(These comments were submitted by Nicolas Loris, an economist at the Heritage Foundation focusing on energy, environmental and regulatory issues.)

Both Republicans and Democrats love the “all-of-the-above” slogan, because they can make it mean pretty much anything they want. Democrats use it to support pet projects in their districts. Republicans do the same. Too often politicians use this popular motto when discussing energy policy, and too often they use it to mean subsidizing everything. The federal government needs to remove the subsidies and burdensome regulations for all energy sources and technologies and allow the market to do its thing. The reality is we have a variety of domestic energy resources (nuclear, energy, oil, coal, natural gas, wind, solar, hydroelectric and biofuels). The energy market can be diverse and competitive without government interference. If these sources of energy can’t stand on their own two feet, they are likely not ready to be part of our energy mix.

Unfortunately, President Obama is continuing the status quo with the definition of all-of-the-above being synonymous to subsidies. Obama says he supports an energy policy where all sources have a slice of the pie, but his policies and rhetoric make it clear he wants the renewable slices bigger and the fossil fuel ones smaller.

For instance, President Obama’s idea of including coal in “all-of-the-above” is to drive out coal production, while simultaneously subsidizing a handful of plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). In March, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new source performance standards for carbon dioxide emissions that directly target coal; natural gas plants already meet the standard.

At present, CCS is an economic pipedream and even President Obama’s goal of subsidizing CCS to make it commercially viable in a decade is ambitious. That plan will only result in more wasted taxpayer dollars in an attempt to commercialize an unnecessary technology that won’t provide measurable changes in the earth’s temperature. The CO2 rule is just one of a host of administrative regulations (Utility MACT, coal ash, stream buffer zone, cross state air pollution to name a few) that are forcing existing plants to prematurely close, prohibiting the construction of new plants and making it more difficult to mine for coal. Obama’s policies are also going to drive up energy costs for American households and businesses.

The same holds true with the president’s supposed support for oil production. President Obama consistently touts the fact that domestic oil production is the highest it has been in eight years. While this is a positive development for America, production has not increased as a result of the president’s policies—rather in spite of them. If Obama were sincerely interested in increasing oil production, his administration would have approved the Keystone XL Pipeline, opened areas onshore and offshore, issued drilling permits and lease sales on time and required a timely environmental review process. He also wouldn’t have called for oil companies to pay their “fair share” by eliminating what he calls special loopholes and subsidies for oil and gas companies. The fact is they are not specific to the oil and gas industry, but are widely available to the broader manufacturing sector.

While President Obama wants to shrink the use of fossil fuels, he wants to use subsidies and mandates to increase the share of renewable energy. The commander-in-chief continues to push for doubling down on renewable energy subsidies despite the fact that subsidizing uneconomical technologies is wasteful and an economic drain. Not to mention it promotes crony capitalism and dependence on government. His past two State of the Union addresses called for mandating a clean energy standard (CES) that would require electricity producers to sell carbon-free energy. Proponents of a CES have touted the plan as a market-based approach, but if it were truly market-based, producers wouldn’t need the mandate. They would rely on price and competition.

My colleague David Kreutzer sums up President Obama’s version of all-of-the-above most appropriately:

Which energy policy is best?

a. Subsidize solar energy, wind energy, biofuels and energy-efficient technologies.

b. Mandate the consumption of solar energy, wind energy, biofuels and energy-efficient technologies.

c. All of the above

d. Allow markets to produce petroleum, natural gas, coal and other sources of energy at affordable prices.

If President Obama took an exam on America’s current energy policies, he would get at least one answer wrong. Although the administration has touted the President’s “all of the above” approach to energy independence, the facts do no support such a strategy. The evidence shows that their plan has instead been to promote renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind power, while at the same time restricting the domestic production of fossil fuels.

In April, the most expensive energy regulation in the history of the United States quietly took effect. The Utility MACT rule – formally known as Mercury and Air Toxics Standards – began its formal implementation, starting the clock on a three-year compliance period mandated under the Clean Air Act.

The Environmental Protection Agency – reacting to passionate criticism about Utility MACT and a host of additional new regulations – has accused its critics of hyperbole and intentionally spreading unjustifiable fear. But the problem for the EPA is that, in the case of its most controversial new rule, what the agency has deemed as overreaction is actually becoming measurable reality.

Ironically enough, despite the fact that the EPA refers to Utility MACT as a mercury rule, 99.98 percent of the benefits calculated by the agency are not a result of mercury reductions, but rather are generated by reductions in particulate matter already governed by existing agency rules.

But it is the actual consequences of the regulation, not its semantics, that are most troubling.

Utility companies and power plants are already grappling with cost and reliability problems the EPA continually denied would manifest. Among them, several power plants across the country have already announced premature closures and layoffs as a result of the harsh new regulations.

The root of the problem is the timeline the EPA has given power producers to comply with Utility MACT is impractical considering the new requirements. And new evidence supports this criticism.

A recent analysis by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) projected startlingly high costs and employment losses under the rule. Increased compliance costs for the electric sector, which are expected to reach $10.4 billion in 2015 alone, will result in a significant decline in labor wages – an estimated loss of 180,000 to 215,000 jobs that same year. In addition, GDP losses will total as much as $112 billion and total household disposable income will be reduced by as much as $71 billion.

This harsh impact on American families and workers has some lawmakers on Capitol Hill asking tough questions, and attorneys general from twenty-five states and Guam also posing legal challenges to the rule’s compliance timelines. In recent weeks, a number of new groups – including the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), Colorado’s Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, and the American Public Power Association (APPA) – joined the fight by filing a suit against the EPA to challenge the rule.

