(These comments were submitted by Kevin Massy, assistant director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution.)

It is an odd proposition: a single government department that in 2010 consumed more oil than Nigeria and more electricity than Ireland as an environmental champion. But that might just be what is happening with the United States Department of Defense (DoD), the subject of what President Obama hailed as “one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history” in his State of the Union speech last week.

The unlikely rise of DoD as green standard-bearer comes as the two former tribunes of clean energy have faded away. The first was the concept of energy security: the generations-old appeal to reduce dependence on oil imports from countries that are hostile to U.S. interests and values. Thanks to breakthroughs in exploration, drilling, and production techniques, oil and gas resources that were unfathomable or uneconomic several years ago are now in play. Projections that saw the United States having to import more than 5 trillion cubic feet per year of natural gas by now have been rendered hopelessly inaccurate by the development of new techniques for producing unconventional gas from shale formations in the east and south of the country. The same technology that has unlocked trillions of cubic feet of gas has the potential to do the same thing for billions of barrels of oil, similarly trapped in shale formations. This development of unconventional resources is coinciding with a continued increase in off-shore deepwater oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and increasing oil production from the Canadian tars sands, much which will, the recent decision on the Keystone XL pipeline notwithstanding, find its way south. With President Obama touting the abundance of U.S. natural gas, celebrating the resurgence in U.S. oil production in his State of the Union (SOTU) address, and formalizing the decision to open up three quarters of off-shore acreage to drilling, the fears about import dependence seems to be receding into the distance.

There they will join the other erstwhile champion of low-carbon development: climate change. Having never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. was never in danger of being a leader in the global efforts to prevent emissions rising to unsustainable levels. But the passage of a cap and trade bill in the House of Representatives in 2009 suggested that the world’s largest developed polluter would take a first step towards curtailing its carbon output. Of course, the bill failed to pass the Senate, and, with the subsequent reversion of the House to Republican control, the prospects of comprehensive climate legislation in the U.S. in the foreseeable future are now nil. A poll this month by Pew found that Americans put global warming last in a list of 22 issues for consideration by the President and congress. Mr Obama duly obliged in his SOTU address, admitting that political differences we “too deep” to put a comprehensive climate plan together. Add in the excoriation his administration received over government support for Solyndra, a failed solar company, and it’s not hard to see why global warming is on the back burner.

So, beyond being a (hitherto elusive) source of job creation, where does that leave clean energy in the United States? The answer, it appears, is with the military. The one new detailed reference to energy in the SOTU speech was a commitment for the Navy to purchase enough clean energy to supply a quarter of a million homes a year. The announcement was followed immediately by a commitment by Ray Mabus, Navy Secretary, to purchase one gigawatt of renewable energy by 2020. The commitment is the latest in a series of large-scale moves by the military to embrace clean technology. Since 2007, the Nellis Airforce Base in Nevada has been powered by one of the largest solar photovoltaic arrays in the United States. Last year, Bank of America Merrill Lynch agreed to finance SolarStrong, a project that plans to invest $1 billion in up to 120,000 rooftop solar installation on military housing developments across the country. These efforts are a part of broad strategy across the U.S. military. The Navy has a goal of increasing efficiency and reducing fuel consumption on ships by 15 percent between 2010 and 2020. The U.S. Air Force is planning to reduce the amount of fuel burned by is current aircraft fleet by 20 percent by 2030.

The U.S. armed forces have a strong operational incentive to reduce their use of fossil energy. To sustain battlefield operations, diesel to run generators must be transported through long lines of communication at high cost to human life and the public purse. In the current climate of fiscal austerity, with the DoD last week announcing cuts of nearly half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, there is also a compelling economic logic in using alternative sources of energy. Each dollar rise in the barrel of oil is estimated to cost the United States Navy alone an extra $31 million in fuel costs.

The military has two advantages as the champion for low-carbon energy. The first is size. As with all emerging technologies, many renewable energy applications face the vicious circle of cost and scale. Until technologies such as solar are adopted in large quantities, unit costs will remain high, deterring adoption. Through programs like SolarStrong, the military has the ability to accelerate large-scale deployment, driving down costs and helping technologies along the learning curve. The second advantage is political cover. In a bitterly divided political climate, the military is the one institution that maintains near-universal bipartisan support. By stating their need for renewable energy in terms of operational and economic imperatives, the armed forces have a unique platform to increase the penetration and decrease the cost of clean energy to the benefit of themselves and the nation as a whole. The battle against climate change may have been inadvertently joined by the most powerful force in the world.

Like much of institutional Washington, the State of the Union speech has become hyper-partisan. Yet this line from the President’s address last week has drawn virtually no criticism: “The easiest way to save money is to waste less energy.”

Why do efforts to strengthen America’s commitment to energy efficiency continue to draw support from policymakers and opinion leaders across the spectrum? It’s because Americans recognize that the best way to save energy is to never use it in the first place. It’s also because we recognize that a renewed commitment to energy efficiency is smart economics: It will put thousands of American workers back on the job, producing and installing insulation and other measures. Moreover, unlike certain technologies, energy efficiency is practical, proven, and ready to go – right now! Best of all, these important steps toward energy independence can be taken without hurting the federal Treasury.

With partisanship at an all-time high and so much disagreement over the use of both fossil fuels and still-developing renewables, it’s more critical than ever to focus on what everyone can agree on: energy efficiency. Using tried and true technologies like insulation will spur jobs, save consumers money, and avoid the political food fights that have dominated recent energy debates.

It’s an irrefutable fact: Under-insulated buildings are among the greatest sources of wasted energy in America today. If American buildings installed greater levels of insulation, each year we could save the equivalent of 30 times the amount of energy that was lost in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

That’s why it’s so imperative for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to come together to strengthen our society’s commitment to energy efficiency. Tax credits that provide incentives for home- and business owners to invest in energy efficiency should be extended and expanded – as this week’s Senate Finance Committee hearing attested. Sensible, bipartisan legislation that won’t exacerbate the federal deficit, such as the SAVE Act, a common sense way to make federal agency loan mortgaging more attuned to real energy costs, should become law as soon possible. The broad-based support for the SAVE Act reinforces my theme. It’s been embraced by groups that range from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the U.S. Green Building Council.

Energy efficiency, I’m fond of saying, is not just bipartisan – it’s nonpartisan. It’s a common sense way of saving energy – and providing our still-sluggish manufacturing and construction sectors with a sorely needed shot in the arm. At the next State of the Union address, regardless of who wins the White House, let’s hope the President can point to the progress we’ve made in advancing energy efficiency.

Kate Offringa, a regular commentator to this blog, is the CEO and President of CNAIMA, the Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association.

Last week, President Obama's State of the Union address touted an economic blueprint for an "America Built to Last." But unless that blueprint includes overturning recent regulations implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency, our economy will continue to suffer. While President Obama and the EPA continue to defend new rules – like Utility MACT – consumers can look forward to higher costs and less reliability.

The president’s address also included a number of sound bites on energy, including pledges to install renewable power on federal lands and to launch new initiatives to boost renewable power use in the military branch. Instead of focusing on common-sense initiatives that will lower the price of energy for Americans, the administration stubbornly continues to pursue renewable power experiments that make little sense in the current economic reality.

According to a recent report by Bloomberg News, Spain has halted subsidies for renewable energy projects in an effort to rein in the nation’s spending. Spain was among the first nations in the world to aggressively subsidize renewable energy projects, often cited by renewable advocates in the United States as a policy model for American lawmakers. Just days prior to Spain’s announcement, the German government announced it would phase out all national subsidies for renewable power by 2017. And yet President Obama continues to position America as a leader in the "clean energy race?" Mr. President, it's time we start learning from the mistakes of others.

