(These comments were submitted by Rob Mosher, Director of Government Relations at the Alliance to Save Energy.)

At this time of partisan wrangling in Congress, energy efficiency still stands out as a rare issue that crosses party lines to garner bipartisan consensus.

While election years are notorious for gridlock, numerous policy makers have been consistently working with stakeholders to enact energy efficiency policies, even in the face of the presidential contest. This should come as no surprise, because both Democrats and Republicans know that energy efficiency measures help American businesses and consumers by spurring economic growth and creating jobs.

Strong disagreements remain on Capitol Hill on how best to fix our energy problems, but there is broad consensus that efficiency is the quickest, cheapest, cleanest way to reduce energy waste. And given our continued high levels of unemployment, rising energy prices, and stiff global competition, we need bold, actionable energy efficiency policies now to help move our country forward.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is an example of practical ways energy efficiency deals with the economic, environmental, and national security problems associated with increasing energy use. Since being signed into law by President George W. Bush, this legislation has expanded private markets for money-saving energy-efficient products and provided a template for lawmakers to work toward bipartisan action on other major initiatives.

With this in mind, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) introduced the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (S. 1000) last year. This measure, which was favorably reported by the Senate Energy Committee by a wide bipartisan margin last July, would implement efficiency measures across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors; save American households and businesses billions in cumulative net energy costs; and create 159,000 U.S. jobs by 2030.

Notably, S. 1000 enjoys extensive bipartisan and private-sector support and momentum. Election-year politics on unrelated matters remain the only stumbling block to passage of this bill in the near future.

The House of Representatives has a similar, but more modest, energy efficiency proposal. Sponsored by Reps. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah), the Smart Energy Act (H.R. 4017) has already received a joint committee hearing and is awaiting further committee action. There is no public opposition to this measure, which has backing from a large coalition of stakeholders, and it could be easily moved to the floor to cue up a discussion on the two bills.

Other bipartisan proposals that underscore the cooperation and benefits linked to energy efficiency include the Sensible Accounting to Value Energy (SAVE) Act (S. 1737), that would help recognize the value of efficiency in mortgage caps, and the PACE Protection Act (H.R. 2599), that would enable local governments to finance home energy efficiency projects with repayment through property taxes.

Other bipartisan bills that would promote energy efficiency by monitoring energy usage and offering new efficiency incentives include e-KNOW (S. 1029), which would require utilities to provide customers and other third parties with their energy usage information; the Cut Energy Bills at Home Act (S. 1914), a performance-based tax credit for deep home retrofits; the Roofing Efficiency Jobs Act (H.R. 2962/S. 1575), which would incentivize energy-efficient commercial roof replacements; and the Home Owner Managing Energy Savings (HOMES) Act (H.R. 4230), a rebate program to help homeowners undertake comprehensive energy-saving improvements.

The Senate Finance Committee recently approved another collaborative effort to advance energy efficiency – a package of expiring and expired business and consumer tax incentives supported by many businesses, nonprofits, trade associations, and energy efficiency and environmental organizations. This action, too, showed that the parties can and should work together and laid the groundwork for addressing efficiency tax provisions in the fall.

So it’s clear that energy efficiency has long been and remains a bipartisan policy – one that allows Congress to heed the electorate’s call to help the economy at this critical moment without undue cost or regulatory burden.

Congress should quickly approve proposals like these, particularly S. 1000, so Americans can begin reaping the benefits of energy efficiency.

As convenient as it would be to say that a single change could alleviate the gridlock we are experiencing, the reality is that there are a number of critical obstacles keeping us from passing energy and environmental legislation.

We know that objective scientific knowledge is needed to inform good policy decisions – and that objective knowledge exists – but all too often we are allowing politics and ideology to take precedence over, or be pitted against, science. This not only risks the legitimacy of the science, but also the strength of the policy and its ability to protect the security, health and welfare of the American people, and support a healthy and thriving economy. The current rhetoric on climate change is a perfect example.