Perhaps most concerning is that, when questioned, EPA officials disregard growing data about the impact of new regulations and instead cite dubious internal studies. Or worse yet, as they have with ranking members of the House of Representatives, they simply neglect to provide answers to inquiries.

In testimony last week before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Attorney Peter Glaser stated, “all sources of energy should be allowed to compete on a level playing field… The government should not pick winners and losers in energy markets. History shows that such efforts are doomed to failure.” But the fact of the matter is that the EPA is moving ahead with what could ultimately be the costliest energy regulation in American history. And they are doing so in spite of the objections of energy providers, lawmakers and consumers who are concerned about whether this rule will raise power rates and make American energy less reliable in the coming years.

Instead of belittling its critics, the agency should be honest with the American people and take responsibility for the damage it is causing to both the systems that power our homes and the consumers who pay for them.

In principle, it would be great if the U.S. actually had an “all of the above” approach to energy policy. And although the administration claims the President’s strategy takes into consideration all sources of energy, the facts simply do not support that statement.

(These comments were submitted by Heather Taylor-Miesle, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Action Fund.)

When GOP candidates complain that President Obama’s “All of the Above” energy plan doesn’t promote oil and gas, I am reminded of another catchphrase: “Some people are never satisfied.”

The United States produced more oil last year than any time since 2003. The number of oil rigs operating in the United States has risen more than 80 percent in the past 3 years and nearly 150 percent from 10 years ago. Obama has also opened millions of acres for exploration and made 75 percent of potential offshore oil and gas resources available for drilling.

The numbers from the oil fields simply don’t support the claims from the GOP campaign trail.

Believe me, NRDC has had our differences with Obama on his rapid expansion of drilling, but at least when he says “All of the Above,” he means it. Because at the same time Obama unleashed record oil and gas production, he has also encouraged the energy solutions that will actually equip America for the 21^st century. He expanded renewable energy development and helped businesses and homeowners save money by becoming more energy efficient. He also proposed raising fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Within 20 years, those standards could save drivers more than $80 billion a year at the pump and cut our oil use by more than we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 2010.

By promoting advanced energy solutions while calling for oil, gas, and other dirty resources we’ve been using for decades, Obama really does support “All of the Above.”

The same can’t be said for the GOP. When Mitt Romney and GOP lawmakers say “All of the Above,” they really mean oil, gas, and coal.

Clean technologies don’t have a place in Romney’s energy plan. Instead, he routinely belittles them. At a recent campaign stop in Craig, Colorado, he scoffed at the ability of clean companies to create jobs in the state, completely disregarding the fact that Colorado had more than 72,000 jobs in “green goods and services,” according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The wind industry alone supported up to 5,000 jobs there in 2011.

Romney supports a Republican budget that would hand over billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies—including some of the most profitable corporations in the world. Yet he believes tax incentives for clean energy should be allowed to expire. That “all of the above” approach isn’t so comprehensive after all.

At its core, the GOP energy plan calls for doing the same thing we have done for the past century: burn more fossils. Americans deserve more innovation and ingenuity than that.

A week after President Obama rejected the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, he delivered the State of the Union address promoting an “all of the above” energy strategy. Given the president’s track record, I was amused to hear him adopt the slogan that Republicans have been using for years. But while his words may have changed, his policies have remained the same. Rather than embrace the potential of our country’s vast energy resources, his administration continues to dispense more and more red tape to prevent affordable American energy development.

While the White House is busy messaging the president’s energy strategy, his real energy policies are being decided over at the EPA. The president’s national energy policy is merely a byproduct of the agency’s extreme regulatory agenda. President Obama’s EPA continues to churn out major new regulations on our nation’s energy producers at an unprecedented pace, picking winners and losers and dictating the kind of energy Americans can use.

The costs and consequences of EPA’s rules are so severe they are designed to put some energy producers completely out of business. Nowhere is this administration’s cherry picking philosophy more evident than in its treatment of coal—one of our nation’s most abundant and affordable energy resources. EPA is ramming through regulations so harsh and so expensive they could effectively end coal-fired electricity generation in the United States.

EPA’s Utility MACT rule is estimated to be the most expensive rule ever to be imposed on America’s electricity consumers. Faced with costly retrofits and unworkable timelines, power plants across the country have already announced their retirement. In fact, of the approximately 500 coal-burning power plants, more than 100 (over 20%) are expected to close in the coming years. That is real jobs being lost, and real dollars being taken out of our economy.

Not only is EPA taking current coal-fired capacity offline, but it is also preventing the construction of any new coal generating plants. EPA’s recently proposed greenhouse gas standards require coal-fired utilities to install costly technologies that are not yet commercially tested or operational.

As Vice President Biden said on the campaign trail in 2008, under an Obama/Biden Administration there will be ‘No coal plants here in America.’ Well they are certainly well on their way to reaching that goal, at the expense of jobs and our economy.

While President Obama continues to pay lip-service to fossil fuels, House Republicans continue to pursue a true “all of the above” approach to American energy. The House has passed a stack of bills to cut through the EPA’s red tape and remove the president’s roadblocks to American energy production. Unfortunately, the Senate has refused to act. Today, House Republicans, introduced another package of pro-growth energy legislation, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act.

A strong economy demands American businesses and consumers continue to have reliable access to affordable energy, which is why we must promote policies which allow all forms of energy to compete. EPA’s rulemakings, along with the president’s decisions on matters like Keystone and Solyndra, make it clear that President Obama’s energy equation does not match his newly adopted catchphrase.

