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

To help leave the economic downturn behind and restore consumer confidence, it is critically important to advance initiatives that enhance our nation’s energy security. Improved energy efficiency is not only the fastest, most affordable, and most sustainable way to forge a more secure energy future, it also invests in our economy, puts Americans back to work, and addresses the crippling problems associated with rising energy use.

For the last 35 years, our country has realized significant gains in efficiencies through financial incentives and authorized setting of efficiency standards. In 2009, the McKinsey Global Institute estimated that the U.S. could save $1.2 trillion over the coming 10 years by deploying energy efficient products and practices. However, there is much more that could be done to lessen domestic energy consumption, lower energy costs for consumers and businesses, and cut harmful pollution.

A good start would be consideration of the bipartisan bill (S. 1000) introduced by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) that would implement several energy efficiency measures across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors and should be included in any discussion of energy security. Along with its bipartisan House counterpart (H.R. 4017) sponsored by Reps. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah), these initiatives would greatly complement federal policies already in place that continue to drive economic development by prioritizing energy efficiency.

Additionally, Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) have sponsored a proposal (S. 1737) that would help would help recognize the value of efficiency in mortgage caps. Reps. Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) have spearheaded legislation (H.R. 2599) that would enable local governments to finance home efficiency projects and then be repaid via the property tax bills. And Reps. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) have proposed a measure (H.R. 4230) that would incentivize homeowners to undertake comprehensive energy-saving improvements through rebates.

Our ongoing economic recovery demonstrates the clear need to strengthen initiatives that would lead to more secure energy future. This objective cannot be achieved without policymakers in Congress and the President pushing for job creation and growth – which can be found within energy efficiency. Enacting the aforementioned legislative initiatives would represent an excellent step in the right direction.

Reducing our dependence on oil is a vital goal. Our transportation system is 90-percent dependent on oil, and although imports have declined, they are still around 40 percent of our total supply. Vehicles powered by petroleum-based fuels are responsible for a large fraction of conventional air pollution in the United States and total oil consumption in transportation and industry is responsible for one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

What’s more, oil – including what we produce at home – is traded on a global market dominated by a cartel of oil-producing countries that drives prices higher than they would be in an openly competitive market. Cartel influences and state control of oil reserves in geopolitically unstable countries like Iran also generate prices shocks that have repeatedly sent our economy into recession. Consequently, oil dependence has cost the United States more than $5 trillion in lost productivity since 1970.

Clearly, breaking our oil dependency would have very large benefits, including a more stable economy, a better balance of payments, cleaner air and better health, and the long-term benefit of climate protection. But doing away with oil is not the goal of “energy independence” as currently used in political rhetoric. Rather, it is used to suggest that we can and should produce enough of oil at home that we can stop importing foreign oil, while continuing to rely on domestic oil as the backbone of our economically vital transportation system. But that won’t protect us from economic losses.

Even if we could get by entirely on domestic oil, the price we pay would still be determined by the global market. Why? Because domestic producers would simply export their product whenever a better return on investment was available elsewhere. The only way to insulate our economy from the vagaries of the global oil market is to break the monopoly that oil holds over our transportation system, not just to stop importing foreign oil.

The notion of energy independence is illusory for a more basic reason: There is no sustainable energy future in which we go it alone. The technologies and supply chains that replace oil and other fossil fuels will be globalized, as is already the case for major technologies, like cars, smartphones, and personal computers. As we innovate new ways to get off oil, we will use these markets to sell new energy technologies overseas and to import it when it is more cost effective to do so. By severing ties to global markets, we severely limit our ability to compete and to find pathways to a more secure energy system.

Rather than “energy independence,” a more meaningful concept is “energy security” – ensuring that we balance demand with supplies that are adequate, reliable, healthy, environmentally sustainable, and affordable. Energy security bolsters national security, so supplies must also be “geopolitically reliable and physically secure.” Those who argue for energy independence tend to focus solely only on these last two attributes, but the others are equally important to stabilizing the economy and maintaining a high standard of living. Oil will never meet this full list of criteria regardless of where it is produced.

To paraphrase the late energy economist Charles Lave, America’s biggest oil reserve is in our empty car seats. Reducing oil demand – and energy demand in general – makes our economy less vulnerable to price volatility and shocks. New U.S. fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards finalized last month will help ensure that the significant decline in oil imports during the recent economic downturn will continue even as our economy recovers in the years to come. Longer-term strategies include diversification of clean energy sources for both transportation and power generation, redundancy of supply chains, and increased domestic production of energy sources that meet the criteria of energy security.

Achieving energy security will not be easy, but to have a shot at it we must think clearly about what it means, what our goals should be, and what is – and is not – achievable. We need a serious energy policy that emphasizes all of the attributes of energy security rather than independence from foreign resources. Such a policy would not only make America’s energy future more secure, but would drive innovation, foster economic growth, improve health, and protect local environments and the global climate.

The United States is moving closer to the goal of being able to supply all of its energy needs from domestic energy sources. The biggest game-changer in this quest for energy self-sufficiency has been the discovery and development of America’s vast shale reserves. Developing our natural gas resources from these shale formations across the country is providing low-cost and reliable sources of energy that will boost the U.S. manufacturing sector’s competitiveness. This is especially true for America’s steel industry where energy costs generally represent up to 20% of the total cost of making steel in the U.S.

AISI member companies often compete internationally with steelmakers from countries where those energy costs are subsidized. This makes it imperative that we have an effective national energy plan focused on maximizing production from U.S. domestic gas, oil, and coal resources to create and maintain valuable American jobs in steel and other key industries. As an energy-intensive industry that creates essential American jobs and manufactures materials critical to America’s economic and national security, we believe energy policies must be crafted to foster – and not hinder – our international competitiveness.

