These comments were submitted by Kate Offringa, President and CEO of the Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association.)

As the new House Republican majority reshapes Washington’s priorities, some analysts believe that energy policy – especially energy efficiency – will be left behind. After all, skeptics say, if the Democratically-controlled 111^th Congress couldn’t pass significant energy legislation, how can the 112^th Congress with control on the Hill divided between the parties?

The Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (CNAIMA) doesn’t share that view. It’s true that government-funded rebates such as Home Star and Building Star will be hard-pressed to gain ground in the new political environment, but programs that rely on tax incentives for enhanced home and commercial energy efficiency should constitute an agreeable alternative to help achieve compelling energy efficiency goals.

Tax incentives, in the form of tax credits and tax deductions, have been important policy tools in energy policy for decades. Several leading Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, including Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), have expressed interest in developing energy policy that focuses on tax incentives as opposed to direct government spending.

There are already several existing tax incentives aimed in part at encouraging energy efficiency. The 25C existing home energy tax credit was recently extended in the bipartisan tax deal passed at the end of the 111^th Congress. This provision provides tax credits to homeowners to help defray the cost of home energy efficiency improvements, such as new upgrading existing home insulation. The 45L new home tax credit provides up to $2000 to homebuilders who build homes that reduce heating and cooling costs by 50 percent. And the Section 179d tax break empowers commercial building owners to earn up to $1.80 per square foot tax deduction for efficiency improvements to the building envelope, HVAC systems, or lighting.

Many of these provisions are included in the recent tax extenders legislation, which will expire at the end of 2011, or are part of another class of tax incentives that must be renewed every year or two. Congress and the Administration should consider adding a longer-term extension of these incentives to other energy efficiency programs that are now taking form.

Energy efficiency isn’t just a bipartisan issue. It’s a common-sense, non-partisan issue that a divided Congress can take as a first step toward broader energy policy reform.

New Table:

1. 25C the Non-business Energy Property Tax Credit

What is it? 25C is a tax credit to help homeowners defray the cost of installing energy efficiency improvements – installing insulation, new windows, etc. – in their existing homes. The provision covers expenses up to 10 percent of costs capped at $500.

What is its Impact? The Joint Tax Committee or JTC (the official government estimator of the costs of tax provisions) scores 25C as the most utilized credit of the energy efficiency tax credits. It scored the 2011 extensions at $1.3 billion. In a letter to key Senators, JTC revealed its data on use of 25C in 2007, which had the credit at its current level. In that year, taxpayers claimed $2.3 billion in new insulation installation costs under 25C – making insulation the second largest claim under 25C after new window installation. New data from JTC should be available early this year. For insulation, there is also a shortcoming in 25C in that it does not allow for the cost of installing insulation to be claimed as well as the actual cost of the insulation. CNAIMA is working with a number of Members of Congress, including Senators Bingaman and Snowe, to remedy that shortcoming in future legislation.

When does it expire? 25C was extended until the end of 2011 in the major tax bill that passed the Congress in December 2010. It is now one of dozens of tax provisions known as “Tax Extenders” that Congress must either extend or allow to lapse every year or two.

2. 45L the New Energy Efficient Home Credit.

What is it? 45L is a credit for home builders and home manufacturers, as opposed to home owners, which provides up to a $2000 credit for new homes that reduce heating and cooling costs 50 percent compared to standards set by the 2004 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). There is a $1000 credit available for meeting the standards set by the federal Energy Star Program. The provision was renewed until the end of 2011 in the tax bill in December 2010.

What is its Impact? According to calculations made by JTC, this credit is utilized less than 25C, with $54 million claimed under the credit in 2007. The provision might get more use as home building picks up with an improving economy and awareness of the credit increases.

When does it expire? Like 25C, 45L is now one of the dozens of loosely linked together tax extenders provisions. These provisions are often, but not always, extended by Congress. 45L was allowed to expire in 2009, but subsequently revived and retroactively extended.

3. 179D the Energy Efficient Commercial Building Deduction.

What is it? 179D is a tax deduction (as opposed to tax credit) for commercial building owners providing up to $1.80 per square foot for energy efficiency changes in the building envelope, HVAC systems, or building lighting. To qualify, the improvements must reduce total power costs by 50 percent – though partial deductions allowed for lesser improvements.

What is its Impact? At this point, the impact is very small. A Department of Energy official recently characterized 179D as “the most underutilized deduction in the tax code.” The complexity of the requirements that must be satisfied to claim the deduction is likely a major reason that few building owners take advantage of the deduction.

To date, 179D has been little used because of its complexity. CNAIMA and a number of other organizations have been working with the Department of Energy and the IRS to simplify the application of 179D. So far the reception has been good. Agency officials have been willing to explore ideas like allowing a standard deduction for installation of particular products based on a simulation of that product’s impact without requiring each claim to be accompanied by a separate simulation.

When does it expire? Unlike other tax provisions, 179D has already been extended through January 1, 2013. The program may need revision to be better utilized, however.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said he would like to see 1 million advanced technology vehicles on America’s roads by 2015. In fact, the more than 1 million hybrid electrics on U.S. roads today are already making major dents in energy consumption. To be clear, the President was referring to battery electrics and plug-in hybrid electrics, but this does raise an important point - we need to be careful not to ignore the “sustainable present” while pursuing a more sustainable future.

The Prius and the adoption of hybrid technology throughout the auto industry can be both instructive and useful when we consider exactly how we can achieve the goal of improving the auto fleet’s fuel efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Toyota prides itself on being a leader in creating and marketing innovative, highly fuel-efficient vehicles like the Prius. However, despite the brand’s popularity, it has taken auto makers 11 years to reach 1 million hybrid vehicle sales in the U.S., or just under 3 percent of the total U.S. market. All this for a technology that requires no infrastructure investments and no change in consumer behavior.