We also know that the biggest obstacles to passage of energy and environmental legislation are disagreements about the extent to which the federal government can and should regulate business, and reluctance to launch new initiatives that will add to the deficit. The science tells us that small initiatives that require only nominal investments can't begin to address the environmental and energy challenges we face; and legislation big enough to achieve significant results will cost more than Congress is willing to spend.

Environmental legislation is also held prisoner to partisan gridlock, with far less bipartisan support than many energy proposals. Even environmental legislation that saves many times its cost in medical and health care savings cannot advance in the current Congress. One recent example is the defeat of legislation to limit the release of airborne particulates proven to adversely affect the respiratory health of children and seniors.

Dissonance about the role of federal regulation, its cost-effectiveness, and potential to impose costs on private sector that might adversely impact economic recovery further complicate energy/environmental legislative calculus. For these reasons, it is difficult for Congress to pass new energy and/or environmental initiatives, even where there is wide bipartisan support for a given bill.

Lastly, we know that Congress is not likely to make much real progress on either energy or environmental issues until voters demand such action. Research shows that most voters, including Independents in swing states, do not list energy and environmental issues as a major determinant of how they vote, despite their significant impact on local, state and national economies, public health and national security. This needs to change.

Historically, a major energy or environmental disaster has sometimes generated a major change in voter sentiment, e.g., the Cuyahoga River fire that helped launch the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, it may take a major environmental or energy disaster to get sufficient voter support for significant legislation on these issues.

In summary, the only way that we can hope to reach bipartisan action on energy and environmental policy will require an effective policy strategy that has been built on a foundation of scientific knowledge, strategic budget decisions, and a mandate from the voters themselves.

Political issues should only be as relevant as their importance to the American people. Energy affects every single person in the United States. For its part, America’s oil and natural gas resources have been improving the lives of citizens for hundreds of years. After all, oil and natural gas enables amazing mobility, light, strength, and heat. Ideally, legislators would work toward promoting America’s energy self-reliance.

Ideally, legislators would understand the reality that environmental protection and energy development are not in opposition, but work hand in hand. Unfortunately, it goes without saying that Washington politics often falls short of this ideal. Frequently, our legislators fail to deal with energy policy in a common-sense, reasonable manner.

There have been glimpses of great leadership, examples when legislators have reached across the aisle to construct and support common-sense legislation that encourages American energy production. Recent legislation from Congress which would replace the Obama administration’s five-year offshore leasing plan and instead increase access America’s abundant offshore oil and natural gas is one example of such bipartisanship. The House passed legislation with support from 25 key Democrats. The support from Republicans and Democrats is obviously not equal, but this bipartisan legislative victory demonstrates a commitment by the House of Representatives to support the jobs, economic growth and national security over stubborn allegiance to political party. The same is happening on the Senate side. Democratic Senators Jim Webb (VA), Mark Warner (VA), and Mary Landrieu (LA) cosponsored the Senate’s legislation to expand offshore oil and natural gas production with Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski (AK), John Hoeven (ND), and Jim Inhofe (OK). Senator Manchin (WV) is another Democratic leader who consistently votes to promote responsible energy development.

The United States is at a crossroads in its history. Our nation has much more oil and natural gas resources, thanks to shale development, than we ever thought possible or recoverable just a few short years ago. If the United States hopes to become a real leader on the energy stage, true statesmanship is required of our nation’s elected officials.

Democrats and Republicans must work together to craft legislation that encourages American energy production, instead of forcing policies that demonize the hard-working men and women that supply energy to consumers every day. IPAA is committed, as it always has been, to working with and educating legislators and their staff on both sides of the aisle. IPAA is hopeful that as the incredible benefits from developing America’s oil and natural gas resources become increasingly evident and publicized, more legislators will vote common-sense reality over ideology; facts over fear. Only then will energy policy truly transcend partisan politics.

(These comments were submitted by John Banks, nonresident fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution's Energy Security Initiative; and adjunct professor for electricity markets at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.)

A divisive energy policy debate is playing an increasingly prominent role in the presidential election campaign reflecting long-simmering themes that emerged in the 1970s.

