President Obama has secured a second term, and with that, has been given a second chance to lead the way on climate change. Super Storm Sandy was the latest in a litany of extreme weather events fueled by our overheated planet that are causing large-scale loss of life, property, and livelihoods. We need action, and we need it now, for our environment, our health and our own well-being are what are at stake. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Wednesday that he hoped senators would work on climate change legislation. Speaker John Boehner told the president that the Republican majority in the House "stands ready to work" with him "to do what's best" for the country. We can only hope that these expressions of cooperation will extend to efforts to reduce emissions and tackle the impacts of climate change.

While we wait for leadership in Washington to take action on these critical issues, glaciers melt, extreme weather becomes more frequent, and wildlife, habitat, and ecosystems weaken. The loss of biodiversity in the United States is just one symptom of climate change, but it is tragic, and alarming: when ecosystems become less stable, our environment becomes more vulnerable to fires, drought, storms and flooding. As a result, our communities become more vulnerable too.

President Obama and Congress must move forward with legislation on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and establish new policies that help both people and wildlife prepare for and respond to our changing environment. Our wildlife, our communities, and our planet depend on it.

Many wise people, when asked to enlighten the rest of us about what to expect in the days and years ahead, tell us how hard it is to predict the future. Then then the same wise people move ahead confidently to tell us what to expect. With the election behind us and President Obama looking forward to his second term, here’s my view of his energy policy for the next four years:

As a candidate in 2008, in his first term and in the recent campaign, President Obama consistently referred to his “all of the above” energy policy. His long-term target was to cut foreign oil imports by one-third before 2020, and to increase reliance on domestic U.S resources, improve energy technology while moving away from fossil fuels and making strides to boost our economy.

From the start, President Obama, called for government investment in renewable “green” energy to drive our economic recovery while adding new jobs and conditioning an environment for economic prosperity. He stressed the need to end “subsidies” to the oil and natural gas industry and any similar tax“break” available to fossil fuel companies (ignoring the fact that those tax laws and provisions are available to every qualified American company). He said the $4.6 billion in new annual tax collections would fund investment in green companies to help halve unemployment in his first term. To that end, and to “even the playing field,” his Secretary of Energy stated publicly his hope that the price of gasoline would go to $10 per gallon; the President hoped similarly that regulation-driven costs would force coal companies and utilities out of business. Today, the price of gasoline is twice what it was (about $3.70) when President Obama took office ($1.89).

Of course, no elected official can impact the short-term price of gasoline, and both the President and the Secretary of Energy later disowned those statements (which are on the record). Democrats from energy-producing states and Republicans blocked the targeted tax changes, and during the campaign the President ordered EPA to hold up implementation of its Best Available Control Technology regulations, which could bankrupt coal-fired utilities and quadruple utility bills for all customers in Ohio, the vital swing state that would have been hit hardest by the increases.

Interestingly, much of Ohio’s below-average unemployment rate is due to the boom in natural gas “fracking” there, and President Obama did speak glowingly during the campaign about the number of new jobs created by U.S. oil and gas production. Oil production (on private lands and due largely to fracking) has been rising for the past 4 years and is at the highest levels in decades. Natural gas production is at its highest levels since the early 1970s, primarily due to the astounding new resources now recoverable through fracking and directional drilling.

The President has called for more domestic natural gas production, even as he cautions about possible dangers of fracking and despite the fact that his Administration has cancelled more public land lease sales than it has authorized over its four years. Further, the United States is importing less foreign oil – about one quarter less since 2007, due to efficiency gains in motor vehicles, more and more hybrid cars on the market, and more recently, the current state of the economy. The President claims that his policies are moving us toward his goals, although the movement has little or nothing to do with government policies or efforts.

As to investment in green companies, technologies and industries, the United States has laid out $90 billion in taxpayer funds in investments. The 5 million promised green jobs turned out to be a few thousand. Heavily subsidized green companies have gone bankrupt, or are worth cents on the dollar; most solar panels are imported from China; the wind industry is cutting jobs, and tidal energy; hydrogen-powered automobiles and other such hopes remain far in the future according to any realistic plan or forecast. However, all swear that all they need is more government subsidies, after even 30 years or more of such subsidies have done little good. One or more of those technologies will indeed work in the future, but today they cannot justify billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Those subsidies will not end; they will be funded from more and more parts of the federal budget -- if one is ever approved.

President Obama also rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline proposal to move Canadian tar-sands oil to through a new pipeline to Texas refineries, adding a major, secure source of oil and at least 6,000 high-paying construction jobs during the pipeline-laying phase. He said he would reconsider the decision, pending a revised plan or diminished domestic environmental concerns. The pipeline company has revised its plan; the outlook for less environmental outcry is slight. He will now have to decide early in his second term.

The gigantic increase in domestic oil and gas production, and the resultant sharp drop in natural gas prices signal the possibility of many U.S. companies finding it economic to open new manufacturing facilities, plants and businesses in this country. In addition, the coal-fired utility companies are already switching, due to the economics, to natural gas where that is feasible. Those things mean that more U.S. jobs may be created, if that investment is encouraged rather than threatened; a danger is that re-industrialization will alarm the same people who object to the Keystone XL Pipeline, the use of fossil fuels in general, and other less-than-perfect solutions to America’s problems. Those are a significant part of the Obama base, and while he will have, as he reminded the Russian Premier, “more flexibility” in his second term, he will still be mindful of his “Hope and Change” mantra and what it means to Utopians everywhere.

