Renewable energy is enjoying remarkable growth. In the last four years, 35 percent of all new power built in the U.S. has come from wind energy. This new wind power will provide as much power as nine nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, the U.S. solar industry is ten times the size it was a few years ago. .

Market forces have played a powerful role is this expansion. The cost of wind energy has come down between 25 and 40 percent in the last decade, and the total U.S. clean energy investment has risen 35 percent to a record $55.9 billion in 2011, overtaking China for the first time since 2008.

But the government will continue to play a role in controlling our energy future. It helped drive our greatest and most complex innovations—from railroads and highway systems to space travel and the Internet, and new partnerships between the private sector and government will advance the next generation of solutions.

The government has been lending a helping hand to the oil and gas industry for a hundred years. Over the past several decades, oil and gas companies have received about $490 billion in handouts from the federal government. Even the shale gas explosion we are now witnessing—which poses so many health, environmental, and community impacts—was in part driven by 30 years of federal research funding and specific tax incentives.

It’s time to start leveling the playing field. We aren’t proposing $490 billion to match the overt subsidies to fossil fuels. Nor are we talking about indirect subsidies—the hundreds of billions of dollars of health and environmental harm from fossil fuel extraction and use that are carried by U.S. taxpayers and that we'd not have to bear with clean energy. Instead, we are calling for smart government policies that can make the field less uneven.

Right now, for instance, more than 30 states call on utilities to generate a certain percentage of electricity using renewable energy sources. This has helped deploy wind and solar technologies across the nation, driving down costs and increasing job opportunities. Nearly 90,000 Americans make their living building wind turbines, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and more than 100,000 people currently work in the solar industry. These policies also match what the American public wants. Nine in ten Americans—including 85 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of independents—say developing renewable energy should be a priority.

The federal Production Tax Credit for renewable energy has also spurred growth, but it is unclear if Congress will renew it this year. This incentive has been allowed to lapse several times since it was launched in 2000, driving away investors every time, slowing new installations, delaying capital investment, and causing layoffs. A consistent federal incentive to support renewable energy provides a critical level of predictability for investors.

The renewable energy industry stands to be a major engine of job growth in the coming decade, but only if we don't cut it off at the knees. Now is the time for government leaders to redouble their efforts to support America’s entrepreneurs, America’s clean technologies, and America’s clean energy workers.

As Congress and the Administration debate the most effective ways to spur energy production, they should also prioritize America’s cleanest, most affordable energy resource: energy efficiency.

Whether you’re an advocate for renewable fuels or more traditional sources of power generation, there’s no disputing the fact that the cheapest and greenest kilowatt-hour of power is the one that’s never generated or used. In a comprehensive study of the U.S. economy in 2009, McKinsey and Company estimated that families and businesses could save more than $200 billion on their electrical bills in the next ten years through energy efficiency measures if decades-old regulations were reformed. One policy that Congress and the Administration should prioritize is a clean energy standard that allows energy efficiency to compete on an even playing field with other clean fuels. Energy efficiency does not need a handout from the government to be a smart choice for businesses and families. What it needs – and what half the states have enacted – is a reformed regulatory structure that enables utilities to meet clean energy goals through efficiency programs and a rate structure that allows utilities to earn a return on efficiency program investments. By setting clean energy goals, instead of picking particular technologies or companies, government regulators will point utilities towards deploying resources that produce the biggest energy security and environmental benefits at the lowest cost. The President’s strategy so far seems compatible with that vision, but it is unclear whether efficiency will be fully incorporated into the Senate’s Clean Energy Standard framework. If efficiency is not properly incorporated, the CES will mean billions of dollars in unnecessary costs for businesses and families in a still struggling economy.

I’m amazed that even after so much political posturing for clean energy over the last few years, and the failure of those efforts to materially change our energy picture, that many are still calling for more of the same policies. We see folks posting on these pages that the government should implement more policies that distort the market, such as clean energy or renewable standards, and twisting the logic to argue that by doing so, the government would be creating a stable market.