We have real opportunities here at home to make American less reliant on foreign oil - opportunities that have been rejected simply for political gain. The Keystone XL is but one example. As the USA Today editorial board put it, Obama’s decision “exemplifies the continuing fecklessness of U.S. energy policy.” And yet - at the same time - the president moves forward with Arctic drilling. I applaud the administration on this decision, but it's time to stop talking from both sides of our mouths. To reject a stable, reliable and vast source of energy that Keystone XL would provide while advocating for new energy initiatives is counterproductive and unrealistic.

If we’re going to move forward, we need energy policy based on reality rather than focus groups.

In his State of the Union address last month, President Obama requested that Congress pass legislation mandating a national clean energy standard (CES). A CES targets the CO2 emissions from the electric power industry by setting minimum percentages of total power (electricity) generation that must come from sources that emit no CO2. (It should be noted that CO2 is colorless, odorless, and non-toxic. Therefore, it is a misnomer to call CO2 dirty.) Though this sounds less threatening than cap-and-trade legislation, it can end up being pretty much the same thing.

One of the little-known aspects of cap-and-trade policies is that the vast majority of CO2 cuts come from the power industry. For instance, under the Waxman–Markey legislation, the CO2 emissions reductions from the power industry amounted to 87 percent of the total cuts for the year 2030. Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute analyzed the clean-energy target suggested by Obama in his 2011 State of the Union address and showed that it would lead to an impact on the power industry nearly identical to the Waxman–Markey cap-and-trade bill.

Last year, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D–NM) requested the Energy Information Administration provide an analysis of a draft for a CES. Just as with the Obama CES of a year ago, Bingaman’s CES includes provisions for both partial clean-energy credits for some fossil fuels and for trading the clean-energy credits. With these two provisions, a CES mimics the major features of a cap-and-trade regime—the lower the carbon intensity of an energy source, the smaller the penalty (or greater the reward) under the legislation, and surplus credits can be sold to help other producers meet targets.

The EIA analysis projected the CES would increase electricity prices by 21 percent over the projected price for 2035. Though this bump in price is significant, it would be even higher if not for some questionable assumptions.

In the EIA analysis, 65 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity are retrofitted with carbon capture-and-storage (CCS) technology. In addition to CCS’s severe efficiency and cost penalties, there are, as yet, no commercial-scale CCS power plants. Further, the liquid CO2 generated by these retrofitted power plants would fill about three supertankers per day. The disposal of such volumes of CO2 is very likely to be problematic.

The assumptions concerning nuclear-power capacity also seem unrealistic without significant changes in the regulatory structure of the nuclear-power industry—including resolution of the waste-disposal problems. The EIA analysis projects 65 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity. In rough numbers, this would require 50 new nuclear power plants over the next 25 years. Given that no newly licensed nuclear plant has been brought online for over 30 years, this assumption is heroic.

In short, the projected 21 percent increase in electricity prices could be a significant underestimate.

A CES will have economic impacts of the same order of magnitude as cap and trade. Unrealistic assumptions can make these impacts seem small, but they cannot change reality.

While it was a significant step for President Obama to reiterate his support for investment in innovation and Congress’s passage of a clean energy standard during his third State of the Union Address, it is important to remember there is potential to make progress now with many of the tools we already have available.

With momentum to address energy-related challenges, including climate change, stalled at the federal level in recent years, the need for long-term policy certainty remains. Without reliable policy signals about the implications of generating greater or fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—a significant concern for large power plants designed to operate 30 to 50 years—utilities will have difficulty predicting lifetime operational costs when evaluating investment options. Absent long-term certainty regarding national GHG policy, electric utilities will likely evaluate infrastructure decisions based on existing environmental regulations and those in the final stages of the rulemaking process, addressing additional considerations and costs only as new rules materialize.

To avoid these scenarios, federal policymakers can pursue clean energy goals by focusing not only on new policy mechanisms to drive energy innovation, but also on the broad range of existing policies at the federal, regional, and state levels that affect energy investments.

As an example, the EPA will soon release its proposed new source performance standards covering GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants—soon to be followed by performance standards for existing sources. The Clean Air Act grants the EPA and the states broad discretion to implement these standards. Many stakeholders believe the standards could include flexible mechanisms, such as averaging or market-based approaches, to reduce overall compliance costs. The Department of Energy’s ARPA-E program has been widely hailed successful in fostering innovative new energy technologies. Numerous states are pursuing their own clean energy policies, such as renewable portfolio standards, energy efficiency programs, and carbon markets.

Together, these laws and programs, along with other major policy drivers such as federal tax policy, provide significant opportunities to spur innovation in the electricity sector. Taking an “all of the above” approach to clean energy policy—optimizing existing energy policies, in addition to pursuing broad new energy goals such as a Clean Energy Standard—could provide the reliable signals necessary to move the country toward an affordable, cleaner energy future.

(Written in collaboration with Jonas Monast, director of climate and energy at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions)

Over the past three years, the Obama administration’s actions simply have not mirrored President Obama’s pro- oil and natural gas messages in last week's State of the Union last week. In fact, the administration has done much to hamper development of America’s vast oil and natural gas reserves. But our industry is hopeful that the President has seen the light, before the nation has to go into the dark.

The President tried to take credit for increased oil production, yet the amazing “shale revolution” has occurred largely on private lands (like the Bakken play of North Dakota) – not on public, government-controlled lands. Despite the President’s claim to open access to vast areas for energy development, the fact is that the administration has restricted access to an incredible amount of federal offshore and onshore lands. In fact, the administration has sought to encroach upon the progress of even private land development through instructions to virtually every agency to hyper-regulate hydraulic fracturing, the very technology that has unlocked the oil and natural gas reserves from shale.

President Obama repeated the usual misleading rhetoric against the oil and natural gas industry, when he claimed that the government has “subsidized oil companies for a century.” What President Obama calls “subsidies” are actually typical business deductions that every manufacturing industry receives. These tax provisions—intangible drilling costs and percentage depletion—give smaller independent producers the ability to take on the enormous risk of exploring new oil and natural gas reserves. They also encourage much-needed economic reinvestment into new American projects. For their part, America’s independent oil and natural gas producers reinvest 150% of their cash flow into these projects—which creates new American jobs and supplies more American energy. Rather than the government shelling out to the oil and natural gas industry, the industry’s production contributes significantly to the government through sizable royalty payments and a wealth of revenues that replenish state and federal budgets.

Last fall, IPAA battled for the independent producers’ very livelihoods when Congress, at the behest of President Obama, tried to repeal these provisions. Thankfully, these elimination efforts fell flat and the business deductions that encourage crucial industry investment survived. However, there will certainly be more battles on taxes to come in 2012 as President Obama continues to misrepresent the productivity of the American oil and natural gas industry.

It is crucial that the Obama administration recognizes the truly amazing benefits of a healthy oil and natural gas industry to jobs, a vibrant manufacturing sector, and renewed economic growth. IPAA stands ready to work with the President on empowering the states to continue their responsible regulation of the industry. After all, without a vibrant American oil and natural gas industry – it’s impossible to have an “America built to last.”

In his State of the Union address, President Obama pledged to “double down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising.” Indeed, America’s strengths in innovation, entrepreneurship, and advanced manufacturing will help create jobs and build businesses.

The global clean energy economy has experienced a 630 percent growth since 2004. Last year, private investment increased to $260 billion, and installed clean energy capacity exceeded 400 gigawatts—putting it on par with nuclear power. President Obama is right to call for policies that support this emerging sector, just as the government has done with traditional energy.

Clean power isn’t just wind and solar; it includes a variety of technologies. At this time last year, I wrote about the need to add industrial efficiency to the forward-looking agenda. We still have more to do on this front.

During the State of the Union, President Obama called for assistance to “help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories.” Each year, America’s utilities and factories send enough heat up their chimneys to power all of Japan. But with existing, proven technologies, we can harness that wasted energy, dramatically cut electricity costs, and make our industries more competitive. According to Oak Ridge National Laboratory, significantly increasing our industrial energy efficiency would promote more than $200 billion in new, private investment in the United States and create up to 1 million jobs.

