(These comments were submitted by Nick Loris, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.)

In order for Obama to meet his objective to successfully wean America off foreign oil, his plan would actually have to work. Unfortunately, Obama’s “new” energy plan – which will supposedly reduce foreign oil imports by 2025 – isn’t really anything new at all. While Obama’s quick to cavalierly criticize his predecessors’ energy policies, Obama’s plans are no better, and in most cases, even worse. The reason Obama’s plan fails to address our nation’s energy needs is because the proposals are flat-out bad policy and his rhetoric doesn’t match his administration’s actions. Let’s take a closer look at the shortcomings in Obama’s energy approach.

Oil and Gas Exploration:
Obama claims that he wants to increase domestic production, but then his administration pulls out every tool in its box – even when that means vastly usurping its authority – to roadblock attempts to develop America’s resources. Opening more areas for domestic drilling (both on and offshore) is sound policy. Unlike Obama’s other energy proposals, this one is unique because it could actually work, but that’s only if his administration really does what he promises it will do. Need examples? Just look at what his administration has done to delay drilling in the Gulf or the setbacks with the approval for the Shell oil project in the Chukchi Sea.

Making matters worse, rather than taking responsibility for what the Obama administration has done to stymie energy production, Secretary Salazar recently accused drilling companies for selfishly sitting on leases, refusing to cultivate them. The problem with this argument is that it ignores reality; oil companies are doing everything possible to increase their drilling operations. The reason it may not look like they are is because of the unreasonable hoops the Obama administration makes companies jump through before putting a drill in the ground. Not to mention, environmentalists’ lawsuits can cause significant delays and come at any phase in the process – from challenging lease sale to disputing results of environmental impact statements to questioning permit applications.

Improving Vehicle Fleet:

Obama’s plan to secure our nation’s energy is not a plan to secure energy at all. The only thing his approach secures is taxpayer dollars for pet projects that are either too expensive for the private sector to undertake or are simply unwanted by consumers. The proposal of forcing consumers into driving electric or natural gas-powered cars is just another example of this administration’s proclivity to choose political winners, which is usually a great indicator that the technology or energy source is a market loser. Furthermore, despite tremendously generous subsidies for both production and consumption of electric vehicles, demand remains low. The only success we’ve seen at the government’s attempts to commercialize an industry is wasting taxpayers’ dollars.

More Biofuels:

As with the government’s attempt to force consumers to purchase electric cars, using subsidies and mandates to artificially create a market for biofuels will only hurt taxpayers and consumers. Not only will their tax dollars go to support the production of biofuels, fuel that contains 85 percent ethanol is more expensive than regular gasoline after adjusting for the lower energy content. President Obama emphasized we should move beyond corn-based ethanol but mentions nothing of removing the 54-cent-per gallon tariff we place on cheaper, more environmentally friendly, sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil. Further, cellulosic ethanol production, which comes from non-food sources, is nowhere near the industrial level of output Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency required it to be.

Clean Energy Standard

Despite what the Obama administration may claim, a clean energy standard is really cap-and-trade by a different name. Both are examples of government-forced cuts in energy use, and both would decrease incomes, increase energy costs, and destroy jobs. Furthermore, it’s a mistake to include CES in a discussion about our nation’s reliance on foreign oil sources. Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty of claiming that we can end our dependence on foreign oil by increasing wind, solar, and nuclear production. Increasing production of these energy sources would affect electricity production, not transportation fuels. We use very little oil to produce electricity.

Even though Obama talked a lot in his most recent energy speech, his solutions – just like the first time around that they were introduced – won’t successfully reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil. Tinkering with the market, and in turn creating an artificial one entirely dependent on government won’t help consumers.

President Obama’s announcement last week on energy covered a variety of strategies and approaches, each of which could be the subject of a separate post on this blog. But I want to focus my post this week on the issue of natural gas for transportation.

The U.S. has a lot of natural gas – 100 years’ worth, according to some sources. But, continued promotion of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles often obscures the larger opportunity of “natural gas transportation solutions.”

Natural gas can fuel at least three different types of vehicles – traditional CNG vehicles, electric vehicles via natural gas power generation, and fuel cell vehicles using natural gas as a feedstock for hydrogen production. For whatever reason, natural gas proponents focus on the least efficient use of gas in transportation (CNG) despite years of limited consumer acceptance. Instead, they should focus more on natural gas as a feedstock for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

Granted, in the medium and heavy duty truck markets, where drivers refuel at a central location each day, “traditional” CNG vehicles have already secured a niche market, and the potential for growth looks promising. But for light duty personal transportation, where most oil is consumed, policymakers should promote options that provide the greatest long-term benefits and value. Vehicle electrification is already on the radar screen of automakers, the administration and the public, and will certainly provide an avenue for natural gas electricity to fuel transportation. But, often overlooked are hydrogen fuel cells using natural gas as a feedstock for hydrogen production.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are the most environmentally advanced vehicle technology we know of, emitting nothing but water. Toyota and other automakers will be introducing these vehicles in the U.S. in the 2015 time frame. Natural gas as hydrogen feedstock is a major part of that equation. And because of their superior efficiency, fuel cells will consume less natural gas per mile than CNG vehicles, while providing consumers with greater range and lower energy costs per mile. But just like CNG vehicles, fuel cells will require infrastructure development on a broad scale. Federal and state governments, using taxpayer resources, cannot be expected to foster the creation of two distinct infrastructures over the coming decade while managing biofuels and electric vehicle investments today. We should focus on the one infrastructure – hydrogen - that allows more efficient use of natural gas and supports vehicles with greater value to consumers.

The future begins now, with hydrogen from natural gas providing a viable solution to our long-term transportation needs starting in 2015, and an eventual transition to zero carbon transportation.

President Obama’s energy plan contains a number of important elements—specifically, the use of domestic energy sources such as oil, natural gas, and biofuels, which are necessary components of any energy plan for our country.