We are strongly supportive of policy measures to increase production of on- and off-shore energy resources, especially natural gas from shale formations, and appropriate regulatory reforms so that all forms of energy supply (coal, natural gas and electricity) remain affordable and reliable.

In particular, by embracing our abundant shale reserves as the tremendous domestic resource that they are, while developing them in a careful manner, our nation can lessen its dependency on foreign energy supplies, create thousands of jobs and spur economic growth for years to come.

Many experts are optimistic that the reduction of oil demand combined with the increase of domestic oil and natural gas production could further slash oil imports by 2020.

Raymond James & Associates predicts a significant oil production increase in the coming years without any expansion of drilling into protected places or weakening of public health and natural resources protections. This contradicts oil company rhetoric about the need to drill in previously safeguarded public lands and waters to achieve energy independence.

Congress must not ignore climate science when considering energy policies. Promoting an energy independence plan that increases carbon pollution is like setting your house on fire to stay warm. It may work at first but the long term consequences are horrendous.

This year the polluted climate continued to strike back, with the worst U.S. drought in over 50 years. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined that the United States experienced the most extreme weather in a century, and confirmed that it was the third hottest summer ever.

The Obama administration’s “all of the above” energy strategy includes both pollution reductions and an increase in domestic energy production. It has modernized fuel economy standards, reduced carbon pollution from cars, invested in clean energy technologies, and reduced carbon pollution. Renewable electricity generation doubled. Domestic oil production is the highest in 15 years and imports are the lowest. Natural gas production is the highest ever.

To build on these successes we must continue to invest in renewable electricity, energy efficiency and clean vehicles and fuels so that our clean tech companies can compete with those in other nations. Without incentives, financiers will invest in other countries, effectively outsourcing clean energy jobs to China and other nations with more supportive policies.

Domestic oil production provides important economic and security benefits. Fewer oil imports will reduce our trade deficit with other nations. But more production won’t do much to lower prices at the pump because the oil prices that determine gasoline prices are set on a world market controlled by the OPEC cartel.

The Associated Press tested whether more U.S. drilling would lower gasoline prices. It conducted an exhaustive analysis of 36 years of monthly U.S. oil production and gasoline price data. AP found “No statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.”

Expansion of drilling into protected areas will have little impact on gasoline prices, so such proposals probably wouldn’t ease pain at the pump. However, drilling expansion would increase carbon and other pollution because many oil and natural gas production techniques generate significant emissions.

Gov. Mitt Romney recently proposed to let states decide whether to approve oil drilling in National Park Service units and other public lands within their borders. This tempts states to allow drilling in these protected places to get oil revenues, rather than safeguard the natural resources of these lands for their owners –the American people. The New York Times noted “States, as a rule, tend to be interested mainly in resource development.”

Yesterday the Center for American Progress released data highlighting 30 National Park units that face the prospect of future oil and gas drilling, including the Flight 93 Memorial and Everglades National Park. These places would be vulnerable to drilling if federal oversight of energy production on public lands is eliminated in favor of more relaxed state regulations.

Bob Marshall, a columnist for Field and Stream recently wrote that state control of all energy development could devastate outdoor activities.

“When it comes to the future of public hunting and fishing—especially out west—fewer proposals could be more frightening.”

The proposal to build the Keystone XL pipeline won’t increase our energy security much either. A significant portion of the Canadian tar sands oil that would flow to our Gulf Coast refineries would be refined and exported as diesel or gasoline to Europe or South America. And the increase in production of energy intensive tar sands oil will add even more carbon pollution to our overburdened atmosphere.

To become more energy independent while reducing carbon pollution we must increase investments in clean electricity, vehicles, and fuels. We can pay for these investments by ending $2.4 billion of annual special tax breaks for the five largest oil companies – BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. These five companies made $60 billion in profits in the first half of 2012, and a record $137 billion in 2011. The money from these tax breaks would be better spent on the clean energy technologies of the future. That would lead to real energy independence.

Less than a decade ago, the term “energy independence” was an unachievable goal; something our nation never believed could become a reality. That landscape has dramatically changed thanks in part to new technologies and advanced discoveries. Oil, natural gas and even coal are now abundant as we stand on the verge of an energy renaissance. America’s supplies, once thought to be running low, are bountiful. By some expert’s calculations, we have enough traditional forms of energy to last us a century or longer.

Energy independence is possible, but I would suggest that our ability to achieve North American energy independence is more realistic. By combining resources with Canada and Mexico, North America can, and will be, energy independent.

Where renewables make sense, we should embrace their use and continue to expand our research and development efforts. By the same token, we cannot seek to handicap other types of energy by artificially increasing their costs. Consumer choice remains the most efficient way to drive competition in the marketplace.

What often gets lost in the debate is the right mix of resources. America has lacked a true energy plan for some time, and instead of picking winners and losers, the government should be setting the political and regulatory stage for a true “all of the above” energy approach.

Because crude oil is traded globally, with prices set by a world market, it’s more accurate to say the United States should focus on “energy self-sufficiency” and “energy security.” Both are within reach. Analysis shows the U.S. could see 100 percent of its liquid fuel needs met domestically (including biofuels) and from Canada by 2024. If that happened, there’s little doubt our country would be safer energy-wise. We would be less vulnerable to serious global supply disruptions, and more North American crude oil entering the marketplace would exertdownward pressure on oil prices.