In order to meet the President’s goal of a million plug-in vehicles, whether by 2015 or more likely beyond, we must make progress in reducing battery cost and improving the durability of lithium-ion and next-generation batteries. One way to bring down these costs is to promote existing hybrid technology, which will help catalyze and scale further growth in the battery market. Greater adoption of hybrid technology will also expand production capacity and expertise in motors, power electronics and other unique features which are used in Plug-In hybrid, electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

Existing hybrid technology isn’t just a foundation for building a fleet of a million plug-in vehicles, it’s a technology that consumers want and use today. In fact, Toyota has over 1 million hybrid electric vehicles on America’s roads today that have saved American drivers an estimated 657 million gallons of gasoline since the first one hit the road. That’s why Toyota is expanding the Prius line into an entire family, from compact city cars to crossover models, and hopefully expanding the market and manufacturing capacity for hybrid technology along the way.

In order to develop the appropriate charging infrastructure, we need to better understand how consumers will use this technology, how it will interface with the grid, and how much electric range is optimal when battery cost and other factors are taken into account. Toyota has begun a demo program with our Prius Plug-in Hybrid which will help shed some light on these issues. Policymakers and auto manufacturers need this data to most effectively invest in infrastructure. For example, while widespread "public chargers" on street corners may be useful 15 years in the future, that may not be the best way to use limited public funds today. Instead, we should satisfy early adopters’ needs by ensuring the availability of 110V/220V recharging in the home and workplace.

Toyota looks forward to working with the Administration, Congress and other stakeholders to move the auto industry toward a more sustainable future, while keeping in mind that the consumer is ultimately in the driver’s seat. They will be the ones who decide how many plug-in vehicles hit America’s roads and by when.

Innovation in America is not over. As President Obama said, as Americans “we do big things,” and at Applied Materials, we do just that transforming innovation into industries. Obama’s State of the Union address reinforced the need for additional research and incentives for innovation, a catalyst to push America to the forefront of the clean energy frontier.

Applied is committed to continued research and development here in the U.S., including our semiconductor facility in California which is a global center of excellence, and we’re not alone. We’re proud to stand with companies like Intel who are building technology manufacturing plants in the U.S. The push for innovation and clean energy investment the President laid out in his address will make companies stronger and continue America’s leadership in clean technology.

As Obama said during his State of the Union address, the current hour is our “Sputnik” moment. What we do now will define industries that rely on innovation in the years to come. The President’s focus on the advancement of educational programs that will foster math and science that will drive innovation in the next generation is essential. In addition, we need to make sure we’re creating the right policies that will allow companies to make long term investments in clean energy. Renewable energy policy incentives can foster this development and boost domestic manufacturing, including tax credits, grant programs, a federal renewable electricity standard and low-cost, reliable, long-term financing. If we can turn practically turn these big ideas into reality, we can grow an industry here in America that can sustain our energy needs and Obama’s goal that by 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.

Before coming to The Nature Conservancy, I worked in local and, then, state government for many years, almost always directly for elected officials. The circumstances were often difficult. There were fiscal problems, unfavorable politics, corruption, and unexpected events. What separated success from failure was the ability of a politician to find a way to somehow move forward despite adversity.

This could hardly have been a more adverse year for federal climate and energy legislation. Both climate and energy bills died in the Senate. Talking about climate change became a political liability. It looked like it might all be put on hold for the next several years. And yet, in his State of the Union address last night, President Obama used the context of economic growth, jobs, and competitiveness to recast energy policy by setting an ambitious goal of 80 percent of America’s electricity coming from clean energy sources by 2035 and putting a million electric cars on the road by 2015. Achieving these goals would not only stimulate our economy and increase energy security, it would also significantly decrease greenhouse gas emissions and, thus, reduce the rate of global climate change. So the president has identified ways of moving forward.

Supplementary information provided by the White House says the president would accomplish his goals by investments in research and development of new energy and battery technology and by creating more certain markets for alternative energy (although how that is to be achieved is not clear). The Nature Conservancy’s analysis suggests that to reach the 80 percent level by 2035 would require us to replace about 60 percent of current energy-generating capacity with a combination of renewable sources, new nuclear, and efficient gas. Old and inefficient coal-fired generation would be the first to be retired. Gas may be seen as transitional fuel as we develop new technologies such as deep geothermal generation with even lower carbon emissions. Energy efficiency should also be given more importance in such an overall approach. These strategies, if successful, could be one of a number of efforts that would help to achieve the kind of long-term reductions in carbon emissions that are needed to stabilize the Earth’s rapidly changing climate. So it has multiple benefits: jobs, cleaner air, energy security, and reducing the rate of climate change. But the goal will require aggressive action by the public and private sectors.

The goal of a million electric cars by 2015 is similarly ambitious and goes hand in hand with the objectives for clean energy. Generating sources must be made cleaner to achieve significant greenhouse gas reductions from electric cars.

The Nature Conservancy supports all this with the proviso that there is adequate protection for the environment – included wildlife habitat – in the deployment of emissions-reducing energy technologies. Among other things, this means using the mitigation protocol to guide siting of energy facilities on public land, where possible, for energy siting and design on private lands – this strategy can help ensure that critical wildlife habitat is avoided and that potential harm to other natural areas is minimized or offset. We have not yet taken a position on nuclear power as a component of a clean-energy standard, but siting issues, particularly the impacts of plant-cooling technologies, are important here too.

The president also defended continuing regulatory authority in the federal government, although he talked about streamlining laws and making enforcement efficient and logical. The Nature Conservancy believes that America’s laws governing clean water, clean air, and toxics control have been of great benefit to people and wildlife and, while regulatory processes can be improved, the basic integrity of these statutes should be defended.