The United States should seek to double its use of industrial energy efficiency as the Oak Ridge lab suggests. A draft bill by Rep. Charles F. Bass (R-NH) contains language calling for this ambitious goal. Several bipartisan bills introduced in the House of Representatives could help by making changes to the tax code, and similar efforts are also expected in the Senate. Just last week, more than 200 businesses and trade groups signed on to an advertisement calling for significantly increasing industrial energy efficiency.

Congress can soon literally look in its own backyard for an illustration. The Capitol Power Plant is developing a design for producing 18 megawatts of electricity through improved energy-efficiency processes to heat congressional buildings. These improvements will help Congress reduce energy use by up to 30 percent.

Creating one million American jobs, making manufacturers more competitive, spurring private investment, saving energy, and protecting the environment are practical, achievable goals that everyone in Congress should be able to support.

President Obama announced expansion of domestic oil and gas drilling which is a positive step. But then he renewed his commitment to backing renewable energy sources. There’s a time for stubbornness and a time to move on.

The Department of Energy’s EIA shows that new electric generating capacity using wind and solar power tends to be considerably more expensive than conventional, available and secure natural gas and coal resources.

And in a world of real tradeoffs, every dollar spent on expensive renewable energy is money that could have been used by households and business for purchasing consumer goods or productive new investments that make economic sense. Increasing aggregate demand is key to strong U.S. job growth; spending more than is necessary on energy is a drag on overall demand for goods and services. Indeed, there is a direct linkage between energy use and economic recovery, as in recent years each 1 percent increase in Gross Domestic Product in the U.S. has been accompanied by a 0.2 percent increase in energy use. Inexpensive energy from conventional energy sources for electricity generation and transportation fuels is critical for restoring U.S. economic growth.

High U.S. electricity prices are a real burden on U.S. consumers. USA Today recently reported “households paid a record $1,419 on average for electricity in 2010, the fifth consecutive yearly increase above the inflation rate.” This “jump has added about $300 a year to what households pay for electricity. That's the largest sustained increase since a run-up in electricity prices during the 1970s.”

Meanwhile, subsidizing renewables costs jobs and slows economic growth, burdening taxpayers by grabbing up a massive share of tax code subsidies. In 2010, an estimated 76 percent of the $19.1 billion in federal tax incentives went to renewables and for energy efficiency, conservation and alternative technology vehicle projects while only 13 percent went to fossil fuels, according to the Congressional Research Service. Some renewable electricity enjoys negative tax rates: solar thermal’s effective tax rate is -245 percent and wind power’s is -164 percent.

Frankly, there are many more efficient ways to boost our economy, even just within the energy sector. Chief among them, of course, would be to give the thumbs-up to the Keystone XL pipeline, which is slated to bring real jobs and lasting economic impact to America (rather than China, which is more than happy to gulp down traditional energy in a fashion that is far less “clean” than here).

Doggedly pursuing bad policies isn’t leadership. It’s just a bad investment that harms the very Americans the President’s administration is trying to help.

(This piece was co-written by Jennifer Morgan, director of WRI's Climate and Energy Program; and Kevin Kennedy, WRI's U.S. climate director.)

In his State of the Union address, President Obama laid out his vision for American’s energy future. As WRI’s interim president Manish Bapna noted:

“The president declared that he is not going to ‘walk away’ from his commitment to clean energy. Despite the naysayers, President Obama doubled-down on clean energy, calling for a renewed commitment to energy that will create jobs and protect the environment.

“Expanding our investment in clean energy can help rebuild America’s manufacturing base, drive innovation, and create more jobs.”

In looking at what the speech portends from a climate and energy policy perspective, three key elements come into focus:

· The federal government should play a leading role with policies and programs that support efficiency and renewables, and the advancement of clean energy technologies;

· Support for industrial energy efficiency can pay dividends for a recovering economy and for developing a strong, low-carbon economy; and

· The role of shale gas and fossil fuel resources merit careful evaluation to ensure that environmental and public health concerns are addressed, including putting the U.S. on a path to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Government research and support has long been important for emerging energy technologies and resources, and that remains the case today as we move toward less polluting energy sources. If the U.S. wants to be competitive in the emerging clean energy sector, investments in innovation and supporting policies like feed-in-tariffs can help show the way.

President Obama also emphasized the importance of the manufacturing sector in helping the economy recover. Improving energy efficiency in the sector can provide important investment that pays off in reduced energy bills, less pollution, and increased competitiveness. A recent summit in Chicago highlighted the potential for efficiency in the Midwest industrial sector, along with the drivers and opportunities for further investment. With U.S. manufacturing helping to lead the nation’s economic recovery, now is the time to do more than rebuild our industries in the interest of near-term economic development; we should be putting forward policies that will drive a cleaner, more productive and more resilient 21st century manufacturing base.

The president also called for an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy strategy for developing American energy resources. This approach carries significant risks, as America’s ongoing dependence on fossil fuels and expanded drilling can threaten sensitive ecosystems and drive up greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, we need a strategy that does not just emphasize near-term energy security, but also looks at how different resources fit into a longer-term shift to a low-carbon economy.

A solid national Clean Energy Standard could provide a framework in that direction, and we look forward to expected legislation from Sen. Bingaman. While the likelihood for momentum on such a bill remains low due to current political dynamics, important progress can be made this year in understanding how such a standard could work, and which elements are most important for pushing clean energy development in the U.S. (WRI has provided some initial thoughts on the design of such legislation, here.)

In addition, the rapid expansion of domestic natural gas resources through hydraulic fracturing has significantly changed the U.S. energy outlook. However, new projections from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) provide a useful reminder that early estimates of the potential size and cost of new energy resources are often highly optimistic. That said, even with revised estimates of technically recoverable reserves, the EIA is projecting the U.S. to be a net exporter of natural gas by 2021.

While natural gas can play an important role in America’s energy mix, as WRI’s Bapna said last week, “It must be pursued carefully to ensure that proper environmental and social safeguards are in place.” And, “We need to ensure that natural gas complements rather than displaces cleaner alternatives, such as wind and solar.” (Read more about WRI’s work on shale gas, here.)

Similarly, President Obama asserted that further natural gas production needs to be developed “without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.”

Finally, the president noted that political differences in Congress are too deep to see movement on comprehensive climate legislation presently. However, it’s important to keep in mind that even if political dynamics have shifted, the facts haven’t. The disruption of our climate from increasing greenhouse gas emissions remains clear. For instance, according to NOAA, there were 14 billion dollar weather and climate-related disasters last year. The Administration, therefore, should continue to use the tools at its disposal to reduce dangerous pollution and greenhouse gases.

I just about fell out of my chair when the President acclaimed during his speech to Congress his support for an "all-of-the-above" strategy for addressing our country's energy needs.

Republicans howled at the President's appropriating their "all-of-the-above" tag line, which has become the GOP anthem for describing a comprehensive strategy for deploying all domestic resources, including conventional energy like oil, gas, coal, and nuclear. Republicans like Congressman Doc Hastings have popularized the "all-of-the-above" strategy to ensure all cost-competitive energy sources are developed, not just the "clean" energy technologies favored by the environmental community and much of the Obama Administration focused on climate change.

Is the President a true convert to the "all-of-the-above" energy strategy, or has he embraced a popular approach because it's politically expedient? Let's look more carefully at the President's comments from last week's State of Union Address and the accompanying energy fact sheet released by the White House two days later.

First, the President failed to mention three of our largest domestic energy sources -- coal, nuclear, and hydro. Together in 2010 they accounted for 71% of our power generation. Even with the shale gas revolution, coal will remain our single largest domestic energy resource. Nuclear and hydro represent about 87% of our carbon free electricity (using EIA data).

Second, the President also omitted the Keystone XL pipeline. A true "all-of-the-above" energy policy has to include the single largest project for getting secure energy flowing into the American economy.