How do we get there? Earlier this year API put together an energy policy blueprint for both political parties. It calls for increased access to domestic oil and natural gas resources, a transparent and equitable regulatory structure, policies that encourage investment in American energy and a market-based approach to developing new energy sources.

This would include opening up our outer continental shelf to safe and responsible energy development, 85 percent of which remains closed by federal policy. It would mean more development on public lands, especially in the West and Alaska. It would include leasing and permitting policies that are fair and predictable so that multi-billion investments in energy exploration and development would be encouraged, not discouraged. This might help unlock an estimated 800 billion barrels of oil shale in the western U.S., for example. It would mean building the entire Keystone XL pipeline, to bring upwards of 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada, our neighbor and largest trading partner*.

Together, these would make more secure the oil and natural gas that supply 62 percent of the energy we use today and which are projected to supply more than 55 percent of our energy in 2035– even with growing and important contributions from biofuels, wind, solar, nuclear, coal and other sources, America would be less susceptible to serious supply constraints caused by turmoilaround the world. Whatever you call it, our country would be safer, more secure – with hundreds of thousands of new jobs created and hundreds of billions of dollars in additional revenue generated for government treasuries.

*An example of the economics of our energy supply can be found here.

It is no secret that America is addicted to expensive foreign oil. The Congressional Research Service recently estimated that U.S. imported petroleum costs could rise by about $30 billion in 2012 to reach $451 billion. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory calculated that oil dependence cost the U.S. economy about $500 billion in 2008 and 2011 and $2 trillion from 2007 to 2011.

This ongoing habitcontinues to threaten our national security and stunt economic growth. So what is the solution? It is important to keep in mind that energy independence does not necessarily mean not using ANY foreign oil sources; it means that we must diversify our transportation fuel options so that no one commodity can decide the direction of U.S. foreign policy or the American economy. The U.S. needs to develop a portfolio of approaches that takes into account the number of domestically-produced energy sources that are currently available and can be alternatives to oil. This will ensure a system flexible enough to incorporate advanced fuel technologies as they come to market.

The adoption of electric drive technology is integral to a comprehensive plan because ample, affordable and domestically-produced electricity is already providing consumers- and the nation -greater options and alternatives to oil. It can be used in many configurations – hybrids, plug-ins or fuel cells – and can be used in combination with conventional and other alternative fuels. Electricity also already utilizes a ubiquitous recharging infrastructure – including the outlets in our homes and workplaces.

Policies that leverage private investments and advance technology development can speed the achievement of energy independence. For instance, tax, regulatory and other non-financial incentives reduce market hurdles for consumers as well as for industry. The federal fleets can lead by example in adopting the most innovative and efficient technologies and Washington can work with regional and local leaders to share strategies for deployment of public infrastructure.

No matter which type of electric-drive vehicle a consumer chooses, running a vehicle on electricity is less expensive than gasoline, costing an average two to three cents per mile compared to 15 to 16 cents for gasoline. The price of electricity is not volatile – it doesn’t spike in response to global unrest or at different points in the driving season.

Electric drive vehicles are already meeting the needs of millions of drivers and are poised to meet the needs of millions more. These cars are following the standard path of new technology, with multiple models coming to the market at a variety of price points. With such a heavy concentration of our nation’s energy use in the transportation sector, it is critical to transform our fleet accordingly. Any plan for increasing our energy security will have to involve a strategy for diversifying transportation fuels – including electricity – and ultimately allow us to spend more of our transportation dollars at home.

For the average American, energy independence is measured by the impact of energy prices on their pocketbook. American consumers enjoy the freedom associated with driving their cars and traveling, so they readily understand the impact that gas price volatility has on their wallets. They also understand that prices at the pump are tied directly to the price of oil, which is set by countries in some of the most unstable regions of the world.

The men and women of the U.S. armed forces deployed around the world to defend oil shipping lanes have a more immediate understanding of the problem. They understand that when energy prices spike, the money to pay for it is going to be shifted from new equipment and training.

For U.S. businesses, too, the ability to plan future growth is hampered by the instability of energy prices. Energy independence can only be achieved when the United States can prevent world energy price spikes from negatively impacting U.S. military readiness, plans for economic growth, and consumer confidence.

During the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress adopted a plan for achieving energy independence by supporting the rapid commercial development of homegrown technology for alternative sources of transportation fuels. The Renewable Fuel Standard was established to ensure that there would be market pull for U.S.-produced advanced biofuels, as the technology became cost competitive. Additional measures were included in tax and agricultural policies to help direct private capital to the effort and create new agricultural supply chains.

U.S. military leaders correctly understand that reliance on a single source of transportation fuel whose price and availability is determined by others is our greatest vulnerability. They’ve put forward a concise action plan with a firm, realistic timeline for overcoming that vulnerability, by ensuring that U.S. technology is commercialized to develop a reliable, cost-competitive supply of alternatives to foreign oil.

Achieving energy independence requires a long-term commitment so that U.S. businesses can commit the necessary resources. But just as instability is a threat to the price of foreign oil, policy instability within the United States is a threat to the effort to commercialize advanced biofuel technology. The RFS is under attack by special interest groups and the fate of tax, farm, and military policies are uncertain, with Congress deferring decisive action until after the November election. The United States needs its Congressional leaders to follow the lead of both Presidential candidates and confirm their commitment to these policies.

Yes, in some respects, America has made headway in our two-generation-long quest to become more energy independent. As the President pointed out last week, we’re doing a little better on all-of-the-above energy production and conservation.

But we’ve got a long way to go. And by not taking simple steps that we know from experience will work, we’re making the goal of true energy independence infinitely harder to achieve.