However, President Obama’s call for the use of 80 percent “low-carbon sources” by 2035 could potentially pose problems for energy cost and reliability—and ultimately security. Over the past two years, Congress failed to pass less ambitious renewable energy standards because of the effect such standards would have on energy cost and reliability, jobs, and the economy. The Institute for Energy Research found that electricity prices are nearly 40 percent higher in states with renewable energy mandates, and other studies found that renewable energy standards would raise electricity prices, reduce the GDP, and eliminate jobs.

Additionally, a renewable energy standard could also affect energy reliability and security. You may recall the heat waves in Texas last summer that caused record energy usage. Texas has the capacity to generate more wind energy than any other state, but because the wind just wasn’t blowing, the state was only able to utilize 13 percent of its wind energy capacity. If Texas was unable to rely upon its renewable energy source when it was needed the most, states wholly dependent on fossil fuels will have trouble, too—potentially leading to blackouts or at least increased reliance on foreign sources.

It’s clear that any energy plan must include all sources of energy: coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar, hydropower, biofuels, and nuclear power. It’s clear that states must be able to choose which energy sources make the most sense in terms of cost and reliability—some states would have an easy time using wind or solar, while other states are dependent on affordable and reliable coal, and we must recognize this fact. If President Obama supports the use of all domestic sources, both traditional and renewable, then consumers can certainly get behind his energy plan.

However, the real problem for energy cost, reliability, and security is another Administration plan—the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate change regulations. These regulations are very different from President Obama’s energy vision, because they would ultimately restrict the sources of energy available for use in this country. With a slew of regulations being implemented all at once—ranging from burdensome emission-control requirements to regulations on power plant cooling structures—energy costs will skyrocket while energy reliability will plummet. The power plants that comply with the costly regulations will certainly raise electricity prices on consumers to cover the costs, while other plants will close altogether. According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), these regulations will reduce our energy capacity by 46 to 76 megawatts, primarily from coal, which supplies approximately half of our country’s power. This can’t be good for states dependent on fossil fuels—and it can’t be good for energy security.

Although we’re still learning the details of President Obama’s energy plan, it can only help to encourage the use of sources like oil, natural gas, and biofuels in conjunction with our traditional sources like coal. The most urgent threat to energy security, however, is the EPA’s regulations, and I hope that any energy plan determined by the President or by Congress addresses the regulations.

If the President had any interest in increasing America’s energy security, he would be proposing exactly the opposite of his ‘new’ energy plan, which is nothing more than recycled policies from the past that have led to increasing imports of foreign, state-owned oil and decreased access to America’s vast energy resources.

President Obama’s energy plan will undoubtedly cause Americans to depend more heavily on state-owned energy companies in hostile parts of the world. That’s because, whether he will admit it or not, his plan continues to keep America’s vast energy resources under lock and key. A recent Congressional Research Service study showed that America has the largest fossil fuel resources in the world. However, under Obama’s plan, our nation’s energy resources will remain idle while Americans are forced to look elsewhere for the fuels that power their cars, homes, businesses, hospitals, schools, and so much more.

This is no accident. While President Obama campaigned for office, he proudly boasted that his energy plan would cause electricity rates to ‘necessarily skyrocket.’ His Secretary of Energy, Stephen Chu, has publicly stated that the U.S. needs to figure out how to raise gas prices to the level in Europe (where prices are now above seven dollars per gallon). His Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar, objected to any drilling for oil in the OCS, even if gas prices topped ten dollars per gallon.

President Obama chose anti-energy ideologues to fill his administration whose explicit goal is to increase the cost of coal, oil, and natural gas. Only with skyrocketing energy prices will their politically-favored ‘green’ projects become cost effective.

Having failed to pass his crippling cap-and-trade scheme through Congress, President Obama is now attempting to use EPA as the vehicle for a national energy tax. The proposed regulations of greenhouse gases will either raise the cost of production or make it downright impossible. These new layers of ‘green tape’ simply encourage businesses to bring their factories and offices to other nations where their productive work will not be penalized by a government that is blinded by ideology.

At a time when our nation is beginning to emerge from a deep recession, President Obama should be focused on allowing the private sector to create jobs in our great nation. Instead, he is using the EPA to chase jobs out of the country and lay the foundation for another economic recession.

If President Obama is truly interested in creating an energy policy that secures America’s energy future, he needs to get his bureaucrats out of the way and allow American companies to responsibly develop our domestic energy resources, the largest in the entire world. Consumers should be able to choose where they get their energy instead of being forced to use inefficient fuel sources. The State Department needs to get off its hands and approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project, which could further strengthen our relationship with Canada and drastically decrease the amount of oil we import from nations in hostile regions of the world. Finally, Obama must allow for energy production in Alaska where billions of barrels of oil lay idle.

Our energy challenges will not be solved through command-and-control federal rules that erode the freedoms and liberties of the American people. Get out of the way, President Obama, and let America’s energy workers get back to business.

President Obama made it clear during his energy security speech at Georgetown University on March 30 that pursuing alternative energies and establishing higher fuel economy standards is essential to diminishing the U.S.’s addiction to oil. He outlined a detailed list of clean energy options that offer incentives for many developing technologies including biofuels, natural-gas, and electric vehicles. Specifically, he called upon a variety of biofuels – not exclusively corn ethanol, but also biofuels made from switchgrass, wood chips and biomass – to pave the way forward. Continued support for ethanol technologies by congress is crucial to realizing the potential of this dynamic fuel to power our country.

Biofuels encompasse a diverse range of transportation fuels based on crops such as corn and sugar, but also on products like algae and organic waste. As research continues, opportunities to offset old petroleum-based technologies with cleaner, renewable biofuels expands. And we expand our abilities to achieve another important national goal – domestic job creation. Congress, eager to reinvigorate our economy, should waste no time providing the necessary support for the increased development of biofuels technology.