Third, the President had few specific new policy proposals for conventional energy. The plans for expanded leases for off-shore oil and gas drilling have already been announced. The only proposal related to shale gas is a chemical disclosure by companies on public lands, which does little to promote domestic energy production. The President's only specific proposals related to doubling down on clean energy.

Fourth, the President seems to miss the point on shale gas. To his credit, Obama acknowledges that shale gas is making a huge contribution to job creation in certain regions of the country. But, the driver for the shale gas industry is risk-taking American companies using the market to deploy new technologies. Shale gas took off without government incentives, and should continue unless it becomes overly restricted by environmental regulations.

Finally, the Obama Administration is focused on electricity, even though our energy security concerns stem from shortfalls in liquid transportation fuels. The Department of Interior and Navy proposals are for producing 11 "gigawatts" of electric power from renewable sources. Yet, our dependence is on foreign crude refined into high-density fuels needed for transportation and the military. An "all-of-the-above" strategy should include developing technologies to convert plentiful feed material (like algae and coal) into liquid fuels.

For the President to be credited for his advocacy for an "all-of-the-above" energy policy in his State of the Union address, his Administration needs to back it up by truly supporting all domestic energy resources.

As a member of the McCain campaign that popularized the “all-of-the-above” slogan, I shudder at the president’s use of the term. While we used the phrase to talk about opening up energy development and innovation in every corner, Obama is trying to pacify disgruntled Americans who are sick of his “anything-but-fossil” energy policies. In a deft re-election tack, the president seems to have figured out that oil & gas development can actually be good politics. Unfortunately, he has yet to discover that it is also good policy.

This administration – contrary to their press releases – has hardly lifted a finger to increase production of oil & gas. In the State of the Union, the president proudly declared that he’d open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources to development. This is part of Interior’s existing five year offshore leasing program, which comprises fifteen new lease sales in the Gulf and Alaska – fourteen of those sales in areas already being explored and developed under active leases. Moreover, this five year plan largely prohibits the study of offshore resources on the east and west coasts, including an area near Virginia that the Bush administration had slated to open, meaning we’re no closer to understanding what those resources look like. A real transformation in our offshore exploration policy would have opened up new areas to assessments of potentially recoverable resources – not more lease sales in the same areas we’ve been exploring for a generation.

President Obama also promised to open up shale gas development across the country. Shale gas is a fantastic opportunity to redefine the geopolitics of natural gas and create plentiful jobs in this country; a commitment to develop those resources would be meaningful indeed. Unfortunately, the EPA is starting to regulate the hydraulic fracturing process that the industry is using for the first time. EPA has already proposed a Clean Air Act rule requiring costly equipment targeted at drilling rigs, they are conducting research in preparation for new water regulations for those rigs, and they’re moving forward with regulation requiring disclosure of the fluids used while drilling, despite a successful voluntary initiative already underway. Leave it to this administration to find that three new regulations align with a pro-development stance.

Also troubling, but not new, is that the president again proposed to cut subsidies for oil companies to increase incentives for renewables. A true all-of-the-above energy policy wouldn’t penalize one energy source to benefit another. Obama would single out tax credits to oil companies in order to fund expanded subsidies for renewables through more grants, more loan guarantees, and more tax credits than they receive already. Our energy sector would function better, and our nation’s balance sheet would improve, if we equalized the treatment of energy across the board and gave all energy sources fair treatment. More dollars to favored industries interferes with a vibrant, competitive energy market.

I get it. If the president talks enough about his all-of-the-above policies, maybe we’ll forget about his abject failures in advancing the energy game. But more important are the things the president didn’t talk about. He left out all mention of the Keystone pipeline in his State of the Union, knowing it was an unpopular – and damaging – decision. He left out all mention of failed loan guarantees to Solyndra, which his administration approved despite Solyndra’s pitiful business plan. He left out all mention of the threat that EPA regulation has on energy producers and jobs, despite evidence that the compliance burden is unaffordable. He left out all mention of nuclear power. While a boom in shale gas makes the economics of nuclear power uncompetitive at the moment, Obama’s regulatory chokehold on natural gas just might mean a resurgence in the nuclear sector – and electricity prices.

If we didn’t need jobs, maybe Obama’s energy agenda could be mistaken as harmless folly. But we need a new domestic energy game that is truly all-of-the-above, pushing both development of our vast natural resources and innovation of the technologies that will fuel us tomorrow. The president’s empty promises are a guarantee for partisanship and gridlock in Washington – and limited progress in American energy.

The most important quote for green energy is the President declaring that he will not step back from the commitment. And while there is no chance a Clean Energy Standard will be passed during an election year, far more importantly is protecting the existing tax incentives for energy efficiency and the portfolio of renewable and alternative energy technologies including fuel cells and energy storage, as well as resurrecting the 1603 credits that expired in 2011. The wind industry, now a major employer in the Midwest, particularly Iowa, Kansas and Michigan, raises the stakes and brings in mid-west Republicans to help broker a deal. So while Obama's lofty goals won't be met, the critical investment issues are now an elevated priority. The counter-move that the President threw out was the conventional energy subsidies, over $70 billion a year by some counts, for coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy -- mature technologies by mature companies in mature markets - that not only add to the deficit but distort the market for the newer entrants into the market. So the drama unfolds, but I expect because popular opinion is behind the renewable energy options, some agreement will be made before the Congressional election year adjournment- Scott Sklar, President, The Stella Group, Ltd., and Adjunct Professor at both The American University and The George Washington University.

The President’s commitment to a truly “all of the above” energy strategy for the U.S. is common sense. By incentivizing clean energy research, development, and deployment, and moving the country away from reliance on foreign oil, the U.S. will decrease pollution and increase our ability to compete in the global $2.3 trillion clean energy market. This is an agenda that benefits the center of the country as well as the coasts and appeals to the center of the electorate as well as committed partisans. And while it takes time, federal investments are already leading to unprecedented levels of renewable energy deployment and job creation here at home.

Before we get too far ahead of ourselves in thinking about the likelihood of these policies actually being enacted any time soon, let’s not forget that this is an election year (and, really, how could we?).

All of the president’s proposals could translate into action. Some, however, don’t rely on a do-nothing House to start rolling. This starts with increasing domestic natural gas production and the Navy purchasing enough clean energy to power a quarter of a million homes, which the Obama Administration can begin immediately. Responsible natural gas development and expanding the military’s use of clean energy, both of which Third Way has advocated, has huge potential for decreasing pollution, increasing domestic energy, creating jobs, and boosting the economy.

Unfortunately, some of the President’s proposals require a willing partner in the House majority to see the light of day. This would require the House to put the best interest of the nation ahead of politics. This includes extending the production tax credit to continue the deployment of wind power, and a clean energy standard.

The House Majority has been loath to support any policy that could be perceived as giving the President a “win.” It will be even more resistant to do so in 2012. Debating these policies in the election may not result in much action in Washington. It will, however, help reinforce with both parties that there is broad support from the public and across all regions of the country for getting America running on clean energy.

President Obama’s emphasis in his State of the Union address on the expansion of clean energy and economic growth was notable in both what he focused on – and what he failed to include as key components to America’s future.

Coal, nuclear and biofuels were three notable omissions. A fourth energy source was also left unmentioned even though it literally drives the U.S. and global economy – clean diesel technology.

President Obama focused on a few energy sources – some of which are in developmental stages or won’t be functional for many years. Whether they prove to be practical and efficient in the U.S. will be seen at some point in the future.

Fortunately, we have one source of power that is efficient and clean that exists today – clean diesel technology. Diesel technology has an important role to play in America’s clean energy future. Diesel engines are the most energy efficient technology - whether they are using the new ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, a renewable biodiesel fuel blend, or hybrid diesel-electric technology.

We welcome President Obama’s call for an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy strategy. Developing natural gas resources, constructing wind farms, and transporting solar panels will all require today’s powerful clean diesel engines. And today’s diesel trucks are as clean as natural gas engines.