The first theme is the challenge of balancing three, often competing components of energy policy. There is a national security goal – reducing vulnerability to supply disruptions and price shocks linked to our overwhelming use of oil in transportation and dependence on oil imports. There are environmental goals – reducing pollution and adverse health effects of energy use, as well as meeting the challenge of global climate change, namely reducing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. And finally there are broader economic goals embedded in energy policy – keeping prices low to bolster economic growth, creating jobs, promoting new industries or technologies, and raising revenue.

Balancing and prioritizing these goals is notoriously difficult. For example, our abundant natural gas supplies are frequently touted as providing major economic benefits, but there are also environmental concerns. Moreover, goals change over time; in the 1970s we instituted policies to shift oil out of electricity generation and promoted coal use for national security and economic reasons, while now we are looking for ways to reduce coal use for environmental reasons.

The second major theme is the roiling debate over the role of government. While not limited to the energy sector, there are nearly constant heated discussions over fundamental questions: What is the right way – if any – for the government to influence or participate in the market? What is the right mix of policy approaches, i.e., market-based vs. command and control? In the last several years we have heard much criticism about the dangers (market distortions, waste of taxpayers’ money) of government “picking winners” in fuels, technologies, or sectors. And there is growing support for government to promote a “portfolio” approach; that our challenges are so complex that – as one utility CEO phrased it – we need “silver buckshot” not a “silver bullet”. In today’s policy discourse this is called an “all of the above” approach.

The third theme is the tension over supply-side and demand-side policy approaches. After the 1970s, there was an increased focus on alternatives to fossil fuels, and on the demand side (efficiency and conservation). To this day we see a tug-of-war over how to prioritize and balance different supply-side solutions, as well as how to balance supply options vs. demand side options.

In the current political arena, a renaissance in domestic oil and gas production spurred by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing and the recent economic downturn, have framed energy policy issues largely around economic themes, placed a focus on domestic supply solutions, and intensified the debate over role of government.

The focus on stimulating economic growth and creating jobs has shifted emphasis away from environmental objectives; and any discussion about addressing global climate change as a major policy goal has all but disappeared. Indeed, neither Obama nor Romney’s campaign websites mention “climate change.” The appropriate role of government also is a major theme, perhaps most evident in whether or how the government should support clean energy technology. The era of rising deficits and shrinking budgets is increasing pressure to reduce government programs; for example see the debate surrounding extension of the production tax credit for wind, and the loan guarantee program. Supply-demand tensions are also a central part of the debate, with many calling for government to get out of the way and allow the development of abundant fossil resources to achieve our economic objectives and enhance national security. Supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline, opening up more onshore and offshore hydrocarbons for exploration, and rolling back EPA regulations on coal-fired power generation are illustrative of this theme.

Does this leave us in inexorable deadlock, doomed to repeat the same bleak battles since the 1970s? Not necessarily. Clearly the rhetoric of an election campaign leaves little room for nuance, and energy is all about nuance. But our research discussions with a wide array of stakeholders indicate a glimmer of common ground. Specifically, there are nascent signs of agreement on basic principles: energy policy should be technology neutral, promote price transparency, and leverage private sector investment.

First, it is certainly true that no specific, comprehensive federal energy-climate policy is in place, and an overarching policy with carbon pricing is unlikely in the near-term – the stigma of higher energy prices in this economy in an election year is a non-starter. But feedback we received from a cross-section of the federal government, state governments, developers, regulators, venture capitalists, and utilities reveal a shared view that federal leadership is very important. The markets want business certainty – this is the best way to stimulate the economy. In the words of one utility executive a federal policy framework would “let utilities or third parties figure out the least-cost path to carbon reduction.”

In this regard, a carbon tax is getting more attention as a means to help address the fiscal situation as well as our energy goals (but probably not as stand-alone energy policy). We’re hearing more support for this policy tool from conservatives. For example, Former Sec. of State George Schulz recently voiced support for a revenue neutral carbon tax stating that it “could bring together the constituencies concerned with national security, the economy and the environment -- both local and global -- that would be a potent coalition.”

