissance in nuclear energy. It will lead to the creation of millions of new jobs here in the United States and help make our nation more energy independent.

“S. 3831 (Bingaman-Brownback) also does not have an expansive view of biomass opportunities. It is too quick to pick winners and losers in the clean energy race.

“As a nation, we should set reasonable clean energy standards which recognizes and rewards technologies that help our nation achieve energy independence. When it comes to clean energy I have an ‘all of the above’ approach. I believe the CES I have introduced will reinvigorate our nation’s nuclear energy sector, create jobs, make us more energy independent, and produce a cleaner environment than other standards which have been discussed."

Provisions of the bill:

• Previous proposals such as S. 3813 (Bingaman-Brownback) short-change nuclear power – a safe, reliable, clean energy source. Senator Graham believes a Clean Energy Standard (CES) must lead to a renaissance in nuclear power.

• Senator Graham’s clean energy standard seeks to remedy this error by ensuring that a more expansive list of clean energy sources – particularly focused on nuclear – count toward the standard. Graham’s legislation also includes a much more expansive view of biomass

• There are provisions in the legislation that will provide incentives for the retirement of old coal units without restrictive mandates that could threaten electricity reliability. Senator Graham favors clean coal technology and allows clean coal to count toward the CES.

• If you retire an old coal plant, you will receive credits during the 5-year period beginning on the date of retirement based on average annual quantity of electricity generated by eligible facilities during the final 3 years of operation of the facility.

• The CES begins with a 13 percent target in 2013, increasing to a 20 percent target in 2020, and further increasing 5 percent every 5 years thereafter.

• Eligible clean energy sources include: incremental and new nuclear, energy efficiency (up to 25 percent of total obligation), geothermal, biomass (more expansive definition), landfill gas, qualified hydropower, incremental geothermal, coal-mine methane, qualified waste-to-energy, advanced coal (capture and storage of at least 65 percent of CO2 emissions), wind, solar, ocean energy and eligible retired fossil fuel generation.

• Any revenue raised from failure to meet the targets will be kept close to home to help offset any possible increase in costs for electricity and to deploy more clean sources of energy.

• Small electricity producers, such as co-ops, are exempted from the legislation.

While the question, “Can the U.S. Senate pass a national renewable electricity standard (RES) this year?”, is an important one, the very fact that we must ask it begs the more urgent question “Is the U.S. Senate really committed to growing an American clean energy industry?”

Do I believe that the Senate should pass a national RES this year? Yes. Do I believe that passage of an RES demonstrates a satisfactory commitment to developing the clean economy here at home? No. Quite simply put, an RES is a very necessary but insufficient step to make America a leader in the 21^st century energy economy. The Senate must do more.

One must wonder how we got to this point. A year and a half ago, the 111^th Congress was poised to put America on the path to global energy leadership. The House passed a comprehensive climate and energy bill for the first time. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed a bipartisan energy bill that included an RES in addition to many other key policies. Now, just a little over a year later, time has nearly run out for Congressional action, and the full Senate has yet to pass just one clean economy priority, despite all evidence that such legislation will create jobs, revitalize local economies, boost U.S. GDP, and move America toward the energy independence we have put off for nearly four decades.

Meanwhile, the global economy has stagnated, financial markets are frozen, and shovel-ready projects stand idly by waiting for any sign that the economy will rebound. With the clean technologies of today as well as the clean technologies of tomorrow hanging in the balance, the time for Senate action is now.

With so little time, the clean economy community is scrounging for any victory it can find at the federal, state, and local levels; we are either fighting for bare-bones policies or defending policies once thought safe. A national RES is one. The extension of key tax provisions—such as the Treasury Department’s 1603 program and the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit (48c)—is another vital piece of the puzzle, the future of which is uncertain. The loss of either California’s landmark price on carbon as a result of Proposition 23 or nationwide PACE (property-assessed clean energy) programs would deal a tremendous blow to the gains this growing industry has already achieved.

