In remarks at the World Renewable Energy Forum in Denver yesterday, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu called on Congress to extend the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit (“48C”). At the same time, President Obama included the extension of 48C in his “to-do list” for Congress that he released yesterday.

Enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus bill), 48C provided a 30-percent manufacturing tax credit for qualified investments in advanced energy projects to support new, expanded or retrofitted domestic manufacturing facilities. The tax credit was spread among 183 manufacturing facilities across 43 states and, according to the White House, was matched by $5.4 billion in private-sector funding.

But the initial 48C tax credit was temporary and capped at $2.3 billion, limiting its overall impact. If the federal government is looking to do more to help move the nation into an era of sustained renewable energy usage and greater global competitiveness, why not make 48C permanent? And why not remove the cap?

This would free up and encourage the use of much needed capital for small and mid-sized manufacturers to quickly establish themselves and increase production and encourage sustainable job creation and economic development.

Some might look at a 30-percent tax credit as excessive. But for every $1 million in tax credits awarded, private industry would have to invest approximately $3.35 million in manufacturing. And the economic benefits would go beyond that initial investment. Appearing before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade in February of this year, Jay Timmons, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers, testified that “for every dollar that is invested in manufacturing, another $1.35 of spinoff activity occurs – the highest multiplier effect of any sector of the economy. For every manufacturing job that is created, up to three other jobs in other sectors of the economy are created as well.”

Secretary Chu concluded his remarks by saying that “when it comes to clean energy, our motto should be: Invented in America, made in America, and sold around the world.” Who can disagree? And extending and uncapping 48C will help make that a reality.

Opinions are those of the author. APCO has several clients in favor of 48C.

Earlier this year, we covered the release of Clean Edge’s Clean Energy Trends 2012 report, which included insights and forecasts for the U.S. clean tech and renewables industry.  One of the predictions we highlighted was the momentum behind energy efficiency, and the potential for the U.S. Department of Defense – as one of the world’s largest land owners and energy consumers– to make a significant dent in global energy use by adopting energy efficiency measures. Recent remarks by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta support this projection.

In a May 2 speech, Panetta became one of the first high-ranking U.S. officials to definitively link environmental, energy and security issues: “In the 21^st century, reality is that there are environmental threats that constitute threats to our national security.”  To help meet these challenges and ensure our nation’s energy and national security, the Defense Department will need to be more efficient, innovative and invest in the technologies of the future, Panetta said.

Panetta positioned the Pentagon as being poised to take a leading role in transforming the way the United States uses energy. While Panetta did not offer any new initiatives or policies, he did reinforce the billions of dollars the department is investing in:

• More efficient aircraft and aircraft engines
• Hybrid electric drives for ships
• Improved generators and micro-grids for combat bases
• Combat vehicle energy efficiency programs
• Military installations to test next-generation energy technology

He also referenced the Army, Navy and Air Force’s plan to add three gigawatts of renewable energy to military installations in the coming years – one of the largest commitments to clean energy in the nation’s history. Together, these initiatives are making “the country more secure and protecting our natural resources,” Panetta said.

In addition to climate change, he cited the need for the Defense Department to work to ensure that the country’s electric grid is protected from cyber-attack and that measures are in place to maintain power in the event such an attack or other significant interruption occurs.

Clearly, the commitment and necessary investments are in place for the U.S. military to be a leader and an innovator in energy efficiency and energy security. We’ll be watching to see if these investments bear fruit and, perhaps more importantly, if others in the public sector follow suit.

Elena Garcia is senior director, human resources North America, for APCO Worldwide.

I was recently speaking to a diverse group of students interested in careers in public relations. I asked for a show of hands to see how many have families that know about or encouraged them to pursue this field. Not one student raised a hand.

Like many minorities, I was encouraged to pursue a traditional career: law, medicine, education. I remember the bewildered look on my parents’ faces when I told them that I was going to major in personnel management and labor relations. They wanted to know how I would be able to support myself. And how would they explain this to my grandparents and other family members back home?

When I told them that I was going to work in the HR department at a PR firm, mom and dad actually asked me to reconsider and not take the job. They finally had an understanding of HR (“you hire people”), but public relations was a foreign concept and one that in their minds didn’t seem to be a very serious proposition.

We want to hire more diversity in the public relations field. We understand that a diversity of thought, of experiences and of ideas will provide our clients with the best results for their business and communication challenges. But there continues to be a lack of diversity in the available talent pool. As an industry and as a profession, we need to embrace people who will challenge our way of thinking and operating – and feel welcomed and supported in doing so. It isn’t about hiring a Latino to do Hispanic outreach. It is about hiring a Latino who can provide a different viewpoint about reaching a broader audience. Too often we make the mistake of trying to pigeonhole a minority into an ethnic practice.