Obviously, by setting standards for how much energy should come from one source or the other, the government is distorting the market away from one in which energy sources compete on cost, efficiency, reliability, and cleanliness, to one in which policymakers pick winners and losers. Over a century of data and experience in multiple industries demonstrate how the market is the best arbiter for allocating goods and services, yet there continue to be those who look to the government to take that role, and nowhere more than in the energy industry.

Despite what many would like, fossil fuels provide the lowest cost, reliable energy at the lowest environmental impact possible, because of high energy density per unit of volume, area or mass. That’s why societies abandoned the wind, solar, and biomass sources of energy that had been used throughout human history, for the hydrocarbons that caused an increase in the standard of living for an unprecedented number of the world’s population. Never have so many had it so good as the last century or so, and why billions more in India, China and Africa are striving for the same access to affordable, reliable energy. Renewables, in their current state, simply can’t compete with oil and natural gas. Although the government should continue to fund basic research in alternative energy technologies, its support of today’s state-of-the-art wind, solar and biofuel technologies have proven to be extremely expensive to taxpayers and energy consumers, and of dubious value to the environment (see for example The Nature Conservancy’s study on “Energy Sprawl”).

Luckily, natural gas producers are driving a huge renaissance in clean American energy, and doing so despite immense regulatory obstacles from the federal government. Industry-funded research & development has created a revolution in shale and tight sands gas that has led to an abundance of clean-burning natural gas at an extremely affordable price to consumers. While there has been some government funding of R&D, particularly back in the 1990s, it has been completely dwarfed by the private-sector funding of companies actively engaged in the marketplace. The market, not artificial government standards for how much should be produced, enabled natural gas producers to respond to high prices, discover huge new resources, bring those resources to market, lower prices for consumers, and increase clean energy for electricity generation and alternative vehicles.

Despite that success and the lack of scalable alternatives, there are those in Congress and the current Administration who, on an almost daily basis, call for more regulation, higher taxes, and more interference in a successful, home-grown industry. Oil and natural gas is already heavily regulated, particularly at the state level, but that is not good enough for those who want a one-size-fits-all federal solution as a means to control a successful industry. The federal government needs to get out of the way, let the market continue to work as the best means to promote natural gas production, and defer to the states’ regulatory experience and safety record.

For clean energy technologies like solar, the single most important policy driving investments and production over the last several years was the job-creating 1603 Treasury Program, which expired at the end of December. Congress should act now to extend it.

The 1603 program makes it easier for a dozen energy industries, not just solar, to monetize tax credits that are already in existence but became practically unusable after the financial crisis decimated the availability of tax equity finance in the marketplace. That deficiency still exists today and is affecting small businesses, not just in solar or energy markets, but in sectors across the economy.

The 1603 program has helped generate 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; the tax credits only go to developers whose projects are already up-and-running, generating electricity for their local community.

With national unemployment still over 8 percent, the program’s most important benefit is job creation. An independent study late last year found that a one-year extension of the 1603 program would create an additional 37,000 good-paying jobs in the solar industry in 2012. But every day that goes by without this program in place means jobs that are not being created.

A compromise tax extenders bill is on the agenda this month, so Congress has an opportunity to create jobs and promote economic development. Any tax extenders legislation should include an extension of the 1603 program.

Energy drives our nation’s economic growth, and America’s energy portfolio has always been tied to federal policy, from 19th-century coal through 20th-century oil, natural gas and nuclear energy. If we are serious about meeting our energy needs, an “all of the above” approach to developing our domestic energy resources must include solar energy.

The 1603 Treasury Program is one of the most effective policies ever enacted to deploy clean energy, and Congress should renew it immediately.

(These comments were submitted by Bill Midcap, director of the Renewable Energy Center at the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union.)

Farmers and ranchers in the West live and thrive when a careful balance is reached and when we can adapt to change – in the weather, in our resources and on our land. President Obama and our leaders in Congress should take this same approach with our energy policy.

For the past decade, there has been a shift in our energy resources. Renewable energy industries like wind and solar have not only grown exponentially, but new technology has made them increasingly affordable. More and more people see a path away from fossil fuels, which use tremendous amounts of water and are subject to market vagaries.

Water is considered a lifeline in the West and that resource is increasingly scarce. Demands on our water are so great that we have people working full-time to find ways to preserve and protect it for future generations.