The Obama administration has promised from the outset to articulate and develop an ‘all of the above’ energy policy. At first blush it sounds good; but one need only remember how Republicans, during the last administration, were chided by opponents for not developing a transparent and comprehensive energy policy which included renewables. Not surprisingly, many of these same individuals were very pleased to hear that the President would develop a policy that, at least as the name implies, would take advantage of all of our natural resources. He made a commitment to that effort during the latest State of the Union. Now, three years into the Obama administration, has the president lived up to his ‘all of the above’ promise?

The president’s supporters point to the administration’s efforts to boost domestic renewable energy sources. His detractors, of which there are many regarding energy policy, point to evidence that the president isn’t serious about all forms of energy, and has instead undertaken a policy of demonizing tradition means of energy production. In 2010, for example, the president sounded a call to ‘end our dependence on fossil fuels.’

Today, the Obama administration is pushing Congress to federally support wind manufacturers that would generate more ‘clean energy’ sources. The president insists the more than 500 facilities being built in 43 states would provide jobs to thousands to American workers and lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

To support his ‘green, renewable and clean energy’ agenda, the president also criticizes fossil fuels, arguing that drilling for new oil throughout the United States will neither solve our nation’s energy problems nor lead to lower prices at the pump. However, America’s natural gas drilling boom has in fact done just that. By increasing production by approximately 11%, natural gas prices have fallen dramatically, by almost 50%.

While one can attempt to diminish this remarkable decline in price by citing factors such as a warmer than usual winter in the Northeast, there is little doubt among economists that increased supply (or decreased supply from volatile areas such as Iran) has a marked and almost disproportionate effect on market pricing.

Clean energy has a nice ring to it and, after all, we should all be good stewards of our environment. But despite all the rhetoric, it is difficult to actually define what constitutes ‘clean energy.’ Is natural gas ‘clean energy’ because it results in approximately 42% lower emissions than traditional coal? Does clean coal qualify? Nuclear energy was gaining momentum as a near zero emission fuel source right up until the Japanese tsunami. Should we abandon pursuit of nuclear energy, or should we just learn how to build better facilities?

The government can maintain a level playing field by removing red tape and needless regulations that hamper the infusion of private investment in our energy sector. Rewarding industries where serious attempts are made to reduce carbon footprints is a good idea, but improvements in technology, carbon emissions, and pricing will naturally determine which sources are more economically sustainable. The American economy has largely been advanced and sustained by inexpensive and reliable forms of energy, and these traditional forms cannot be jettisoned on a whim in favor of ‘clean energy;’ rather, an ‘all of the above’ energy policy is required to power our economy moving forward.

Regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats occupy the White House, there is room at the table for everyone. The Obama administration’s success will be measured by whether it can fulfill its promise of inclusiveness by implementing a comprehensive energy policy that acknowledges the strengths of all forms of energy and recognizes the resulting value of each in our economy based upon availability and cost.

Congress Stands in the Way of All of the Above

By Ryan Fitzpatrick and Josh Freed

A more appropriate question this week could be, why are Republicans in Congress standing in the way of a booming American energy sector?

In the last three years, we’ve seen significant progress in the building of a modern, cleaner, and domestic American energy infrastructure. The license for the first new nuclear reactors in the U.S. in more than a generation was approved. Natural gas exploration and use has skyrocketed. Installed clean energy grew by 28% from 2006 to 2011 and the US ranked first in clean energy investment. Conventional cars in the US use less gasoline and American drivers can choose between a variety of hybrid and electric vehicles. Advanced research programs like ARPA-E have drawn private investment off of the sidelines and into the energy economy.

This makes sense.

The world is moving from fossil fuels to clean energy—even oil-rich Saudi Arabia. Renewables now make up almost 50% of the globe’s new electricity generation. The clean energy market is expected to reach $2.3 trillion within a decade. It’s also what Americans want. According to public polls and Third Way’s own focus groups in coal-reliant Ohio and North Carolina, even swing voters want to move from fossil fuels – particularly coal – to clean energy.

It’s not just cleaner energy sources. Even domestic oil production is at its highest level since 2003.

Thanks to new technologies and regulatory changes, the U.S. will continue to produce more oil and natural gas . We can accelerate the deployment of clean energy too if Republicans in Congress enacted policies that were previously bipartisan. This includes a Clean Energy Standard (CES), like the ones currently in place in 29 states and once supported by former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour; investment in clean energy innovation; and financing clean energy deployment through master limited partnerships (MLPs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs).

Instead of finding common ground on policies like the CES, clean energy MLPs and REITs, or investing in clean energy innovation, too many Congressional Republicans are opting for gridlock. This may seem like good politics in 2012. But it’s standing in the way of more modern, cleaner American energy and the potential for decades of economic growth.

Scratch the surface a bit and it’s clear the President’s ‘all of the above’ energy plan amounts to little more than a smoke and mirror show. A plan implies action, and an ‘all of above’ strategy would suggest aggressive action to pursue all of forms of energy essential to a growing economy. The Administration’s policies sadly have been all show and no go!

A sound and effective policy would promote abundant, affordable energy. It would encourage competitive innovation among future technologies without mandating specific outcomes by specific dates. And, it would make system resilience a high priority so as to be ready to adapt to volatility and unforeseen events that affect supplies and prices. The President’s plans have not.

Increased oil production on federal lands stems largely from leases awarded before the President was elected, and in states like North Dakota, it is taking place mostly on private lands where the federal government has no control. Offshore exploration and production is no better; the permitting process for the Gulf of Mexico exploration is moving at glacial speeds. A permit has been granted for activity in the Beaufort Sea, but the coastal plain, which may be as big or bigger than Prudhoe Bay, has been utterly ignored.