Second, in terms of clean energy technology policy, participants in our research called for “policy survivability,” and “consistency of purpose and vision.” One cogeneration developer told us “The technologies are there but the game is so impossible to understand. Our clients are planning at 3-5 year business cycles, but tax credits, rebates etc., are changing every couple of years... we need certainty over 10 years.” We heard a widespread view that financial mechanisms needed to be “smarter,” especially in the current atmosphere of spending cuts and calls for a reduced role for government. Smarter means tailoring financial incentives to better address the stages of technology innovation and to be phased out over time as a technology becomes more commercially deployed. My Brookings colleague Mark Muro has also recently cited that an alternative approach in which subsidies and incentives have a more predictable path toward innovation, cost reduction and phase out is gaining traction on both sides of the aisle.

These are just a few of the promising signs if we look beyond the election season and seize the common ground in energy policy. It’s the only way to break away from our decades-old, repetition of arguments that get us nowhere.

Bipartisanship is seen by too many in Congress as a one way ticket to retirement. Too many members let special interest influence, especially the far right and far left, replace the nation’s best interests. There is no or little reward for seeking common ground. Although most members of Congress admire Henry Clay, too few subscribe to his view that “Politics is not about ideological purity or moral self-righteousness, it’s about governing. And if you cannot compromise you cannot govern.” We have lost the capacity to govern or to recall the words of President Kennedy’s inaugural address, “To those ... who ...make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge, but a request: that both sides begin anew... civility is not a sign of weakness, ... Let both sides explore what problems unite us, instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.”

If the Congress and the Administration would adopt that philosophy and Henry Clay’s definition of politics, many knotty energy and environmental problems could be quickly solved. Indeed, so would our fiscal and entitlement challenges. Energy is the lifeblood of the economy. It is like oxygen for the body. Without adequate supplies of energy and competitively prices, prosperity is a hope, not a reality. So, finding the sweet spot in today’s environment of gridlock will be difficult. It will require some courage and a focus on a few issues where agreement might actually be possible.

EIA’s Annual Outlook provides a basis for moving forward. It makes clear that that fossil energy will continue to be our dominant energy source for decades to come, in spite of efforts to diminish its role.

Since 1973, it has been national policy to reduce dependence on oil from unstable regions of the world. That goal is now possible if we focus on oil from the Americas. US production is at a 14-year high and could go higher. Instead of imposing obstacles to exploration and production offshore and in Alaska, a common ground approach would be to move forward, with whatever additional protections can be justified. Canada is a major source of energy imports and could supply more if obstacles to the Keystone pipeline are removed.

By the end of this decade, oil imports from unstable, unfriendly regions could be significantly lower. In the process, more investment here would create more good paying jobs at home. Unlike the past standard where oil consumption steadily grew, today’s growth has essentially plateaued as a result of demographics, technology, and economic factors. None the less, oil remains the primary transportation fuel. Common ground would accept that reality and use R&D instead of subsidies to advance alternative transportation technologies.

Technology has unlocked domestic reserves of natural gas that are sufficient to meet our needs for a century. Both Democrats and Republicans should embrace its expanded use for electric power generation and transportation. Eliminating any obstacles to gas replacing coal for power generation and to shuttering old inefficient coal plants ought to be a high priority. Environmentalists who once championed natural gas are now trying to hinder its advance. Instead of condemning “fracking” or burdening the process with excessive regulations, Congress should promote the use of industry best practices, and avoid imposing new restrictions on states. Congress also ought to be able to find common ground on the export of natural gas. Our domestic supplies are more than sufficient to support an export industry. That too would result in increased domestic investment and American job creation.

We have seen that subsidies and industrial policy initiatives have unintended consequences that are far greater than any realistic benefits. Instead of continuing those, Congress should support a multi-year R&D program that does not promote one energy source over another but produces the scientific information that the private sector needs to advance commercial technologies. It also could make the R&D tax credit permanent.

