Clean Energy Financing: First Steps Towards Post-Partisan Effort

Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership.

Energy reform is headed quickly towards a hyper-partisan stalemate. As the Republican party takes control of the U.S. House, some advocates of a progressive energy agenda are calling for Congressional Democrats to regroup and “conduct guerrilla warfare” against the status quo. A consortium of climate scientists has recently rallied together to “to challenge disinformation and misinformation deployed in the policy wars over global warming.” All signs point to an intensifying battle between “climate hawks” and “climate zombies,” but little progress will be made if advocates continue to reinforce this hyper-partisan environment. Despite rampant cynicism, opportunities for bipartisanship exist, and the greatest potential for aisle-crossing probably lies in financing mechanisms for clean technology innovation.

Public funding and financing for technology-focused clean energy projects present unique political opportunities that other government efforts lack. Unlike pollution regulations and top-down industrial mandates, financing for business has long enjoyed broad support from both ends of the political spectrum. Various policy tools aimed at ramping up federal dollar flow towards clean energy projects include feed-in tariffs, loan guarantees, credit enhancement, direct grants and tax credits. Many of these policies carry the potential for bipartisan support in Congress.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) installed probably the greatest federal support for clean technology investment in history. However, as stimulus projects expire, clean technology innovation is approaching a funding cliff that will need to be replenished if Congress is serious about decarbonization. Hypothetical broad-based subsidies and renewable electricity standards will be insufficient in targeting the specific projects required for technological innovation. Vestigial targeting elements of the 2009 stimulus bill have received support from both sides of the aisle. Sec. 1603 of ARRA, for instance, has provided grants for specific clean energy projects in lieu of tax credits. Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) recently co-sponsored a bill (S. 3935) that would extend the tax code calibrations established by the stimulus act. The grants established by this legislation are diverse, but not broad; instead of blanketing industry with blank-check subsidies, they target projects in storage, solar, wind, fuel cell, and other clean energy technologies.

New programs based on tax credits and incentives could also attract Republican co-signers. Sander Levins, the Chairman of House Ways and Means, introduced alternative legislation to cap-and-trade that includes roughly $6.5 billion in tax credits for manufacturing of clean technologies, in addition to extending credits for other alternative fuels. Like S. 3935, Levin’s Domestic Manufacturing and Energy Jobs Act of 2010 would include extensions of stimulus programs, in this case Sec. 48C, another tax credit provision of ARRA. As Daniel J. Weiss reported recently, “the 48C programs is also included in S. 2857, co-sponsored by Bingaman, Hatch, Lugar, and Debbie Stabenow”--two Democrats and two Republicans. Unlike past efforts by Democrats like health care, in which they crafted legislation and then courted Republicans, programs like S. 3935 and S. 2857 can trace bipartisan support to their original authorship.

These initiatives are certainly smaller-scale than the original and subsequent drafts of the American Power Act, this summer’s climate/energy effort spearheaded by Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman. Despite its “tri-partisan” coalition of authors, APA was a stark demonstration of the political intractability of cap-and-trade. Even with a high-profile Republican working on the bill for six months and concessions by Democrats on nuclear and clean coal technology, conservatives in the Senate dropped the bill before picking it up. Instead of pursuing an agenda built around cap-and-trade with ornaments for conservatives, advocates must encourage their lawmakers to draft innovation-focused legislation from the ground up, with across-the-board political support for various traditionally conservative and progressive financing mechanisms.

Americans for Energy Leadership has already publicized an op-ed in Politico by Senators Stabenow (D-MI), Hagan (D-NH), and Udall (D-CO) calling for a new strategy on energy reform. Citing a report by Third Way, they note that “energy innovation is not a partisan issue--it’s an American imperative.” The path to a decarbonized economy cannot find success if either party adopts energy reform as a partisan agenda, used to re-elect their own members and wedge the ranks of the opposing party. Economic growth, energy security and the protection of our soliders are not partisan issues--they are core American goals.

On "Inception" and the climate bill

A tweet of mine from earlier today:

@atrembath: Starting to wonder if the #climate bill is in limbo within a dream within a dream... #Inception.