Beyond domestic oil exploration and production, the Administration continues to slow walk the Keystone XL pipeline even though the project has been studied for over 3 years, the permit to cross the border is not an environmental issue, and the fact the construction would have to comply with all US environmental regulations. The protracted delay in granting the required permit is nothing more than pandering to the President’s environmental base.

As the economy begins once again to sag as a result of global economic problems, it is irresponsible to delay the Keystone XL pipeline, which will infuse capital into the economy and create jobs. Indeed, removing political obstacles to more exploration and production would also lead to more capital investment and job creation. While the economy has been shedding jobs, the oil and gas industry has been creating them.

The President points to the tremendous increase in natural gas production as an example of a policy success. But much like oil production, most of the increase in natural gas is from private lands and from private sector innovation. So far the Administration has not created too many obstacles, but potential EPA regulation of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” could imposing central controls that short circuit gains that are coming about as a result of improved safety controls at the state level. Additionally, the Administration’s efforts to slow natural gas exports are troubling and reason to worry what might be in store should the Administration win in a second term.

The recent boom in natural gas will lead to a reduction in coal use, a goal the Administration has sought to reach through regulation. But the fact remains that the US has an abundance of coal reserves that should not be abandoned because we don’t have the technology to use them in a more environmentally benign manner. Development of ways to improve the cleanliness of coal ought to be a policy imperative.

A nuclear energy renaissance on the other hand isn’t likely in the near future until its costs are reduced and its waste disposal problem solved. The Administration’s abandonment of Yucca Mountain is unfortunate, and shows how far it will go to placate its green base. Fortunately, the natural gas boom has lessened the need to accelerate the expansion of our nuclear power base. But, it should not be the victim of neglect.

Investing in potential technological breakthrough is an important part of a sound energy policy, and one area the President has stressed. But new technologies take time, money, and a willingness to stay the course, and politicians rarely have such a long time perspective. More importantly, marketplace competition should drive innovation, not government favoritism. We’ve seen politicians have a poor history of picking winners or losers.

To date, the President’s commitment to all of the above seems to have translated into all of those it chooses, most of which fail any reasonable test of technical readiness and economic realism. Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect that the Administration will embrace a set of policies that will promote abundance and affordability and ensure that our energy infrastructure is prepared to deal unforeseen challenges ahead.

Truth in politics could be considered a misnomer. Let’s stick to the facts. Earlier this year, President Obama embraced an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy for the United States touting a two-pronged plan to pursue renewable, next-generation energy sources while simultaneously ramping up production of traditional fossil fuels to ensure the necessary energy for U.S. economic growth while helping to reduce the country’s reliance on foreign suppliers. However, progress on the natural gas front has increased in spite of President Obama’s energy policies not because of them.

When President Obama took office, the country anticipated importing natural gas from places like Algeria and Qatar. Today we know the U.S. is sitting on at least 150 years of supply of clean, affordable natural gas, and the nation is poised to become a major exporter of liquefied natural gas.

Despite moratoriums in the Gulf of Mexico and ongoing drilling restrictions on federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf, domestic oil production has risen significantly in each of the past three years — a result of applying fracturing technology to oil shale in Texas, Montana and the Dakotas. What's more, Alberta's huge expanse of oil sands, ranking second only to the reserves in Saudi Arabia, holds the potential to further enhance North American energy security.

Though Obama pays lip service to the notion of an "all of the above" strategy to increase domestic energy production, his specific policy recommendations are clearly anti-fossil fuel and pro-renewables. For example, he has called for higher taxes on the oil and gas industry, $40 billion over 10 years, to "level the playing field" for clean energy.

On the chopping block are a manufacturer's tax credit, shared across all industries to stimulate jobs, and a credit against taxes paid overseas to ensure all multinational companies based in the U.S. can compete globally. By eliminating these important credits for the oil and gas sector, the president would be punishing the 9.2 million Americans whose jobs are supported by this industry.

Finally, higher tax costs on energy producers would likely be passed on to American consumers, with seniors, low-income households and small businesses hit hardest.

It's astonishing that the President would propose such counterproductive measures considering that oil and gas companies have led the nation in job creation for the past several years and already pay at or near the highest effective tax rate of any industry.

What's more, 76% of energy tax breaks already go to renewables, though they account for only 2% of electric power generation. For every megawatt produced by solar today, the subsidy amounts to $776. For wind, it's $56. For fossil fuels, it's 64 cents.

We simply cannot meet all of the nation's future energy needs through renewables, efficiency and conservation alone. In reality, we need to continue investing in fossil fuels to power the American economy.

All-of-the-Above Energy Policy Must Rest on Improved Efficiency

By Kate Offringa

Policymakers on Capitol Hill and in the executive branch are seeking an all-of-the-above strategy to make America more energy independent. But in our zeal to enhance the production of energy through both conventional and “new” technologies, let’s not overlook common-sense energy efficiency – the sorts of measures that millions of Americans, once properly educated and incentivized, can start doing. Today.

No matter how America gets its energy, it makes zero sense to waste it. Squandering energy is squandering money – and with it, a big piece of this country’s economic future.

There’s a reason encouraging home and building owners to install greater levels of insulation doesn’t spark heated debate or generate headlines. Installing insulation may not be as “sexy” as certain new energy technologies – but greater efficiency makes powerful economic and energy sense.

Indeed, any pragmatic all-of-the-above strategy must rest on achieving vastly improved efficiency. The crude reality is that if we did a better job insulating America’s homes and buildings we’d save – every year – the equivalent of some 345 million fill-ups of a Prius’ gas tank.