The Obama Administration and Congress have a responsibility not only to support a move toward smarter energy sources that use less water, but are in a position to lead. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last week took a smart step that will balance the security of our water and land while promoting research and development of oil shale to assess impacts. It shows a commitment by the Administration to look at all options, even those that have yet to show any commercial success or revenue.

In addition to the technical hurdles facing oil shale, there continues to be a huge concern for ranchers and farmers about the scarcity of water and the amount that would be needed to make oil shale viable. Our members have asked policymakers to consider this in decision-making and start moving toward fuel that is not only cleaner to use, but also cleaner to produce.

While we continue to support industries that for generations have provided energy, it is time we fully support renewable energy industries that will provide energy for generations to come. And we know exactly how we can move our country forward, toward more sustainable energy and more secure nation.

Through the extension of grants, production tax credits, and investment tax credits, our leaders can help sustain the success of - and access to - renewables. Additionally, our grid will need to be updated and we need alliances with landowners for transmission corridors in areas where landowners do not have renewable resources on their land.

The Obama Administration and Congress can also support research and development for storage of energy created by our renewable resources. Tax incentives have helped guarantee the past success of renewable resources and our leaders should extend tax credits to provide certainty in the market, so we can realize a secure, clean energy future.

By providing more certainty for renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we provide far more certainty for farmers, ranchers and all Americans.

Energy is one of the most regulated sectors of our economy—the government already plays a huge role driving innovation and investment. The question we should be asking is: since the government has a significant role within energy, in what direction should the government move?

We believe it’s clear: Government needs to move clean energy to the center—of the country and the conversation. This means responsible development of clean, domestic energy sources, ensuring that every region takes advantage of local resources, and that the technology is available to meet the needs of every part of the country.

Like a road trip in a Muppets movie, the U.S. has no clear direction for the country’s energy sector. As such, we are dramatically losing our edge on innovation and finance, and there is uncertainty in the natural gas markets due to low prices and a lack of guidance on how to develop shale gas responsibly.

There’s still hope. We’ve seen strong results when government provides market certainty—an increase in CAFÉ standards will decrease pollution and our reliance on foreign oil, incentives for clean energy sources have brought down costs, the dirtiest coal plants are planning retirement, and the first nuclear reactor in 30 years is being built.

So what should we do, as a nation, to move clean energy to the center?

· We need a long term plan for incentives. Instead of having to renew programs for clean energy every year or two, let’s keep them on the books for 10 years, have a clear sunset date, and give investors, lenders, and businesses some certainty.

· We need to expand the options for clean energy companies to organize themselves. Let’s open Master Limited Partnerships to mature clean energy technologies.

· We need to send a signal for the energy sector to let it know that we’d like to develop clean, domestic energy sources. Let’s implement a clean energy standard and let the market decide which technologies are most cost effective.

By setting long term goals, the U.S. can prioritize innovation, increase exports, decrease costs to consumers, create jobs, boost the economy, and decrease pollution—whether that’s black soot, mercury or carbon pollution. These policies have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past, and can move clean energy to the center—of the country, of the political spectrum, and of the conversation.

There’s a notion voiced in Washington circles today that government policy can’t drive commercial development of new technologies for energy production. The thinking is that Congress and the administration have overreached in implementing regulations, devising tax policies, and incentivizing private investments for “favored” renewable energy project – and racking up a terrible track record at “picking winners and losers.” The problem with this notion is that a handful of advanced biofuel projects can prove it wrong.

Government policy, at least in the case of the Renewable Fuel Standard, has successfully hastened the commercial development of advanced biofuels, pushing a variety of technologies from drawing board to demonstration scale in a matter of years rather than decades. Even with the recession hampering access to capital for the past several years, companies have emerged from labs and scaled up pilot and demonstration projects. They are now building large-scale biorefineries in different locations across the United States, including Florida, Michigan, Iowa, Oregon, and Kansas. These initial biorefineries can serve as replicable models for a rapid expansion of advanced biofuel production, if U.S. energy policy remains stable. The RFS worked for conventional biofuels in exactly this way.