It was a joke, but the more I think about it, the more it makes a kind of vague, existential sense. Look at the many levels of climate/energy bills we've had in the past year (ignoring, for convenience's sake, the attempts made prior to them). We've gone from ACES to CLEAR to ACELA to KGL to K[G]L to APA, all which are some amalgam or response or "stone soup" of each other. Some have carbon pricing, some do not; some increase subsidies for fossil fuels, some eliminate them; some are politically feasible and at least decent policy constructions, others are not. At this point, it would be a circuitous and functionally pointless operation to trace back the current legislation to its counterparts in previous bills, drafts of bills, etc.

As in the film "Inception," the levels of climate/energy bills have pushed us deep into a strange, surreally litigious version of reality, and the hope is that whatever we construct in Congress so deep within the depths of the legislative process will make some kind of difference in the real world. This is especially true for cap-and-trade, the very definition of a "green dream," or carbon offsets, whose desired and planned effects - drafted deep in the layers of my shaky metaphor - will likely come up against bureaucratic and corporate nightmares in reality. Or, if the legislation has become so entangled in the deep layers of Congress that it becomes stuck in limbo, unable to free itself from a prison of its own making.

After seeing "Inception" last night, I told my friend that my own personal hell might be if my memory of the movie were erased and I was given all the pages of drafts of the script - out of order and unnumbered - and told to assemble them correctly. Ditto that for the climate legislation.

Energetics Cliff Notes - Tuesday Edition

• Kate Sheppard summarizes the last few weeks and the Administration's sluggish response to the oil spill.
• Senator Lindsay Graham criticizes the climate bill he had a heavy hand in creating.
• A recent poll shows deteriorating public support for offshore oil drilling.
• According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Western states could get 35% of their power from solar and wind technology within seven years.
• Michael Giberson discusses the smart grid and the advance of civilization.
• Current Cost, the largest global supplier of realtime power meters, is now compatible with Google PowerMeter.
• Jonathan Hiskes asks: In wake of Gulf spill, should this be the summer of energy reform?
• California Gubernatorial Candidate and current Attorney General Jerry Brown is demanding that the federal government not dismantle PACE, a financing program to reduce electricity use.
• Mother Jones calculates how many offshore wind turbines we could buy for the cost of one Deepwater Rig.
• Paul Krugman talks about regulation and comments lightly on bureaucratic responses to environmental disasters.

Energetics Cliff Notes - Tuesday Edition

• The Atlantic provides graphics that depict the frightening scale of the oil slick in the Gulf, courtesy of Google Earth.
• The California Public Utilities Commission has unveiled SASH, a program to help low-income households install solar systems to their rooftops.
• PG&E has acknowledged that thousands of its Smart Meters are providing inaccurate billing information.
• David Zetland at Aguanomics discusses the human right to water (spoiler: he's not a fan).
• The White House is cracking down on the Minerals Management Service, the government agency that was at least partly responsible for the Gulf Spill (industry capture!).
• The New York Times' Room for Debate is always illuminating, and this time they take on the Gulf Spill.
• Krugman lends his voice to the chorus on the Spill.
• Roger Pielke Jr. discusses the modus operandi of climate action in response to a letter from 255 scientists.
• Fred Palmer of Peabody Coal calls burning fossil fuels "the Lord's work."
• The House recently passed Home Star, a $6 billion rebate program for energy efficiency.

APA Summary

A 21-page summary of the American Power Act, with the full bill scheduled for release tomorrow and now lacking the outspoken support of Senator Lindsay Graham, has leaked online [pdf]. I've read it -- lots of words, few numbers. It places a good deal of legislative language behind CCS research and deployment, as well as nuclear power. If I had to guess, I'd say that the language on offshore oil exploration and drilling has been pulled back significantly. It does unfortunately preempt the states from engaging in cap-and-trade programs of their own design. Title IV defines and outlines a kind of green jobs strategy, and attention is paid to international climate-related activities.