So, all in all, in difficult times, the president’s State of the Union speech is a step forward for energy policy and its attendant benefits. We are in a race with time for energy security, a sustainable economy, and for reducing the impacts of carbon pollution. And forward is good.

Last night, President Obama focused the public’s attention on the challenges we face in reducing the deficit (expected to remain over $1 trillion this year), reducing the national debt, and putting the economy on sound footing. Selling the notion of “winning the future” -- a theme originally promoted by Newt Gingrich -- the President righty focused on the importance of technology, innovation, and education, especially in the areas of science, math, and engineering.

The future will belong to the nations able to capture the technological frontier and compete vigorously with others, like China, in the global market place.

While President Obama deserves high marks for this call to action and his understanding that partisan wrangling won’t win the future, he failed on his prescription for energy and innovation. On these two subjects, he allowed an ideological agenda to trump objective realities.

The President’s call to further subsidize “green” energy by raising taxes on our oil sector reveals his off-oil bias and his failure to understand the serious limitations to alternative energy sources. Although he did not specify the tax rules he plans to target in his 2012 budget proposal, his track record indicates Section 199 -- the manufacturing tax credit available to all businesses -- will likely make the list.

Since any type of business from film studios to wind turbine manufacturers can take advantage of the credit, the President’s call to selectively repeal it only for oil and gas producers suggests his true objective involves punishing success and, in the process, driving up the price of energy. Denying the manufacturing tax credit to traditional fuel firms sends the troubling message, “we don’t want your jobs here.” And denying them the kind of foreign tax protections available to all U.S.-based multinational companies also says “we don’t want you to be able to compete.”

As a nation, we are going to need all of the energy we can produce to meet the needs and aspirations of our growing population and achieve the economic growth necessary to maintain our position as the world’s shining city upon a hill. The Energy Information Administration projects that our energy needs will grow more than 20% over the next two decades with most of that -- about 80% -- coming from fossil energy like coal, oil, and gas. The President’s goal would hamper our economy and keep on life support energy systems cannot yet stand on their own.

Supporters of subsidies for solar and wind, and in some cases, ethanol, claim that these are start up industries that just need a little support. The subsidies have been in place and growing for more than 30 years. In fact, over the past three decades, federal spending on clean energy development had surpassed the total inflation-adjusted cost of the Apollo program and Manhattan Project combined -- almost $120 billion combined.

The President’s prescription for innovation sounds like he wants to channel federal dollars into specific areas of innovation. That is an industrial policy and past efforts have failed dismally. The government has been a successful innovator only when it’s been meeting a government need, not those of consumers. That is the lesson derived from all of the historical analysis performed on the subject. The internet supports this notion. The Defense Department and its private partners developed the worldwide web to meet the agency’s needs. Only then did it migrate to the commercial and consumer sectors.

Supporting basic scientific research at universities, encouraging more students to pursue educations in math, science, and engineering, making the R&D tax credit permanent, and well thought out public-private partnerships for pre-commercial test of concept would all be steps in the right direction.

What we need to solve our energy and innovation challenges are policies based on facts and an understanding of unintended consequences. Policies driven by ideology and wishful thinking will only make our future dimmer and deficits larger.

If the United States were a corporation, it would have a business plan. It would have goals, strategies and timelines, and accountable executives in charge of achieving goals.

But until now, we have had no plan for winning the clean energy future to which we aspire. We subsidize dirty energy, we allow companies promoting the status quo to continue to drive our legislative and policy agenda, and we seem to have no national vision for the twenty-first century and for how we can break free of the chains that tie us to dirty, dangerous and costly fuels that have done so much damage over the past hundred years.

But President Obama’s State of the Union Address included some major glimmers of hope. The President seems to be honing in on a clean energy business plan. He made a number of important points that together are key steps on the road to a clean energy future.

Setting a goal is perhaps the most important first step, and he did that. The goal: Eighty percent of our electricity should come from clean energy sources by 2035. That seems like a good start. Now, how are we going to get there?

First, he said we will stop giving tax breaks to oil companies. Who can argue with that? We should be helping companies that are starting out and that can take us where we need to go, not those that are making record profits and that we know we need to be moving away from. This single step could put nearly $8 billion back in circulation every year. We should invest those funds to stimulate clean energy and the President gave some examples of ways to do that, like investing in battery research or solar technology. Even if we used that money for something unrelated, we would still be giving clean energy more of a fighting chance by not enriching its competition.

The President set another important goal: We should have one million electric cars on the road by 2015. By converting cars to run on electricity, we’re not just alleviating the pollution from gas engines, we’re creating another use for clean energy. This single step would save 18 million barrels of oil every year. This is oil for which we no longer need to drill reducing the risks we take in the Gulf.

This type of thinking is a welcome milestone in our journey to the clean energy future. Now that we have goals, we can identify strategies, timelines and accountabilities. If we do, our country will succeed like the corporations that follow well-designed business plans. And as the President said “That’s how we win the future.”

President Obama was right to focus on renewing economic growth and creating jobs through 21st century innovations in his speech. He recognized and emphasized America’s potential to lead the world in using renewable resources for energy, fuels, chemicals and materials to develop a sustainable biobased economy. And he issued a challenge to focus on the hardest challenges in clean energy, while pledging “fund the Apollo projects of our time.”

One of the most significant challenges on energy is to displace the entire barrel of oil – that is, producing alternatives for all of the products obtained from oil, from various fuels to plastics and chemicals. Biorefining thus provides the best opportunity for creating jobs and economic growth. Advanced biofuel production alone can create hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity, plus save billions by reducing imports of petroleum. Renewable chemical production has the potential to add tens of thousands more jobs while also reducing oil consumption.