During his second term, coupled with efforts to encourage more renewable sources, clean coal, and nuclear power, President Obama could encourage more domestic shale/fracking production. He could abandon his proposals that target and will dramatically increase taxes on energy companies, and approve the Keystone XL Pipeline; these measures would move the economy in the right direction and improve unemployment. That’s the kind of “all of the above” energy policy we can all get behind.

For the past year, America has been bombarded with TV commercials, radio ads and countless mailings talking about the pros and cons of energy proposals put forth by President Obama and Governor Romney. Now that the election has finally been decided, one can only assume that President Obama will continue working toward his pledge to revolutionize the state of American energy.

As President Obama pursues his energy goals, the major energy and environmental issues that Washington must address must be balanced against other concerns that are equally important. First, any energy policy we pursue must take into account that the number one concern of this election and of the American people is getting the country back on track by growing the national economy and spurring job creation. We can only maintain a strong manufacturing sector, for example, with competitively priced energy and with policies that maintain reliable sources of baseload power. Second, the energy policy we must pursue must provide stable electricity prices for families. Right now, in places like Germany and the United Kingdom, families are paying a steep price for energy decisions that did not make consumers the top priority.

In the past four years, President Obama has promoted energy initiatives that sound attractive to the people of the United States, such as initiatives for decreasing mercury emissions and deploying more renewable technology. But below the surface, on a level where rhetoric meets reality, these initiatives endanger the reliable, inexpensive energy that fuels America’s economy. Utility MACT alone, an EPA rule that is a mercury regulation in name only, is already leading to the closure of coal-fired power capacity in states around the nation. This costs jobs, hurts reliability, and ultimately raises power costs. And while we should continue to support renewable power where it works best, it remains unclear whether the wind and solar industries can survive without aggressive taxpayer subsidies. Without some breakthrough in storage technology, those sources also are incapable of truly replacing fossil fuels.

The more sound approach is to use all of the options available to America’s power systems. It is time to make good on the president’s repeated message that he supports clean coal technology. If that is true, the president should order EPA to take a hard second look at regulations such as greenhouse gas rules and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that are jeopardizing America’s coal-fired power fleet and threatening to shelve our most abundant energy source. With Utility MACT alone requiring retrofits at forcing the early retirement of up to 15 gigawatts of generation capacity, costing energy customers up to $170 billion, and threatening more than one million U.S. jobs, any rule that portends further economic damage deserves close scrutiny. If the economy is to turn the corner, now is certainly not the time to hit the brakes with energy policies that choke growth.

Americans deserve a broad policy on energy and environmental issues that balances public health, the economy, and the reliability of our nation’s power. We can have all of that, but only if the president and the Congress work together in pursuit of real and sensible solutions.

Voters sent a clear message on Tuesday night: they want leaders to expand clean energy and address climate change. They returned a climate champion to the White House and overwhelmingly favored Congressional candidates who support more renewable power and stronger climate action.

This is victory for everyone who likes to breathe clean air and have a stable climate, and it is a resounding defeat for polluters and the dirty agenda they tried to sell to voters.

The fossil fuel industry went all in on this election. Oil, gas, and coal companies and their allies spent more than $270 million on campaign ads in just the last two months and yet most of their candidates lost up and down the ticket. Dirty energy companies spent $20 million to defeat Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), for instance, but he won anyway. He ran on his record of supporting renewable power and environmental protections and voters rewarded him for it.

Karl Rove and his Super PACs, meanwhile, spent an additional $320 million pushing a pro-polluter, anti-safeguard agenda, but the majority of his candidates failed to win. Instead, clean energy supporters won in Montana, Virginia, Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, and Wisconsin.

These Senators are now free to do the right thing on clean energy and clean air. They underwent a full-throttled, deep-pocketed attack from the right and survived. Why? Because voters did not take the side of polluters. They took the side of clean air, green jobs, a stable climate, and strong communities.

Lawmakers can honor voters’ preference right away by extending tax incentives for clean energy. Even if gridlock prevents bolder action in Congress, President Obama can use his executive authority to clean up our air right now. He has already cut carbon pollution from cars in half—a move that will save consumer $1.7 trillion at the pump<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/business/energy-environment/obama-unveils-tighter-fuel-efficiency-standards.html>—and create the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from new power plants. Now he must use that same authority to clean up existing power plants.

These are the kind of solutions that won in this election. Dirty energy lost—despite the hundreds of millions of dollars they spent—and now our elected officials should take our country forward.

The results of Tuesday’s election could indeed alter the course of certain energy policy issues, from natural gas exploration to oil drilling on federal lands to future support for renewable energy.

But support for the ultimate renewable – energy efficiency – isn’t likely to change as a result of the 2012 election or any election, for that matter.

Why?

For a simple and irrefutable reason: Energy efficiency not only means saving money, it means spurring jobs. Encouraging home- and business owners to invest in greater levels of insulation and other energy-saving measures is not a partisan enterprise. Advocating a stronger commitment to energy efficiency is not just bipartisan – it’s nonpartisan. Whether conservative, moderate, or liberal, Americans know that no matter how we get our energy, it’s a shame to waste it.