A recent economic study reported that in the U.S., over 80 percent of all freight is moved by diesel trucks, ships, trains and intermodal systems. Worldwide, 94 percent of all global trade is powered by diesel engines and equipment. Without diesel power, America and the world’s economy would come to a standstill. Do we want to endanger our economy on unproven energy sources while the rest of the world continues to move forward with diesel power?

The diesel industry contributes more than $480 billion annually to the U.S economy and provides more than 1.25 million jobs. Diesel exports are also important to U.S. international trade. Altogether, diesel product and fuel exports represented $46.2 billion or 4.35 percent of U.S. exports in 2009, with an export-to-value ratio that was five times higher than the national average.

President Obama’s pledge to continue federal investments in clean energy should also include the successful diesel technology programs. Unlike some other energy technology initiatives, investments at the Department of Energy in vehicle technology like the 21^st Century and SuperTruck Programs, and the advanced combustion efficiency projects, are delivering real-world value today in the form of reduced fuel consumption and lower emissions in the nation’s commercial trucking fleet.

The bipartisan Diesel Emissions Reduction Act has allowed communities in all 50 states to upgrade older diesel school and transit buses, commercial trucks, locomotives and other equipment with modern and cleaner diesel engines and air filters. The EPA has determined DERA investments have resulted in $13 worth of health and environmental benefits for every $1 spent. We urge President Obama to restore funding for the DERA program.

Diesel engines were the power behind building America’s iconic infrastructure like the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam. Now, diesel engines will build the next generation of roads, bridges, broadband access and more advanced energy grids.

As Nancy Sutley, the Chair of President Obama’s Council on Environmental Quality, stated in November 2011: “The diesel industry has succeeded in innovative efforts to improve fuel efficiency and dramatically reduce emissions. This continued commitment and progress is helping companies and communities save money and reduce pollution, and propelling the clean energy jobs and industries that will power our economy in the 21st century."

The President’s State of the Union address may have omitted the word “biofuels,” but his administration has demonstrated continuing support through new announcements for loan guarantees. These loan guarantees help private companies raise debt equity to finance construction of new manufacturing facilities. The administration’s commitment provides a strong signal to private investors who are bringing additional capital to the advanced biofuel industry.

This renewed flow of capital is good news following the recent economic downturn. Americans should remember that the spiraling price of oil was a major factor in that downturn. The U.S. can’t achieve energy independence without controlling the effects of oil prices on our economy. Rather than speeches, we need forward thinking policies that are stable over the long-term.

The key policy is the Renewable Fuels Standard. Congress must maintain the RFS in the face of recent attacks. It is the only long-term policy in place supporting companies developing the advanced biofuels needed to increase energy security and improve environmental performance.

We need bi-partisan support for more long-term policies that aim for increased energy security through solutions to a broader range of energy challenges. Congress should pay attention when the Obama administration releases its expected Bioeconomy Blueprint. Building a biobased economy, in which biotechnology is used to create products from renewable resources instead of oil, can permanently reduce our reliance on foreign oil, while generating products that are more affordable and healthier for the environment.

Environmentalists may have cringed at Obama’s remarks about oil and natural gas development, but if we are to ever get to the point where we can rely on cheap, clean and renewable energy sources, we must acknowledge that it requires a thoughtful transition with a varied approach. A huge part of that approach, as President Obama outlined in last week’s State of the Union address, is energy efficiency.

“The easiest way to save money is to waste less energy,” Obama said during his speech. Indeed, the cheapest kilowatt of electricity is the one we don’t use. As our nation’s Community Organizer in Chief, President Obama understands this – and his administration is already creating jobs and helping Americans save money with energy efficiency.

A recent series of case studies from the Department of Energy shows that President Obama’s own Better Buildings initiative is helping homeowners, businesses and whole communities save money by saving energy. SmartPower, the nation’s leading non-profit marketing organization dedicated to promoting clean energy and energy efficiency, can validate much of this on-the-ground success.

For example, the TC Saves program in Traverse City, Mich., is using recovery act funds to put people back to work and build the energy efficiency marketplace. In fact, both Brown Lumber and James Anderson Builders – two local contractors who have suffered greatly in the economic downturn – now have a waiting list for work, all thanks to President Obama’s vision and leadership.

Meanwhile, the Energize New York program in Westchester County, N.Y., is using community based marketing to encourage homeowners to undertake deep retrofits and home energy upgrades. Recently, the Town of Bedford, N.Y., recognized 20 homeowners for energy efficiency actions that total more than $46,000 in energy cost savings. That’s money that goes back into wallets – and back into the local economy.

Community organizing projects like these – whether for energy efficiency or clean energy (such as my own organization’s Arizona Solar Challenge) – are helping to move America toward the vision of the clean energy future that President Obama discussed in his State of the Union address. If he can follow through in creating more programs like TC Saves, Energize New York and the Arizona Solar Challenge, then our energy agenda is right on track.

The author is the President of SmartPower, a DC-based non-profit marketing firm that promotes clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency. Learn more at www.smartpower.org.

The President called for an “all of the above” energy strategy, which the U.S. power sector has advocated for many years. We need it all, from increasingly clean coal-based generation to natural gas, new nuclear generation, renewables, and greater energy efficiency. We are ever more dependent on electric technologies in our homes and businesses, and we need a balanced and diverse energy portfolio to maintain reliable, affordable electricity.

In his State of the Union address to Congress, President Obama affirmed that the U.S. will not surrender leadership in the burgeoning clean energy sectors. Congress has an opportunity to help make that a reality in the coming weeks by extending the highly successful 1603 Treasury Program, which lapsed at the end of December.

The numbers speak for themselves. The program has leveraged more than $23 billion in private sector investment for the construction of over 22,000 energy projects across the country. It doesn’t pick winners and losers – it only goes to developers whose projects are up and running, generating electricity for communities in all 50 states. For the solar industry, the vast majority of these projects are being built by small businesses, the backbone of our economy.

And the program means jobs. For the solar energy industry, a one-year extension would result in an additional 37,000 jobs in the solar industry alone. That’s just for one of the twelve industries eligible for the program.

But every day that goes by means jobs that are not being created. Congress can fix this. It is widely expected that a compromise tax extenders bill to extend the payroll tax cut will be negotiated in February. Any compromise should include extension of the 1603 program.

America can continue to be a leader in clean energy. But only if its policymakers recognize that policy has been critical for creating market access for all energy industries because it allows for growth in the overall economy. It’s been true for the last 100 years for industries such as coal, oil and gas. It’s true today for clean energy sectors like wind and solar. Extension of smart, effective policies like the 1603 program will help to meet these objectives and the President’s goal of a strongly diversified energy portfolio that develops every source of American energy.

(This post was written jointly by Kenan Fikri, senior research assistant with Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program, and Mark Muro.)

It was good to hear strong shout-outs for clean and renewable energy sourcing as part of the balanced energy stance promoted in President Obama’s State of the Union speech this week.

We’ve long agreed that the “all of the above” energy approach Obama championed last week could be desirable so long as it is just that—oriented to the balanced development of all sources including American renewable and clean energy as well as fossil fuel resources. In that nexus lies a politically and factually defensible sweet-spot for sensible energy development notwithstanding the tough politics of the energy debate.

And yet, the President left a crucial link out of in his renewed commitments to both clean energy and increased conventional energy: He missed the opportunity to dedicate at least a portion of the federal revenues from increased fossil fuel extraction to investment in energy innovation.

In this respect, a truly potent “all of the above” stance would move to link reasonable expanded fossil fuel exploitation to investments in the innovation necessary to accelerate the adoption of clean new energy technologies. And it would establish the means to effect that link. Along these lines, a smart “all of the above” approach to the nation’s energy challenges might channel a portion of the royalties and fees associated with increased offshore and onshore fossil fuel extraction into programs like ARPA-e, the Energy Innovation Hubs, or more generally into basic and applied clean energy research and deployment as well as critical deployment finance instruments such as the proposed Clean Energy Development Authority (CEDA) or another form of a green bank.