Insulation and other readily available methods of efficiency, moreover, will not only cut back on monthly utility bills and achieve savings – they’re a proven way of generating growth and jobs. In many sections of the country, the home construction and renovation sector still hasn’t recovered from the recession, with jobless rates close to double the national average. Encouraging greater energy efficiency will spark private-sector jobs in those places where they’re needed most.

An all-of-the-above approach also dictates that Congress and the Administration work together to extend the tax credits known as 25C and 45L that incentivize home- and business-owners to invest in enhanced insulation. Unfortunately, both 25C and 45L were allowed to expire at the end of 2011 which has dampened demand for home insulation and created uncertainty in the marketplace. This week provides policymakers with an excellent platform to move energy tax extenders forward. On June 8th, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures is holding a hearing to examine the economic importance of such extenders.

We know from past experience that energy extenders have not only been popular among taxpayers – they’ve increased the energy efficiency of both new and existing homes! CNAIMA and its broad-based allies will be urging the subcommittee to do everything in its power to expedite the renewal and expansion of these credits.

CNAIMA and other energy efficiency advocates will also be pushing policymakers to enact the SAVE Act (S. 1737), overhaul the PACE program, and facilitate passage of the Shaheen-Portman energy savings measure (S. 1000) – all of which would preserve energy, cut down on monthly utility bills, and trigger job growth.

Energy efficiency must remain an integral plank of any energy policy platform.

Kate Offringa is the CEO and President of the Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (CNAIMA).

The President’s pledge of an “all of the above” approach to energy policy seems little more than a short-lived slogan--clearly indicated by the target he has painted on the back of traditional fossil fuel energy sources.

Obama tax reform proposals would raise the cost of capital for new fossil fuel investments including oil,natural gas and coal (see my Ways & Means testimony on the importance of cash flow for new investment). Permitting for onshore and offshore exploration and development has been far slower than in past administrations. And about 13 federal agencies are beginning to place burdensome regulations on hydraulic drilling practices, domestic oil and gas drilling--all of which will hinder expansion of traditional fossil fuel energy sources. Meanwhile, the Obama administration seems to be placing nearly all of its chips on costly and inefficient green energy sources that are unable to survive in the marketplace without federal funding. Renewables get 78 percent of tax code subsidies, plus large direct spending increases. These are costly and inefficient sources of energy that shouldn't predominate our traditional forms of energy. An “all of the above” approach can work but it’s time to stop favoring unreliable wind and solar energy sources and plug in electric vehicles, which are failing to meet the market test. Instead, we should get serious about expanding affordable and reliable energy from fossil fuels. And we should get started now.

It’s perplexing to me that we’re even debating whether President Obama has pursued an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. The President started out with a clear anti-fossil fuels agenda meant to favor certain renewable energy sources and cause prices to “necessarily skyrocket.” Only the public losing patience with a barely perceptible economic recovery in an election year has caused a change of tune.

This agenda was evident in budgets meant to discourage “overproduction” of domestic oil and natural gas. That was coupled with Interior Department policies intended to slow development on federal lands which have resulted in 80% less acreage being offered in key western states dominated by federal lands and a flight of capital. Resources have been diverted from approving oil and natural gas permits, and it now takes 298 days for a federal permit, compared to thirty days for states. Federal project approvals have stalled, preventing the creation of nearly 65,000 jobs and $15 billion in annual economic impact. Aggressive new regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency have diverted productive resources from energy development into compliance without commensurate environmental benefit.

One thing that particularly rings hollow with western producers is the Administration taking credit for increased production of oil and natural gas. The dramatic success of my industry increasing production and significantly decreasing foreign imports is the story of private sector investment on private lands. Despite all the obstacles put in place by this Administration, oil and gas companies, responding to market forces and the demands of a nation for energy, jobs, and economic growth, have dramatically increased production and reduced foreign imports.

On public lands where the Administration has the most control, oil production has declined by 11% and natural gas by 6% from FY 2010 to 2011, while production on private and state lands have increased 14% and 12%, respectively. The Congressional Research Service found that 96% of the increase in domestic oil production since 2007 has taken place on non-federal lands.

But it’s not just a matter of who should take credit for increased U.S. production. More important is how to ensure that America continues to increase energy production, create jobs and grow the economy. Without understanding the true, private-sector nature of the impressive increases in domestic oil and natural gas production and the negative effect of today’s policies, future growth will continue to be at risk.

President Obama's "all of the above" slogan really means "anything but coal." EPA's recently finalized Utility MACT Rule effectively bans the construction of new coal-fired power plants. EPA's recently proposed greenhouse gas New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for power plants will do the same. EPA's Cross State Air Pollution Rule, Coal Combustion Residuals Rule, and Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule will further increase the cost and financial risk of using coal as an electricity fuel. EPA's Boiler MACT Rule will restrict coal usage by industrial sources, and EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) permitting policies have already begun to restrict coal mining. None of this is surprising. Bankrupting coal is one of President Obama's longstanding policy objectives.

In recent testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, attorney Peter Glaser provides a concise overview of Obama EPA's regulatory war on coal. Herewith a few excerpts:

• EPA's MATS [Utility MACT] rule sets standards for hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from new coal plants at such a stringent level that vendors of air pollution control equipment have told EPA that they cannot guarantee that their equipment will control emissions to the level of those standards. . . .As a result, "ICAC [Institute for Clean Air Companies] member companies are not in a position to offer commercial guarantees to their customers to meet this particular standard." ICAC concludes that "[t]his standard will make it nearly impossible to construct new coal-fired EGUs because financing of such units requires guarantees from equipment suppliers that all emission limits can be met."