This kind of economic growth is consistent with goals to reduce carbon emissions. In fact, 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be eliminated each year by transforming manufacturing to a more sustainable basis with industrial biotechnology, according to a 2009 report from WWF.

The United States is already a leader in biotechnology innovation, agricultural productivity, and manufacturing infrastructure – the keys to a robust biobased economy that will contribute as much as $230 billion to the global economy by 2020, according to the World Economic Forum.

What is needed is the political will to see programs through to the end. Again, the President was right when he said, “Because it’s not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need.”

The Obama administration recently announced USDA and DOE loan guarantees to help advanced biofuel developers build commercial-scale biorefineries. Additionally, the USDA has announced payments for biomass producers and additional grants for feasibility studies. Extension of tax advantages to biobased product and renewable chemical producers as well as new technology platforms such as algae would help to move the industry forward. Sustained federal commitment to reducing reliance on foreign oil, building a stronger economy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions along with continued funding of these vital federal programs is needed.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said, "Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's." To meet the energy demands of the future, we will need to rely on all sources of energy--past, present and future. Mandating renewable portfolio standards, clean energy standards and further subsidizing expensive renewable energy will likely slow our economic recovery.

In this State of the Union address, much of the President’s attention was rightly focused on economic growth. It’s imperative that we continue adopting policies to revive our economy and create new jobs. That’s why the President was correct to call specifically for investment in clean energy — including the clean energy industries that are vital to our future. As the President said, this will “strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.”

Those who see a conflict between clean energy and economic growth have been wrong before, and they are wrong today. It is well documented that investments in clean, renewable energy can create millions of American jobs — three times as many jobs as equivalent investments in fossil fuels. And improved energy efficiency means serious cost savings for both homes and businesses.

Nevertheless, I am disappointed that the President did not directly address the climate crisis — the defining challenge of our time. This is particularly urgent after we learned that 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record. The President should work with Congress on bipartisan policies to invest in clean energy and fight climate change. We still need bold legislation that will reduce global warming pollution and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. And the President must vigorously defend the clean air laws that have reduced air pollution for the past 40 years.

When we look outside of Washington, we can see America already making a transition to a clean energy future. More than half the states now have renewable energy standards, which will spur business investment and job growth nationwide. Texas now obtains nearly 8% of its electricity from wind. Several new large solar plants could soon quadruple the amount of solar power in the United States.

At Repower America, we recently asked our members to share clean energy success stories from their own communities. We have received a flood of inspiring stories, including one from Jeff Ehlers, President of Renewegy LLC in Wisconsin, who wrote: “My partners and I started a wind turbine manufacturing company in Oshkosh, Wisconsin in 2008 … We are growing and creating jobs right here in America. Our turbine is built here in Oshkosh using American made parts. We have installed 25 turbines to date within the USA at schools, businesses, and farms … We are proud of our efforts and are excited about doing our part to help the United States kick its habit of burning carbon. It won't be easy to give it up and it will take decades; however, we are doing what we can up here in Oshkosh.”

Another clean energy success story comes from Lanny Sinkin, Executive Director of Solar San Antonio: “Three years ago, CPS Energy, the municipally-owned utility in San Antonio, set a goal of building one megawatt of solar because solar was ‘experimental.’ Three years later, the solar picture in San Antonio is transformed … San Antonio now leads Texas cities in total installed renewables, including solar and wind.”

Success stories like these are happening all across the country. And that’s why the President and Congress must renew their commitment to clean energy in America. It's not just our economy and our leadership in the world that's at stake — it's the future of our planet.

President Obama presented a bold, confident plan for leading America into the future, and he placed clean energy solutions at its center. These technologies, he said, will help our nation “win the future.”

The president got it right: clean energy solutions will make our workers more competitive, our companies stronger, our country more secure, and all of us healthier.

He also got it right when he said that clear clean energy targets will help us realize those benefit. He urged America to get 80 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources by 2035.

I applaud the president’s ambitious goals in striving to boost clean energy generation in the United States. Many states have already achieved impressive gains with their own clean energy targets—targets that have attracted private investment and generated jobs. But the specifics are important. A true clean energy standard will foster more renewable electricity and energy efficiency and encourage us to leave behind old, dirty technologies we’ve propped up for too long already.

The president also stood up for the health of the American people over the special interests of big polluters who want to choke our air with endless clouds of life-threatening pollution. He underscored the role smart government protections play in keeping our families safe, and made clear his intention to enforce them.

Those lawmakers seeking to undermine the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to reduce dangerous pollution should take note. Now is not the time for these big polluters and their allies in Congress to take the nation backward to darker, dirtier days. Now is the time to move ahead with cleaner energy solutions that protect our families and generate jobs for American workers.

Innovators are creating these solutions right now, but the government can help unleash their full potential. President Obama reminded us that from the transcontinental railroad to the Internet, government incentives and research funds have brought our nation tremendous benefits. The president pledged to spur our nation’s best minds to do the same with clean energy.

I welcome his funding plan for these investments: he called on Congress to eliminate $4 billion in taxpayer money that we currently hand over each year to oil companies and other fossil fuel producers. “Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s,” he urged.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama was right to set job creation and economic growth as top priorities, but wrong to advocate policies that would do the exact opposite. If his attack demonizing the petroleum industry succeeds it will destroy jobs instead of creating them, raise costs for consumers instead of lowering them, and require billions in taxpayer dollars to fund unending subsidies for untested technologies unable to survive on their own.

It makes no sense to destroy existing jobs held by hard-working Americans today in hopes of creating new jobs that may never materialize tomorrow. We need to grow our economy and increase the number of jobs, not simply try to shift jobs from one sector to another.