Now, this is a climate and energy bill. At this point, judging from this admittedly rudimentary summary, I can't help but notice the language weighing heavily on the side of climate provisions. Much more is said about allowances, emissions audits and the dreaded carbon offsets than is spent strategizing a new energy infrastructure deployment, whether by clean or dirty tech. Climate advocates may be encouraged by the amount of legislation devoted to emissions reduction, but I'd consider that excitement premature if it does indeed arise. The language of the summary is spent on defining goals and aspirations more than mechanisms for accomplishment, and the architecture of the legislation seems fraught with opportunity for abusing loopholes. We'll see what the final bill enacts, but I'm not optimistic.

I'll be especially interested in the details of Section 1801:

Clean Energy Research and Development: Establishes a Clean Energy Technology Fund to support programs that enhance economic, energy, and environmental security of the U.S through the deployment of energy technologies and promotes U.S. leadership in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.

The Senate bill fiasco

I won't comment too heavily on the clusterfuck that the Senate negotiating process has become, except to say a few quick things. One, I don't believe Lindsey Graham was looking for a way out and picked this one -- that's a pretty cynical thing to assume, even when it comes to Senate Republicans. Two, this is what happens when you delay releasing a bill, even by just a few days. And three, I still have hope that an energy/climate bill will pass this year...although I'm not 100% sure I want it to.

Energetics Cliff Notes - Friday Edition

The week that was: Earth Day and the death of the linked fee.

• Bill McKibben talks about Eaarth, his conception of the new planet humans have created.
• A blogger at the Council on Foreign Relations performs an autopsy on the linked fee in KGL.
• What's it like to live without electricity? (via @BillGates.)
• A holistic and promising state climate-energy bill was killed yesterday in Wisconsin.
• 11 workers are still missing after an oil rig SANK yesterday in the Gulf of Mexico.
• Secretary Chu announced more than $200 million for solar and water power tech yesterday--glad to see someone in government approaching the energy quest as a technological problem.
• Accenture, a technology consultant, recently published the results of a survey of 9000 consumers on integrated grid management.
• Sen. Lamar Alexander's Earth Day post on nuclear power (via Energy Collective).
• The Energy Bulletin calls April a 'watershed month' for peak oil research.
• Vinod Khosla talks about his venture capital firm's work on energy and transportation technologies.

Lies, damn lies and the American Power Act

The American Power Act (aka KGL or "Keggles") is scheduled to be released on April 26. Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham have been working on it for some months now. The exact provisions of the bill will be revealed on that date, but that hasn't stopped the speculation from the media and early hints from the legislators, especially Kerry and Graham. In March, the three released an eight-page draft of the bill, which included language on a cap-and-trade scheme for utilities/manufacturing and a fuel carbon fee.

Of course, the inclusion of a cap-and-trade program didn't stop Lindsey Graham from pronouncing cap-and-trade "dead." Nor did the fuel carbon fee stop John Kerry from acting like there was never any talk of a gas tax. It's a pretty fascinating political strategy: write a law putting these carbon reduction programs into effect, and then deny everything when asked about it. Maybe the Democrats could have passed a single payer system for health insurance if they had simply called it the "Maintaining the Health Care Status Quo Act." Or maybe this strategy of misdirection (read: lies) will backfire, compelling the Senators to defend their bill against accusations of dishonesty and trickery.

Don't expect KGL on Earth Day

This is fairly fascinating. Lindsey Graham says that he and his Senate colleagues won't release the draft of their legislation on Earth Day because they don't want to send "mixed messages." "I'm all for protecting the Earth, but this is about energy independence," the South Carolina Republican said. It's an interesting addition to the narrative he seems to be building (in collaboration with John Kerry), downplaying the climate aspect of this bill in favor of its energy provisions.

The benefits of delay?

I'm really just brainstorming here, and though I surely don't want to wait any longer, I think it's worth pondering the potential benefits of delaying debate/passage of the climate/energy bill until next spring. Though I don't expect it to happen, based on a stronger push from the administration for passage, there are certainly political risks to going after KGL this summer:

1. Republicans are still bitter about health care and may be inclined to be even more obstructionist that they have been the last 15 months (if that is even possible).
2. Midterms are right around the corner, and it might be dangerous to turn this into a rush job.
3. Climate/energy is one of several items on the agenda for the summer, a crowded list that includes filling a seat on the Supreme Court, financial regulatory reform, immigration (?) and a jobs package.