• EPA's proposed GHG NSPS would also kill new coal-fueled units. The rule sets a performance level for new coal units equivalent to what EPA says a combined cycle natural gas combustion turbine can meet -- 1000 lbs. CO2/MWh. Yet EPA recognizes that even a modern, efficient supercritical coal plant can only meet a standard of 1800 lbs. CO2/MWh. EPA says that a coal plant with carbon capture and storage (CCS) could meet the 1000-lb. standard, but it also recognizes that CCS technology is not commercially competitive. It cites to Department of Energy/National Energy Technology Laboratory "estimates that using today's commercially available CCS technologies would add around 80 percent to the cost of electricity for a new pulverized (PC) plant."

• EPA issued and is now reconsidering regulations that would regulate hazardous air pollutant emissions from industrial boilers. As promulgated, these regulations would eliminate coal as a boiler fuel. This was intentional. EPA's original proposal was explicitly designed to encourage coal-fired boilers to switch to natural gas and to discourage natural gas-fired boilers from switching to coal. EPA did not propose a MACT standard for natural gas-fueled boilers because "proposing emission standards for gas-fueled boilers and process heaters that result in the need to employ the same emission control system as needed for other fuel types would have the negative benefit of providing a disincentive for switching to gas as a control technique (and a pollution prevention technique) for boilers and process heaters in the other fuel subcatagories."

• On Oct. 6, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in NMA v. Jackson that EPA unlawfully changed the CWA Section 404 permitting process for coal mines. The court held that EPA and the Corps had unlawfully obstructed the issuance of CWA permits by allowing EPA to usurp the Corps' CWA authority and creating a de facto moratorium on surface and underground coal mining within the Central Appalachian region.

Glaser concludes: "Coal is not part of the Administration's 'all-of-the-above' energy policy. To the contrary, to the detriment of America's best interests, EPA's policies have been directly adverse to coal."

Almost 44 years ago- in July 1969 -- the Rolling Stones released a legendary song-- "You can't always get what you want"- written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. While the lyrics aren't about energy policy-- they might make a good theme song. The chorus ends with the instructive phase ...- But if you try sometimes you'll get what you need.

What we need is an all of the Above energy strategy-- but that's not what we're getting.

At first, those of us in the clean diesel industry were optimistic when the Obama Administration began talking about an “all-of-the-above” energy policy. As a policy agenda, it sounded all-inclusive and made sense.

We thought that due to clean diesel’s importance to the U.S. and international economies and transportation systems, diesel would be included in this effort. After all, diesel transports more than 80 percent of all goods in the U.S., and powers over 90 percent of all global trade. America’s economy is literally powered by diesel.

We also believed that because new clean diesel technology has reduced particulate matter by 97 percent, NOX by 98 percent, sulfur emissions by 97 percent, along with diverse capabilities in using renewable biofuels, that clean diesel would continue to play a major role in U.S. economic and transportation policy.

Unfortunately, the so-called “all-of-the-above” policy is in reality “a select few” proposal.

The Administration’s policy sure feels like one based more upon picking the select energy sources and technologies and showering them with billions and billions of dollars in federal grants and tax subsidies, with no guarantees for success.

The Administration’s “all-of-the-above” policy is seriously flawed in its focus on picking favorites for today and tomorrow’s energy sources. In this latest policy formation, critics see hints of repentance from previously failed efforts (Solyndra) at picking and funding technology winners and losers. But this “awakening” is only tonally more inclusive of both “old and new” technologies and fuels; solar and wind and domestic petroleum exploration and natural gas, but not so much in practice.

To see a true “all of the above” strategy –the Administration could learn a thing or two from automakers. Automakers are offering consumers a real “all of the above” in real sheet metal and hardware. And this technology is evolving more rapidly than ever. There are now electric hybrids, clean diesel, diesel hybrids, natural gas, electric and turbo-charged gasoline cars on the market. The auto industry is offering consumers and broad selection of new and clean engine choices.

If being clean and green are components of the Administration’s “all-of-the-above” strategy then clean diesel technology should be at the forefront. At the recent New York Auto Show, the Mercedes-Benz S 250 CDI BlueEFFICIENCY clean diesel received the prestigious ‘2012 World Green Car’ award, beating out 22 other technologies, including many hybrid and all-electric vehicles. This followed the January 2012 announcement that yet another diesel car - the Volkswagen Passat TDI - had been selected the ‘2012 Earth, Wind & Power Car of the Year for Most Earth Friendly’ automobile.

Let’s not kid ourselves. An overwhelming majority of energy savings in the near term will come from consumers investing in the new generations of conventionally fueled vehicles (gasoline and clean diesel), not from a few thousand electric vehicles in New York, Los Angeles and Washington D.C.

Yes, both gasoline, natural gas and diesel are still petroleum products, but they use much less of it now. And gasoline and diesel can be combined with renewable fuels for reducing dependence on foreign oil. And that’s exactly the point of an all of the above strategy – it must include proven and available solutions that are available right now in conjunction with the technologies that may prove to be successful down the road.

As that song rocks on ... "If we try sometimes we might find we get what we need..." and what we need is an “all the above” energy strategy because our economic growth and stability depend on it. Overnight changeovers to all-electric vehicles fueled only by wind and solar for the time being exist only in fantasy. And we still have reality to deal with.

Since last year, President Obama has promoted an “all of the above” energy strategy for America. Over the past few months, however, it has become apparent that this is more of a campaign slogan than a real strategy for America’s energy independence and economic growth.