Champions of free enterprise recognize that energy efficiency is a major driver of economic growth. Every time a building gets retrofitted, contractors get hired, sparking a positive chain reaction that benefits the local, regional, and national business communities. Proponents of a strong national security see improved efficiency as a key to achieving energy independence.

Consumer advocates appreciate that energy efficiency lowers costly utility bills. And green exponents acknowledge it mitigates impacts on the environment.

That’s why legislation to promote energy efficiency always attracts a coalition of strange bedfellows. Yes, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers endorse prominent energy efficiency initiatives, but so, too, do the Green Builder Coalition and the Natural Resources Defense Council – and all kinds of enlightened organizations in between.

Even the retirement of two of Capitol Hill’s most effective advocates of common-sense energy policy – Senators Jeff Bingaman (R-NM) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) – won’t dilute efficiency’s support. Energy efficiency still has powerful congressional champions – from Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Rob Portman (R-OH), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), and others on the Senate side to a host of bipartisan supporters on the House side.

Now the challenge becomes transforming that deep support into an energy efficiency agenda in this fall’s lame duck session and the 113^th Congress that begins in January. This fall, Congress can act on a number of energy efficiency priorities, chief among them efforts to expand tax incentives that encourage home- and business owners to invest in greater levels of energy efficiency.

If Members of Congress are truly serious about wanting to put partisanship aside and work across the aisle on policies to promote economic growth and cost savings, then energy efficiency ought to be at the top of their list.

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

Precluding the emergence of bipartisan fervor in our nation’s capital, there’s relatively little that the next president will be able to change in energy policy. That’s not to say that the candidates aren’t deeply divided on several issues, or that energy voters cannot make a meaningful decision between the two. Throughout this election, Romney rejected the heavy-handed use of government subsidies to support emerging energy sources; Obama used his last term to implement programs and regulations to fast-track our economy away from fossil fuels. Nevertheless, the next president will have to face down a divided Congress more disposed toward logjam than constructive policy negotiation.

The good news is that a substantial portion of our energy sector can continue humming along without a concerted legislative effort or a new national energy plan. Technological developments have greatly expanded domestic production capabilities. Oil production has increased every year of Obama’s presidency – despite declines offshore – and is expected to continue increasing through 2020. Natural gas output is similarly expected to grow over the next decade, paving the way for the U.S. to be a net exporter by 2022. Renewable Portfolio Standards and similar energy production goals in 38 states have generated a thriving market for renewable and alternative power and conservation efforts, helping bolster these emerging industries as they find ways to bring costs down and become more economically competitive. These trends are quite promising, and can largely be tied to state policies outside the jurisdiction of the slow-footed federal government.

The next president will surely have the largest impact over the future of American energy through the federal regulatory process. Undoubtedly, this is a big election for coal. While President Obama has touted a $5 Billion investment in “clean coal,” his EPA has mounted a substantial regulatory effort to make coal more expensive to produce, place constraints on its use, and complicate the storage of resulting coal ash. The promise of greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act will make it all but impossible to build new coal facilities in the future. Crashing natural gas prices have certainly played a role in the declining profile of coal, contributing just 42% of our electricity in 2011, but this onslaught of regulations is accelerating its demise. Governor Romney’s energy plan places a heavy emphasis on coal; his administration would surely take steps to roll back regulations where possible to improve the fuel’s prospects. Anticipating a Romney victory and potential scenarios for growth, Market Vectors Coal ETF has increased 8.5% over the last month.

The coming debate over the fiscal cliff may be a second significant opportunity the next president has to suggest his vision for the future of American energy. This is an ideal opportunity to put all fuels on an even footing in tax and incentive treatment, reduce uncertainty in the energy sector, improve competition, and produce significant savings (in 2010, we spent $40 billion on energy-specific support). Unfortunately, government spending programs can be intractable, particularly programs that support politically important constituencies. The energy preferences of these candidates will be particularly potent in deciding how far we can go in rolling back expenditures in the energy sector. Certainly, Romney has indicated far more willingness to strip away subsidies across all fuel types. President Obama has expressed his interest in continuing both the Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit anticipated to cost nearly $14 Billion between 2012 and 2016.

I’m going to assume that some policies have a nearly certain outcome regardless of who takes the White House. First, Keystone XL will be approved – there’s no substantial argument against this critical pipeline. Second, economic cooperation among North American nations will increase oil & gas production. Taken together, these two eventualities will significantly alter the geopolitics of energy over the next two decades. Third, in the absence of bipartisan agreement, there will be no legislative effort to restrict the emission of greenhouse gases.

Tonight, Americans will decide between two candidates with significantly different visions for the future of the domestic energy industry. The winner is unlikely to change our energy landscape, but will hopefully be a wise steward of the regulatory juggernaut that can limit innovation, growth, and success.

During the late spring and summer, energy was a hot-button topic on the campaign trail. But with the subsequent drop in gasoline prices, energy moved to the back burner. Still, the new administration and Congress will have to deal with a number of critical energy-related issues in 2013.

For example, the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for the coal industry are estimated by the Manhattan Institute to cost the U.S. economy $700 billion. Does it make sense to go down this road when GHG emissions in the U.S. are lower today than they were 20 years ago, even though America is not a signatory to the Kyoto protocol? Other forthcoming EPA regulations, some of which were put on hold in the months leading up to the election, could cost the U.S. economy up to $11 billion a year.