No matter how America gets its energy, the last thing we can afford is to squander it. Simple step #1, therefore, is to encourage American consumers and businesses to embrace enhanced energy efficiency.

How? By incentivizing them to install greater levels of insulation and adopt other common-sense tools to make their homes and places of business more energy efficient. Greater insulation is not only simple to achieve: it’s clean, entirely proven, and a huge generator of jobs and growth.

There are some 45 million under-insulated homes in America. Add under-insulated businesses to the mix and the figure increases to something north of 55 million. Think of the number of construction, contracting, and manufacturing jobs that would be spurred if we could get a fraction of those buildings insulated the way they should be.

Now think about how a greater reliance on energy efficiency would reduce demand for electricity and cut down on monthly utility bills. That’s the positive chain reaction a greater push for energy efficiency could mean for our sluggish economy. Best of all, this chain reaction can be set in motion – today! – without waiting for a new technology to come on line or for a new market to develop.

Energy efficiency is the ultimate renewable. As part of the Energy Act of 2005, Congress established tax credits to encourage home- and business owners to upgrade their energy efficiency. Those tax incentives are a small price to pay, especially when compared to the vast amounts spent to encourage the other renewables: wind farms, solar technology, et al.

It also explains why the energy efficiency agenda continues to attract deep bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Senior Republicans and Democrats on House Ways and Means and Senate Finance are committed to renewing the tax credits and incentives that ignite the energy efficiency chain reaction.

Senator Shaheen, a Democrat, is partnering with Senator Portman, a Republican, in pushing legislation to strengthen energy savings and industrial competitiveness – a cause that’s now been taken up in the House by Representatives Charlie Bass, a Republican, and Jim Matheson, a Democrat.

Senator Isakson, a Republican, is partnering with Senator Bennet, a Democrat, in championing a bill to ensure that energy efficiency is properly valued in assessing the value of a home. Representative Nan Hayworth (R-NY), meanwhile, is leading a bipartisan effort to buttress the popular PACE (Property-Assessed Clean Energy) programs.

Promoting energy efficiency is one of the keys in achieving greater American energy independence. In the campaign environment that consumes Washington at the moment, nothing will be easy to get through. But during the lame duck session this fall and the 113^th Congress that will get underway in January, the path toward energy independence ought to begin with energy efficiency.

# # #

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

A few years ago as a birthday gift, a close friend gave me a copy of a newspaper published on the day I was born in 1976. As I am accustomed to doing, I immediately turned to the editorial pages, where the political cartoon leapt of the page at me. There sat an image of Uncle Sam clearly struggling to ride a comically undersized tricycle with a caption that read simply, “America’s move toward energy independence.”

Sadly, almost four decades later, if we dusted off that cartoon and ran it again, I imagine readers would nod at such an astute and timely observation. Over the last 36 years, our leaders in Washington DC have fiddled around the edges of an energy plan, but have never fully embraced the comprehensive energy vision we needed then and need even more now. The over-politicization of energy blurs the issue and distracts us from what is really necessary and already possible. Such is the case with our fascination with ‘energy independence.’

While it remains one the key banners of energy reform, the concept of ‘energy independence’ functionally refers mostly, if not entirely, to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Like other rhetorical devices, this discussion rests in the ideological eye of the beholder. One extreme would have us believe that we can drill our way to energy independence (a mathematical impossibility that defies reality) and the other extreme would have you believe that combustion engines are no longer necessary (a political impossibility, not to mention an economically challenging proposition at the moment that defies logic). Both frames miss the larger opportunity of a robust and inclusive energy strategy.

Rather than focusing on a narrow, albeit catchy, goal like ‘energy independence,’ we should instead focus on including a little ‘energy intelligence’ into our thinking. Energy intelligence means responsibly taking advantage of all the solutions and technologies at our disposal. Energy intelligence is recognizing that while importation of fossil fuels is a dangerous dependence, importing some components to domestically manufactured and assembled products is a reality of the new global economy. Energy intelligence is realizing that regulation can be both part of the solution and part of the problem instead of creating false choices. Energy intelligence means understanding that the federal, state and local governments need to work in partnership with businesses to create a better environment for energy innovation to flourish. Energy intelligence means looking to where the country needs to be in 20 years, instead of focusing on the next election cycle.

Sounds good in principle, but what about in practice? Employing energy intelligence forces us to widen our gaze. When it comes to oil dependence, focusing solely on either the demand or supply side are both unrealistic, especially considering the wealth of options available to us to address both today. The energy intelligence strategy would include increasing vehicle efficiency by staying the course with the Administration’s fleet efficiency goals, diversifying our vehicle fleets to include natural gas trucks and buses and electric and hybrid passenger vehicles, responsibly tapping into natural gas deposits for domestic use, investing in advanced biofuels for civilian and military use, and investing in the infrastructure necessary to support these new technologies and resources.

Such an approach illustrates that our country desperately needs to set its sights on an energy future that is secure, clean and affordable. An advanced energy future achieves this by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, responsibly utilizing all resources at our disposal, and providing consumers and businesses with affordable options in the marketplace. While there remains the large political hurdle, the good news is that the public is well ahead of the politicians on this one. Recent polling shows that over 90% of voters overall believe that advanced energy technologies are important to America’s future. (For those with political feelers out there, this survey also looked specifically at a dozen swing states where that number was 89%.)

Achieving an advanced energy future requires us to recognize and pursue a pragmatic energy discussion today. The public is there. The technologies exist. The businesses are growing. But for some reason political will is lagging behind. Until we stop viewing energy in politically created silos, the intelligence of the plan will remain a secondary priority to political expediency. In that case, ‘energy independence’ will remain a hotly debated topic far into the future—and we subject Uncle Sam to another four decades on the tricycle.

