Energy For Change

	Daniel Seligman November 15, 2006
	Daniel Seligman is national campaign director of the Apollo Alliance. The political pundits who quickly pronounced last week's election a rebuke to the White House rather than a mandate for positive change missed a larger point. Across the political spectrum, winning candidates elevated the issue of energy independence to the small handful of top-tier issues. Together, their statements and positions show a convergence behind an ambitious new policy agenda reaching across partisan and ideological divides. The new Democratic leadership should seize the opportunity to drive a bold energy program that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil and develop homegrown renewable power while enhancing our security, creating good jobs and protecting our environment. As reflected in spending on TV ads, candidates across the spectrum recognized the power of the energy independence message. In 10 races analyzed by the Campaign for America’s Future, candidates and their allies spent roughly half as much touting their ideas on renewable energy ($15 million) as they did on issues related to the Iraq war ($32 million), the election’s top issue. That’s a respectable figure, especially considering that energy barely registered in the 2004 elections. The tenor of TV ads and campaign statements across the country shows Congress moved decisively from the right to the responsible center on the issue of clean energy independence. It is hardly a surprise that Ted Strickland, the successful Democratic candidate for governor in Ohio, ran ads stating, “One of the most exiting parts of our [jobs] initiative involves the expanded use of renewable and alternative energies.” After all, Strickland scored a solid 67 on a clean energy scorecard compiled by the Campaign for America’s Future. It is far more surprising that the Chamber of Commerce ran ads on behalf of beleaguered Republican congressional leader Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, touting her support for alternative energy and conservation. Pryce’s web site even went to the trouble of explaining her vote for the Energy Policy Act of 2005, largely a grab bag of subsidies for the oil, coal, and gas industries, as a vote for “renewable fuels, hydrogen research and development and alternative fuel fleet requirements.” Pryce’s tone was especially striking in light of her 0 percent clean energy voting record, as compiled by the Campaign for America’s Future. Pryce eked out a surprise victory, perhaps owing to her newfound moderation on energy. The new centrism on energy is not, however, a mandate for the kind of micro-policies that become a staple of Bill Clinton’s second term. (Remember the V-chip?) Recently, The New York Times held up Heath Shuler, the successful Democratic candidate for North Carolina’s 11th congressional district, as emblematic of a new breed of centrist Democrats. However moderate Shuler might be, there is nothing modest about his energy plans. Instead, his web site outlines a comprehensive strategy on renewable energy, bio-fuels, conservation and efficient vehicles. Given the prominence of clean energy issues in the last elections, Democratic leaders should think big. A Clean and Renewable Energy Independence Act of 2006 could combine several major elements in a single package. Doing so would ensure our new energy policy both spreads the risks of developing a new energy future more fairly and shares the benefits more widely. For instance, the oil savings title of the new energy act should set a mandatory goal to sharply reduce oil imports 40 percent over the next 20 years while providing incentives to deploy energy efficient cellulosic ethanol in the market. So doing, the bill would share the challenge of meeting the goal between farmers and automakers. At the same time, there should be no free ride. The bill could throw a lifeline to the Big Three in the form of loan guarantees to help retool production lines, but only on condition that the automakers manufacture cars and trucks with highly efficient gas/ethanol/electric hybrid drive trains. Likewise, the renewable energy chapter of the legislation could mandate that the nation derive 20 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2025. But it could also create a Clean Energy Investment Authority to provide loan guarantees necessary to develop manufacturing of renewable power technologies such as wind turbines and towers. The effect could be to help states with idle factories but few wind resources, sharing the benefits of a new clean energy economy more widely. The mandate from these elections was clear: Clean energy, good jobs, a more secure future. There will never be a better opportunity to think big and act boldly.