Throughout history, government efforts to create economic winners and losers – no matter how well-intentioned – have been disappointments, and have been far less effective than the decisions consumers make with their buying power in a free market. Our nation should learn from the mistakes and failures of other nations that tried to control their economies.

America’s petroleum refiners and petrochemical companies are high-tech manufacturers that provide jobs for more than 2 million Americans directly and indirectly, make modern life possible and strengthen our economic and national security. We stand ready to help our nation and our fellow citizens return to prosperity.

Last night, President Obama crystallized a new moment in U.S. political and economic history. The president is declaring it the “new Sputnik moment,” but whatever the label, it represents a defining trend in American politics.

The catalyzing force behind this trend is the rise of China and the aftermath of the Great Recession, which is quickly producing new political fault lines. Just as the rise of the Soviet Union caused a fundamental political realignment in the United States, so the rapid rise of China is causing another today.

This realignment is just beginning, but one of the clearest implications is the rise of a new national economic strategy based on “innovation economics.” Instead of emphasizing spending cuts, even in the face of the Tea Party and new Republican House, Obama strongly promoted an active, innovation-centric federal strategy at the front and center of his agenda – a first for any modern president.

The key to American leadership in the face of China, Obama argued, is to make large-scale federal investments in the three pillars of economic competitiveness: innovation, education, and infrastructure. “We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world,” he declared. “That's how we'll win the future.”

By embracing an investment-centric strategy, Obama adopted a growing expert consensus: modern economic growth primarily emerges from technological innovation, and the federal government plays a central role in innovation. The information technology revolution was grounded in federal investments in microchips and the Internet – especially by the Department of Defense – and so were major growth sectors like aviation, biotech, and others.

One of the key areas Obama emphasized was a new approach on energy policy. “We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology,” he said. “We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo projects of our time.”

The new energy and climate movement will not be led by “climate hawks,” as David Roberts of Grist recently coined. Rather it will be led by innovation hawks, most recently represented by the American Energy Innovation Council and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Indeed, even after the collapse of cap and trade, the rapid decline of climate-centrism was highlighted by Obama’s choice to omit “climate change” from his speech entirely.

Innovation hawks are reemerging today, but they held a much stronger position throughout the Cold War. During this period, the success of federal investment shared a strong bipartisan history, from President Eisenhower’s interstate highway system, to President Kennedy’s Apollo Project, to President Reagan’s defense technology efforts. This industrial and innovation policy was often conducted by DOD under political radar. The Soviet threat produced a powerful political consensus behind defense spending, even if parts of it represented industrial policy.

Unfortunately, beginning in the Reagan administration, neoliberal doctrine began to discredit the role of public investment. And when the Soviet threat dissolved, the underlying investment imperative disappeared. On one hand, the diminished threat increased political polarization and anti-government sentiment, beginning with the 1994 mid-term election. On the other hand, the Soviet collapse fueled the triumphal neoconservative movement, represented by Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History” and Charles Krauthammer’s “The Unipolar Moment,” which argued that U.S. dominance was complete.

Despite the economic success during the Clinton administration – much of which came from past federal investments in information technology – Reaganomics and neoconservatism won the day, and the Bush administration was installed. September 11^th crystallized the neoconservative foreign policy agenda, and the invasion of Iraq dominated the administration, distracting from “nation-building” at home and the need to guard against financial crisis.

Throughout this period, a significant part of the U.S. innovation system was dismantled. Federal research and development as a portion of GDP declined by over 50 percent since 1964. Infrastructure investment declined from 3 percent of GDP between 1950-70 to less than 2 percent since 1980, and the American Society of Civil Engineers now calls for $2.2 trillion of upgrades. Meanwhile, the U.S. fell behind in STEM education and clean energy technology, among other sectors.

The rise and fall of the Soviet Union, the twilight of American unipolarity, the foreign terrorist threat – each of these foreign policy events caused realignment in the U.S. polity. But Fukuyama and Krauthammer were wrong: history didn’t end, and unipolarity only lasted a brief moment, if it ever existed at all. Today, in the aftermath of the Great Recession, we are witnessing another realignment with the rise of the next great power – one which may have far greater implications than Sputnik.

Obama believes that with the rise of China, America’s future belongs to leaders who can convince the public of a strategy for national greatness. As national pollster Stan Greenberg recently said, “People think the country is in trouble and that countries like China have a strategy for success and we don’t. They will follow someone who convinces them that they have a plan to make America great again. That is what they want to hear. It cuts across Republicans and Democrats.”

If he’s correct, and if China produces the same type of public investment imperative as the Soviet Union once did, then the current Tea Party and Republican resurgence is doomed. Either the party itself will collapse under its own weight, or more hopefully, a new brand of “innovation conservatives” will rise within the party and take over the reigns. Conservative intellectuals like David Brooks, Steven Hayward, and George Will are already starting this trend, but they’re still a small minority.

If he’s wrong, and the current political polarization and anti-government sentiment reflects a deeper trend, then the United States is most likely destined for slow but steady decline. This would imply an inability to confront the grand challenges of the century, including global energy transformation and our continued role as the underwriter of international security, among others.

Either way, the rise of China is transforming the U.S. political landscape as we know it. The fault lines are still emerging, but Obama’s second State of the Union was one of the first major attempts to draw a clear battle line in the sand. Those committed to America’s global leadership have little choice but to get behind the president and fight for the next innovation agenda. As Obama put it, “Our destiny remains our choice.”

(These comments were submitted by Josh Freed, Director of the Clean Energy Program at Third Way)

For a successful energy innovation policy, the President needs to argue that not all spending is equal, and that investments in clean energy—a $2 trillion global market—will pay off in job growth, improved competitiveness, and more reliable, clean energy.