Beyond job creation and energy independence, biofuels also make a significant contribution to the reduction of carbon emissions when compared to fossil fuels. In fact, according to U.S. Department of Energy, fuel ethanol emits 19 to 52 percent less carbon than today’s petroleum based fuels. Another benefit? Biofuels are actually more energy efficient than what we use today. According to Growth Energy, a leading trade association representing the ethanol industry, there are more than 100 plants across 26 states creating a transportation fuel that is a net energy gain, producing 2.3 btus for every single btu put into production -- that is better than twice the rate of return on gasoline, which is a 1-to-1 btu ration. Every day, ethanol production becomes more energy efficient, less water-intensive, and more environmentally friendly.

Obama’s call for increased use of biofuels is already in the works. The EPA already has supported the integration of biofuels into the gasoline at our pumps by proposing to increase the ethanol content in gasoline from the current ten percent to a 15 percent blend. But we need Congress to approve the credit as a part of a broader, comprehensive energy plan. We are making progress and it was heartening to hear that just this week, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced a financial assistance initiative for gas stations which install E85 pumps (85 percent ethanol blends for flex fuel vehicles) in an effort to meet President Obama’s goal of 10,000 new blender pumps in five years.

As technological developments continue, biofuels have the potential to occupy an even greater share of the transportation fuel we depend upon. Specifically, cellulosic ethanol technology has shown greater potential to become a viable energy source in just the last year. The jump in oil prices and investment in this sector is a reminder of the importance of advancing biofuels production in the U.S.

And we are doing our part, like much of the private sector, to innovate new technologies to meet these significant national goals. In 2010, in partnership with University of Tennessee, Danisco (the parent company of Genencor) and DuPont, through our joint venture, DDCE opened a cellulosic ethanol demonstration plant in Vonore, Tennessee, that has the potential to produce 250,000 gallons of ethanol from corncobs and switchgrass, further preparing this integrated technology for commercial production. Plans are also underway for a 25 million gallon commercial cellulosic refinery to break ground in 2012. While we are moving forward with our plans, much of the industry needs the added support of government incentives and financing to spur more investment and confidence in this sector.

Research and investment in the biofuels refining process is also turning up new opportunities for the waste it produces. USDA reports that the by-products created in the production of biofuels from winter barely can be used itself as a fuel. Genencor is actively working to make use of these by-products, which can also add to our energy supply.

When Americans first began relying on petroleum, it was expected that the technology needed to go through many phases of research and refinement to maximize efficiencies and drive down costs. But even today, oil as an energy source still carries with it great risks, as we witnessed firsthand last year with the Gulf oil spill. The economics behind using oil are making less sense as the supply becomes more limited, much more expensive and more difficult to acquire.

Now is the time to invest our research capital into biofuels: a fuel that Americans can produce at home and is already showing great potential to provide cleaner, more reliable energy.

President Obama’s “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future” is a good starting point for the coming debate over energy policy. The support for clean energy technology deployment outlined in the plan would advance U.S. energy security and ensure U.S. leadership in energy technology innovation.

The plan also rightly and smartly “widens the technology tent,” going beyond traditional renewable technologies to include highly efficient gas turbines, advanced coal technology with carbon capture and storage, and other advanced energy technology solutions – which enables power providers and regulators to choose the best technologies to meet their local circumstances and minimize the cost to consumers.

A wide technology tent is important to achieving congressional support for any energy proposal. Conflicts over energy policy typically fall along regional, not party, lines, with different parts of the country having differing resource mixes and energy use patterns. Choice of technology reduces regional disparities and thus should be more politically achievable than proposals of the past.

We have already seen the positive impact that far-sighted state policies, such as a state renewable portfolio standard, can have. These policies have driven state demand for renewables, attracted manufacturing investment and created good paying jobs. These actions have changed America’s energy landscape by creating a more diversified electric power portfolio of technologies and enhanced U.S. energy security.

We know that U.S. energy security will be impacted by wider adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), which we predict will be driven by expected high gasoline prices. Accelerating electrification of the U.S. vehicle fleet is one of the most effective ways to increase fuel economy. As EVs command greater sales in the United States, electricity generated from domestic fuels will increasingly displace imported energy – a major development for future U.S. energy security and sustainability.

Natural gas will also take on greater importance in bolstering U.S. energy security, as new domestic reserves are utilized. Advanced gas turbine technology enables flexible operation of highly efficient gas power plants, thus enabling the integration of intermittent renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, while protecting the reliability and stability of the electric grid.

Investments in utility-scale renewable power will increase the supply of domestic energy and boost U.S. energy security. Already, the cost of commercial-scale wind and solar power has dropped dramatically in recent years. For example, GE recently announced a breakthrough in lower-cost, thin-film solar panel technology that will further reduce solar power costs. We plan to build the largest thin-film solar factory in the United States and have it up and running in 2013. As the cost of solar energy drops, some investment analysts suggest that solar power costs will achieve grid parity in some U.S. regions this year, an important tipping point that we expect will spur continued deployment.

Cleaner coal technology can ensure that America’s most abundant fuel remains an important part of the U.S. energy mix, but only if government policies create the right framework to reduce barriers and lower costs for commercial-scale advanced coal power technology with carbon capture and storage.

Companies, such as GE, have to do their part and so too must the government. We applaud President Obama for his energy vision, and we look forward to working with him, Congress and all stakeholders to enact policy certainty this year.