Then there’s the issue of hydraulic fracturing in shale plays. Earlier this year, the EPA issued 588 pages of proposed new regulations to control alleged "air pollution" from natural gas wells. EPA's concern is that when fracking fluids are withdrawn from gas wells, some volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene rise to the surface. But a 2010 report from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality found only two cases out of 94 monitoring sites where VOC and methane levels exceeded state guidelines. EPA's imposition of additional monitoring and reporting requirements will simply drive up the cost of gas production with no significant health or environmental benefits.

At the same time, the Interior Department is considering new environmental and safety rules pursuant to hydraulic fracturing for natural gas on federal lands. Though only 25 to 30 percent of fracked wells are on federal lands, these rules also may become the template for fracking on private leases. The underlying rationale for these new regulations is to ensure that fracking doesn't contaminate groundwater or cause earthquakes. Specifically, Interior will require that drilling companies (a) disclose the names of all chemicals contained in fracking fluids, (b) set standards for well construction and wastewater treatment, and (c) request permission to frack with every permit application.

For more than 40 years, the individual states have had exclusive regulatory oversight of natural gas drilling, and hydraulic fracturing has been used in nearly 1 million wells across the U.S. Careful studies by the EPA and the Ground Water Protection Council haven't revealed a single case of groundwater contamination from shale gas drilling. Why, then, is another layer of regulatory oversight necessary?

Another energy issue likely to resurface next year is the export of American natural gas. Because of America’s large and growing reserves of natural gas, potential supply will exceed anticipated domestic demand for many years to come. Assuming federal and state permitting issues are not a hindrance, we can export a portion of our excess gas capacity in liquefied form to Asia and other regions of the world, creating thousands of new jobs in the process.

But some politicians and industries are opposed to LNG exports, arguing such exports will push up prices, reduce the competitiveness of U.S. business, and slow the transition away from dirty fuels. A number of environmental activists, such as the Sierra Club, are opposed to LNG exports because, they claim, the liquefaction process results in air and coastal water pollution while endangering wildlife. They also argue, with little basis in fact, that processing plants and LNG tankers are inherently unstable and prone to explosions. But their real objective is to prevent any undertaking that results in more global fossil fuel consumption.

America is an energy-rich nation and should stop behaving as though we’re energy-poor. Let’s hope the new administration and Congress don’t let partisan bickering get in the way of developing sound domestic and international energy policies.

The 2012 debate has largely come down to one question: Which candidate will get America back on the road to revival, create jobs, and grow our economy? The safe, job-creating development of America’s oil and natural gas resources is an important part of this answer.

Time and again, history has shown that America's economic strength and energy security are inextricably linked. By developing our vast domestic oil and natural gas resources, our nation has stimulated job growth, generated tens of millions in revenues, and shored up our national security. Yet duplicative regulations and burdensome taxation changes could stop this success in its track.

The current administration has rhetorically supported natural gas as an abundant and affordable energy source that will supply the United States for more than 100 years. Yet the energy policies the Obama administration has implemented over the past four years have placed America’s independent producers—which supply 54 percent of U.S. oil and 85 percent of U.S. natural gas—at risk. Despite a strong and successful history of state regulations, there are more than twelve federal agencies looking to regulate oil and natural gas development. A perfect example of a “Washington solution” in search of a problem, which will not help protect our environment but will threaten even more jobs.

The Obama administration has also called to end to the ‘subsidies’ oil and natural gas producers supposedly receive. In reality, American oil and natural gas producers do not receive a single dollar in taxpayer subsidies. Rather, these tax provisions-–including intangible drilling costs and percentage depletion—are critical to the operations of independent producers, who reinvest 150 percent of their cash flow into new energy projects.

From day one of campaign season, the importance of American energy development has been a key topic from debates to backyard rallies. Whether four more years or a new president-elect, IPAA is committed to working with our national leaders to ensure the continued safe development of America’s oil and natural gas reserves—jobs, revenues, and enhanced American security are too important to not get right. But without common sense regulatory and tax structures, independent producers cannot provide the energy our nation needs each and every day.

Energy and environmental issues such as global warming have been side issues during the campaign, and it’s not clear that the outcome of the election will bring them to the fore next year. Voters are focused on revitalizing the economy, but the election itself has hampered that in some cases.

Congress has deferred many policy decisions while waiting for the results of this election, and now the lame duck session faces a host of legislative issues. The fiscal cliff will likely dominate Congress’ attention for the final weeks of November and possibly December -- and U.S. businesses, investors and taxpayers will be left to hang fire. There are other key policy decisions to be made that won’t receive as much attention but that nonetheless have rural communities and renewable industries in limbo.

The Farm Bill is one of those decisions. The current bill has already expired and Congress ought to renew it before the session comes to an end. The Senate has passed a version that reduces the cost over the next five years but still contains important mandatory funds to create new renewable energy projects and markets in rural areas. The House Agriculture Committee has also passed a version of the bill, and that bipartisan effort should not go to waste. House approval of its bill will allow a conference committee to send an agreement to the President and avert the need for Congress to start from scratch next year – possibly with the same balance of power and personalities as this year.

If Congress takes quick decisive action before the end of the year, farmers and industries that are creating jobs and developing new products will have the assurance of policy stability necessary for their business decisions and investments.