With May’s dismal jobs report, and unemployment essentially unchanged from a year ago, jobs and the economy are still the top issue for Americans, and coal equals jobs. As the nation’s single largest fuel source for electricity, coal is directly responsible for more than half a million jobs and indirectly creates and supports millions more. Coal is essential to rebuilding our nation’s economy and protecting American jobs, while keeping electricity reliable and affordable for families and businesses, especially during these tough economic times.

It is important to not lose sight that one-in-ten families earning $10,000 or less annually pay, on average, more than 70 percent of their after-tax income on energy. For these families, having access to affordable electricity from coal means more disposable income for food, health care and education.

In light of increasing energy prices, coal’s ability to keep electricity prices low is especially important to America’s energy future. A recent study for ACCCE found that because coal has provided about half of America’s electricity over the past decade, electricity prices have actually declined when adjusted for inflation.

Coal benefits and strengthens America, so it is disappointing that the Obama Administration is trying to remove coal from our energy mix. The administration is calling for “all of the above” yet enacting policies that directly limits coal’s role in our energy future. For example, the EPA’s newest regulation, the New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gases, would end the era of coal-fired electricity generation as we know it by effectively banning the construction of new coal-fired power plants in the United States. A recent Bloomberg Government analysis concluded “This rule would guarantee that as older coal-fired power plants retire, conventional coal plants wouldn’t replace them.”

And, this isn’t the first time this EPA has attacked coal-fired power. Over the past three years, the EPA has released a barrage of new rules and regulations that are aimed largely at coal plants. Two of EPA’s earlier-released rules, Utility MACT and the Cross-State-Air-Pollution rule, are primarily responsible for the announced closure of more than 140 electric generating units in 19 states.

These rules will not only have a damaging impact on jobs and our electricity rates, but will also affect the costs of every day goods and services – and will negatively impact many facets of the American economy. A study done for ACCCE by the National Economic Research Associates found that EPA rules would destroy over 180,000 American jobs per year through 2020.

The EPA is taking coal off the table exactly when American needs it the most. The Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2012 predicts that total electricity consumption will continue to grow through 2035, increasing at an average rate of 0.8 percent.

Even without these EPA regulations, developments in clean coal technology are enabling us to use coal more cleanly than ever before. In fact, according to EIA and EPA data, emissions of major pollutants from coal fueled power plants have decreased almost 90 percent over the past from 1970 - 2011.

But instead of focusing our policies on the development of the technology, these EPA regulations would essentially yield its development to other nations, like China and India.

President Obama claims he “has a real strategy to take control of our energy future”. Yet, taking control requires leadership to ensure that “all of the above” is a strategy not only a talking point.

Let’s start by acknowledging that there are always discrepancies between policy aspirations and achievements. Well-intentioned plans often fail expectations, particularly when goals are ambitious.

But this is not what is at issue here. The discrepancy between the administration’s stated plan to develop “all” of our domestic energy sources and its actions to accomplish this does not suggest the plan has failed because the plan is not intended to be taken seriously in the first place. What it more clearly suggests is how politicized its energy policy has become.

There can be no other conclusion after reviewing the gap between the word and the deed. The administration presides over a country with the world’s largest supply of coal -- an energy source that has long served as the backbone of our nation’s electricity generation -- yet fails to even cite coal in its major energy addresses or include coal among vital energy sources listed on the president’s campaign website.

While this silence is clearly audible, the administration's actions speak even louder. Its regulatory agencies relentlessly pursue costly and burdensome constraints on coal production and use. They employ interpretations of the Clean Water Act rejected by federal courts in order to stop mining, and the most costly and least flexible policies designed to drive coal out of the electricity market. The recent rules imposed on power plants are not intended to improve environmental performance but to force closure of generating capacity.

The administration's latest proposal for power plants impairs development of the next generation of coal technologies. Far from promoting advanced coal technologies in electricity generation, the administration’s “new source” standards require a technology that will not be commercially viable for at least a decade. In the meantime, the nation forgoes the environmental and economic dividends paid by supercritical and ultra-supercritical coal plants -- plants that would reduce emissions today and be the optimal candidates for carbon capture technology when that technology is fully demonstrated as viable.

Even nuclear energy gets short shrift. Currently our nuclear power plant fleet receives less than 10 percent of its uranium from domestic sources despite uranium’s abundance here. Earlier this year, the administration closed off from development more than 1 million acres of land containing some of the nation's most promising domestic uranium resources. The decision lacked any scientific basis; the administration's own environmental impact analysis concluded that uranium production posed no significant impacts to the environment.

The administration’s “All of the Above” energy plan is neither a serious policy objective nor sincerely pursued. It is a political catch phrase without the BTUs to back it up.

Last week, the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee conducted a hearing entitled “Rhetoric vs. Reality: Does President Obama Really Support an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Strategy?” (My testimony here)

At the hearing Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) answered his own question by implying that increased domestic oil production is a strategy to reduce gasoline prices. This assumption is false. The Associated Press analyzed three decades’ of monthly oil production and gasoline price data and determined that there is “no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.” Similarly, the Wall Street Journal noted that “producing a lot of oil doesn't lower the price of gasoline in your country.”

If not Issa’s version, then what is an “all of the above” energy strategy? To most Americans, it includes three fundamental elements.

· Develop existing energy resources while using them more efficiently

· Invest in the new, cleaner technologies of tomorrow to create jobs

· Reduce pollution from energy generation that threatens public health

Let’s review the Obama record on this “all of the above” energy strategy checklist.

Develop Existing Resources & Use Them Efficiently?

Oil Production?

· U.S. oil production is at its highest since 1998.

· The Energy Information Administration determined that annual oil production from federal lands and waters was 646 million barrels in 2011, 12 percent higher than in 2008. It was higher than in 2006 and 2007 too.