Several parts of President's energy plan are worth applauding, but unfortunately the sum of its parts won’t deliver what the U.S. truly needs when it comes to energy – lower prices, increased supply and greater security. Once referring to oil as “yesterday’s energy,” it’s encouraging to see the President now promote more domestic oil exploration by expanding access to offshore and onshore reserves. This will be helpful in terms of increasing U.S. production to meet his one-third reduction of imported oil and also promote much needed job growth here at home. It’s also reassuring to see the President stand up to those who want to roll back the clock on decades of progress made in nuclear energy, which I highlighted in our recent discussion. The President’s plan goes off track however under his Clean Energy Standard requiring that 80 percent of electricity comes from renewable energy while giving only “partial credit” for electricity coming from natural gas and coal-fired plants that have carbon capture and storage (CCS). Despite progress, CCS is not yet commercial and probably won’t be for 10 to 15 years. Renewable energy also tends to be more expensive than conventional energy and substituting one for the other will further slow economic recovery. We should actively pursue renewables as an additional energy source but requiring 80 percent of energy to be under the President’s definition of “clean” and “renewable” will raise electricity costs and slow economic growth while doing little to reduce global greenhouse gas emissons. Furthermore, the President needs to pull the plug on subsidies for costly, inefficient projects like high speed rail. The President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget calls for $8 billion in 2012 and $53 billion over 6 years for high speed rail. If this project were viable, the private sector would do it without government subsidies. One needs to look no further than Amtrak as an example of a service that still cannot pay for itself despite years of taxpayer funding. Perhaps one of the most notable things from President Obama's major address on energy last week was what he didn't defend (or even mention)--his EPA‘s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. EPA's overreach could reduce business investment by $ 25-$75 billion in the coming years and cost up to 1.4 million U.S. jobs lost and a loss of up to $141 billion in GDP in 2014. With an economy still struggling, the President should prohibit or at least delay EPA’s regulatory authority on GHGs under the Clean Air Act. As U.S. population increases we need sufficient energy supply energy to promote economic growth to get us out of our economic slump. Energy use and economic growth go hand in hand; each 1 percent increase in U.S. GDP is accompanied by a 0.2 increase in energy use. The U.S. Department of Energy projects that the U.S. will need approximately 17 percent more energy by 2035 to accommodate our growing population, higher levels of employment, and economic activity. If the President wishes to meet this demand, make energy more affordable and promote energy security he should take his blueprint back to the drawing table.

President Obama was wise to join the growing chorus of voices across the political spectrum who are recognizing the “enormous” potential natural gas offers both our transportation and power sectors. In recent speeches, the President has rightly highlighted the valuable contribution that North American natural gas vehicles, or NGVs, can make in increasing the energy security of our country, while also providing clean air benefits here at home.

Natural gas vehicles are both cheaper to fuel and cleaner than many of their counterparts on the road today. When used for transportation, natural gas is up to 25 percent cleaner than traditional gasoline and can reduce smog-producing pollution by up to 90 percent. In fact, the emission reductions are so great across a broad spectrum of pollutants that converting just one trash truck to run on natural gas is equivalent to taking 325 cars off the road.

The economic appeal is compelling, as well. Right now natural gas is nearly 50 percent cheaper than gasoline or diesel, providing Americans with savings at the pump as gasoline prices begin to rise with the recent instability in the Middle East. This cost-savings makes smart business sense, as well. Leading U.S. companies, such as UPS, AT&T and Verizon are embracing natural gas vehicles for their service vans and delivery trucks.

President Obama reinforced his commitment to making natural gas a part of America’s energy-security future when he visited a UPS facility in Maryland on April 1. UPS currently has a fleet of more than 1,100 natural gas delivery trucks.

Congress, too, is championing American transportation. Last week, Reps. John Sullivan (R-OK), Dan Boren (D-OK), John Larson (D-CT) and Kevin Brady (R-TX) introduced the Nat Gas Act of 2011 to encourage greater use of American natural gas in transportation.

Whether your concern is U.S. energy security, local air quality, or the price at the pump, natural gas vehicles offer a compelling solution to help address some of our nation's most pressing energy needs. From the White House to Congress to leading U.S. companies, NGVs are rightly getting the attention and priority they deserve as a cornerstone of innovative solutions to our nation's energy and environmental challenges.

This nation needs a long-term, comprehensive energy plan that incorporates renewable energy and emphasizes conservation along with conventional sources of energy. A policy that meets these requirements is more likely to pass the test of Congress, even in this intense political climate.

But President Obama is absolutely right: There are no quick fixes. Although oil plays a role in the president’s energy plan, the government must ensure proper oversight and planning before drilling, especially in such extreme, remote and fragile areas as the Arctic Ocean off of Alaska’s northern coast.

There are currently 3.8 million acres under lease to drilling companies in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. There are considerable challenges in permitting responsible exploration on these tracts. A careful, precautionary approach is necessary to ensure we get it right.

These challenges include impacts to bowhead whales, walruses and polar bears, as well as to the Native villagers’ traditional way of life along the coast. Scientists have a very limited understanding of how the warming Arctic is affecting the marine ecosystem. In addition, these remote areas have little to no infrastructure in place to deal with an oil spill. And there is no proven method for cleaning up a spill in icy waters, especially when accounting for the hurricane-force winds, extreme temperatures, and long periods of fog and darkness that plague the region.

Government must ensure strong prevention, containment and response measures that are on site and ready to go given the remote and extreme conditions. Much more needs to be done first to make sure we can do it right and prevent major spills that could damage this fragile ecosystem. That is why we have advocated that the Interior Department should not offer any new leases for sale in the U.S. Arctic Ocean as it drafts its 2012-2017 Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing plan, which will govern offshore drilling over the next five years.

The BP Deepwater Horizon spill provided the world with a prime example of what can occur when companies drill without strong oversight, monitoring and tested safety and response plans in place. America cannot afford to make that mistake again, particularly in the Arctic Ocean where harsh conditions require exceptionally strong safety standards that minimize the potential for a spill and maximize the ability to successfully contain and clean one up should it occur.

(These comments were submitted by former Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo. His biography is available at www.bobbeauprez.com)

A tax by any other name is still a tax. And, when ill-conceived government policy needlessly sucks money out of the working man's pocket, the effect is the same as a tax.

Gas prices have more than doubled since Barack Obama took office. Costs have soared 20% (67 cents per gallon) just since the first of the year. Like a gas surtax, this price spike is costing the average driver an additional $1000 per year. It's an extremely regressive tax hammering hardest on working class American's that the President promised would escape a tax increase. And, the busy summer driving season that increases demand and drives prices even higher is right around the corner.

Obama's quick-fix solution for the rebellion in Libya is still anybody's guess. Contrary to his false claims, the Energy Department says oil production from the Gulf will decline 35% because of Interior Secretary Salazar's wrong-headed moratorium and contemptible permitting obstinacy. He says his Administration is for more domestic production, but the critical small business wildcatters who punch a great many new wells say that Obama's new permitting regulations are "strangling" them to the point that their rigs are sitting idle and their survival is very much in doubt.