Energy independence is neither elusive nor futuristic. A real and meaningful reduction in America’s dependence on foreign oil has already been realized in recent years thanks to ethanol. Ethanol is the only domestically produced, renewable alternative to imported oil available right here, right now.

Ethanol currently comprises 10% of the U.S. gasoline supply and is used coast to coast and border to border. In 2011, the use of 13.9 billion gallons of American ethanol reduced the need for the gasoline refined from 485 million barrels of imported oil. That is roughly equivalent to 13% of total U.S. crude oil imports, saving the American economy $49.7 billion.

Reducing oil import dependency has been a national security priority and policy objective since the 1970s. However, only since 2005, the year the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was first enacted, has the U.S. seen a reversal of the long-term trend of increasing oil import dependence. During this time frame, America’s oil demand has decreased and national oil import dependence has fallen from 60% to 45% in large part due to the increase in domestic ethanol production. In 2010, U.S. oil imports fell below 50% for the first time since 1997. Without ethanol, without the foundation of the RFS, our oil import dependence would have been 52% last year, instead of the actual 45%.

Maintaining critical policies like the RFS is essential to further increasing our national energy security. When fully implemented in 2022, the RFS will require the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel. That’s 860 million barrels of fuel, which is equivalent to more than 26% of our current oil imports. In other words, the amount of renewable fuel produced under the RFS in 2022 is enough to totally supplant the gasoline produced from crude oil imports from Iraq, Angola, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, Venezuela, and Nigeria. Solely because of the RFS, oil import dependence in 2022 can be reduced to approximately 35%.

The RFS is not only key to meeting energy independence goals; it is a driving force behind advancements in cellulosic ethanol. The advanced and cellulosic biofuels industry is now in the process of building new plants, innovating existing production facilities with emerging technologies, and introducing new product streams that will spur this country forward in domestic energy production. The policy certainty that the RFS provides will increase investments in companies like Mascoma which is producing cellulosic ethanol at a 300,000 gallon demonstration scale at its facility in Rome, New York and developing a 40 million gallon per year commercial scale project in Kinross, Michigan.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) recognizes the contribution ethanol has made to increasing national security stating, “increases in domestic biofuels production…played an important role in moderating import dependence.” EIA also says ethanol growth since 2005 is “…helping to displace traditional hydrocarbon fuels and so reducing petroleum import needs.”

America’s addiction to foreign oil has not only had a significant impact on our economy and our national security. Each barrel of petroleum imported to the United States not only costs billions of dollars; it also requires putting military lives in danger protecting the fuel supply and transporting it to the U.S. market. The only effective strategy for improving U.S. energy security is reducing the nation’s oil dependence.

Ethanol presents the U.S. with a critical opportunity to expand domestic energy production and reduce imports. The future of energy independence, and of our security both abroad and at home, is taking place right here, right now, every day, in ethanol plants across this great nation. The RFS is a proven success and the key to driving investment and innovation in advanced biofuels.

The United States can certainly achieve a much greater level of energy self-sufficiency within the decade, assuming federal and state governments pursue policies that safely expand production and encourage efficiency. The U.S. energy industry has advanced the technologies necessary to extract the unconventional resources that will guide our energy future for decades. However, this energy revolution could be derailed if public policy doesn’t encourage the continued safe and reliable development of our energy resources.

North American energy self-sufficiency denotes that our energy production will be on par with our energy demand or consumption. Given the supply and demand imbalance we have witnessed for decades, this will be a remarkable achievement. Getting there will require a continued increase in available supply from the United State and Canada as well as continuing conservation efforts to moderate demand. By increasing energy self-sufficiency, the United States not only ensures greater security in supply, creates American jobs, generates government revenues and stabilizes prices for consumers.

Based on assessments from respected experts, including the National Petroleum Council and Citi Group, the United States and Canada can significantly increase production of crude and natural gas liquids, rising from under 12 million barrels per day in 2011, to over 20 million barrels per day by 2020. At projected consumption levels, supply would be within a five percent margin of demand by the end of this decade.

Expanded energy production in the United States and Canada can create of over 1.4 million jobs and generate nearly $803 billion in government revenues by 2030. Consumers can expect to see stabilized, lower energy costs, leading to a reinvigorated manufacturing base and, in some cases, lower electricity and heating costs.

These benefits, however, will not be realized unless appropriate policies are enacted at the state and federal level. Principally, the federal government must support and adhere to a national energy policy that encourages the expansion of all forms of energy production and efficiency, and ensures regulations are sensible, scientifically based and consistent over the long term. The government should utilize interagency working groups and task forces to facilitate efficient cooperation and resources amongst agencies at the federal and state level. Furthermore, regulators must receive adequate funding and sufficient staff to execute its orders in an efficacious manner. Finally, the federal government should maintain reasonable fiscal terms for onshore and offshore energy production and avoid pursuing punitive tax measures.

Energy remains the lifeblood of the American economy. Oil and natural gas will be needed for the foreseeable future to fuel transportation, power our homes and businesses, and provide the building blocks for myriad consumer products. Stronger policies that encourage North American energy production are something both Democrats and Republicans should support. With them we can achieve the energy self-sufficiency that has eluded us for decades.

Fracking and horizontal drilling are game-changers for the production of domestic oil and gas. This fact, coupled with U.S. leadership in advanced nuclear technology, our abundant resources of coal, and innovation in energy efficiency, renewable technology and electric grid reliability offers a real opportunity for America’s energy security if not energy independence.