State, regional, and local governments have acted absent federal action: 29 states have passed renewable electricity standards, and seven additional states have passed renewable generation goals. Bipartisanship was characteristic of and instrumental to the passage of these policies. I am encouraged that four Republican Senators are original co-sponsors of the proposed RES and hope that such bipartisanship will be characteristic of all future energy legislation.

While the broad, bipartisan support for a nationwide RES makes me optimistic for the chances of passage, the Senate must recognize that one policy alone will not build this sector. It is my hope that the Senate may still demonstrate their commitment to a new energy economy in America and not let partisan bickering derail key policies Congress must adopt to put us on a path toward global leadership in clean energy.

There is much more work to be done this year, and the clock is ticking…

For the foreseeable future, ‘renewable’ energy sources will not stand the market test. Indeed, absent the egregious subsidies from both the federal and state governments, little or no private capital would be invested in wind or solar. Imposing a 15 percent RES standard for electric utility companies would be an extremely expensive proposition for businesses and households while making a minimal contribution to reducing global greenhouse gas concentrations. It would make more sense to expand the RES standards to include both natural gas and nuclear, domestic energy sources that exist—or could exist—in abundance and have small carbon footprints.

Renewable energy is the future of our energy needs as a nation. Chairman Bingaman and Senator Brownback recognize this, and, with growing support, are promoting a stand-alone Renewable Electricity Standard before the 111^th Congress comes to a close.

This is idea is as commendable as it is necessary, as our air, land, and water depend on clean energy. Curbing our dependence on dirty fuels like coal and oil, and even natural gas, which is both finite and tricky to get out of the ground cleanly, will improve our air quality, and reduce the threat of climate change by reducing greenhouse gases.

The bipartisan proposal is attracting sponsors, but must do so in a way that grows generation beyond the status quo and only from resources that are truly renewable. The standard must not be weakened by corrupting a new renewable energy market with non-renewable sources such as nuclear and coal, or by counting biomass sources that are neither sustainable nor carbon-neutral.

The proposal’s chances could be strengthened by giving utilities a reason to prefer siting renewables on already-used lands. Every state in America has idle brownfields sites serviced by existing transmission lines with enormous energy potential ready to be put back on the tax rolls. And there are thousands of mayors, Republican and Democrat, who would become natural allies of RES if brownfields were preferred in the bill.

The proposal from Sens. Bingaman and Brownback is an excellent start, and one that Congress should get behind and pass before the end of the term.

Majority Leader Reid is recommending consideration of a renewable electricity standard (RES) prior to the adjournment of the 111th Congress. While the goals of increasing the prevalence of carbon-efficient energy sources for America's electricity generation and reducing our emissions are worthy objectives, a blanket mandate that sets dates, establishes percentages and limits technologies leaves a lot to be desired.

The most recent RES measure offered by Sens. Bingaman and Brownback would require American utilities to use specific renewable energy sources to meet 15 percent of their demand by 2020. In this proposed legislation, Sen. Brownback proposes to embrace this complicated set of issues with “balanced, pragmatic strategy".

But while Kansas' junior senator is right to say that a balanced strategy is needed, this RES mandate does not provide a pragmatic approach forward for either our economy or our environmental stewardship responsibilities. Mandating utilities nationwide to acquire certain types of energy within a specific timeframe does not take into consideration the regional nature of much of America's power generation. Differences in plant history, power market served and energy sources available – all of these differences must be considered in any plan to move in a cost-effective manner toward a more carbon-efficient generation portfolio.

If we really want to increase our power supply, while, at the same time, reducing our carbon emissions, there are additional courses that should be considered in formulating an environmentally-responsible energy policy. First of all, let us change from a RES (renewable electricity standard) to a CES (clean energy standard). As Sen. Graham has previously suggested, nuclear and “clean coal” generation would be included in this package. The inclusion of these two essential energy technologies will strengthen our future power capacity, provide an incentive for more rapid development and deployment and provide the opportunity for greater regional fairness. A CES that sets a carbon budget per megawatt produced, and then leaves each generator to employ the most effective and efficient suite of technologies to meet demand, would be a giant step forward for the industry and the nation.