Obama gave a speech recently at Georgetown University billed as an address on America's Energy Security in which he basically said we should use less oil. The next week he gave another speech in which he joked about the rapidly rising gas prices, "You're paying more at the pump. Anybody notice that?" He was the only one laughing.

This week the Administration rolled out another idea. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who just happens to be from Iowa, says we need more corn, as in ethanol. That's right ethanol – that is already subsidized 45 cents per gallon by the same people that are paying $4.00 at the pump already. Ethanol that "required 29% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced" according to University of California-Berkley and Cornell University research. That means ethanol is a net contributor to carbon emissions, not the clean air solution as originally trumpeted. Ethanol that is consuming nearly 40% of all U.S. corn production, up from just 7% in 2001, which is contributing greatly to a 29% rise in global food prices and inflation fears here at home. Ethanol that we now know invites more questions than it offers answers and is adding an estimate 10-25 cents per gallon to the cost of fuel, not reducing it.

Government mandates that just about all gas blends contain 10% or more ethanol, and about 3% of the nation's highway vehicles, "flex-fuel vehicles," will burn a richer 85% blend of ethanol fuel, E-85. Currently, just 2% of all the pumps in America have E-85, so Vilsack's big plan is to increase that to about 10% by 2016.

How more E-85 pumps five years from now are supposed to relieve the immediate pain at the pump is unclear. But, like every policy idea that comes from this Administration, we are going to get the bill. Vilsack's plan would cost consumers more at the pump – and for the pumps. He says the taxpayer is going to get to pay for all those new pumps through government "guarantees and grants" at a cost of about $120,000 each.

Steve Forbes branded this Administration as having "the most anti-oil and gas record in U.S. history." He was right. Obama's Energy Secretary made the Administration's goal perfectly clear just prior to the 2008 election when he said, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Unfortunately, they are well on the way.

For this President to even feign some sympathy for the pain and economic damage his policies are inflicting is beyond "spin" – it's shameful. Economies grow on energy. This President can say what he wants, but his actions give him away. He has enacted a deliberate war on the traditional energy sources that still provide for 85% of the nation's energy needs. His policies continue to kill jobs, extend the recession, and threaten survival for countless America businesses and families.

The President’s Energy Blueprint recognizes the benefits of accelerating the deployment of electric drive vehicles in reducing our dependence on foreign oil, reducing emissions and boosting economic growth. With gas prices getting close to record highs, we again are reminded how the cost ripples through the economy, hurting consumers, businesses and contributing to higher trade deficits.

If we are to meet the President’s goal of one million electric vehicles by 2015 and reduce oil imports, we need to expand electrification through the transportation sector and grow the existing efforts of vehicle manufacturers, battery and charging infrastructure providers, utilities and policymakers in a concerted way. We have made great progress as an industry and key policy support has reinforced our successes in getting hybrid, plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles to market, expanding battery manufacturing and refueling options. But there is more to be done and we all have a role to play:

Vehicle Manufacturers: Grow the fleet and consumer choices. In the next three years, we expect there will be more than 20 plug-in vehicles available for sale in the U.S. Consumers will be able to choose the electric drive option that suits their needs. Federal, state and local governments and businesses will also have many options to electrify their fleet vehicles.

Battery and Component Providers: Reduce costs. There is no debate that battery costs need to come down to bring the prices of vehicles closer to conventional vehicles. The good news is that battery technology is advancing rapidly and cost per kilowatt hour has been reduced dramatically. U.S. manufacturing capacity got a critical boost from the U.S. Department of Energy’s grants to support factories in the U.S. that produce batteries, as well as motors and other EV components. By 2014 , the U.S. will be home to manufacturing capacity to produce 500,000 EV batteries annually.

Charging Providers: Expand availability. Already some 22,000 charging stations are being installed across the country. More will be needed to meet the diverse charging needs of consumers in small and large cities, in urban, suburban and rural areas. Although most consumers will charge their vehicle at home, drivers will want additional options, such as office, municipal and retail recharging. While cities, consumers and businesses are installing charging infrastructure, federal policies should support and help to expand those investments.

Utilities: Make it easy, affordable and reliable for consumers to charge at home. Every home with electric power can tap this domestic energy to fuel their vehicle. Utilities have ongoing relationships with the customers they serve and play a key role in helping consumers learn about charging their electric vehicles and about maximizing the benefits of electricity as a fuel. With the support of vehicle manufacturers and utilities, EDTA has launched a consumer education website, www.GoElectricDrive.com, that provides consumers with tools for calculating their cost savings from driving an electric vehicle and information on incentives and available vehicles. Greater public education is needed to help consumers understand their electric drive choices and their benefits. Utilities are also putting plans in place to effectively manage demand as electric vehicle adoption grows.

Policymakers: Help consumers and commercial fleets put vehicles and charging in place. Electric drive transportation reduces oil consumption and has lower operating costs than conventional counterparts, but the initial costs of these emerging technologies create a market hurdle. For example, extending the tax incentive for charging infrastructure and reinstating the incentive for electric drive trucks will accelerate the electrification of transportation. The President’s Blueprint recognizes the need for a federal partnership in the research and development that will expand the performance, reduce costs and produce the next generation of electric drive. The plan also calls on federal agencies to make 100 percent of their vehicle purchases be alternative fuel powered vehicles by 2015. Along with federal support for national and regional deployment efforts, these are important steps in jumpstarting the market, while reducing oil dependence and emissions.

The electric drive industry has made great strides over the last decade. The advances in the industry will be on display at EDTA’s Innovation Motorcade, launching Tuesday, April 19, with Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the Department of Energy. The Innovation Motorcade will feature more than 20 electric drive vehicles travelling through the streets of Washington, demonstrating the industry’s progress and potential to meet the President’s goal of one million EVs on the road by 2015.