If the U.S. were a company like Apple or GE, the board of directors would demand real investment in research on new product lines. Without R&D, these companies would be crushed in the marketplace. The President, coming out of the State of the Union, has to make clear that clean energy innovation is exactly the same thing - research and development for new product lines that can dominate a promising new marketplace.

We anticipate that the President will focus on a few energy policy options that are smart long-term investments. One of these is a Clean Energy Standard (CES), which would stimulate investment in deployment of cleaner energy technologies. With a CES, there would be a clear signal that clean energy projects like nuclear, wind and solar, clean coal and others are a smart bet for private investors. We expect that this standard would bring the costs of cleaner technologies down for American consumers and make these technologies more competitive for export.

The State of the Union address is an opportunity for President Obama to champion the recommendations of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, coming just weeks after the release of its report. During his address, the President should call on the United States to become the world’s leader in safe drilling standards, spill prevention, and response.

The administration has already taken positive steps, but it has a way to go with making important reforms. The spill commission pointed out that we are lagging behind other nations such as Norway and United Kingdom in safety. The President should seek significantly increased funding to improve oversight and environmental standards for drilling and spill response, as well as to implement other crucial reforms outlined in the commission’s report.President Obama should also call on Congress and the oil industry to do their part. Reform is especially critical now, as the oil and gas industry is planning to explore in frontier areas such as the U.S. Arctic Ocean, where remoteness, extreme weather, and ice conditions make spill cleanup extremely challenging. The President must assure Americans from the Gulf to the Arctic that his administration will ensure world-class standards for drilling, and will protect our coastlines and wildlife from oil spills. As a nation, we cannot afford to do anything less.

Given President Obama’s recent travels to advanced energy innovation centers around the country, including last week’s visit to GE Energy’s Power and Water headquarters in Schenectady, NY, it’s safe to assume that the President will speak to U.S. energy policy in his State of the Union address this week.

When it comes to a vision for America’s energy future, President Obama is now focusing on the right issues. He understands that there’s a global race for clean energy technology innovation excellence and winning companies will take home the jobs and exports that come with being first movers with advanced energy products and services.

As an American company with energy technology innovation excellence and with a presence in more than 100 countries, we see this issue up close on a daily basis. GE created about 6,000 U.S. jobs over the last two years by investing in advanced technology development and deployment, including energy technology. Just last week, GE Energy signed agreements that will boost U.S. exports to China by an estimated $350 million and which could, according to the U.S. Commerce Department, support 2,100 U.S. jobs.

The problem is that America lacks a coherent energy policy and investments in modern energy systems here at home are lagging. For more than a century, America enjoyed the enormous competitive advantage that comes from having the word’s most advanced energy infrastructure. That is no longer the case. Our electric power generation fleet is becoming older and less sophisticated than many of our economic competitors.

I expect President Obama to reiterate his vision for U.S. energy innovation excellence. I hope he will also outline a policy for getting us there.

At GE Energy, we are inventing the future and delivering the most advanced technology. What we need from government is the right policy framework to unlock the power of the marketplace and drive energy technology deployment here at home.

What a difference a year makes. When Barack Obama faced Congress for his State of the Union address last year, the Democrats had their largest majority in decades, a comprehensive climate and energy bill still seemed possible, and the Deepwater Horizon rig was just weeks away from starting to drill that well in the Gulf of Mexico.

One thing hasn't changed, though: Americans are worried about jobs. And, once again jobs will undoubtedly be a big part of Obama's speech. This year the president has an excellent opportunity to cheer the nation, to assure Americans that a prosperous future is on the horizon. Tomorrow night, he can describe how, thanks to good old American ingenuity, plenty of good jobs are already being generated by the development of wind, solar, and other new energy sources.

Last year, he failed miserably on that score. When he did talk about energy, his list of proposed energy initiatives sounded like an attempt to placate the opposition: nuclear power, "clean" coal, biofuels, and increased off-shore drilling.

At least one thing the president said last year still rings true today: "…the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation."

But, at the same time, President Obama must draw a line in the sand when it comes to every American's fundamental right to clean air and water -- a right that faces its greatest threat in forty years. The president needs to remind us that the health of our families and the health of our economy go hand-in-hand. As EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has pointed out, making polluters clean up during the past 40 years not only has saved millions of American lives but also has added trillions of dollars to our economy.

Forcing people to settle for work that ultimately makes them sick or that means their children will grow up carrying inhalers is not a real solution -- especially when we can put the same resources toward creating good, green jobs that both strengthen our nation and protect our health as we phase out dirty energy.

There's no shortage of success stories from even just the past year. Mr. President: Tell those stories. Show us how we can keep moving toward that future rather than let fear and uncertainty condemn us to dependence on the entrenched oil, coal, and gas interests that want to hold us back.

What can President Obama do to address America’s concerns about climate change and energy policy?

The short answer is that, whether we are talking about creating jobs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, being more energy efficient or increasing our energy independence, natural gas is a natural fit. With this in mind, President Obama should consider several specific steps:

First, ensure continued access to our vast domestic natural gas resource base, especially the abundant shale gas that we are now producing.

Continued, steady production from these shale plays is a key component, not only in creating new jobs – often in areas of the country where jobs are desperately needed – but also in helping to foster greater price stability, which will help ensure a cost-effective means to meet the growing energy needs of our economy. Increasing our efforts to maximize the many benefits of natural gas will also help to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Second, the president should make clear that natural gas must be a central part of any energy policy that the 112th Congress considers. If Congress moves forward on a renewable or clean energy standard, natural gas should be included as a compliance option. Policymakers should pursue a "smart energy" grid that ensures the right fuel mix is in place to achieve the greatest emissions reductions and energy savings. The fuel mix in such a "smart energy" approach will require the increased use of natural gas in America’s homes and businesses. And when used directly, natural gas delivers nearly three times more usable energy compared to electricity.