Co-authored by ITIF Research Analyst Clifton Yin and Senior Analyst Matthew Stepp

The 2012 presidential election has been, in large part, a debate over semantics when it comes to energy policy, with the campaigns arguing over whether government “picks winners and losers” or who has a genuinely “all of the above” energy plan. But the relatively shallow debate belies the fact that U.S. clean energy policy is at an inflection point. After decades of boom-and-bust investments in clean energy, misguided flavor-of-the-day technology support (e.g. ethanol, hydrogen), and the recent emphasis on emphasizing support for current-generation renewable technologies, the next president must make a choice: business-as-usual or going all in on an aggressive clean energy innovation strategy. It’s a choice that will determine just how effectively America addresses (or doesn’t address) its climate and energy challenges.

For 40 years, U.S. clean energy policy has been implemented in starts and fits, littered with missteps. Since the peak of federal renewable energy investment in the 1970’s, America has invested a paltry $3 to $5 billion in energy innovation per year, which slowly spurred the development of the lion’s share of solar, wind, battery, and natural gas technologies used today. And for much of the last decade, culminating in 2009-10 Stimulus investments, U.S. energy policy has focused on deploying those existing energy technologies through a mixture of loan guarantees, mandates, subsidies, and tax credits.

To be sure, this policy emphasis has had an impact. Renewable energy has grown modestly, recently doubling from 3 percent to 6 percent market share in the last four years. And because of thirty years of consistent government support, abundant and cheap shale natural gas has quickly become the dominant fossil fuel source in the market.

Putting these successes into context though, this progress is nowhere near good enough to solve America’s climate and energy challenges. Natural gas is not a long-term solution to climate change. And much needed zero-carbon renewables are too expensive without subsidies and often times performance limited compared to fossil fuels. Renewables are simply not yet ready to move from niche markets to becoming the dominant – and transformative – energy alternative America requires. In short, 40 years of boom-and-bust investments in energy innovation hasn’t provided America all the energy technologies it needs.

Continuing deployment policies like subsidies and mandates, however, won’t get us much farther. Only an aggressive, targeted, and dedicated policy agenda to innovate the cheap clean energy technologies America needs and can afford, will provide step-change progress in solving climate change. Simply subsidizing today’s technologies isn’t enough. Neither is mandating their use. Nor is underinvesting in better technology development. Half-measures and fleeting government support won’t cut it.

To that end, there are several policy options that both a second-term President Obama and a first-term President Romney could conceivably embrace, with bipartisan support. For instance, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) has earned plaudits from both sides of the aisle for its high-risk clean energy investments. No matter who wins the election, dramatically increasing funding for ARPA-E is a must. In fact, in addition to ARPA-E, the next President must at least triple funding for clean energy innovation programs broadly and target institutions like the National Labs, Innovation Hubs, Department of Defense, National Science Foundation, and Office of Science.

The next President should also tie support for clean energy innovation to the fossil fuel industry. This could be done in a couple of different ways. As ITIF's Winning the Race 2012: Clean Energy Policy recommends, "similar to how the federal government supported breakthrough shale natural gas technologies through a surcharge on gas prices, the administration should increase royalties on onshore and offshore oil and gas drilling and use the additional revenue to support clean energy innovation." Another way is to implement a modest carbon tax and dedicate a portion of the revenues to clean energy innovation and the rest going to deficit reduction.

And last, reforming America’s energy innovation ecosystem is well overdue. The existing puzzle of National Labs, stove-piped research programs, siloed research funding, and poor support for commercializing lab research into market is more a product of the Cold War than it is a 21^st century engine of innovation. A cold, hard look at re-envisioning this ecosystem to maximize innovation and leverage U.S. research investments to their greatest benefit is vital.

There’s no beating around the bush. As I wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post, “American’s want policies that give them viable clean-energy choices to fight climate change without making it harder to pay the bills.” America is either going to develop cheap, high-performing zero-carbon energy technologies that everyone can afford or continue to hope that a mish-mash of declining clean energy subsidies and stagnant research budgets will cut it. Doing so requires a cohesive and aggressive strategy with innovation as its central goal – a goal that either Presidential candidate can support.

While political scientists may debate this election’s place in history, there is no question that this year’s election is significant for the future of coal. As a result, “coal voters” have been activated and will be an important presence not just in this election, but in elections to come.

These voters want lawmakers and whoever is serving as the next President to get serious about stopping the EPA’s attacks on American coal, and find energy solutions that include coal.

Over the past four years, the EPA has proposed one expensive regulation after another, with the intent of making it more difficult and expensive to utilize coal, one of our nation’s most abundant resources. This election will determine whether the EPA continues down that path, or whether we see policies that reflect coal’s importance to our economy.

Reports this week indicate that the EPA now has more than fifty workers crashing to finish new greenhouse gas emission standards that would make it all but impossible to build new coal-fueled power plants.

But not only is the EPA targeting future power plants, they’re actively working to shut down much of America’s existing coal capacity. Due in part to EPA regulations, more than 200 coal-based electric plants are scheduled to be shut down. This is the equivalent of shutting down the entire electricity supply of Ohio. The economic impacts of this would be enormous. Last month, an analysis by National Economic Research Associates found that seven of EPA’s proposed rules would reduce U.S. employment by 1.5 million jobs over the next four years.