Overhauling environmental laws and regulations is a worthy goal but not one that attract a bi-partisan majority, at least not soon. What Congress could do is start a hearing process to determine which provisions of law have worked, which haven’t, and what overarching principles provide the basis to streamline and modernize environmental laws. The Code of Federal Regulations continues to grow. New regulations are added, rarely are old ones removed. There needs to be a law requiring a “look back” process leading to eliminating or revising past regulations.

Energy is not a partisan issue. Every voter – whether he hails from a strongly Democratic district on the East Coast or from a historically Republican state in the Deep South - consumes energy each and every day. In addition to transportation fuels and electricity, energy forms the building blocks for a myriad of consumer products including steel, fertilizer and plastics. Similarly, every citizen desires and deserves clean air and clean water, and consequently has a stake in how we produce and consume energy. Our economy and our standard of living directly depend on the availability and affordability of energy.

Despite the universal need for energy, domestic energy production has become a near-polarizing force in this Congress. While most Members generally support increased energy self-sufficiency, many disagree as to how to advance America’s energy future. As Congress debates in circles about more controversial issues, there are areas where compromise and agreement could easily be reached.

For starters, energy development and infrastructure projects increasingly face years of delays and added expenses securing the necessary approvals from federal agencies. Oftentimes, these projects face duplicative reviews by different agencies tasked with overseeing energy production. Overlapping regulatory authority can cause significant inefficiencies and sometimes can be a wasteful use of already limited federal resources. Recently, the Obama Administration utilized an interagency task force model to allow better cooperation between federal agencies with the ultimate objective of efficiently reviewing and approving legally defensible permits for energy producers and infrastructure developers.

Interagency task forces or other public-private methods of cooperation could be the anecdote for large-scale energy projects that are beleaguered by litigation and complex layers of regulation. For example, wind and solar farms have faced hurdles complying with various federal statutes and regulations when it comes to siting transmission lines and building the necessary access roads and other infrastructure to deliver the energy to consumers. Similarly, pipelines could benefit from an interagency model since these projects oftentimes traverse multiple areas that require separate federal review (e.g. wetlands or the habitat of an endangered species).

While the precise composition of these interagency task forces and other private-public collaboration models may need some tweaking, Congress should be able to embrace the basic principles underpinning this policy: responsible, efficacious use of federal resources; clearer, more certain regulatory oversight for the private sector; and public-private collaboration that ultimately benefits the taxpayer.

Congress should absolutely support efforts that help expand safe, affordable American energy production. Unfortunately, it appears energy consumers will suffer from the lack of a balanced, comprehensive energy policy until all Members of Congress can fully appreciate how essential energy is to our economy. If voters were to speak up more often about the importance of energy, we might see more willingness for Congress to act.

Energy is one of the most politicized issues facing the country today. While much of the nation is waiting and relying on the federal government to weigh in on matters ranging from nuclear power to tax credits, Washington policymakers seem unable to garner a general consensus and move forward with these looming policy issues. Confronted with the increasing turmoil in overseas monetary markets and uprisings in volatile Middle East regions, now is the time for politicians and special interest groups alike to set aside their differences and seek common ground.

Regardless of party affiliations, elected officials must logically address the myriad of complex energy issues facing the nation. Congress and the current administration must put aside their biases and rhetoric in order to produce a policy that is realistic in the 21^st century. If America is truly to take President Obama at his word, there must be a move to implement an “all of the above” approach that includes the encouragement of renewable resources.

By the same token, technology has not yet adapted to the mass developments shaping the renewable resources vying for position in the nation’s economy. Until technology is synchronized with industry advancements, improved techniques for extracting and utilizing fossil fuels will remain the top energy source for the foreseeable future. For example, hydraulic fracturing has been caught in the middle of a bitter feud between oil and gas companies and environmentalists, despite reports that prove natural gas exploration is safe and effective. While once supported by environmentalists just a few years ago, natural gas has the ability to drastically curtail carbon emissions over other energy sources, power vehicle fleets, and heat our homes in a more cost-effective manner.