And as it happens, such a linkage once had (and may again garner!) bipartisan support. After all, not so long ago Rep. John Boehner, R-OH, introduced the House Republicans’ American Energy Act of 2009 and in it proposed a bargain that would have paired expanded oil and gas drilling with new investments in renewable and alternative energy. The bill proposed putting hundreds of billions of anticipated new oil and gas revenues (and that was even before the true extent of the unconventional oil and gas boom was understood) into a trust fund to accelerate clean energy innovation. The upshot: For a few fleeting months that broad outline pointed to an intriguing way forward.

Now, maybe that grand trade beckons again. With a new era of domestic fossil fuel extraction imminent, the president and pragmatists of all stripe have a signal opportunity to link increases oil and gas development—whether offshore or on public lands—to public investments in cleaner energy. Specifically, a truly powerful “all of the above” agenda really must locate and apply a significant revenue stream to finance cleantech innovation and scale up. Here is hoping that the forthcoming elaboration of the new stance backs up the president’s stated commitments with a commonsense proposal for linking stepped-up fossil fuel extraction to revenue-raising for investments in new and cleaner energy technologies.

President Obama's state of the union address said a surprising amount about energy and the environment in a year where a sour economy is still his worst electoral enemy. That’s an encouraging sign, especially since opponents have been attacking him on some of his green-related decisions.

His speech was mostly focused, as expected, on job creation. The nation’s employment situation continues to be the biggest economic fallout from the economic crisis that began in 2008. For both political and policy reasons, the President is right to train his laser of attention onto getting people back to work.

But instead of avoiding clean energy—an issue that is popular with the public but is strongly opposed by polluting industry and its political allies—he zeroed in on it for a substantial portion of his remarks.

Obama promised renewed effort to rescind some of the tax breaks oil companies receive. No one has a complete picture of the benefits that coal, oil and gas companies get in the form of tax breaks and subsidies—the tax code is riddled with loopholes and credits that favor a few businesses with taxpayer dollars. It has been reported that around $72 billion went to oil, gas, and coal producers from 2002 to 2008. But because some of these giveaways can be hard to find, the amount could be much more.

Tax breaks and subsidies are not the only public payment for fossil fuels. There are billions of dollars in public health and environmental costs that we all pay to subsidize dirty energy when we are exposed to pollutants like heavy metals and particulate matter that are associated with a range of negative health consequences.

Freebies to oil companies are expenditures that can’t be justified. At a time when the federal deficit has been made into a major issue, and when services are being cut to try and balance the budget, our tax dollars should be spent more efficiently. It is not clear what economic or social benefit comes of shoveling money to companies with record profits like Exxon and Mobile, and the public health and environmental costs from inefficient fossil fuel consumption are all too obvious.

The President also looked to bolster clean energy production in America. He resuscitated a request for a renewable energy standard—one he made last year but became bogged down in the swamps of Congress. Obama also pledged to use his executive powers to encourage enough alternative energy production on public land to power up over 3 million homes.

Clean energy standards and government investment in renewable energy technology send a signal to both dirty and clean energy futures that the future is in renewable, less polluting sources of energy. That the President is willing to weather the inevitable criticism when some renewable energy projects fail (like Solyndra) is a hopeful sign even in difficult political times.

While backing renewables is positive, it still falls short of what is needed to genuinely address climate change—for that, we need a price on carbon, which the President openly acknowledged is a non-starter with the current Congress.

While we wait for the political winds to turn, there has been a major push, embraced by Obama last night, in favor of natural gas exploration. More natural gas in the pipeline is bad for coal—by far the most polluting source of energy—but drilling for gas carries its own risk. Obama’s call for companies to disclose the chemicals used as part of the drilling process (called “fracking”) is a useful step to balance the risks and returns of more natural gas exploration.

Overall, the President seems intent on continuing to make progress in the face of strong headwinds against environmental protection. In times of economic downturn, people’s attentions naturally shift to issues like jobs and deficits, and environmental protection moves to the back burner. The key is to keep momentum moving on clean energy even when the economy is weak, so that we are well positioned to take the big steps when strong economic growth returns.

In the State of the Union, we heard about the important role that U.S. oil and natural gas production can have in strengthening the economic and national security of the United States. But, when it comes to Congress and the Administration working together to enact meaningful energy security legislation, the reality is that actions will speak louder than words.

With the economy still struggling to recover and Iran continuing to use oil as a strategic weapon, it is necessary for both parties to work together to reduce oil dependence. For U.S. households, which spent a record $4,100 on fuel for their vehicles in 2011, reduced oil dependence means there will be less volatility in their energy costs. For America’s foreign policy, reduced oil dependence will help alleviate the constraints and costs shouldered by the U.S. military as it carries the burden of protecting global oil supply lines and infrastructure.

More domestic production is a start to improving the current balance of trade that has sent more than $1.4 trillion in hard-earned American wealth overseas in the past five years, but increasing domestic supply alone will not be sufficient to protect the U.S. from volatile prices and future oil supply risks.

Solving this oil dependence in the long-term requires a sustained effort that involves moving the U.S. transportation sector away from oil and toward alternative technologies like the electrification of the light-duty vehicle fleet and using natural gas to power heavy-duty trucks.

It is my hope that President Obama and Congress can work together, even in an election year, to seize the opportunity and advance legislation that includes shifting the U.S. transportation sector toward alternative fuels like electricity. Given the challenges facing the nation right now—from improving our economy to confronting international tensions in the oil-rich Middle East, now is the time to put in place a long-term set of policies that will move the country away from its dependence on oil. Now that President Obama and Republicans say they are on the same page with an all of the above energy strategy, let’s get something done.

As President Obama stated in his Earth Day 2011 Proclamation: “The United States can be a leader in reducing the dangerous pollution that causes global warming and can propel these advances by investing in clean energy technologies, markets, and practices that will empower us to win the future. While our changing climate requires international leadership, global action on clean energy and climate change must be joined with local action.”

The foolish proposal by Interior Secretary “Boot on the Neck” Ken Salazar to drill for oil in the fragile and melting Arctic (particularly the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas), which contains the greenhouse pollutant methane, and is over twenty times more powerful than carbon dioxide in warming the planet, is simply not consistent with Obama’s rhetoric. It is a fatal and misguided decision that must be stopped.

Unmistakable signs of the global climate crisis were seen around the world in 2011: epic droughts, record high temperatures, massive wildfires, flooding, food shortages, a gathering humanitarian crisis and increasing numbers of animals and plants pushed toward extinction. Climate change is the challenge of our lifetime. More than any other person on the planet, the president has the power to set a course for immediate, tangible progress on the most devastating problem facing life on Earth. Delaying action will virtually ensure a climate catastrophe.

2011 was the 11th warmest year on record since 1880. Climate change is having profound effects: Polar bears are starving and drowning; coral reefs are suffering massive die-offs; people are struggling against wave after wave of extreme weather, including record heat, floods and blizzards. Food and water supplies are becoming unstable, and hundreds of thousands of people die climate-related deaths each year. Scientists estimate climate change will commit one-third of the world’s plant and animal species to extinction by 2050 and threaten up to two-thirds with extinction by 2100.

The world needs the United States to help solve this global crisis, and President Obama should do just that. Without his leadership now, all living beings on Earth risk dangers that belong in science-fiction novels, not reality. Obama’s scientific agencies — notably the EPA, Department of the Interior and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — already possess the legal authority to reduce greenhouse pollutants such as carbon dioxide, methane and black carbon. The Clean Air Act is the best existing law to begin making the significant cuts in carbon emissions needed to avoid catastrophic, runaway climate change. Abroad, Obama’s constitutional foreign-relations powers already enable him to enter into meaningful, binding agreements with other countries on cutting greenhouse gases.