EPA’s supporters argue that these new regulations are critical for improving air quality, but they won’t acknowledge the truth that emissions of major pollutants from coal-fueled power plants have declined by 85 percent over the past thirty years. But this EPA is not interested in working with the coal industry to make progress. They would rather work to shut it down, while ignoring the damaging consequences.

If the winner of the presidential election won’t take action to stop the EPA’s attacks on coal, then Congress will need to step up. Coal is not a partisan issue. Both Democrats and Republicans understand that closing coal plants will hurt communities and drive up what we pay for everything. A recent poll done for ACCCE found that by a margin of 2 to 1, people in Ohio, Virginia and Pennsylvania agreed that communities like theirs will be negatively impacted if coal plants close.

Soon, this election will be over and the work of governing must begin. Whoever wins this week, voters will expect them to take action to help their community and one of the best ways to do that will be by reigning in this EPA.

It's not accidental that Barack Obama's biggest source of campaign funding is Silicon Valley, nor that Mitt Romney's is fossil fuels. The Romney campaign supports tax subsidies for coal and oil as essential to energy security, and excoriates less expensive support for wind and solar as "picking winners and losers." The 2012 election cycle is, in truth entirely about picking winners and losers -- with the Republicans doubling down on the past, and attacking common sense environmental standards and reform as a "War on Coal." The future -- not regulatory cost or the deficit -- is what the GOP is trying to slow-down.

The exciting news is that wind passed coal as an employer some time ago -- long before any of the Obama EPA clean air regulations went into effect. It's exactly this growth of wind and solar that freaks out Romney's donors like the Koch Brothers -- not clean air regulations which were, let us remember, first proposed by George W. Bush when he ran for President.

Did you know that it is in Republican states like Iowa, Texas and Arizona that wind and solar are making their biggest market inroads? And you've heard a lot about the losses when Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer, went bankrupt. But the just completed and immediately shuttered Great River Energy coal fired plant cost the public $437 million -- about as much as Solyndra -- yet you've never heard of it!

This year's environmental and energy debate is not really about clean vs. dirty or cheap vs. expensive. It's about innovators vs. incumbents the future vs the past, an economy that competes vs. an economty that stagnates.

And as usual, the insiders are spending the big bucks -- let's hope it doesn't work.

Last week we learned that 75% of likely voters believe energy policy is an important policy priority in tomorrow’s election. This news shouldn’t come as a surprise: Gasoline prices continue to set record highs and families across the East Coast are bearing the hardship of life without electricity in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Regardless of whether Governor Romney or President Obama wins tomorrow, our next president must confront some critical challenges facing American energy consumers.

The single most-pressing energy issue will be access to affordable energy, furthered by an improved U.S. energy policy and a strong path toward energy self-sufficiency. Affordable energy is the nexus for economic growth and job creation, fueling every sector of the U.S. economy. However, skyrocketing energy costs have the capacity to severely harm our economy. For our transportation sector, even modest increases in the price of fuel can lead to significant losses. For the truckers, a one-cent increase in the average price of diesel costs the industry an additional $350 million a year, and for our airlines, a similar rise in the cost of jet fuel costs $175 million annually. Some of these costs must be absorbed by the industry, oftentimes forcing carriers to cut back on hiring or expansion. The remainder of the expense must be passed along to the consumer in the form of a pricier airline ticket or a more costly gallon of milk.

The presidential candidates have offered very different approaches to combatting high energy prices. President Obama seeks to lower demand for oil use by increasing the amount of alternative fuels and raising fuel economy standards. This demand-side approach is supported by federal incentive programs – loan guarantees, tax credits, research grants, and the federal Renewable Fuel Standard – that aim to reduce oil consumption, grow the availability of renewable energy, and lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, the President has finalized new corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards that will require automakers to increase the average fuel efficiency of cars and light-duty trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

Governor Romney, conversely, has stated that he will unleash domestic energy production in order to lower energy costs and grow the economy. Much of his supply-side approach centers on prohibiting new regulations on energy production, removing duplicative regulations, and transferring much of the authority over domestic energy production to state governments. Furthermore, Governor Romney strongly supports increased production and utilization of domestic coal and has pledged to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

Whether it is an Obama or a Romney Administration, the next president will need to demonstrate strong bipartisan leadership to ensure a balanced energy policy for American consumers. If President Obama were re-elected and were to continue his policies to increase renewable energy and energy efficiency, he must ensure these technologies and supplies are affordable and efficacious for the average consumer. If Governor Romney were elected, he must ensure his policies to increase domestic production of oil, natural gas and coal are pursued with sound regulatory oversight. Principally, if a Romney Administration were to transfer most of the authority over energy production to state governments, states must be provided with adequate funding to carry out their regulatory duties and ensure safe energy development.

As demonstrated in Consumer Energy Alliance’s North America’s New Energy Future report, North America can become energy self-sufficient within the next decade with a combination of both candidates’ proposals. Through increased energy production of oil and natural gas combined with greater measures to utilize renewable energy and energy-efficiency practices, the United States can lower its level of overseas imports to fewer than 5 to 10 percent of demand. Greater energy self-sufficiency will not only usher in stronger supply security and more stable prices, but will also create hundreds of thousands of American jobs and generate billions in government revenue. Moreover, voters should be buoyed by the knowledge that America has some of the strongest environmental protections of any nation. This will continue, regardless of who is in the White House.