The Congress should also consider including a provision to facilitate the timely, orderly and safe development of American shale gas resources. Given our need for greater energy affordability, reliability and security, promoting the production and use of clean natural gas is a positive step forward. In developing and exploiting shale gas, we will be taking advantage of world-class energy reserves right here at home. For example, the Marcellus shale formation that stretches throughout New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia is now estimated to hold some 500 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas, making the Marcellus formation the second-largest contiguous natural gas deposit in the world. Developing and exploiting these shale resources will truly set a new foundation for economic progress in this country.

Finally, the Senate must consider strengthening federal investment is research, development and deployment of technologies to improve energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings and in industrial processes. This is one broadly supported goal that would help both our economy and our environment. Strategic investments here could yield a suite of economically-viable improvements even before the end of this decade. And these improvements will lead to substantial benefits for consumers and businesses by way of lower energy bills.

Nearly every responsible energy analyst will say that America needs all types of energy, from oil and gas to solar and wind. In addition, we need to be able to manage these multiple, dispersed and variable generating capabilities with speed, accuracy and reliability. Our nation needs a healthy economy and a healthy environment. We need policies that encourage innovation, that promote fairness, that improve security and that lay the foundation for the future. America needs a CES, not a RES.

A renewable electricity standard (RES) is an important tool that can help us begin the necessary transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. This is a transition that we must make if we have any hope of preventing the worst impacts of climate change, and in particular, protecting our oceans from the acidification trend that is already underway.

Our oceans are absorbing a third of the carbon dioxide we release, and in doing so, they have muted the impacts of climate change. But this great service is making our oceans sick. Ocean waters are already 30% more acidic than they were before the industrial revolution -- more acidic than they have been in hundreds of millions of years. Corals and other species that rely on a delicate chemical balance to build their skeletons and shells will perish if we don’t reverse this trend. This chemistry experiment threatens a mass extinction of corals, and ripple effects throughout marine ecosystems, beginning in about 30 years, unless we shift from fossil fuels to clean energy.

What is needed is a major change in the way we do business, and we have been moving at a snail’s pace in making this critically important transition. Unless we start to make real changes fast, it will be too late for marine life. We need to find ways to promote clean energy and to level the playing field with traditional fossil fuels – or even slant the playing field toward the energy scenario we need to achieve.

Many clean energy options are waiting on the sidelines for their chance to help. Offshore wind on the Atlantic coast can provide more energy than the oil and gas in that area, if only it’s put to work.

An RES is one way to do that, and for that reason Oceana supports a strong RES that creates a significant increase in clean energy. Unfortunately, Senator Bingaman's proposal doesn’t go far enough. It requires utilities to get only 15% of their power from renewable energy by 2021, and allows nearly a third of that to come from energy efficiency. It is not clear that this will increase renewable energy use. Yet, in the absence of comprehensive energy reform, it is imperative that the we pass a strong RES that will help transition our country to a clean energy future.

Clean energy could power our country several times over. So we need goals that reach for that potential and don’t settle for an energy balance that can be achieved today. We need a strong national RES as soon as possible. If on the other hand, the RES can be nearly met with the current energy mix, it simply won’t help. Instead it could provide a false sense of security that we are moving in the right direction, and do more harm than good.

In addition to a strong RES, there are other changes that would help to promote renewable energy, including an extension of the investment tax credits such as those proposed by Senators Carper, Snowe, Brown and Collins. We also need to shift fossil fuel subsidies to clean energy and stop offshore drilling. We can replace the 8% of the oil we use that comes from the Gulf of Mexico if we set the best minds in the country to developing a plan to do so. We need a comprehensive plan to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy and a strong RES could play a critical role.

It should come as no surprise that Senator Harry Reid of Nevada is pushing for the adoption of a national Renewable Energy Standard (RES). For more than a decade, the Silver State has been pushing electric companies in Nevada to deliver an increasing percentage of clean energy to consumers. And today, Nevada has one of the highest renewable electricity standards in the nation, requiring that at least 15 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2013.