Oil imports and use?

· In 2011 the United States imported only 45 percent of its oil—the lowest since 1997.

· The full implementation of modernized fuel economy standards in 2025 will save 2 million barrels of oil daily. Drivers will save an average of $8,000 per car in lower gasoline purchases over the life of the vehicle compared to an average 2010 vehicle.

Nuclear Power? · The administration approved first two new nuclear reactors in a generation for Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia.

Coal employment?

· The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration reports that there were more coal miners employed in 2011 than in any year since 1997.

Clean Energy Investments and Jobs?

· In 2011, “U.S. clean energy investment moved back ahead of China for the first time since 2008,” according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

· The non-hydro renewable electricity generation will nearly double from 2008 to 2012.

· The Bureau of Labor Statistics determined that “In 2010, 3.1 million jobs in the United States were associated with the production of green goods and services.”

· President Obama has repeatedly urged Congress to extend the Production Tax Credit for wind energy to prevent the loss of 37,000 manufacturing and other jobs.

Eliminate Big Oil tax breaks?

· The president advocates ending $40 billion in big oil tax breaks, and instead investing the funds in clean energy. After all, the five biggest oil companies made $137 billion in profits last year.

Protect Public Health from Pollution?

· The Cross State Air Pollution Rule and Mercury Air Toxic Standards will reduce smog, acid rain, mercury, and cancer causing pollution from power plants.

· These rules will save up to 45,000 lives annually, and prevent hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and hospitalizations.

The record demonstrates that President Obama passes the “all of the above” test. What about the House of Representatives? It supports expanded oil, gas and coal production, of course. What about other essential elements of “all of the above”?

Clean Energy Investments and Jobs?

· The House passed FY 2013 budget would slash investments in clean energy technologies. The Office of Management and Budgetdetermined that “clean energy programs would be cut by 19 percent.”

· The pending House FY 2013 Energy & Water Appropriations bill would slice investments in advanced energy research and renewable electricity.

· The House ignores the looming Production Tax Credit expiration. A bipartisan PTC extension bill has languished since last November.

· The House budget would keep $40 billion in tax breaks for large oil companies.

Protect Public Health from Pollution?

· Last year the House held 209 votes to weaken public health safeguards or environmental protections, including efforts to block reductions of mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants.

The House of Representatives ignored oil use reductions, slashed investments for new clean energy technologies, and would eviscerate public health protections from hazardous pollutants. This is an “oil above all” strategy that would benefit big oil companies at the expense of everyone else.

President Obama has successfully pursued an “all of the above” energy strategy. Hopefully, the House of Representatives will soon support it too.

With unending turmoil throughout some oil producing nations and a continued hostility from foreign sources of oil, now more than ever, an “all of the above” energy policy is critical for America’s energy independence. Americans are tired of the continued rise in gas prices and spikes attributed to the actions of OPEC and hostile regimes.

The Obama administration, rightly so, has placed an important focus on ways in which our country can turn the tide and begin to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, embracing a strategy that integrates traditional fossil fuels with renewables such as wind and solar, and most important, ethanol.

Yet, support for ethanol is not something new to this administration - every president since Jimmy Carter has supported ethanol production and its integration into the commercial marketplace to displace foreign oil. In 2005, the United States enacted its first major energy reform in the last 40 years, by establishing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). This major policy initiative set goals towards increasing blends of renewables into traditional fuel to begin to wean off our addiction to foreign oil – and it is working. In 2005, we were importing over 60 percent of our oil. As a result of increased ethanol production, supported by the RFS, in 2011 that number was reduced to 45 percent; further proof ethanol is substantially reducing our dependence on foreign oil and that the RFS is a critical policy for achieving a diversified energy portfolio.

While the administration has supported various energy programs, ethanol has been the shining example of success in the green jobs sector. The industry has created and supports over 500,000 jobs and added approximately $50 billion to our GDP in 2011. Currently ethanol makes up 10 percent of our nation’s fuel supply and has the capacity to do much more. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently approved E15 for use in all cars 2001 and newer.

As we move forward in achieving an “all of the above” policy, a full move to E15 will create a bigger market for American ethanol that could help create as many as 136,000 additional new jobs in the United States and eliminate as much as 8 million metric tons of GHG emissions from the air in a year; the equivalent of taking 1.35 million vehicles off the road.

Increasing the domestic, renewable fuel supply would also displace some of the 7 billion gallons of oil that is imported every day into the United States from countries such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. As we sit on the cusp of the second generation of biofuels, the potential is available to make a fundamental change in our energy policy. With a renewed investment in America and the unwavering fortitude of American innovation, we have the opportunity to eventually make OPEC and foreign oil producing nations irrelevant.

In reviewing the policy decisions made by this administration, I would be remiss if I did not mention the continued support from the EPA and the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, who has been a stanch advocate of ethanol from the beginning. His recent comments in support of E15 and increased ethanol use have helped put a spotlight on the ethanol industry and its success. Secretary Vilsack has done a tremendous job in supporting and promoting ethanol - highlighting not only the environmental benefits, but the economic and national security benefits of this home-grown, domestically produced renewable fuel.

In its efforts to incorporate an “all of the above” strategy this administration has put a large focus on green jobs and renewables. While some have fallen short of their potential, ethanol continues to prove itself to critics and supporters alike. It is the most successful, reliable and effective component of a renewable fuel program designed to decrease our dependency on foreign oil.

Growth Energy is proud to be at the forefront of the ethanol industry working with both the public and private sector to highlight the successes of ethanol, as well as promote awareness, increased usage and the reliability of this fuel. Ethanol is a true American success story that makes our energy independence a reality.