Compare this to the nuclear energy industry. The first nuclear reactions were demonstrated in 1942, but the first commercial nuclear plant was not built until 1956. And widespread deployment did not begin until decades later.

While advanced biofuels have not achieved “commercial” status in the seven years since Congress first adopted an RFS, the fact is that the current rules have been in place for less than two years and have yet to provide the long-term stability and predictability necessary for all parties. It’s premature to claim that it doesn’t work. And implementing additional changes will simply continue the pattern of policy instability that has limited commercialization to date.

Why can’t we leave it to the market to bring biofuels to consumers? Consider what the market is already doing to consumers. In 2011, consumers spent a record $481 billion on fuel – even as they reduced fuel consumption, since fewer people had jobs to drive to. Renewed job growth and economic growth will increase demand for oil and again push it past the current $100 per barrel mark, taking prices at the pump with it. Inevitably, this will lead to another recession. But the record price for oil will dictate continued investment in finding and producing oil, even at high cost to consumers. A lack of policy certainty will maintain that status quo and discourage innovation.

Forward looking, long-term stable energy policy is needed to break the cycle and bring new technologies into the marketplace. In 2011, production of conventional biofuels reduced the need for imported oil by more than $22 billion, keeping that money in the United States. The same can happen with advanced biofuels if the RFS is maintained.

A hot dog vendor drags himself out of bed, puts on his mustard-stained white apron, and lugs a 400 lb. cart through the streets crying “HOT DOGS HERE” to pedestrians each and every day, rain or shine, for one simple reason: to turn a profit. If the vendor’s investment of time, effort, and money results in a loss, he quickly halts operations and seeks out a profitable undertaking.

Similarly, America’s oil and gas companies strive to develop domestic energy resources to generate profits. They invest billions to secure land and drilling permits, hire rigs, drill for oil and gas, ship production to refineries, and transport usable fuels to the public. This Herculean effort is conducted on the expectation that profits will be generated to cover their investments and realize a competitive rate of return. The byproduct of all this investment is millions of direct and indirect jobs and a reliable source of domestic energy to power our cars, light our schools, and heat our homes.

Given the huge economic and fiscal benefits that attend energy production, one would assume Washington is doing everything within its power to ensure this activity is encouraged through the tax and regulatory codes, right? Wrong.

In fact, by creating a confusing and inconsistent regulatory environment and imposing tax rates as high as 40 percent on energy companies, the Federal government is discouraging production of our abundant energy resources. Look no further than the current natural gas boom to see the extent to which government is retarding development.

It’s no secret the country is experiencing a natural gas revolution that has created tens of thousands of jobs and resulted in at least 100 years supply at current rates of consumption. Despite President Obama’s claim that government has been pivotal in this process, quite the opposite is true. If energy companies had to rely on government approval to drill on public lands, they’d still be waiting. The current glut of natural gas that has pushed prices so low is the result of drilling and production on private land; not a single public land permit has been granted by Interior Secretary Salazar. And as a result of federal delays in approving new plants for turning natural gas into liquid for export, a huge market opportunity for U.S. producers is being squandered.

Government interference in the market is also evident with regard to unprofitable renewable energy investments. At present, renewables such as wind and solar are being subsidized to the tune of $12.5 billion annually. But despite many years of taxpayer support, these resources still only account for only eight percent of domestic energy production, and forecasts don’t show them making a serious contribution to energy supply for decades to come.

While major U.S. companies are working to develop profitable clean energy technologies on their own, companies receiving government subsidies, who have no motivation to drop unprofitable projects, are focused instead on securing their next grant or pressing Congress to renew a tax credit.

Potential profits are the key to encouraging energy innovation and development, as we’ve seen with hydraulic fracturing and deep-water drilling. Over-taxing and over-regulating America’s oil and gas companies will not only restrain domestic energy production but it may well stifle future innovations that can help “green-up” America’s energy portfolio.