Allowing congress to tackle climate/energy at the beginning of the 2011 session has potential, though certainly not guaranteed, solutions to these problems. After the new congress is sworn in, there will almost definitely be fewer Democrats in both houses. Let's talk about the Senate, since the House already passed their climate/energy legislation last summer. The good money has Democrats losing 3-7 seats in the Senate, bringing their total to 52-56 including Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with Dems. This will either a) make it virtually impossible to pass any legislation at all without a 60-vote supermajority or b) make it harder for Republicans to claim Democratic tyranny and force the other side of the aisle to come to the table. I've already said Republicans have good ideas to contribute on climate/energy - maybe this will give them an incentive to do so.

That might not matter as much, though, if Harry Reid comes through on his pledge to reform the Senate rules on the filibuster*. Such reform could feasibly occur at the beginning of the 112th Congress, when the Senate has the power to revisit its parliamentary rules without the 67 votes required while the Senate is in session. Again, this could yield at least two possible results. One, Republicans will cry foul and spew more "tyranny of the majority" nonsense. OR, two, they will adopt a more pragmatic attitude and come back to the table, in an ostensible attempt to contribute to legislation instead of pouting about the big bad Democrats.

I believe it's still possible that, with fewer Senate Dems and more time to calm down after health care, Republicans will make the multilateral decision to be legislators again. At the very least we can hope for some combination of Democrats + Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mike Castle and Lindsay Graham. Graham should be in the bag on climate/energy - he's writing the bill, after all - but to fill the deficit created by defectors like Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson, some bipartisan support will be required even with 59 seats. That might be easier to achieve in a new Congress, when tempers have settled, distracting elections are still a long ways away, and Republicans can't quite as easily frame the Democrats as political bullies. Additionally, President Obama may be able to make a more engaged contribution if his attention isn't as split as it certainly will be this summer. Time will tell.

_________________________

*That is, if Harry Reid is reelected.

Offshore royalities

From The Breakthrough Institute Blog:

What could have a significant impact on our energy security, however, would be to invest the hundreds of billions in potential federal revenues from oil and gas royalties to accelerate clean tech innovation and deployment, helping America develop the clean and affordable energy sources needed to truly diversify our energy mix and secure our freedom from oil.

The authors, Jesse Jenkins and Yael Borofsky, go on to point out that this strategy is suspiciously similar to a plan Republicans concocted last year. We'll have to wait and see how the Party of No reacts if Democrats include provisions like this in the Senate bill - this might just be one area of domestic policy where both parties have something substantive to contribute.

Energetics Cliff Notes: Friday Edition

The week that was: offshore drilling, CAFE standards, mountaintop removal. Looks like I started this blog just in time...

• In retrospect, this is the best political analysis of the administration's decision to lift the ban on offshore drilling [via the Daily Dish].
• Over at the Energy Collective, blogger Dave Rochlin explains why units matter, the magnitude of the CAFE standards decision, and the potential principal-agent complications of decreasing the cost of driving.
• Policy implications of the EPA's decision to scale back (NOT eliminate) MTR [.pdf].
• Climate skepticism is high and the shift to renewable energy is slow in the Arab world.
• A potential breakthrough in battery technology?
• Greenpeace's report on Koch Industries' funding of climate denial [.pdf].
• In the continuing saga of speculation on what the KGL bill will include, Grist breaks the story that tax revenues from a gasoline tax may "go towards tax credits and incentives for the budding US tar sands industry."
• Here's why Californians don't have to care about offshore drilling.
• The White House will buy the first 100 Chevy Volts to come off the line.
• Scientific American asks "what is the right price for carbon?"
• Finally, the energy implications of cloud computing (cool stuff).