Ignoring climate change in his State of the Union speech would be a deeply troubling sign that Obama is disengaging from a crisis with profound consequences for not only all Americans, but all people. He should build on his smart decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline and finally launch a visionary plan to address climate change and move us toward safer, cleaner, saner sources of energy.

The current president finds himself in a position similar to that of President Abraham Lincoln, who faced great tumult during the months leading up to his own re-election. In Lincoln’s December 1863 State of the Union Address — his last before the presidential election — he said this about slavery and the emancipation proclamation issued in January 1863: “When Congress assembled a year ago … the tone of public feeling and opinion, at home and abroad was not satisfactory. With other signs, the popular elections then just past indicated uneasiness among ourselves, while, amid much that was cold and menacing … By the proclamation a plan is presented which may be accepted by them as a rallying point, and which they are assured in advance will not be rejected here. This may bring them to act sooner than they otherwise would.”

President Obama must now courageously and steadily chart a path to a healthy and vibrant America, free of the fossil-fuel pollution that is driving global warming across the planet as it lines the pockets of oil and gas corporations. Rejecting the dirty Keystone pipeline was clearly a step in the right direction; but the president can and must do far more to lead the world out of a climate change disaster that threatens all people and will have devastating impacts on vulnerable populations.

Talk is cheap. Let’s do it.

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union included a clean energy agenda that would create well-paying jobs, lower energy bills, and produce less pollution. Some measures require executive action, while others require legislation. Hopefully, Republican Congressional leaders will support these proposals.

President Obama’s plans include the following measures.

• Energy efficiency

He noted that efficiency yields “less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them.” He proposed “tax incentives for clean energy manufacturing.” This requires legislation.

• Oil and natural gas

This administration presided over an increase in oil and natural gas production that created 75,000 new jobs. The Energy Information Administration predicts even more future production.

More domestic oil will further reduce imports that are already the lowest in nearly a decade. Proposed tax incentives to increase the use of natural gas powered trucks could reduce oil use by 1 million barrels per day.

Natural gas production must occur responsibly. President Obama said:

“Companies that drill for gas on public lands [must] disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

This is a regulatory step that does not require legislation. Additional safeguards are necessary to reduce pollution from shale gas production.

• Tax fairness

More production and high oil prices were very good for Big Oil in 2011. The five largest companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell—are likely to have made $130 billion in profits in 2011.

President Obama noted, “We have subsidized oil companies for a century…It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable.” Congress must finally eliminate $4 billion in yearly tax breaks for the highly profitable oil industry.

• Renewable energy

Renewable electricity generation has nearly doubled since 2008. In 2011 the United States invested more money in clean energy than China. To build on these achievements the president called for the development of 10 gigawatts of renewable electricity on public lands, which is underway.

The President also proposed to extend the Production Tax Credit for wind that expires at the end of 2012. Without it, 37,000 jobs are at risk because investments in wind projects will decline.

President Obama again called on Congress to pass a Clean Energy Standard that would increase electricity generation from clean sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.

· Public health

The administration’s new requirements to reduce many pollutants from power plants will save 45,000 lives annually. Yet the House passed numerous measures to weaken or delay them. President Obama firmly opposed such efforts: “I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution.”

EPA must finalize rules to reduce toxic air pollution from industrial boilers and incinerators, while the administration must oppose Congressional efforts to significantly delay them.

• Global warming pollution

President Obama acknowledged that "differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change."

Meanwhile, the United States lags behind its commitment to reduce climate pollution by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. EIA projects that carbon dioxide pollution will be “more than 7 percent below its 2005 level…in 2020.” This is less than half of the goal.

In 2012, EPA plans to propose and finalize the first ever carbon dioxide pollution reductions from power plants – the largest single stationary source of CO2.

The State of the Union promoted “an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, [and] skills for American workers.” Its clean energy agenda will help achieve these goals.

• Renewable technology investments will boost manufacturing.
• Investments in training workers for the manufacturing, construction, and operation of clean technologies are vital to economic competitiveness.
• Energy efficiency will enable Americans to spend less on energy.

This energy agenda tested well with voters. Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found that it “received the highest sustained ratings of the speech from Democrats and independents.”

It’s up to Congressional leaders to decide whether to help President Obama implement this clean energy agenda, or to continue support for Big Oil and coal companies.

What does the empirical research tell us about some of the President’s proposals?

At RFF, we’ve looked in depth at several of the President’s ideas.

On promoting the use of natural gas in vehicles: Here, heavy-duty trucks running on liquefied natural gas could be win-win for truckers and consumers. LNG-fueled long-haul trucks can be reasonably cost-competitive even without subsidies under certain conditions, and refueling infrastructure may be workable because long-haul routes are moving towards hub and spoke, conducive to installation of LNG stations.

On tax credits for clean energy firms and a clean energy standard (CES): Clean energy investment subsidies are generally less cost-effective than other policies. A CES, however, could lead to large reductions in carbon emissions at modestly higher electricity prices.

On promoting energy efficiency: If it is easy money, why aren’t businesses and consumers already more energy efficient? The reasons are many: liquidity and other capital constraints, information gaps, other transactions costs, and the failure to price energy (electricity, transportation) at its true cost to society.

In short: the goals in the State of the Union speech are laudable. Unfortunately, none of the proposals is as good as a straightforward, modest carbon tax with revenues used to reduce payroll and corporate income taxes.

President Obama is to be commended not only for devoting a significant amount of time in his State of the Union address to energy issues, but also for strongly advocating an “all of the above” approach, something the Consumer Energy Alliance has been advocating for years.

It is also heartening to hear the Administration’s call for expanded oil and natural gas development, and hopefully the numerous federal agencies involved in regulation can come together to ease the way for natural gas production that the President praised in his speech. Natural gas has the potential to be a game-changer for the U.S. economy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and revitalizing entire regional economies.

Finally, it is encouraging to hear the President acknowledge the need for increased domestic oil production to reduce record-high gasoline and diesel prices, and hopefully this will result in a more reliable and certain regulatory environment for permits and approvals.

In terms of what the President did not mention, we would have liked to have heard more about nuclear power. Last week the President’s own Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Fuel Future delivered their findings to Secretary Chu and we applaud their sound recommendations for advancing strategic used-fuel management.

Nuclear energy must remain a vital part of a balanced, thoughtful energy portfolio. This report contains rational, solution-driven policies that can and must be met with bipartisan support, and we look forward to urging our Congressional leaders to adopt these recommendations as expeditiously as possible.

Principally, the Commission has identified initiatives that would allow for a sustainable, safe, and secure method to transport and store spent fuel in a few interim storage facilities, allowing around 75 current and decommissioned nuclear facilities across the United States to remove the waste from on-site storage. The recommendations specifically call for the establishment of one or more consolidated interim storage facilities, the creation of a congressionally chartered organization dedicated to waste management, and the amendment of current law to allow this organization to use revenues from the existing Nuclear Waste Fund.

Any other solution is likely decades away from realization. Since 1983, ratepayers have annually paid $750 million into the mandated Nuclear Waste Fund without any solution. The Commission rightfully acknowledges that these funds must be used in a way that safeguards consumer payments and ensures that electricity consumers will not bare these expenses in vain. Moreover, interim storage will permit decommissioned plants the ability to transfer fuel and finally complete their cleanup, an objective many states can easily rally around.

CEA is hopeful that the President’s words will result in less regulatory oversight and more domestic energy production. Without a doubt, it will mark a tremendous change of direction for his Administration if he does.

President Obama said it plain and simple, “The easiest way to save money is to waste less energy.”

The Alliance to Save Energy is pleased that with these words, President Obama acknowledged energy efficiency as America’s greatest energy resource. In the last 35 years, energy efficiency improvements have allowed the nation to save over 52 quads of energy – about half of what the country uses today and more than we get from any other single energy source: oil, natural gas, coal or nuclear power.