This past spring, President Obama called for the use of natural gas to power our nation. One portion of his plan consists of a $12 billion tax credit for the wind energy industry. Obama is encouraging the renewal of these expiring tax credits and pushing for an end to the $4 billion subsidies going to the oil industry. Historically, credits for the oil and gas industry generate more money than the credit itself, unlike the current wind energy credit up for debate this month.

Some energy bills that have recently been pushed through Congress have rare bipartisan support, including the Keystone XL pipeline. The most recent poll shows the majority of Republicans and 69 House Democrats support the pipeline. Congress must continue to amass support from both sides of the aisle and prevent America from falling into the same habits of the Italian parliament.

Congress will ultimately be responsible for deciding the date of billions of taxpayer dollars, yet the Senate has neglected to pass a budget resolution in three years. Lawmakers must develop and approve plans and regulations for the energy industry and focus on the nation’s interests that have been forgotten in the finger-pointing game.

We should no longer be asking Congress what could be done with the energy issues we are confronted with today. Rather we must ask Congress if it has the courage to finally address these crucial issues and change the status quo when recess ends at the end of the month.

It’s clear from the debate around the merits and drawbacks of various electricity and fuel sources that energy policy can be a highly polarizing topic. In fact, it’s arguable that there is no energy option that holds a truly bipartisan appeal: Every form of energy faces pockets of dissent. This makes crafting universally accepted energy policy particularly challenging.

Fortunately, there are rare areas for bipartisan agreement among policymakers around specific energy policy issues that must be central to future investment in America’s energy portfolio.

Policymakers agree that whatever sources we invest in, they must be sufficient both to meet growing energy demand and environmental requirements. They agree that the energy we invest in should support growth in American jobs and in the economy. They agree that our energy portfolio should be sustainable over time, aligned with our broader national goals.

The energy policy that I’ve seen garner consistent support from the left and the right over the years is also one with which I’m deeply familiar. This policy involves building a diverse portfolio of low-carbon energy sources, featuring a renewed investment in nuclear energy. And it’s not just policymakers from both sides of the aisle who support nuclear energy – it’s everyday energy consumers as well. According to a Gallup poll conducted in March of this year, nearly 60 percent of Americans support the use of nuclear energy to meet our nation’s electricity needs, and a majority support expanding America’s use of nuclear power.

Next-generation nuclear energy projects are underway in Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee, thanks in part to steady popular support, as well as support from President Obama, bipartisan congressional leaders and other policymakers at the federal and state levels. An additional 10 combined construction and operating licenses for 16 plants are under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

This support is founded in the fact that nuclear energy, safely managed, provides an efficient, reliable source of energy. In fact, nuclear power is the only baseload source of carbon-free electricity. It provides nearly two-thirds of the nation’s low-carbon electricity, and will continue to be an important source of energy well into the future given the advent of innovative large and small reactor designs. The use of nuclear energy prevents more than 613 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year – as much CO2 as is emitted by every passenger car in America.

Bipartisan support for nuclear energy also stems from the boost that it provides to local job markets and to local and state economies. As nuclear energy expands and as more than half of the industry workforce approaches retirement, the industry offers growing opportunities for well-paying careers. The industry already supports more than 100,000 jobs, and the combination of retirements and the construction of new facilities could create as many as 25,000 new jobs in the near term. What’s more, the construction of a nuclear facility spurs the creation of other local jobs in industries ranging from manufacturing to hospitality. The industry generates between $40 and $50 billion in revenue and electricity sales, or some $470 million in total economic output and $40 million in labor wages at each U.S. facility every year. That’s a powerful economic engine and a positive impact that leaders are embracing.

As America refocuses on cleaner energy policies that help boost our economy, nuclear power is becoming a clear and critical part of a secure, sustainable energy portfolio. We need electricity and we want clean air; with nuclear energy we can have both. It’s a source of power that leaders on both sides of the aisle can support.

Reports of bipartisanship’s demise – at least when it comes to the policy prescriptions surrounding increased energy efficiency – are greatly exaggerated.