Offshore drilling coverage roundup

Some big news last night: Obama announced his administration will lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, with various caveats. Some reactions:

• The New York Times: "The proposal is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation."
• Kate Shepherd: "It's an approach he's maintained as president, again calling for expanded drilling in his State of the Union address in January."
• Andy Revkin: "...Peter Maass, no friend of big oil, said here last year that it was more ethical to drill in United States waters than to continue to outsource our environmental problems."
• The New Republic: "Still, it seems bizarre to fork over this bargaining chip before the bill is even released. What kind of negotiating tactic is that?"
• Env-Econ (blog): "Thank goodness they aren't saying it will reduce prices."
• Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM): “I commend Secretary Salazar for proposing a plan that makes available for leasing much of the potential offshore oil and gas resources that the Federal government owns."
• Ed Markey (D-MA): "President Obama’s announcement today demonstrates his commitment to a comprehensive view of our energy policy."
• Mike Pence (R-IN): “The President’s announcement today is a smokescreen. It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan. "
• Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC): "...good first step, but there is more that must be done to make this proposal meaningful and the game-changer we want it to become."
• Scientific American (Sept. 2008): "Even by 2030, offshore drilling would not have a significant impact on oil prices, according to Martin, because oil prices are determined on the global market."
• Jesse Jenkins (July 2008) : "What we need is a new American energy agenda that secures our energy freedom."

Serious thoughts from serious people...perhaps with the exception of Mike Pence. I am personally torn between claims that offshore drilling will not result in nearly enough to move the US significantly towards energy independence; and the argument that, with out current domestic production of ~5M bbl/day and consumption of ~20M bbl/day, we are outsourcing environmental degradation and blessing countries hostile to the United States with $700 billion every year in revenues. More from Revkin's interview with Peter Maass, a journalist I take very seriously:

So let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that opening up ANWR and the coasts of Florida and California would be a big deal in terms of addressing the oil-supply problem we face. It’s useful, but a very small wedge. My main reasoning is that there’s no justification, other than selfishness, for tearing up the rest of the world’s habitats in our search for oil and gas while preserving our own.

In political terms, I am inclined to agree with Dave Roberts over at Grist, who tweeted this morning, "If I'm a Republican who wants offshore drilling but doesn't want a climate bill, what incentive do I have to change my position?" But I also try to stop short of making strong political calculations, since I remain convinced that the Obama administration is more familiar with its political realities than I am.

All in all, the looming increase in offshore oil exploration/extraction seems like a disappointing political necessity to me. Oil will remain a major part of our energy input for decades to come, and the less we fund autocrats in Nigeria, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the better. Keeping extraction royalties at home is another clear benefit. I only hope that Obama didn't give away the farm in negotiating an effective climate-energy bill, and that any increase in domestic oil revenues doesn't discourage our politicians from investing in the still much-needed renewables.

Update: Daily Kos has a substantively comprehensive (and pessimistic) take on the issue here.

Cap™

There have been many public eulogies for cap-and-trade (or cap™, my preferred moniker) lately, not least from optimist sources like the New York Times and people who really ought to know better like Sen. Lindsay Graham.

But here is what Robert Stavins has to say:

Although cap-and-trade has fallen dramatically in political favor in Washington as the US answer to climate change, this approach to reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions is by no means "dead."

The frequent pronouncements by the punditry and the politicians over the past year that health care reform was "dead" should indicate the potential credibility of similar claims for cap™. Without explicitly advocating for any of the cap™ programs currently on the block, I believe I can firmly agree with Mr. Stavins—cap-and-trade is not dead. It is curious, therefore, that Sen. Graham pronounced it so when his own bill contains a distinct, if marginal, cap™ program.

Indeed, other carbon trading programs are budding and flourishing elsewhere. In California, the emissions reduction law AB 32 contains a cap™ and is set to be phased in over the next several years. Efforts to repeal this landmark legislation are not seeing a great deal of success.

California is also, as of 2007, a member of the 11-member Western Climate Initiative, a regional carbon cap scheme that will regulate 90% of emissions by 2015.

Finally, the northeastern Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cover 10 states and proposes using a cap™ program to reduce utility emissions 10% by 2018.