Energy efficiency continues to be the fastest and easiest solution for extending American energy supplies and lowering costs throughout all sectors of the economy, including transportation, buildings, utilities, manufacturing, education and even government itself. Efficiency measures not only save money in all those areas, they also create domestic jobs that cannot be outsourced.

More good news: Energy efficiency is a bipartisan issue, as exemplified by the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (S. 1000) cosponsored by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D – N.H.) and Rob Portman (R – Ohio). This bipartisan measure would create thousands of construction jobs by strengthening building codes, helping finance efficiency upgrades for manufacturers and requiring better energy management by the federal government. A bipartisan majority of the Senate Energy Committee passed that bill on an 18-3 vote last year, and its passage by Congress should be high on Obama’s 2012 energy agenda.

In addition to continuing to bang the drum for S. 1000 this year, the Alliance will also push to see energy efficiency included in new initiatives such as the clean energy standard that Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is expected to introduce in a few weeks.

Existing energy efficiency initiatives – along with those identified in President Obama’s State of the Union address and those that are already on the table or yet to be proposed – will allow Congress and the administration to help put America back to work, deliver savings to every person, business and government agency in the country and grow our economy in 2012.

President Obama was right to call in his State of the Union address for “an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.” Unfortunately, he’s not heeding his own call.

While the president used his speech to advance proposals to create manufacturing jobs in some areas and to encourage greater production of natural gas, he once again attacked American companies that produce oil and American companies that manufacture fuels and petrochemicals, threatening the jobs of their hard-working employees.

The president’s continued demonization of everything connected to oil – in an effort to appease extremists opposed to all uses of fossil fuels – is hurting American consumers, American workers, America’s economy and our national security.

The association I represent – the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers – changed its name last week from the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association because we want everyone to understand that we are high-tech American manufacturers who make vital products for your life every day and support 2 million American jobs.

While the president once again attacked oil company “subsidies,” he called for more subsidies for non-fossil fuel energy.

But no companies in the oil and natural gas sector get taxpayer subsidies – we simply get the same type of tax deductions that other manufacturers get.

In contrast, companies that seek to harness power from the sun, the wind, crops and electric batteries are getting billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, even though some have gone bankrupt because too few consumers want to buy their unpopular, unproven, costly, inefficient and problem-plagued products.

Companies in the oil and gas sector are not tax consumers – we are taxpayers, paying $31 billion a year in taxes, royalties and fees to the federal government each year and paying billions of additional dollars to state and local governments. The sector as a whole supports the jobs of 9 million American workers who pay taxes as well.

Members of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers believe the American people benefit most when the free market and consumer choice determine our nation’s energy policy. This is why we oppose government mandates and costly taxpayer subsidies that try to dictate energy choices.

We call on President Obama to work with us constructively to enact regulatory and tax policies to preserve existing manufacturing jobs held by Americans in our industries and others. It’s as important to preserve jobs that American workers hold today as it is to try to create new jobs for workers tomorrow.

We are eager to work with President Obama, federal agencies and Congress to make the president’s hopes for greater American energy self-sufficiency and increased manufacturing employment a reality. This can be accomplished by eliminating harmful and counterproductive federal overregulation, including seemingly endless permit delays that block America’s access to domestic oil and natural gas and make it difficult for fuel and petrochemical manufacturing plants to operate.

President Obama should create a framework of sensible regulation and pro-consumer policies that will allow American energy companies and their American workers to compete on a level playing field with foreign energy companies and workers.

Far too many American manufacturing jobs have been lost to other nations in recent years. We need to stop this exodus of jobs and reduce the intolerably high unemployment rate that is devastating millions of American families.

And we need to more fully utilize the vast quantities of oil and natural gas under our feet and off our shores, and from our good friend and neighbor Canada.

President Obama should reverse his unfortunate decision blocking construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline could bring us 700,000 barrels of oil each day from Canada and from North Dakota and Montana to benefit the American people. This vital project has already been subject to three years of permit delays and should be approved now because it is unquestionably in our national interest.

If America loses its domestic fuel and petrochemical manufacturing industries we would be a nation facing higher consumer costs – not just for fuels, but for the thousands of products made from petrochemicals.

Without American fuel and petrochemical manufacturers, our nation would have a higher trade deficit and higher unemployment. Governments at all levels would lose billions of dollars in tax revenue that’s now paid by our members and their workers.

In his State of the Union address President Obama called for the creation of “an America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world.”

This is a future that members of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers can help make it a reality if the Obama administration will work with us. We are not the cause of America’s energy problems. We are an important part of the solution.

Benjamin Franklin’s proverbial saying “well done is better than well said” has seen little application in President Obama’s administration. Since his election in 2008, he has excelled at promising lofty goals without taking the steps necessary to follow through. So in absence of a legitimate, positive track record to tout for his re-election efforts, the President has simply started taking credit for others’ works. Case in point: his remarks on oil and gas in last week’s State of the Union<http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/01/26/obama-mimics-al-gore-claims-credit-for-others-work-fracking-energy/>.

His self-congratulatory comments regarding the recent boom in U.S. oil and gas production are reminiscent of a man watching a parade pass by who then heads to the front and claims to be leading it. This growth happened in spite of PRESIDENT Obama’s policies, not because of them, as the Institute for Energy demonstrates:

The increase in production is occurring on private and state lands, the use of which is much harder for the President to restrict (at least in the short term). Meanwhile, production on federal lands is decreasing significantly … [His] administration did not hold a single offshore lease sale in fiscal year 2011.

It’s further telling that the President’s call for an “all-out, all-in, all-of-the-above strategy” on energy does not include the Keystone XL pipeline, which would immediately create tens of thousands of new jobs, bolster our oil supply from reliable sources, and enhance our energy infrastructure. Yet, the administration's repeated, unfounded delay of this opportunity will likely lead to those resources and jobs going to China instead of America -- a clear case of dereliction of duty.

Similarly, the Department of Interior leasing plan which is the basis for the assertion to tap into 75% of the country’s offshore oil and gas resources has not generated much enthusiasm from the oil and gas industry. It is one thing to offer tracts for lease. But what counts is offering tracts that hold promise for actual discovery and then having a leasing schedule that is consistent with the pledge. That is not happening.

The major reason the U.S. is enjoying its current oil and gas boom is a process known as “hydraulic fracturing.” And yet, the Jobs Terminator, EPA Administrator Jackson, is using scientifically questionable findings to undermine this technology and attempt to take control of its use from states. If the President is sincere in wanting to encourage even more production, his objective would be well served by sending the Job Terminator on long vacation.

Energy development faces a number of challenges with excessive regulation, especially by EPA, being a major one. Over the past 3 years EPA’s regulatory output has significantly outpaced that of either the Clinton or Bush Administrations. And regulations like the Boiler MACT, Mercury, and the NAAQs proposal consistently over estimate benefits and understate costs. Neither energy production nor economic growth can achieve their potential when they are so over burdened. When the President pledges an all out effort to produce more oil and gas, he needs to back it up with supporting policies like more balanced regulation and a tax regime that does not penalize either one industry or success. President Obama continues to make claims about oil industry profits and tax benefits that simply are false. His oil industry tax proposals are discriminatory and counterproductive.

His explicit call for a “clean energy standard” made clear that he is not looking for a level playing field for energy development or a reduction in subsidies. Solyndra and the failure of other alternative energy firms did not convince him that reliance on the energy market is better than an energy industrial policy. Fortunately, there is little reason to think that the House of Representatives will support Senate energy legislation that imposes costly mandates and rewards rent seeking special interests.

Gridlock will be the path for 2012, unfortunately. There is not sufficient trust between the White House and Congress to establish the foundation for a realistic energy policy this year.

In his 2008 campaign, then Senator Obama in one of his moments of eloquence said, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream’—just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’—just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’— just words? Just speeches?” This would be a good time for him to show that that statement reflects his beliefs by actively promoting actions that give meaning to his energy pledge. And to Republicans, adopt President Reagan’s principle of “trust but verify.”