Third, he should look to our country’s rich supply of innovation and technological creativity to address some of our most pressing issues. The United States is home to many of the world’s leading alternative energy and carbon-neutral researchers, creative thinkers and entrepreneurs. Some are academics seeking to develop low-impact resources for idealistic reasons, while others are traditional energy companies looking to capitalize on the green energy market. Both should be encouraged because fundamentally shifting the very concepts of energy and energy supply will be an expensive and long journey.

There is no "app" for clean energy, but there is a strategy and, given time, it will bear fruit: (1) ensure access to America’s abundant, domestic natural gas resources; (2) draft a comprehensive energy policy that focuses on the effective utilization of natural gas; and (3) support and encourage the development of efficient, low-emission energy technologies.

The New York Times Dot Earth blog is currently hosting several leading energy advocates and thinkers to discuss their "elevator pitch" to President Obama if he were to announce a national energy listening tour in his State of Union and travel the country this year.

Today I was invited to weigh in with a brief statement along with Andrew Karsner, James Hansen, Bill McKibben, Shirley Ann Jackson, Paul Hawken, and several others, which are worth reading. Here was my statement:

President Obama is telling my generation loud and clear: America faces a new Sputnik moment, and the investments we make today -- especially in energy -- will profoundly influence our prosperity and security in the 21st century. As he declared in 2009, this is "the single most important challenge of their generation -- the need to develop cheap, abundant, clean energy and accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy.”

We hear you, Mr. President, and our generation is ready to lead the global energy revolution. But just as the Sputnik generation needed robust federal support to succeed, today our generation needs a bold federal commitment toenergy innovation and education. We need you to fight for your unfulfilled campaign promise to invest at least $150 billion in clean energy technology to unleash the nation's innovative capacity and empower a new generation of scientists and engineers.

This vision can reinvigorate the American people and reinspire the youth base to fight for your reelection next year -- and ultimately make you a great American president.

President Obama will no doubt focus on energy in his State of the Union address tomorrow. The previews indicate that the address will frame energy primarily (if not solely) as a means of bolstering a bottom line of jobs, jobs, jobs.

Concentrating entirely on jobs, however, would prove a lost opportunity to discuss the national security imperative for transitioning to a more diverse and resilient energy economy. It is true that the security of the nation rests in part on the strength of the American economy, but U.S. energy policy must also account for the destabilizing effects of growing worldwide fossil fuel demands and the stabilizing potential of diversifying energy supplies. The United States should bolster its renewable energy economy not just for the sake of leading global innovation, but so that our energy security is increasingly in our own hands. The President should use this State of the Union address to speak to the broad American public on the need to reduce the grip of energy demands on geopolitics globally, and on U.S. foreign and security policy specifically.

On a more operational level, the President could easily convey the security side of the energy debate by pointing to the U.S. Marine Corps’s current efforts to deploy solar and advanced battery technologies in Afghanistan to reduce the vulnerability of their logistics lines to ambush and general disruption. One Marine company reduced its fuel use by nearly 90%. This provides vivid proof that we are only beginning to understand the full benefits of energy innovation to the general economy, to the environment, and to those protecting and defending the country. Security should not become a lost piece of the message as President Obama opens a new chapter in the national energy debate tomorrow.

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union will focus on “making sure that we are competitive, and we are creating jobs not just now but well into the future.” He should endorse a comprehensive clean energy agenda primarily focused on executive actions to accomplish these goals and warn Congress that he would veto legislation to block or slow such progress.

According to The New York Times, the president plans to “describe five ‘pillars’ for ensuring America’s competitiveness and economic growth: innovation, education, infrastructure, deficit reduction and reforming government.” A clean energy agenda would strengthen these pillars.

Innovation

President Obama should forcefully advocate more investments in the invention, production, and deployment of clean energy technologies. The creation of a Clean Energy Deployment Administration or “green bank” would help companies take new technologies from successful R&D to commercialization, and restoring funds to the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program would support the development of innovative low-carbon pollution technologies. The administration also should assess America’s advanced manufacturing capability and collaborate with Congress to help manufacturers become more efficient and able to produce clean energy technologies.

Finally, requiring coal-fired power plants to reduce their mercury, carbon, sulfur, and soot pollution would drive innovation in the electricity sector to develop and deploy cleaner, more efficient alternative technologies.

These pollution control measures would also reduce the huge economic cost of air pollution. The National Academy of Sciences determined that burning coal and oil costs the United States about $120 billion annually in health costs—mostly due to thousands of premature deaths from air pollution.

Education

Clean energy is an emerging $2 trillion worldwide industry. We must train our young people to develop, build, and operate the clean energy technologies of the future. President Obama should therefore seek full funding for the green jobs program created under President George W. Bush.

Infrastructure

An executive order that requires federal agencies to purchase a portion of their electricity from wind, solar, and other renewable sources would expand and update our electricity infrastructure. In addition, the president should champion measures to site and build new, more efficient electricity transmission lines to bring renewable electricity from rural to urban areas.

The pollution limits for coal-fired power would also rejuvenate our electricity infrastructure. These reductions would lead to the retirement of old, dirty, inefficient coal plants that are too expensive to clean up. Greater utilization of cleaner, newer natural gas and renewable electricity would replace these outmoded facilities. President Obama should use the speech to tell Congress that he will veto legislation that blocks or delays such pollution safeguards.

To enhance our public transit infrastructure, the administration should implement the Clean Air Act requirement that bus fleets in large metropolitan areas use “low polluting fuel” such as natural gas. He should also advocate for legislation to invest in natural-gas-powered trucks and recharging infrastructure for electric cars.