Thirty-two other states have also established their own renewable energy goals and standards. This growth almost certainly reflects the nation’s desire to reap the benefits of a clean energy economy: new jobs, energy security and independence, and most important, a way to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and slow down global climate change. A nationwide RES would build on this momentum – further stimulating demand for clean electricity; encouraging more production of solar, wind and geothermal energy; all while helping us kick our addiction to fossil fuels.

A transition to a clean energy economy needs to happen fast, and a national RES could help speed us along. Experts say that to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent over the next 40 years. To achieve this goal, we will need to maximize renewable energy potential and energy efficiency in the United States. Innovation, such as covering rooftops and parking lots with solar panels, updating our home appliances, insulating our houses and employing other Home Star measures, must be part of the solution.

But these kinds of energy efficiency and “distributed” renewable energy development strategies may not be enough to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy.

As demand increases for renewable energy-based electricity sources under a national RES, some utility-scale renewable energy development will be part of the equation. That’s because utility-sized solar power plants, wind farms and geothermal facilities can put out a lot of juice, energizing hundreds of thousands of our homes and offices. But they also take up vast amounts of land (some project proposals would cover more than 8,000 acres, an area almost half the size of Manhattan Island, with fields of mirrors, roads, fences and other infrastructure).

The scale of renewable energy development we need is unprecedented. While some renewable projects (mainly wind farms) have already been built primarily on private lands, utility-scale solar projects are now being added to the mix – on private property and public lands alike. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has made the use of public lands for the development of renewable energy a priority. Look no further than the Interior Department’s homepage to see what I mean. It reads: “The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future.”

Defenders of Wildlife supports Interior Secretary Salazar’s goal to develop renewable energy. But we want to be sure that development is done right. Our past experiences with oil and gas development (not to mention the Gulf oil disaster) provide important lessons about how putting projects in the wrong places can lead to disastrous consequences for people, wildlife and the environment. As we increase the amount of clean, renewable energy generated on public and private lands, we should avoid, minimize and mitigate any serious consequences for wildlife, important lands and natural resources. We can do all of this, and still produce the energy we need.

One way is to use previously disturbed lands, brownfields, and abandoned mine sites and agricultural lands for solar and wind projects. In fact, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study indicates that nearly 1 billion megawatts of power could be produced from these kinds of sites. Another option is to site utility-scale projects strategically – near existing infrastructure and access to the grid – but away from important wildlife habitat and natural landscapes. With some planning and coordination, this can be done relatively quickly and at minimal expense. In the long run, smart planning could wind up saving us precious time, money, and not least of all, our natural heritage.

So, let’s hope Congress sets a goal for renewable energy. We have the capability and technology to meet most of our energy needs with clean electricity. And an RES can help set us on a path to reach our renewable energy potential and produce the jobs and energy security we need. But let’s also be smart about how we produce energy in the future, so that we don’t risk repeating the mistakes of the past.

There’s no question that wind and solar have a clear role in our clean energy future, and America’s Natural Gas Alliance supports efforts to embrace energy policies that advance our energy security, our environment and American jobs.

We also strongly believe that if the objective is cleaner energy, then natural gas can and should play a growing role in making this vision of our future a reality today.

To reach our clean energy goals, we need a power source that can significantly cut existing emissions levels, on a very large scale and at reasonable costs. And the primary energy source that’s ready to do that today is natural gas. It’s available in abundance throughout North America, and greatly underutilized for power generation.

The Washington Post editorial today made a compelling argument that natural gas should be included in any policy aimed at reducing carbon emissions.

Natural gas plants are relatively inexpensive to build, the new U.S. shale plays have made available vast and sustainable supplies of this clean fuel, and that abundance has served to stabilize prices. Natural gas also has half the carbon emissions of coal, 80 percent fewer emissions of nitrogen oxides and is virtually zero-emission for mercury, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter. Translation: Cleaner air in communities across our country.

U.S. policies should encourage clean energy choices, like wind and solar. But we shouldn’t stop there. It will take all kinds of cleaner energy to make a meaningful difference. And, natural gas is ready—right here and right now—to play a growing role for our nation.

(These comments were submitted by Michael Williams, the legislative representative for the BlueGreen Alliance. The alliance is a national partnership of nine major U.S. labor unions and two of America's environmental organizations.)

A Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) is one of the most powerful tools America can use to reinvigorate our economy and make America a world leader in clean energy production and manufacturing. As noted in our report, Building a Clean Energy Assembly Line, a national RES with targets of 25 percent renewable electric generation by 2025 could create more than 850,000 jobs across the country.

Sens. Bingaman and Brownback proposed the Renewable Electricity Promotion Act of 2010, which ought to be commended and passed immediately. We are falling further and further behind countries like China in the economic race to develop clean energy. The baseline for renewable energy production established under Bingaman-Brownback will send a clear market signal that America is finally taking clean energy development seriously.

The Bingaman-Brownback bill does not meet the targets laid out in our report, but understanding the difficulty of passing nearly anything this year, Bingaman-Brownback may just thread the needle as evidenced by the bill’s diverse and large number of cosponsors. Changing the dimensions of the RES — even though we strongly support increasing the targets — might break this fragile compromise, especially when considering the addition of nuclear and clean coal.

There are other pieces of legislation that can move with the RES. Home Star and Building Star are residential and commercial energy efficiency measures with strong bipartisan support. These measures would immediately send a jolt through a budding energy efficiency industry that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the struggling construction industry and provide cost savings opportunities for homeowners and small businesses across the country.

The Bingaman-Brownback RES, combined with Home Star and Building Star, would be a significant and welcome step forward after the disappointing failure to pass comprehensive climate change and clean energy legislation. While we still hold out hope Congress can get its act together to directly address climate change and create millions of clean energy jobs, we will be heartened if this Congress succeeds in creating hundreds of thousands of jobs by advancing American renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The first question that must be answered is why is a mandate needed? For decades, the federal government has given solar and wind power companies large subsidies. Yet, they still only provide a very small percentage of America’s electric power.

If these energy sources cannot make it in the market with support of billions of tax dollars, what justification can Congressmen offer for the call to mandate that our utilities meet an arbitrary standard by some fixed (and also arbitrary) date? The fact that the government wants to mandate their use verifies that they can’t pass the market test on their own.

Wind and solar can serve niche markets. And in those markets, they will be developed where it makes economic sense. But to mandate that all 50 states use them is a prescription for regulatory mischief, rent seeking, and higher costs to consumers.

Where states have mandated that their utilities meet a renewable standard, the result has often been that more out of state power generated by coal is imported into that state. The mandating state can claim lower emissions from its utilities but overall emissions are not less. Time and time again, regulatory mavens get out smarted by businesses and investors who seek to make a profit. The process is an incentive for finding ways around ill-conceived mandates and regulatory game playing -- neither of which lies in our long term interest.

Subsidies that D.C. hands over to renewable energy initiatives are not free. They represent foregone tax revenues that could be used to reduce the federal deficit. These tax subsidies also distort capital investment decisions. The long term objective of low or no carbon power generation would be better served by encouraging more private R&D and an adequately funded long-term government research program that complements private research.

It is ironic that while Senators are discussing how to restructure the power generation industry, CEOs are in the process of shifting from coal to gas and turning away from power sources that impose unreasonable and unnecessary financial burdens on share holders and rate payers. That shift means that emissions will be going down (the Senators’ aim) but in a cost-effective manner.

The goal should be to achieve less carbon intensity in power generation, not develop a specific form of power generation. The government has an especially poor record in picking winners for others to develop and use. There is no reason to believe that after years of trying, it knows how to get states and the private sector to cost-effectively implement more solar and wind power.

Rather than continue down the road of subsidies and mandates for specific power generation sources, the Congress should focus on three areas of action:

· encourage the more rapid shift from coal to gas;

· remove impediments to installing more nuclear power; and

· discontinue energy specific subsidies and instead give a tax credit for reductions in carbon intensity beyond business as usual.

Congress has not distinguished itself in either the energy or climate policy arena. The time is ripe to rethink approaches to both. We need policies that will encourage strong economic growth, job creation, and reductions in carbon intensity while investing research dollars in the technologies of the future.