So advocates of cap™ should have plenty to be happy about, in theory. But their battle is not yet won—not by a long shot. Sen. Bernie Sanders today wrote a letter to Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman, demanding that their bill not preempt these state and regional efforts to reduce emissions, a fate that could very well result from the passage of the KGL bill. Such a move would replace economy-wide cap™ programs with a scaled-down, sector-specific version. Setting aside the inherent weakness of the landmark regional efforts (carbon offsets, low carbon prices), cap™ advocates had better cross their fingers and hope that the WCI and RGGI are around long enough to do any good whatsoever.

Update: I can certainly imagine Sen. Graham's claim that cap-and-trade is "dead" could be a purely political move (i.e., call the cap™ program in KGL something else and hope no one notices). This could actually be a fairly effective strategy.

Energetics Cliff Notes

• DOE Under Secretary Kristina Johnson goes before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to lobby for RE-ENERYSE, Obama's budget proposal to increase funding for K-12 energy education.
• Over at Grist, David Roberts interviews Van Jones on green jobs and his highly publicized resignation last summer. (Part 2 here).
• Surprise, surprise: Carly FAILorina wants to scrap AB 32 altogether.
• A survey shows residents in North Carolina have no problem with wind farms off their coastal beaches.
• From the Asilomar conference on climate geoengineering earlier today: "We do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the risks associated with using climate intervention methods."
• Kate Shepherd gives us an update on the inside-baseball of KGL.
• For anyone who thinks that biodiversity protection is another crunchy-hippy-commie whine fest, check out this piece on coral reef extinction.

Clean Energy Bills

This morning, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. While I am cautiously ecstatic about its passage, my taxes don't pay my legislators to celebrate, but to legislate. So what's next? A couple climate and/or energy bills are on the docket. Let's take a look at them now.

• The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) - authored by Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-CO), passed the House last summer (just barely). The bill includes all the right working parts, IMO, but is lacking in magnitude; too many emissions permits would be given away to polluters and not nearly enough money invested in clean energy development (on the order of 15 to 20 times lower than what's necessary).
• Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) - authored by Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME), one of the many Senate bills that's stuck in the mud. We haven't heard too much about CLEAR in a while, but it's worth pointing out its more effective bureaucratic transparency and disowns the use of carbon indulgences offsets.
• The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA) - authored by John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), another Senate bill released last fall. Devotes a little too much revenue from the cap-and-trade scheme to deficit neutrality at the expense of clean energy investment.
• The "Kerry-Graham-Lieberman" Bill - authored by John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), this Senate bill has the benefit of being "tri-partisan" and adopts a more politically realistic approach to dirty energy provisions like coal and natural gas, along with support for nuclear. It compartmentalizes its carbon pricing scheme across industry borders. Once the CBO scores it (in the next month or two), we'll get a better idea of the energy efficiency and clean energy provisions in this more politically viable of bills.
• The American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA) - this "energy-only" bill, with no method to price carbon or reduce emissions, places more emphasis on energy efficiency programs and clean energy provisions...whose targets are less ambitious than business-as-usual projections.

None of these bills is an energy progressive's dream, and it has yet to be seen if any is even remotely politically feasible in the Senate. If Republican obstruction doesn't run on maximum, with support from Dems like Blanche Lincoln, then a bill with the following features might be both feasible and useful:

• A modest carbon pricing mechanism that can be improved in the future.
• Ambitious energy efficiency programs and renewable portfolio standards.
• Aggressive funding for clean energy research and development, on the order of at least $30 billion/yr.
• Provisions for nuclear, carbon capture/sequestration, and natural gas development--anyone who tells you we can move forward without these industries is optimistic to the point of delusion.

An "energy-only" bill may be more politically workable, but the carbon pricing system offers the most effective (and possibly transparent) revenue source. Carbon offsets are basically accounting tricks. Most importantly, from a policy standpoint, it doesn't do any good to punish consumers for using fossil fuels if the alternatives aren't economically feasible. The focus should be on making clean energy cheap. That's how America regains its economic and technological edge; that's how we clear the political hurdles in the Senate; and that's how we mitigate the climate problem.