While the Obama energy plan is a good starting point for comprehensive energy efficiency and a great baseline for creating a Clean Energy Standard (CES), the president’s proposal excluded energy efficiency, which must be an integral part of a CES.

Energy efficiency is clean, secure, domestic and cheap. It reduces energy bills for consumers and businesses, creates jobs with American manufacturers and businesses, helps avoid new power plants and enhances our national energy security by reducing oil imports. Moreover, energy efficiency technologies are commercially available today, can be widely deployed in every state in the nation and offer quick payback periods.

Efficiency is the cheapest electricity resource. Evaluations of energy efficiency programs have found costs to electric utilities average 2.5 cents/kWh saved compared to generation resources costing from 8 to 16 cents. Since energy efficiency is a resource that meets the goals of a clean energy standard at low cost, excluding efficiency from eligible CES resources would severely distort the clean energy market, unnecessarily increase costs and reduce the potential benefits of a CES.

In addition to a clean energy standard, the nation needs strong complementary policies, including stronger building codes and appliance standards and building energy labeling. To address this need, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) will shortly be introducing a strong bipartisan energy efficiency package which, if enacted, will provide the complimentary policies that will optimize energy savings through provisions such as strengthened building codes.

The Shaheen-Portman bill utilizes efficiency to promote energy savings in a wide array of areas, including buildings, utilities, manufacturing industries and transportation. Such complimentary policies should be joined with a CES that contains energy efficiency as the twin pillars of our national energy policy.

We at the American Wind Energy Association support putting more electric and hybrid-electric vehicles into America's auto fleet and promoting a diverse electricity portfolio through a Clean Energy Standard.

While the President can influence legislation, he and his Administration have far more control over the policies of executive agencies. For wind power, this regulatory role is more important now. We highlight below some concrete steps that could remove existing roadblocks for renewable energy development.

First, the administration could withdraw recently proposed avian guidelines for wind farms and instead adopt a pro-wildlife consensus agreement that was worked out under the supervision of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a two-year advisory committee process. The more recent draft guidelines that the Service issued while ignoring the consensus agreement threaten at least 35,000 megawatts of homegrown electricity (enough to generate as much electricity as eight nuclear power plants) and $70 billion in private investment. The Service is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and prompt, decisive action is needed to restore the consensus agreement.

Second, the Administration could press forward with removing roadblocks to the building of new, higher-capacity transmission lines to improve the reliability of the nation's electric utility system and save consumers money by providing access to new resources, including renewable energy. The Department of Energy can help facilitate regional agreements and utilize authorities to get transmission lines sited.

Cost is not a major obstacle to building transmission, and taxpayer funding is not needed. In fact, the benefits of building transmission are much greater than the cost, which means that private industry could build the lines at a profit while simultaneously benefiting consumers.

We strongly urge that the Administration move forward on these issues, which must be resolved in any event for a more comprehensive energy policy to be fully effective.

When I first heard that President Obama was setting a national goal to reduce oil imports by a third by 2025, my immediate reaction was to imagine if President Kennedy had pledged in 1962 to get America a third of the way to the moon by 1977.

On the one hand, it was good to hear the President is showing leadership on this issue, and only real solutions to the oil dependence crisis are solutions that will reduce our consumption of oil. Obama’s Georgetown address moved past the meaningless debate about how we can best despoil our environment in order to marginally increase domestic production, in spite of overwhelming evidence that increasing production will have no impact on the price Americans pay for gasoline. He spoke the truth when he said that “[t]he United States of America cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity, our long-term security on a resource that will eventually run out, and even before it runs out will get more and more expensive to extract from the ground. We can’t afford it when the costs to our economy, our country, and our planet are so high.”

On the other hand, reducing imports by a third is a goal that is too small to effectively prevent most of the devastating environmental and economic impacts of our dependence on oil. Even if successful, we will still have skies and coasts threatened by toxic air pollution and offshore drilling, we will still be vulnerable to price fluctuations and events in the unstable Middle East, and we will still be responsible for billions of tons of global warming pollution. Obama was elected talking about the fierce urgency of now, but he has governed by the moderate rules of incremental reforms.

This modest goal suggests that President Obama operates too much in the realm of what seems politically possible in the near term. He has not done enough to present Americans with a compelling vision of what would be possible if we changed the way Washington works to truly prioritize the health of our planet and the economic needs of middle class Americans over the greed of oil companies.

Our response to the crises of oil dependence and global warming needs to be commensurate with the urgency of these issues. We need to set fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks that will make 60 mpg cars the norm by 2025. We need to create an infrastructure to support electric vehicles that can compete with the existing distribution network for oil. We need to enact policies that will stimulate billions in public and private sector investment in new, clean fuels. And we need a federal transportation bill that will invest in the transportation choices that will give Americans the ability to get around efficiently in a future in which oil prices are likely to continue to increase.

The bipartisan legislation recently introduced by Senators Jeff Merkley and Olympia Snowe presents a more ambitious and valuable path forward on oil. The Snowe/Merkley bill would set a much stronger goal – eliminating all overseas oil imports by 2030. It would create a national council that would be dedicated to figuring out the best strategy to reach that goal, and coordinating policies between agencies, different administrations and different levels of the government. That bill, more than the President’s blueprint, thinks big and presents Americans with a real path forward to reduce our dependence on oil.

President Obama’s new energy blueprint may not reduce American dependence on foreign oil overnight. It may also fail to gain broad Congressional support. But it does hold the potential to reorient the country in the direction that's necessary to mitigate the security challenges we face as a result of the current energy system: in a direction toward greater diversification.

First, whether or not you agree with individual line items identified in Obama’s blueprint, the administration should be commended for crafting a clear strategy. The blueprint has an explicit and concise goal – to reduce the level of imported oil by one-third. It identifies the ways and means needed from the federal government to meet this goal, from supporting R&D to setting specific requirements for federal purchasing. This blueprint even recognizes that altering our energy consumption will also alter the supply chains on which we depend.