Last week, as momentum built around the Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), it felt at times as if we were on some sort of African safari, catching a glimpse of a rare endangered species: the bipartisan compromise. Senators from both sides of the aisle were working together, speaking civilly, and compromising to solve an urgent national problem.

The RES is a policy that is crucial for the American economy, is incredibly popular, and is doable this year. Passing it as proposed by Sens. Bingaman, Brownback and their bipartisan allies is a must-have for American jobs and our future global competitiveness.

China is running the table when it comes to the clean energy economy and the United States is being left in the dust. Last month, Ernst and Young ranked China as the best country in the world for renewable energy investment, booting the U.S. out of the top spot. And according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, clean energy technology investment in China was almost triple what it was in the U.S. in the second quarter of 2010. China’s rapid gains come as the U.S. faces a crucial turning point. With our economic competitors moving full speed ahead to capture these industries and jobs, the U.S. is at serious risk of losing the clean energy race for good. Just this week, investment bankers and CEOs were on Capitol Hill echoing these sentiments. Mark Fulton, Global Head of Climate Change Investment Research at Deutsche Bank warned “this is a critical moment; the US has to get on the job in the next 5 years,” adding, “this is when the manufacturing and industries are being created.”

Given the anger and partisanship we’ve grown used to seeing on cable news, the support for an RES across the political spectrum is impressive. By the end of last week, the bill was cosponsored by four Republicans: Susan Collins of Maine; Charles Grassley of Iowa; Jon Ensign of Nevada and Sam Brownback of Kansas. That’s the kind of multi-region, bipartisan support you only see when a policy is both necessary and popular. And the RES is certainly popular: according to a Pew/National Journal poll from August, 78% of Americans are in favor of an RES; broken down by party identification, that’s 70% of Republicans, 77% of Independents and 84% of Democrats. Simply, the American public wants an RES.

The RES introduced last Tuesday is also a sensible, straightforward compromise that addresses a core national priority. The renewable energy targets in the bill are attainable for all 50 states. It’s completely affordable, too. According to an analysis conducted by the Bush Administration’s Energy Information Administration in 2007, an RES with targets basically the same as those in the current bill (15% renewables by 2020, with 4% satisfied by energy efficiency) would lower electricity prices for Americans while also bringing down the prices of coal and natural gas. In fact, the EIA found that an RES with these targets would save American consumers more than $18 billion through 2020.

Most importantly, this bill saves American manufacturing jobs that will most certainly head overseas if we don’t enact a national policy to compete with policies already in place in China, Europe and our other major global competitors. Every major investor, every major corporation, every serious economist knows that renewable energy policies create markets, unleashing billions in investment capital by assuring manufacturers that the United States is serious about the clean energy economy.

With a possibility of passage before the end of this year, many Senators are looking to attach other pieces of energy legislation to this bill. But the beauty of this RES bill is its simplicity. We need to keep it clean – in terms of both the types of energy in the bill and the process towards passage. The renewables included, the targets in the bill and the structure of the other pieces like renewable energy credits and efficiency provisions have been designed through careful bipartisan conversations. We’d all like to change elements of the bill – indeed, our company has a few tweaks on our wish list. But time is of the essence, and the perfect is truly the enemy of the good. Once established, the RES can always be strengthened or tweaked – the key is to make it law first.

With the list of co-sponsors growing, bipartisan cooperation building, and the will of the public being done, it’s essential that Senate leaders schedule floor time for the RES and that this bill be passed before the end of the year.

(These comments were submitted by Phyllis Cuttino, director of The Pew Charitable Trusts’ climate and energy program.)

Last week, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing on the global clean energy race. The overarching message of industry leaders: The United States needs to adopt a national renewable energy standard (RES) if it wants to compete on the world’s stage.

This message echoes the findings of The Pew Charitable Trusts’ recent report on clean energy investment in the G-20 countries. Documenting intense international competition for leadership, our analysis indicates that in countries where national policies are adopted, private finance and investment surely follow. We also found that here in the United States, the lack of a clear, long-term and consistent clean energy policy is a major barrier to building this sector. In 2009, for the first time, China pulled ahead of the United States to take the top spot in clean energy investments and finance by attracting $34.6 billion in capital—nearly double the United States’ total of $18.6 billion.