The hundreds of billions of dollars invested annually in fossil fuel production and processing in the US dwarfs our commitments to renewable energy and energy efficiency. This status quo risks our future economic competitiveness. Powerful interests backed by the financing of our political system gain from keeping us on business as usual, while our foreign competitors secure the cleantech patents and manufacturing base that will power future generations. The mirage of short-term low-priced natural gas markets aside, the future of fossil fuel energy will be increasingly expensive, while costs for renewable energy and efficiency deployment continue to plummet (solar PV have now breached the sub-$1/watt threshold). Our fossil fuel infrastructure worked great when gasoline was $1/gallon and we didn't worry about coal's externalities. But the future of gasoline, natural gas and coal is expensive and unsustainable.

It would be a great disservice to future generations if the lesson we learn from the Solyndra debacle is to back off a commitment to incentivize solar energy. Instead, we must understand that Solyndra failed because the United States has no coherent policy to promote consumer demand for solar power. In Germany, which has 630% more installed solar capacity than America, solar benefits from a demand-side incentive system called a feed-in tariff, which taps into rates (rather than taxes) to provide production incentives for rooftop solar. Spurred by the large demand caused by the tariff, manufacturers’ incentive is feeding the market. In the US, absent any domestic demand, a manufacturer like Solyndra was faced with cutthroat competition from China and Germany and the prospect of having to compete domestically and globally. The Germans spend $30 billion a year on this subsidy, and yet remain a high-wage, manufacturing export-driven economy that is single-handedly running the Euro. Germany competes and wins economically while committing to green energy.

But if instead of inserting government subsidies on the capital end of things as our broken loan guarantee program does, we need to adopt a feed-in tariff type model that will trigger the kind of robust demand for rooftop solar panels that US manufacturers could sell to. Sure, we’ll still get beat early on by mature, foreign competitors, but grabbing even a small chunk of rising domestic market share is better making guesses which manufacturers will win. Capturing even small market share today will prime the industry to take bigger shares in the years ahead. This is the key to igniting our Rooftop Revolution.

We’re clearly losing in the green energy race. The sad thing is, many in power don’t see the importance in even joining the race at all. It’s clear that the American public and those in power need some more convincing. Until they open their eyes to the fact that America has been eclipsed as a green-tech leader, the U.S. will continue to fall behind and fail to capitalize on our enormous renewable energy potential. Stories like Solyndra will continue to happen, as long as domestic green energy companies have to struggle to compete with their foreign competition.

It's been great to see the unemployment numbers finally getting better and the economy beginning to improve. Even so, we have a long way to go, and Americans remain deeply concerned about creating jobs and really getting our economy rolling again. One way our lawmakers in Congress can help do that is increasingly visible all across America's windy heartland. Wind power has benefited from several years of stability in tax policy to rapidly become one of our economy’s few bright spots and can continue to help drive our economy forward if that policy remains in place.

Extending wind power's key incentive, the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC), is one of the simplest and best ways Congress can leverage private capital, create manufacturing jobs and put more Americans back to work.

Across the country, wind energy jobs are growing. Wind energy has installed more than a third of all new electric generation in this country in recent years and is powering one of America’s fastest growing manufacturing sectors. Over the last six years, U.S. domestic production of wind turbine components has grown 12-fold, to more than 400 facilities in 43 states. with stable tax policy, wind power is poised to grow even further, to almost 100,000 jobs in just four years, and stay on track toward supporting 500,000 jobs by 2030 as envisioned by the George W. Bush administration.

But these jobs could vanish if Congress allows wind’s federal production tax credit to expire, in effect enacting a targeted tax increase, crippling an American manufacturing success story and sending our jobs to foreign countries. With a tax increase on the horizon and the PTC's future uncertain, businesses are hesitant to plan future U.S. wind projects, American manufacturers have seen a drop in orders, and layoffs have already started. To preserve tens of thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs, the wind energy industry urgently needs Congress to take action to extend the PTC as soon as possible.

Extending the PTC is the key to provide what our economy desperately needs: certainty. Businesses are hesitant to invest, manufacturers are wary of setting up shop, companies are reluctant to hire and banks don’t want to lend because they are unsure of how the playing field will look one, five, 10 years from now. That’s as true in our industry as it is any other.