This clarity of purpose for the country should not be underestimated. Indeed, it is the most appropriate use of the presidential bully pulpit. I hear consistently from venture capitalists, representatives from major banks and other financiers that they are looking for a clear signal from the government (and especially from the Department of Defense, the government’s largest energy consumer) on the direction they can expect for America’s energy future - not every detail of what that future looks like, mind you, but just a sense of direction. The brilliant minds at work in our private sector can make great leaps in this field, but placing bets requires confidence that the government is not going to undercut their efforts.

The president’s plan will surely be harangued for his focus on “foreign” oil. It’s true that domestic oil does not isolate the United States from the prices and problems of the global market. But in fact, the blueprint itself recognizes this reality explicitly. It makes clear that we’re not going to achieve the goal of reducing imported petroleum consumption simply by pumping more oil at home. It will require that the country create a broader base of energy supplies. The president’s goal points clearly toward a more diversified and therefore more secure energy future.

The power of diversification to bring major security gains should not be underestimated either. For countries that elevate pipeline politics and stable oil markets above political freedom, human rights, and economic productivity, reliance on a single fuel source for the vast majority of the country’s transportation confines America’s foreign relations. Lack of options also ties the hands of the Department of Defense, which relies on petroleum for a whopping 77% of all its energy consumption. In Afghanistan, because transporting oil into the country is the only way for DOD to accomplish its mission, DOD has had to contend with oil convoys serving as prime targets for insurgents, and has resorted to contracting out hundreds of millions of dollars each year to shady networks of suppliers with offshore bank accounts. All because the country has no wide-scale options.

In the end, it would be a shame for Congress to miss the opportunity we have now to drive a more diverse energy economy. There are plenty of measures in the president’s blueprint that Congress can alter or eliminate funding for, as it sees fit. But the broader goal of reducing reliance on petroleum and fostering diversification must hold.

With oil prices again on the rise, we are seeing renewed appetite from both Congress and the Administration to focus on energy-security and petroleum reduction. The U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars applauds the overall drive to increase energy independence and find immediate strategies to reduce petroleum imports. However, we would urge Washington to consider all technology options to achieve our petroleum reduction goals. Rewarding outcomes, rather than picking winners and losers, will foster greater innovation and provide consumers with the options that best fit their driving needs. There are many strategies that can help us achieve significant reductions in petroleum useimmediately andwithout investment or incentives from the federal government.

Diesel technology will play a major role in petroleum reduction. Advanced diesel technology is already up to 30% more efficient than gasoline technology while also producing 25% less greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, petroleum imports can be reduced even further by developing predictable, high-quality renewable diesel. Today’s diesel technology is capable of being a zero petroleum option through the use of high quality, renewable fuels. In October 2010, Audi demonstrated that a renewable fuel could power their Audi A3, Green Car Journal’s 2010 “Green Car of the Year”. The California stage included a 1,000 mile run on synthetic fuel the length of California, from Eureka to San Diego, powered by synthetic RenDiesel fuel produced by Los Angeles-based Rentech. This clean synthetic fuel can be made from natural gas, biomass, coal, and even grass clippings and yard waste. The vehicle had no loss of efficiency, still achieving over 40 mpg.

We clearly do not have the capacity to provide enough high quality fuels such as RenDiesel to meet demand, but, according to a 2009 report from the Energy Information Administration, a diesel car today using only a 20 percent blend (B20) has comparable well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions to a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging on today’s U.S. grid. Better still, increased use of these fuels would not require the costly infrastructure required for other technology or fuel options currently being discussed. This fiscally responsible option is especially attractive in our time of strained budgets.

Clean diesel passenger cars have already demonstrated consumer demand in the market, as 30% of consumers are currently choosing the diesel option on models where a diesel engine is an option. According to EPA, if only one third of the U.S. automotive fleet ran on advanced clean diesel, the U.S. could save 1.4 million barrels of crude oil per day – the equivalent of what we import from Saudi Arabia. Imagine the further savings with increased use of quality renewable diesel. The positive impacts of clean diesel will continue to grow as automakers continue to bring a larger share of diesel models they sell in other parts of the world into the US market.

The U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars, comprised of technology suppliers involved in all of the advanced technologies, strongly believes that advanced clean diesel technology and renewable diesel fuel are integral components to achieve President Obama’s short-term petroleum reduction goals in a timely and fiscally responsible manner. We urge policymakers to continue focusing on all technologies that can achieve these goals.

Over the last year, the national average retail price of gasoline has increased by 91 cents. That is an enormous burden to working American families and to our economy – because at nearly a buck more a gallon, we are sending billions of dollars out of our households to the economies of many nations’ leaders who are opposed to U.S. interests and values.

But we have an alternative in domestic ethanol. As a study conducted jointly by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and McKinsey & Co. found, blending domestic ethanol into our gasoline fuel supply saves motorists anywhere from 20 cents to 50 cents a gallon.

However, we have a problem delivering ethanol to the consumer. The petroleum industry holds a near-monopoly on access to the motor fuels market. Motorists don’t have a real choice of an alternative at the pump. This grip on the market was identified by President Obama in his March 30 national energy address when he outlined his plan to encourage the growth of alternatives to fossil fuels.

Under President Obama’s plan, our nation could build the infrastructure necessary to open and reform the transportation fuels market – expanding the market for domestic ethanol and encouraging private capital investment into the cellulosic ethanol industry.

We cannot afford to continue a policy of inaction. The only progress made in the last 40 years in reducing our national dependence on foreign oil is ethanol. Ethanol protects us from the whims of OPEC and the volatile oil market, and it creates jobs in the United States that can’t be outsourced. Already, ethanol displaces more foreign oil than we import from Saudi Arabia.

By putting more Flex Fuel vehicles on the roads and installing more Flex Fuel pumps at filling stations, the United States can provide its citizens with a choice between oil and ethanol. The USDA has already committed to installing up to 10,000 Flex Fuel pumps over the next five years. And Growth Energy has suggested redirecting a portion of the current ethanol tax credit toward installing even more pumps at stations across the country to give all motorists access to something other than dirty, costly oil.