Getting there is hard and requires appropriate federal and state policies. Taking advantage of the opportunities not only could provide energy security but also the export of U.S. technologies to an international market that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and significant balance-of-trade benefits.

We are not yet energy independent, nor anywhere near it. Nor are we carrying out an energy policy that looks much beyond the short term, certainly not beyond the immediate price of natural gas. True energy independence for a nation that consumes one-fifth of the world’s energy may not be practical, but energy leadership is and that should be our goal. Leadership built on integrated state and federal policy, innovation, and regulatory efficiency will boost both energy efficiency/conservation and a smarter, more effective approach to production.

Energy policy is difficult – an oft-contentious process that must balance geographical realities and myriad interests. We pay serious attention to energy policy about once a decade – usually after some event has upset our comfortable standard of living. We can and must do better. Beginning with the start of the next Congress and either an Obama or Romney administration, the United States can and should pursue a bold and aggressive energy policy animated by a low-carbon, diversified portfolio of electricity generation, one that meets forecasted demand growth with technological innovation, reliability and environmental responsibility. It must realize additional gains from efficiency, demand site management and conservation while recognizing that an ever-growing thirst for electricity will require innovative sources of producing or capturing energy. It won’t be cheap, but it must continue to be affordable for all Americans – yet another challenge for what will be a $1.5 trillion investment in the electric sector alone.

History tells us that we must think long-term about our energy decisions. The pain we are feeling at the pump is a powerful reminder of our failure to do precisely that. The Energy Information Administration projects a 22-percent increase in electricity demand by 2030. To meet that challenge, and to do so reliably with a low-carbon profile, we must continue to build additional nuclear energy to partner with other low-carbon sources like wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower.

Various electricity sources have become popular at different times because of their perceived value at that time. As other energy commodities have fluctuated in price, the price of uranium has been consistently lower than other sources, including coal and natural gas. Nuclear energy has for many years been a wise investment in a forward-looking energy strategy, but there are real hurdles to adding large capital projects of any kind to the grid, particularly in deregulated markets. A strategy that will maintain America’s energy leadership must remove some of the barriers to domestic development even as we compete in global markets.

Moving forward, we should pursue an energy policy that balances our environmental goals and one that seeks to limit our exposure to imported sources. Innovation in natural gas extraction revolutionized that sector. Similarly, advanced reactor designs have the potential to transform the nuclear industry. Large advanced reactor designs, featuring redundant safety systems, are being built in Georgia and South Carolina and around the world. Looking to the future, the Obama administration is championing a public-private cost-share program to develop and commercialize more compact reactors. Think of SMRs as the “iPads” of the nuclear energy sector. In the years ahead, smaller-scale reactors could produce electricity for remote locations as well as purify or desalinate water, produce steam for manufacturing processes or produce synthetic liquid fuels.

In the coming decades, our nation will be challenged to simultaneously meet rising electricity demand and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. To meet this challenge, federal and state policy organizations and the American public agree that the nation must establish a comprehensive and sustainable national energy policy that supports the development of technology-based, low-carbon solutions. We owe it to future generations to begin that work in earnest now.

American energy independence is elusive, but may soon become impossible if the United States doesn’t adjust its policies toward coal.

If our nation wants to be self-reliant for its energy, then it must utilize the energy resources that exist here at home. From Wyoming to West Virginia, coal is one of our most abundant natural energy sources, and even gives us an advantage over other nations because we are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Both Democrats and Republicans acknowledged coal’s importance in their national platforms.

But acknowledging coal’s importance isn’t enough. The next president must support coal in a way that allows us to take advantage of our domestic energy resources and foster ways that seek to find the balance between affordable power and an improved environment. Unfortunately, in just three short years the United States has gone from a nation with energy policies that powered economic growth to one that stifles energy use through expensive and excessive regulations.

The EPA has released a series of heavy handed regulations aimed at the coal based electricity industry that amounts to nothing less than a war on coal. From Utility MACT to GHG rules to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the EPA is ignoring the data (even their own), overstepping their authority, and attacking coal in a way that fundamentally blocks our nation’s ability to achieve true energy independence. In short, the EPA is advancing a political agenda over an agenda that maximizes American energy.

By the EPA’s own data, we know that their rules will cost our country not millions – but billions of dollars – every year and cause our economy to hemorrhage jobs, from mining to manufacturing and everything in between. What’s worse is that these regulations are excessive. Just last week EPA released new data showing that power plant emissions have been dropping even without the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution rule. Manufacturers, union workers and Republican and Democratic Members of Congress agree: the EPA’s regulations on coal are bad for our fragile economy.

Coal-fueled power plants have already invested approximately $100 billion in technologies to reduce emissions and plan to invest even more by 2015. These investments have played a critical role in cutting emissions from three major air pollutants by almost 90 percent for each kilowatt-hour of electricity used by American homes, businesses, and factories.

What can we do to move us closer to energy independence? We can stop the politically motivated war on coal, ask the next president to support clean coal technology, and demand energy policies that recognize coal’s importance to achieving energy independence. The time is now for coal. The time is now for leadership.

What does “Energy Independence” mean? I think for many people, it represents freedom from the volatility and uncertainly of the global oil markets. Many people believe that if we just produced more fuel at home, we would pay less at the pump. Unfortunately, as a global commodity, there’s very little that can be done to make us independent from the marketplace.

I think what people really want is more control of our own destiny, with less reliance on other nations for our energy supply.

After all, in the simplest terms, to be independent of anything (or not reliant on anyone else), you need to be able produce more of it than you consume.

That used to be the case for petroleum in America, when after years of economic growth, expansion of a national highway system and growth in modern aviation, U.S. consumption exceeded production several decades ago.