Tuesday’s election will be the most significant in generations. The differences in the philosophy of the two candidates, how they approach public policy issues, and their views on the role of government could not be more different. We are at a major crossroads. We know based on the past four years where one road will take us and we have to rely on speeches and policy papers to judge where the other will take us. In simple terms, the choices are between an outcomes oriented society and an opportunity society.

If the next President and next Congress do not seriously confront our deficit and debt problems, including entitlements, it will not matter much what energy and environmental policies are promoted. We will be traveling down the road of bankrupt European economies. The next President and Members of Congress should take to heart the admonition of Abraham Lincoln: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew”

It should be clear that energy and economic growth are tightly linked and that abundant and affordable energy is essential to stimulate greater growth. Based on the past four years, it is doubtful that energy will be more affordable under a second Obama term. While federal offshore leases have returned to their pre-2010 spill levels, there remains great uncertainty about what policy positions will prevail post November 6 and how they will impact production and cost. The US is rich in oil and gas resources. If we give a higher priority to their development, imports will continue to go down and investments in good paying jobs will go up.

As the composition of our economy continues to change, the importance of electrical power generation and its reliability will become even more important. A policy that promotes but does not dictate greater use of natural gas is imperative.

The Keystone pipeline will almost certainly be approved as will oil and gas development on private lands. What is less certain is the regulatory burdens that will be imposed on them. A continuation of the Lisa Jackson approach at the EPA guarantees that costly burdens will be imposed on “fracking,”perhaps the actual construction of the pipeline, and other industrial activities involving fossil energy. If the EPA moves forward with it proposed reduction in the ozone NAAQS most of the nation will be in a state of non-attainment and that will impose costs on construction and business operations. Our economic wellbeing cannot afford four more years of zealotry driven regulation.

A Jackson EPA will continue to use regulation to suppress greenhouse gas emissions and that impacts fossil energy use even though CO2 emissions are declining and will not according to EIA return to their 1990 level until around 2035.

The Supreme Court decision notwithstanding, the decision on what emissions are covered by the Clean Air Act is the responsibility of Congress. Unless control of the Senate changes and bi-partisanship re-emerges, climate policy will continue to be made by unelected zealots.

If Governor Romney wins the White House and the republicans take over the Senate, changes in energy and environmental policy will be governed by the President’s ability to achieve a greater degree of bi-partisanship. That will prove difficult if the democrats refuse to search for common ground. Change in Senate control does not mean a change from gridlock.

There is no basis in history to expect a dramatic roll back in regulations. Some bottled up regulations might not go forward and the most extreme ones like the Utility MACT could be subject to serious revision. What is needed more than anything is a new regulatory model that places more emphasis on high quality data, comparative risk and cost-benefit analysis, Congressional oversight, and a “look back” process. Over the past 30, the Code of Federal Regulations has grown from 100,000 pages to 163,000. Can anyone really with a straight face make the case that we have 63% more problems requiring federal controls?

The time has come to replace images with realities so that we can think anew and act anew.

The campaign trail is a strange creature. Very rarely do the candidates, the public, or the pundits alone control what issues define a race. Instead, it’s an imprecise meld in which the biggest shared concerns rise to the top. Often other important discussions get overshadowed, but the process does have a way of sifting out what is weighing most on voters’ minds.

This year it couldn’t be clearer that Americans are focused squarely on one thing: revitalizing our economy. In July,a Gallup poll found more than nine out of 10 respondents thought the next president should make job creation his top priority. By comparison, only about half of those surveyed thought environmental issues should take precedence, ranking it second-to-last among voters’ concerns.

That’s not to say environmental issues should be put out of sight and out of mind. But when hardworking men and women are struggling to find work, often for months on end, and families are scraping together to make ends meet, other issues pale in comparison. Sadly, many of the biggest barriers in the way of job creation today are actually being put there by Washington.

Uncertainty created by a backlog of federal regulations and by the threat of even greater tax burdens that could be unleashed by going over the fiscal cliff is causing businesses to stall their plans to invest and hire. According to astudy by JP Morgan, more than 60 percent of its clients’ plans have been affected by concerns about the fiscal cliff, anda study earlier this year found 85 of small businesses weren’t hiring, about half of which cited government regulations as the biggest reason why.

On Friday, the Labor Department’s latest jobs report showed some signs of life. The economy added 171,000 jobs, which exceeded the expected 125,000. But even that wasn’t enough to keep unemployment from rising. To put the economy a path of long-term sustainable growth, we need to create a business environment in which innovation and growth can flourish.

As the Chairwoman of Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations, a coalition created by the NFIB last year, I speak with business owners all the time. What I hear is that too often they feel like they are the enemy, not a partner in the fight to protect the environment and our communities. Federal regulators should work with the private sector to create rules that help both sides operate more effectively, cut out inefficiency and redundancy, and better enforce the rules already on the books. And lawmakers should simplify the tax code to create a level playing field, instead of using it to play favorites in the marketplace.

In office, President Obama has laid out bold plans to protect the environment and harness our energy resources. Unfortunately, until we get the economy back on track, it will be tough to put those objectives at the top of the public’s radar. The economy is the starting point. We need to get create a business climate that is conducive to growth and innovation so we can start moving forward on other important issues across the board.