The PTC is a performance-based business tax credit--it applies only to actual electricity produced from utility-scale wind turbines--a wind project developer does not receive the credit until the wind turbine actually generates power. Because it is a business tax credit, funding is based solely on project performance, not evaluation by government officials. The PTC has been supported on a bipartisan basis in the past, and continues to receive support from both sides of the aisle. In recent weeks, legislation extending the PTC has received the endorsement of:

- A broad coalition of more than 370 members, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Edison Electric Institute, the Western Governors’ Association, the United Steelworkers and many members of the environmental community.

- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

- The bipartisan Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition, which includes 23 Republican and Democratic Governors from across the U.S.

A vote for a PTC extension is a vote for growing clean, homegrown, affordable energy resources and badly needed new American manufacturing jobs.

Three factors are driving investments in domestic oil and gas. The first is the world price of oil. The second is technology. And the third is access to private lands. A boom in resource development is taking place in spite of the Obama Administration and the President’s rhetoric.

The Department of Interior Five Year leasing plan from 2012-2017 is a retreat. It reduces acreage from the previous plan. No exploration and production off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts even when states want to permit it is in the offing. There is limited and drawn out access in Alaska and the coast plain--ANWR--remains off limits for no valid reason. As a result, the potential to significantly increase domestic investment, create good paying jobs, and replace oil imports with domestic oil is not being realized.

We remain an underachieving nation!

The President touting “record high oil and gas production” is like the rooster believing he causes the sun to rise by crowing. The oil boom in North Dakota and other states as well as the tremendous increase in shale gas is taking place because states have welcomed investment and private land owners have made their lands available. Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drill along with advances in production technology have made it possible to produce oil and gas that not too many years ago seemed beyond reach because of cost. If this recent activity had to take place on federal lands, it is doubtful that the first lease would have been granted.

Not only is leasing proceeding with the speed of a glacier but red tape and regulation is strangling other projects. The Chamber of Commerce has reviewed the effect of regulatory excess on energy projects--Project No Project. The Report--Progress Denied--is sobering. Hundreds of billions of private capital dollars for energy projects have encountered regulatory roadblocks that “substantially reduce and impair private investment and job creation”. The clear message is closed for business. There is a ripple effect from such bureaucratic road blocks. Other industries get the message and simply take their capital to a more welcoming environment.

The Keystone XL project is the poster child for the Obama Administration’s views on domestic energy investments. Don’t say no, just don’t say yes. When the White House says that it has not had enough time to complete its environmental assessment, it is either being less than candidate or showing why there needs to be a wholesale revision to NEPA and related regulations. Environmental impact assessments have been taking place for over three years, almost as long as it took us to win World War II. As one expert recently observed, this pipeline is more than just moving Canadian oil to the US. It is part of the restructuring of the oil transportation infrastructure from one where products move north from the Gulf coast to one where oil and products can more easily move south and east.

The President by his words and deeds has made clear that he will take credit for the North American energy renaissance because he can’t hold it back while putting tax dollars into “doubling down” on so called green energy. This is a case of another “March of Folly” and a triumph of ideology over reality.

There is overwhelming evidence, scientific and economic, that wind, solar, and electric vehicles are not close to becoming a large part of our energy budget. European nation after european nation is walking away from their subsidies of wind and solar because they are an economic millstone. If these projects were commercially viable, subsidies would not be needed. On the technical side, science is not close to solving the challenges associated with intermittency, the large land mass required for wind and solar, line losses in distributing wind and solar energy to users, and quick charge electric vehicle systems or low cost, long endurance batteries.

Silicon Valley venture capitalists may gamble with their investors capital on these technologies if they choose but there is no case for squandering tax payer dollars. The Silicon Valley whizes will someday come to the recognition that energy technologies are not analogs of smart devices. And, the day of reckoning will come sooner without subsidies. Energy systems are governed by what Daniel Yergin has termed the Law of Long Lead Times. It cannot be repealed by Congress or wishful thinking. In time, science and engineering will likely solve these challenges but that time is not at hand.

Congress is dysfunctional, so it is very doubtful that any realistic and effective energy policy will be passed this year, absent some crisis that compels action. That is no way to legislate on important national issues. The best that can be said is that Congress will probably not do too many truly stupid things on energy.