The President’s plan will help set America on the road to energy independence, with greater access to the only commercially-viable alternative we have to foreign oil: domestic ethanol.

The word “winning” has been popularized recently in a way that seems unassociated with its true meaning. And so there is a sense of irony about “winning” being a main pillar of this administration’s energy future.

There’s a basic fact that every international economist knows: Diesel engines and equipment run the world’s global trade. A stunning 94 percent of global trade is diesel-powered when measured in tons per kilometer – 94 percent. More than two-thirds of all mining, construction and farm equipment rely on diesel. So when President Obama announced his new energy plan last month, the clean diesel fuel that literally drives our nation’s economy was prescribed an important role, correct? Hardly. In fact, he didn’t even mention diesel. Not once.

There’s a simple reason that technologies and fuels like diesel are still predominant today after many decades - they work. Diesel provides an unmatched combination of efficiency, power and many other attributes that have withstood the test of time. Diesel can now compete with alternative fuels like natural gas on the emissions front, and diesel is the most flexible technology platform for using a wide array of renewable biofuels.

The President did speak glowingly about several other energy sources like wind, solar, natural gas, nuclear, coal, ethanol and electric cars that he wants to be the core America’s energy future. It’s a nice list that looks good on paper but the reality is that many of these energy sources are in developmental stages or won’t be functional for many, many years or even decades. Hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in federal and state subsidies will be required from the government in order for just a portion of this wish-list to ever become feasible.

Diesel, meanwhile, is the one energy source that is already proven and powering America and the world’s global trade right now – clean diesel power. For such a vital energy source to be completely ignored in the President’s plan is disturbing.

The President spoke of reducing our oil imports by one-third by 2025. Replacing gasoline and using more diesel fuel in passenger cars to gain a 30 percent fuel efficiency advantage would be more effective than other approaches in the near term. In a four year period, American pick-up truck buyers that chose a diesel over a gasoline engine have saved 21 times more fuel than all the hybrid vehicles combined. But our backward federal fuel tax policy penalizes (taxes) every gallon of the more-efficient diesel fuel by six cents more than gasoline. About a dozen states are following this federal tax fiasco with similar skewed tax imbalances.

Why do we penalize existing fuel efficient technologies but over-subsidize unproven ones? Does anyone remember President George W. Bush’s 2003 State-of-the-Union when he proposed $1.2 billion for hydrogen fuel cells. "With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free," Bush said.

Since taking office in 2009, President Obama has dramatically curtailed hydrogen fuel cell funding because hydrogen fueled cars are decades away and untold billions would be needed to build an infrastructure of hydrogen pipelines and fueling stations. Also cited were the persistent storage and production problems. And what did President Obama just commit us to in his new energy plan? The very same costly and long-range speculative process only with different fuel sources.

While it’s imperative to invest in the future of new technologies, it is equally important to recognize and fully leverage the value and energy savings of proven and existing fuels and technologies that are driving our economy today. Clean diesel power is the quintessential of those existing technologies and any plan for a viable energy future must include diesel power.

The path to energy independence and its corresponding economic security is more fantastical than L. Frank Baum’s golden brick road. With the exception of Ronald Reagan, every U.S. president since Richard Nixon has substituted popular rhetoric for a fact-based energy policy. And President Obama’s energy “blueprint” falls into the same trap, although it does have some promise.

With a few exceptions, the current situation in the Middle East is more uncertain and unstable than anytime in the past 40 years. Turmoil can lead to shifts in foreign politics and leadership that may conflict with America’s interests or those of our allies. Although most of our oil imports come from areas other than the Middle East, a major disruption there would have a devastating impact on the global economic system.

Even if our leaders could wish away our imports, they could not insulate our economy from the effects of such a disruption. However, we are capable of mitigating them with wise policy.

No credible analyses show the U.S. can significantly reduce our reliance on oil for transportation anytime in the next several decades. Biofuels, electric vehicles, and hybrids offer prohibitively costly substitutes for oil use, because the technologies necessary for them to be commercially viable without subsidies are not yet mature. Federal mandates cannot simply change this reality.

America currently produces about 5.5 million barrels of oil daily and consumes about 14 million for transportation. Although net imports slightly top 9 million barrels a day, the Middle East accounts for only about 15%. The two major sources of imports are Canada and Mexico with Canada having the potential for becoming an even greater source of supply as it increases oil sands production and develops a pipeline to move it south.

It has become increasingly clear in recent years that our imports are greater than they need to be because of policies barring the development of our own resources. President Obama said he wants to promote domestic oil and gas production, but we’ve yet to see evidence of follow through.

Over the course of this decade, we could increase our domestic oil production upwards of 2 million barrels a day with realistic access policies and balanced rather than extreme regulatory requirements. (EPA and the Department of Interior seem to have not internalized the President’s Executive Order about rationalizing regulations.)

The incentives in the President’s program for electric vehicles, biofuels, natural gas vehicles are just more subsidies and -- like ethanol subsidies -- will end up doing more harm than good, creating another class of rent seekers. Though researchers and engineers are pouring a great deal of work into technologies for cellulosic ethanol and batteries, these R&D efforts cannot be mandated to meet arbitrary targets.

Debate over the FY-2011 continuing resolution, which Congress resolved at the 11th hour last week, involved not just differences over spending cuts but a proposed rider to prevent EPA from regulating CO2 beyond what it has done with DOT on CAFE. Threat of EPA regulation creates a level of uncertainty that weighs on the economy and distracts from a genuine bi-partisan effort at a sensible energy policy.

In 1990, Congress explicitly decided not to grant EPA such regulatory authority. It needs to find a way to make clear that pollutants under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act do not include greenhouse gases. The sooner lawmakers resolve this point; the sooner new capital investments will be made.

The bottom line is that energy policies are directly tied to economic growth. What’s the hallmark of a good policy? Well, it probably starts with one that can garner broad support. Yet, much of the President’s “blueprint” has no chance in the House and isn’t likely to get 60 votes in the Senate. If politics is the art of the possible, the President and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle should start focusing on what is realistic.