The differences between the two presidential candidates -- and how they’d impact Silicon Valley in the next four years -- couldn’t be starker. One candidate wants to stick with an energy plan dependent heavily on fossil fuels, an old and dirty industry that will only take us backward instead of forward in terms of healthier air, cleaner water and more a renewable and sustainable energy mix. This is not conjecture. Mitt Romney has explicitly committed to doing so.

The other candidate — and this is where Silicon Valley’s innovation and entrepreneurship comes in -- is keen on clean energy and has vowed to make it America’s bread and butter, which is exactly what it should be given America’s ample wind and solar generative capacities. Already investing heavily in renewables, President Barack Obama “gets” what the future of energy should be and wants America to be globally competitive in solar, wind, biomass, among others. There is money to be made here and unless we keep pace, we will be outcompeted by international innovators, from the European Union to Asia.

This is an incredible opportunity to transform Silicon Valley, my district and the epicenter of high tech in America, and make it this country’s foremost green tech valley. Beyond what the federal government can and must do to stimulate research and development, incentivize wind and solar through tax credits, and ensure that renewable energy can compete against fossil fuels that have been subsidized for a century, we must train America’s future workforce for greener, high tech pastures. That means America must invest in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) to stay competitive in the 21st century.

President Obama is working hard to make this happen, which is why, this summer, he announced plans to develop a STEM Teaching Corps comprised of 10,000 new teachers. He is a leader who sees what the future holds and is positioning America appropriately.

As an educator for over 30 years, I know what’s needed on the front lines of science and tech curriculum and that we have done too little as a nation over the past several decades to stay competitive in science and math (among other subjects). We cannot continue to rank near the bottom in science and math in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development’s Programme on International Student Assessment, which evaluates student performance in 34 of the world’s richest countries. Continuing to do so will spell doom for our economic competitiveness and our capacity to keep a well-trained workforce on our shores.

The marketplace of ideas and innovation will be dominated by countries who are aggressively investing in the STEM workforce of tomorrow. Obama and I, both, want America to do more, but we have been blocked by Republicans in Congress who want to cut education funding on these fronts. In fact, for Romney to bring on my colleague on the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, as his vice-presidential nominee, shows how uncommitted he is on educating America’s workforce. Ryan’s budget, for example, pledges to cut education by 45 percent. Under a Romney-Ryan plan, that means that the workforce of tomorrow must make do with nearly half the federal funding that we currently devote to education. Those low OECD PISA scores on science and math, then, will only get worse if we continue to whittle away monies for STEM.

Ensuring a robust STEM plan for America, however, will require more than what the federal funds can provide. We need the private sector’s help too. This is where the private sector of Silicon Valley comes in. My STEM Network Act, for example, builds upon Silicon Valley’s reputation for collaboration by providing much needed resources for public-private partnerships and state and local collaborations, in order to provide these opportunities: delivering the most effective curriculum tools for learning STEM; helping train even higher qualified STEM teachers; exposing students to what science, technology, engineering, and math careers are really like; and making the STEM education experience a high quality use of the only currency students have, their time.

For our nation to remain a leader in scientific advancement, training a dynamic competitive workforce, and bolster America’s position as a global leader in technological innovation, this is what must be done and what one candidate -- Barack Obama -- clearly understands. Silicon Valley, the choice is clear in terms of candidates who will keep us at the forefront of all things tech. A greener, more sustainable valley is possible, but only with the right man in office.

The 2012 election will hopefully bring to a close an embarrassing chapter in U.S. history—when politicians in Washington vilified an industry that employs millions of Americans, attracts billions of private sector investment, and is helping to bring America back from near economic collapse. Clean energy has grown remarkably in the 21st Century, from a nascent sector to an increasingly mature industry that powers America with clean, affordable energy.

It is undeniable that clean, renewable energy is an engine of economic growth. The Solar Foundation reported last week that, from September 2011 to September 2012, employment in America's solar industry grew 13.2%--by comparison, employment in the overall economy grew 2.3%, and employment in the fossil fuel electricity generation sector fell 3.77%.

Innovation and cost savings are at the heart of clean energy industry’s success. A recent study by Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that the cost of operating wind farms fell 38% in the past four years, “boosting the sector’s competitiveness significantly.” McKinsey & Company also found recently that solar costs fell 75% in the past four years, from $4/watt to $1/watt. As a result, solar installers are hiring across the US, and more homes and businesses have solar panels than ever before. And Automobile Magazine just named the all-electric Tesla S as its Automobile of the Year.

This is not the prevailing perception of the clean energy industry. The few bankruptcies in the sector -- less than one percent of companies that received stimulus funds have failed, according to an Energy Guardian analysis -- have received tremendous publicity from opponents of clean energy, but they do not tell the real story. The politics of the 2012 election only amplified these misperceptions, often due to politicians seeking to use the industry's growing pains for political gain.

Now that the 2012 election has drawn to a close, it is time to leave the politics behind and get back to the business of clean energy. Congress’ upcoming Lame Duck session and the 113th Congress will be critical to the long-term success of the industry. The production tax credit is essential for creating a level playing field for energy technologies. It is vital that the outcome of the so-called “fiscal cliff” take into account the benefits of clean energy to the health of America’s economy. And as Congress and the next President consider tax reform in 2013, the clean energy industry is ready to have an honest conversation about federal energy tax treatment, both our own and those benefiting other industries.

We look forward to working with politicians across the political spectrum to continue building upon the success of our industry. But most importantly, we hope that our national conversation on energy can return to a focus on reality.