In the remaining weeks of Congress, the House and Senate have a unique opportunity to get our nation back in the race. Last week Senators Bingaman (D-NM) and Brownback (R-KS) introduced a stand-alone RES bill. Unlike so many other issues before Congress, RES legislation has already passed the House. Senate champions say they have the votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, and the bill is supported by labor and industry. This legislation would help the United States compete in the global clean energy economy, and it is one of the few bills that could be on the President’s desk and signed into law before the end of the year.

With $160 billion invested annually and 25% growth projected in 2010, the clean energy industry is emerging as one of the great economic and jobs engines. The United States cannot afford to miss this opportunity. Delay means we fall further behind. It’s time for Congress to enact a nationwide renewable standard.

Here is a concept: let's have a straight up-and-down vote on whether Americans want more renewable energy.

Our national polling, carried out by a bipartisan set of pollsters last spring, says they do. Support for a renewable electricity standard was overwhelming--77% of likely voters said they support an RES (65% of Republicans, 69% of Independents, and 92% of Democrats).

That poll's findings were consistent with several others we have carried out over the past few years. Time after time, Americans have told us they are concerned about our country's energy security and that they want more reliance on clean, inexhaustible, domestic energy sources like wind and solar. They believe new renewable energy industries will be one of the pillars of our future economic prosperity, and that we need to act now to compete for global leadership in those industries and for the jobs they will bring.

Now we are down to the final few weeks of this Congress, and Americans are still waiting for action on energy policy. The RES should not be loaded down with other generating technologies--technologies of industries that are mature and that have been heavily subsidized, in some cases for decades. Holding renewable energy hostage is not the way to go.

Even in this time of extreme partisanship in our nation's capital, the RES, alone among energy and climate policy provisions, has shown an ability to attract support across the aisle, with four Republican cosponsors. It's time to bring it to the Senate floor for a straight up-and-down vote on a cleaner, better energy future for America. American jobs in America’s heartland are at stake.

The renewable electricity standard isn’t perfect, but it certainly is worth passing. The bill would establish the first national market for renewable electricity and send a strong signal to utilities that it’s time to invest in clean energy.

Right now, China and Europe are thumping the United States when it comes to putting clean energy online. Last year, China claimed the lead in wind power installed and solar power manufactured. Financing in Chinese clean energy technology jumped 72 percent to $11.5 billion dollars, nearly triple the U.S. investment over the same period. Meanwhile, U.S. wind installations are down 71 percent in the second quarter compared with last year, while billions of dollars of potential investment in our outdated electricity grid sit idle on the sidelines.

Politically, the renewable electricity standard is more than achievable. The Senate has passed such a standard three times since 2002. Meanwhile, 29 states and the District of Columbia already have enacted their own standards. More than half of those states later strengthened their original requirements to further boost renewable energy production. And the benefits are obvious. Ramping up clean energy production cuts electricity costs by softening fossil fuel price spikes, reduces the emissions that drive climate change, and promotes jobs in the clean technology sector.

Some allege that the standard wouldn’t do enough for coal, nuclear power or hydroelectric dams. The reality is that the bill’s market-based provisions are largely designed to help true renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal. Nonetheless, compromise provisions in the bill would support new hydroelectric power at existing dams. Additionally, states would be allowed to spend money collected from utilities on carbon capture and sequestration technology instead of developing new renewables. Moreover, methane from coal mines is specifically included in the bill’s definition of qualifying energy sources. Finally, the bill would allow energy efficiency and capacity upgrades at nuclear facilities as well as power from new nuclear plants to be subtracted from the renewable electricity requirement. In short, the bill is not anti-coal or anti-nuclear power as opponents have charged. It largely lets the market decide winners and losers.

In many ways, this bill is already a compromise. We wish it were stronger. But this renewable electricity standard has a good shot at clearing the 60-vote threshold that has defined legislative debates in the Senate this session. Majority Leader Reid should bring it to the floor.