It’s true that efforts to enact a comprehensive energy package are mired in divisive wrangling that’s not likely to disappear anytime soon. But energy efficiency initiatives – encouraging home- and business-owners to install greater levels of insulation and embrace other ways to save energy – enjoy broad support, are gaining traction, and stand a decent chance of being enacted, if not before the November elections then during a lame duck session this fall.

How broad and bipartisan is support for greater reliance on energy efficiency? So broad that the SAVE (Sensible Accounting to Value Energy) Act, S. 1737, coauthored by Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA), not only has the backing of business champions such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, but has been endorsed by the U.S. Green Building Council, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for American Progress, and contractor organizations such as the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning.

The Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, S. 1000, co-introduced by Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Rob Portman (R-OH), has also been cosponsored by Senators from both parties and attracted a disparate coalition of business, energy, and environmental interests. A House counterpart to Shaheen-Portman, called the Smart Energy Act and coauthored by Representatives Charlie Bass (R-NH) and Jim Matheson (D-UT), is poised for mark-up in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Representative Nan Hayworth (R-NY), moreover, is leading a bipartisan push to strengthen the PACE (Property-Assessed Clean Energy) programs, which remain extremely popular at the grassroots.

Grassroots popularity is also driving the debate surrounding the extension of tax credits that effectively encourage home- and business-owners to adopt greater levels of insulation and other energy saving measures. On August 3^rd, the Senate Finance Committee bucked election year headwinds by passing a package – with a 19-5 vote, no less – that included the extension of two efficiency incentives, known as tax code provisions 25C and 45L. Two veteran legislators, Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-UT), should be commended for guiding through their committee legislation that earned support from moderates, conservatives, and liberals.

How does energy efficiency manage to rise above partisan quarreling and elicit support from across the board? It’s because it’s so simple on the one hand and so profound on the other.

The simple part is that achieving greater energy efficiency is available here and now. We don’t have to wait on a new technology to come on line: we have the know-how and the capability today to save energy and money. If the roughly 50 million under-insulated American homes and businesses were properly insulated, we could save – every year – enough energy to power the entire state of Florida for some five years.

The profound part is the positive chain reaction that a greater investment in energy efficiency would trigger in the American economy. Insulation doesn’t install itself. A renewed emphasis on insulation means spurring jobs for home construction workers and renovation contractors – tens of thousands of them in a sector where unemployment remains distressingly high, nearly double the national rate.

Dollar for dollar there is simply no better place to invest dollars in federal policy than in energy efficiency. The technology for insulation and conservation is proven and readily deployable, the potential gains – even in the short-term – are enormous, and it generates new jobs as well as energy savings. Is it any wonder why energy efficiency is bridging the partisan divide?

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

Every president since Jimmy Carter, whether a Democrat or a Republican, has chanted the mantra of "weaning America off imported oil" as the basis of a national energy strategy. In fact, we've not had a comprehensive energy policy since the Carter years, and the laws passed in the late 1970s were based on the premise of shortages of fossil fuels and did little or nothing to increase production.

Thanks to the shale gas and shale oil revolution, today we live in a world of fossil fuel abundance. Were the United States to expedite permitting in the Gulf of Mexico and open up the outer continental shelf (OCS) for exploration and production, domestic energy supplies would be even greater and we could literally approach energy independence, with all the attendant jobs and economic security that would entail.

But though America is "energy rich," we behave as though we're "energy poor." The Obama administration pays lip service to an "all of the above" energy strategy, but in practice it remains hostage to the "anti-carbon, anti-nuclear" environmentalists who aren't swayed by the fact that natural gas emits 50 percent less greenhouse gas than coal and that nuclear energy has a zero carbon footprint. They remain convinced that if they can kill the Keystone XL pipeline they'll be able to stymie development of the Alberta oil sands. These true believers continue to argue that America can provide for all of its future energy needs through a combination of renewables, efficiency, and conservation. This is sheer nonsense.

We will never have bipartisan support for a sensible, comprehensive domestic energy policy until realism and fact can supersede ideology and fiction. Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.