Deficit reduction

President Obama should issue an executive order that federal agencies should purchase vehicles that attain higher fuel economy than the average vehicles in that class, saving both oil and money.

He should also propose to eliminate $40 billion in unnecessary tax breaks for Big Oil companies since most made huge profits over the last decade.

Reforming government

President Obama recently issued an executive order to review and streamline regulations. But he noted that executive branch rules, “from child labor laws to the Clean Air Act” are essential to protect the public, and can even benefit the economy. For instance, the Clean Air Act has an economic benefit-cost ratio of 20-1.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s upcoming air pollution rules are critical to further protect people. They also provide utilities with future certainty about health protection standards, give consumers improved electricity reliability, and create more demand for cleaner power to boost clean energy investments.

Take actions to reduce oil use

Oil prices are approaching $100 per barrel—nearly 20 percent higher than a year ago when Americans spent an average of $228 million per day on imported oil. These purchases are nearly half of our trade deficit. President Obama should set a goal of curbing oil imports and increasing our energy independence by achieving a 2.5 percent cut in imports by 2015.

He should direct the Department of Transportation and EPA to set fuel economy standards that reach 60 miles per gallon by model year 2025 for cars and light trucks. The first-ever efficiency standards for big rig trucks should require that they are up to 35 percent more efficient. Together these measures would save 3.2 million barrels of oil per day by 2030.

The State of the Union presents a golden opportunity for the president to reaffirm the nation’s commitment to a clean energy future. He can do this by announcing these executive actions that would save lives and grow a vibrant middle class by cutting pollution, creating jobs, and saving families’ money.

For more SOTU recommendations: Clean Energy Progress Without Congress: Priorities for State of the Union and Beyond.

President Obama will no doubt focus on the nation’s economy in his State of the Union address this week. But he will miss an important opportunity if he fails to talk about the ways a thriving domestic energy industry can support an economic recovery. Just weeks after the Obama Administration released a somewhat perplexing report on the Deepwater Horizon blast that left many Americans wondering about Obama’s commitment to domestic energy production, it is especially crucial that he elaborate on his plans. Hopefully, he will acknowledge how last year’s deepwater moratorium in the Gulf has devastated local economies in the area, and commit to adopting a more productive policy going forward.

The temporary drilling moratorium that was imposed last year has been lifted but permitting in the region remains slower than usual. Local businesses that are directly or indirectly tied to the oil industry have lost massive amounts of revenue and they are wondering how much longer they can hold on. Of course, our domestic oil policy reaches far beyond those oil-producing regions like the Gulf. When we have to import more oil from abroad, we are more subject to the pricing whims of other oil producing nations. Oil prices are trending up right now and that could be bad news for our still fragile economic recovery. If President Obama wants to reassure Americans that he is serious about creating jobs, he needs to discuss the specific energy policies that will contribute to that end.

State of the Union addresses are normally a grab bag of policy ideals and promises, giving something to every Cabinet Officer and constituency. Rarely do they break new ground or become the focus of subsequent agendas for legislative action. Last year’s speech broke the status quo with health care, and this Tuesday could provide another divergence from the norm.

President Obama is facing a Congress that could undue major parts of his health care overhaul and, at least, a House that will make deep cuts in federal spending. At the same time, he has to focus on the economy and jobs and show voters that he is willing to find common ground with Republicans in advance of 2010. The elections in November demanded nothing less.

Energy and regulatory reform should have places of prominence. The administration’s actions following the Deepwater Horizon accident essentially shut down investment in the Gulf of Mexico and idled thousands of workers on the Gulf coast. The Interior’s subsequent moratorium on offshore drilling on the East Coast sent a chilling ripple well beyond the oil industry. The President’s 180 on drilling leases<http://fuelfix.com/blog/2010/12/16/obama-administration-to-oil-industry-you%E2%80%99re-not-welcomed-here/> reinforced the view that Washington’s harboring hostility toward business.

Few doubt that we import more oil than we have to; and only dreamers fail to acknowledge that oil will remain the dominant transportation fuel for decades to come. Reversing the offshore moratorium and accelerating permitting in the Gulf would have two major benefits. It would not only begin the process of increasing domestic production, such a move would demonstrate that the recent outreach to business was genuine, and with increased exploration and production in the Gulf, off the East coast, and in Alaska, we could produce well over 1 million barrels per day. Although it could take years to reach and probably exceed that level, actual production would happen much sooner.

Every barrel of oil we produce here is a barrel we do not import. Increased domestic production results from increased investment, which creates well paying jobs here, not in some other country.

Beyond oil, we need an energy policy that allows us to mine and use our vast coal reserves and make greater use of natural gas reserves that can meet our needs for at least the rest of this century. Continued R&D on clear coal technologies and “fracking” by the private sector and DOE is in our energy and environmental interest.

The President and his environmental supporters are strong advocates for solar and wind power, they are reluctant to acknowledge is that neither can play more than a niche role and -- given the current state of technology -- require large subsidies that our nation cannot afford.

A robust R&D program could, in time, identify the energy systems and technology that can begin to replace fossil energy without subsidies. But that is a long-term undertaking. President Obama’s recent executive order on to verify the cost-effectiveness of federal regulation is a welcomed and important step. And EPA’s recent actions show that it has some understanding of how its regulatory proposals derail initiatives that are needed to get the economy growing and to reduce unemployment.

On January 25th, the President should indicate the steps he plans to take to ensure his guidance is implemented and that regulations contribute to economic growth, not hamstring it.

The foundation of sustained economic growth and our ability to compete in the global economy is a highly educated work force, affordable and abundant energy, and a tax and regulatory system that reflects its impacts on the ability of U.S. firms to create U.S. jobs, sustain technological innovation, and compete in a global economy.