Conversely, it still is the case for food in America today. We have a prolific ability to grow corn, wheat and other crops, we have become the breadbasket for the world.

The U.S. is not alone in its desire – or strategic need – to become energy independent. Every major nation with a huge population recognizes the need for creative solutions to energy supply, and the economic benefits they will receive if those solutions can be developed for export. This is the problem – and the incentive – for this country to develop new, and renewable sources of fuel that can be produced domestically (or anywhere else) in sustainable quantities.

We need it. Energy analysts at Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) identify an energy supply gap beginning around 2030 of about 35 million barrels per day - and that’s assuming we continue to use fossil fuels.

Whether it is for our energy independence or because of the inevitable rise in demand, we need brand new sources of fuel. The Federal Government has played a key role in the development of every national energy industry in our history and it can help accelerate the commercialization of the domestic, renewable fuels industry.

Here are four broad policy areas where Washington can have an impact:

Education. In the U.S., more than 200 companies are developing systems and technologies to produce low-carbon, renewable fuels from algae. Projects are underway and creating jobs in at least 44 of the 50 states. One of the biggest challenges is hiring qualified biologists, engineers and researchers with expertise in algae. I’d like to see the federal government dramatically increase Research & Development funding for universities and national labs.

Not only would this approach lead to the development and spin out of new technologies, it would help create a workforce with the skills needed by so many of today’s algae companies.

Stable, inclusive and predictable policy. There’s no doubt that policies, like the Renewable Fuel Standard, the previous ethanol tax credit and the annually-renewing biodiesel tax credit have accelerated the development of the biofuel industry, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and reducing our dependence on imported oil. Stable policies such as these send a strong signal to the private sector, which responds with investments. In our industry alone, more than $1 billion in private and public capital has flowed. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. Uncertainty surrounding policy can also have a chilling impact in the private markets.

Government as customer. The U.S. military is the single largest consumer of fuel in the United States. Given its role of ensuring the security of our nation, its reliance on imported oil is a strategic risk, not to mention that for each $1 increase in a barrel of crude, the military spends tens of millions. In 2008 alone, the military spending on fuel spiked more than $4 billion as crude oil hit $140 a barrel, an unplanned for expense

By enacting policies that would extend purchase agreement/contract timelines from the current 5 year maximum to up to 15 years, today’s biofuel companies could more easily obtain private sector funding for new production facilities enabling them to produce fuel at price parity with petroleum.

Innovation accommodation. There continues to be incredible innovation in the biofuels world, whether it’s Sapphire Energy’s massive algae production facility in Columbus, New Mexico, or developments in other technologies like the ability to produce fuel from garbage and other waste. We need to evolve our policies and standards to accommodate for innovation. The government should create policies that ultimately are technology neutral and outcome-based.

If we want independence (the ability to produce more than we consume, forever), we can’t rely on sources of energy derived from finite resources. In the case of the algae industry, our “wells” are aboveground, never need digging and never run dry. Supporting technologies such as these will help get us a long way towards independence.

“Energy independence” brings out the worst in American politics. Presidents since Nixon insincerely promised to achieve it, and then did nothing. The oil industry proclaims, falsely, that we can achieve it by giving them more subsidies and free rein to drill on public lands while polluting the air and water. “Free market” advocates like the CATO Institute correctly point out that oil prices are set at the global level, and that US production or import dependence has little to do with those prices – but conceal the reality that what does drive prices is the demand for oil, over which the US exercises real leverage.

But the worst habit of all is focusing on barrels of oil, not billions of dollars. In 2003 the US imported 9.1 mbd of oil a day – at a cost of $29/barrel. It 2011 we imported 3%, slightly less oil – only 8.9 mbd – but at an average price of $111/barrel. Were we making progress towards Energy Independence, as our oil imports bill soared from $96 billion to $360 billion?

Surely not. The difference between the two numbers, $264 billion, is two and a half times the full cost of the Bush tax cut. It would pay for almost half of the US military. It’s more than half the total US trade deficit. The increase in the cost of federal fuel purchases alone, $50 billion, would pay for the needed investments in the nation’s transportation infrastructure at the level sought by the Obama Administration.

The good news is that whether Obama or Romney is elected, the volume of oil the US imports is likely to decline – just keeping our present policies in place will cut imports to 7mbd by 2020, because of increased production of tight oil, ethanol and natural gas liquids and reduced demand from the Obama fuel efficiency standards. And once you allow for present imports from Canada and Mexico, imports from outside North America in 2020 will only be 3mbd.

The bad news is that, according to the Energy Information Agency, the likely price of oil will increase to $125 by 2020, so the US will be spending $319 billion – still three times as much as we were in 2003! And if the price increase to slightly more, $140, we would exporting as many dollars and jobs as we did in 2011.

What the American economy needs is cheap oil – and you can’t get it from the remote Arctic, ultra-deep off-shore or the Alberta tar sands, because those reserves will only come to market when the price of oil is well above $70.

Mitt Romney’s proposal – “North American energy independence” – relies on more US oil production – but also kills fuel efficiency standards. That backward step raises demand by 2.5 mbd, almost as much new US oil as he promises. Romney’s plan requires essentially the same level of imports as business as usual. He proposes to fill them from Canada – but the Keystone Pipeline he starts will actually decreases US access to Canadian oil, by permitting its export to Europe, and raises the price paid for Canadian oil by $20/barrel. So Romney’s plan would actually increase the cost of oil imports, since tar sands oil is the most expensive in the world to pump, and he gets rid of the current discount enjoyed in the Midwest to the benefit of oil companies, and the detriment of US drivers.

President Obama pledges to cut oil imports by half by 2020 – which requires him to find 2.5 mbd of additional domestic fuel sources – equivalent to another round of auto fuel efficiency standards. His firm plans to date – natural gas trucks -- won’t get him there – but at least he is not proposing to lock the price of gas in the US to the cost of pumping the tar sands – so he’s left himself a pathway to affordable oil, and genuine energy independence.

Children and politicians say the darndest things! Energy Independence has been a political slogan since 1973 and the history of efforts related to it demonstrate that policy based on slogans is not an effective approach to policy planning.

Since 1973, there have been at least 7 major energy policy initiatives based on illusions of scarcity, dangerous dependence, security, and environmental impacts. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted chasing policy objectives that were not based on sound economics, realistic technology expectations, or energy realities and on promoting technology forcing initiatives. The outcome from these efforts was waste, failure, and crony capitalism.

In an interconnected global economy pursuing independence for any good or resource will usually be a wrong headed wasteful exercise. For energy, our goal should be abundance, affordability, and increased security of supply.

Technology, private capital, and access to private lands are creating an era of energy abundance for North America. Imports from unstable regions of the world are declining and will continue to decline if policy initiatives embrace developing North American resources, positively and not reluctantly as now is the case with the federal government. A constructive energy policy would reverse past policies that have kept off shore opportunities, the coastal plain of Alaska, and the Eastern Gulf off limits. A self imposed embargo on developing our own resources while cursing the risks of imports is irrational and hypocritical. It would also help if unnecessary, counterproductive regulatory barriers were removed and leasing under the Five Year Leasing program accelerated.

The goal of North American independence is realistic with one important caveat. High prices have made the production of oil sands, shale gas and oil economic. If oil prices collapsed below $50 or $60 for a prolonged period, as they have done in the past, some exploration and production opportunities would no longer make economic sense. As has been documented, production alone is not sufficient. The infrastructure to move crude and natural gas from where it is produced to where it is refined and consumed is also an imperative. Moving ahead with Keystone XL is an important part of infrastructure enhancement.

Whether the next Congress and Administration pursues “independence” as a goal is less important than having an energy policy that reflects the important role that fossil energy will have for decades to come and finally recognizes that technology forcing industrial policy initiatives are totally wasteful. Subsidies and mandates for fossil alternatives which are no where near commercially viable should be replaced with a long term commitment to basic research which is the best route for making sure that the US remains the leader in technology development and innovation.

Abundant and affordable energy is an essential input to our economy. If we are going to return to growth levels of 3% or more on a sustained basis, we need an investment friendly business climate, private capital investments for productivity and innovation, and competitively priced energy.

"Energy independence” is impossible if it involves reliance on fossil fuels. This is so for many reasons, including: 1) there exists a finite and, in some instances, limited supply of fossil fuels (which themselves generally demand a more centralized and less independent distribution system than other sources of power); 2) the many multinational fossil fuel corporations operating in the U.S. will always want to export, and similarly import, a significant amount of fossil fuels for higher prices and greater short-term demand, irrespective of the energy independence cliché; 3) U.S. consumption patterns remain very high, making substantial imports highly probable well into the future; 4) greenhouse pollution created by the combustion of fossil fuels is precipitating the greatest environmental disaster in human history, creating considerable “anti-independence” cost externalities; and 5) the amount of political influence wielded by the fossil fuel industries is simply massive, made worse by the Citizen United decision, and this political influence could care less about energy independence as a substantive national objective. (And can you think of even one way in which John Boehner and Mitch McConnell disagree with the inside-the-beltway fossil fuel lobby?).

Thus, when you add in the historic folly of energy independence claims by previous U.S. politicians, it is hard not to conclude that calls for such independence are political rhetoric only, spurred by a handful of focus group exercises produced by high-priced lobbying/marketing firms. For Republicans, the term is now code for “drill everywhere.” For Democrats, it means “drill almost everywhere and talk about renewables with a few pilot projects.” There exist many so-called market mechanisms that could address the goal of energy independence: e.g., removal of colossal fossil fuel governmental subsidies, greenhouse tax and public dividends, common sense domestic regulation coupled with commensurate international trade reciprocities. None are really in play right now.

If we truly want energy independence, it will necessitate a transformation in how we view energy and, indeed, the notion of “economic growth” more generally. Given advancements in storage and transmission, solar and wind (with geo-thermal) are now technologically viable to replace a majority of our current fossil fuel use. Such a move toward solar and wind would necessitate changes in our infrastructure (think new jobs) and – this is perhaps the key issue – it would mean consciously tuning out the fossil fuel blow horn (and, no offense to some of my colleagues, this includes the puppet think tanks and media outlets) that would be predicting the end of the world if we wean ourselves off of coal, gas and oil. Renewable energy independence can be done. Are wishing that goal or wanting it? Talking about it or doing it? Helping our children or hurting them?

I know what the polar bears would say.

All the candidates are playing with energy statistics. In 2012, imports have dropped to 42 percent compared to 60 percent in 2008. So the US is at the oil goal already, so why is Obama claiming to get us there? EPA is ready to formally raise the CAFÉ standards from the current 34.5 mpg by 2016 to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The aim is to save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump, cut U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion metric tons over the course of the program which will further drive down oil imports. Romney’s plan strives to significantly reduce environmental reviews and barriers and drill “to the max”. That too will drive imports down, but not possible in his first (or second) four years to realize the potential -- oil sites take time to prepare, drilling takes time too. Oh yes, and oil is a global commodity, not just kept to the confines of US borders.