We also need to do a much better job of educating students about the career opportunities in our industry. If PR is not even considered as an option, we aren’t going to resolve the diversity challenge. It is important that we reach out to students majoring in government, English, etc. Creating a university outreach program where we are speaking to Comms 101 students (a required course in most schools) is a great way to reach an audience that might not otherwise have considered this profession.

My parents aren’t around anymore, but if they were, I think they would be very proud that I chose to work in the PR industry…even if they still didn’t quite understand what we do.

Courtesy LOCOG

Sara Cruz is a senior director in APCO’s London office and has worked with a number of Olympic sponsors.

With just 78 days to go before the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, there is much debate in the communication world about how businesses can benefit from the “Olympic factor” to build brand recognition. For sponsors, the focus is on deriving the most value from the investment, and for companies that haven’t jumped on the sponsorship bandwagon, there is the question of whether there is still time to “ride the Olympic wave.”

Here in London, there seems to be an event on the topic happening every week, where we hear about the efforts of big consumer brands to activate their sponsor investment to promote brand awareness, undertake corporate positioning and elicit employee engagement, but relatively little is said about the work of B2B brands – how do they make the best of the Olympic platform as a profile-raising opportunity, and how is this immense consumer event relevant to them when consumers are not their principal audience?

Like all effective marketing communication investments, the first thing these brands should do is decide what they want to achieve and how they will practically go about it. How will sponsorship of the Olympic Games support wider business objectives? Then, in terms of execution, it’s important to remember the role of social media as a communication channel – London 2012 is after all the first truly “social Olympics,” and while for many sponsors traditional media continues to generate the lion’s share of exposure, there are real opportunities to engage with business audiences as well as consumers in cyberspace.

The potential of the Paralympics should also not be overlooked; this is still a relatively un-crowded space.

When formulating a sponsorship activation strategy, it is as vital for B2B brands as consumer brands to understand what can reasonably be expected from the Games as a sponsorship property. In fact, as this event is first and foremost a consumer marketing platform, it is probably even more vital for B2B organisations to have clear expectations regarding the possible return. One key consideration is the potential value of working together with other sponsors to make the Games a success. For example, if a company provided an important element for the Olympic Park, which helped to deliver a sustainable Games, by working together with the other parties involved, that could make a compelling story.

How do you measure the value of the sponsorship investment? Of course, there are ways to capture movements in brand metrics and awareness; it’s possible to gather data around employee engagement and the new contracts won or leads generated. Purchasing sponsorship rights should enable the rest of a marketing budget to work even harder because it is able to bathe in the “reflected glory” of an Olympic Games sponsorship. But in the final analysis, whatever instantaneous metrics are produced, the true value of the sponsorship may not become evident until long after the last winning athlete has collected his or her medal.

So what of those businesses who have yet to ride the Olympic wave? Well, although the clock is very much ticking, it may not be too late for businesses to familiarise themselves with rule 40 of the Olympic Charter and let that be their guide.

Look at the Olympic themes and values and think about how they can be applied to external and internal business priorities. Perhaps there is the opportunity to promote better health and a more sustainable approach among a workforce and customer base, or develop an initiative around striving for excellence and promoting the highest level of performance.

Ultimately, the fact that the Olympics is coming to London presents a unique experience for us in the UK and the world beyond. Think outside the box and push the boundaries in Olympic activation – both in terms of creativity and geography. Do something Olympic this year!

The defeat of Senator Richard Lugar  in Tuesday’s primary election epitomizes  what is wrong with Congress.  Sen. Lugar, a moderate-to-conservative Republican, is a man of thoughtful ideas, words and actions, who has worked tirelessly to better our nation and the world for future generations. He is also a man who is willing to listen to other points of view, embrace bipartisanship and, yes, compromise because he rightly acknowledges that no one has a monopoly on what is right and wrong.  I say that with the utmost respect, even though “compromise” has become a four-letter word to some, unfortunately. 

We teach our children to imitate the values that Sen. Lugar embodies – be patient, not reactive; listen to others and treat them how you would want to be treated; and work well with others. Yet on Tuesday, those who voted for Richard Mourdock backed a man who vocally and repeatedly made no bones about his complete unwillingness to work across the aisle. His words, in fact, were that there is “too much bipartisanship in Congress.”  I strongly disagree; his approach will only contribute to the Congressional gridlock that people in this country so rightfully despise.

America is still the shining city upon a hill. We are a nation of hard-working, caring individuals who value liberty, free enterprise and social justice. How we achieve and preserve these values has always been the subject of spirited and welcome debate in this country. Yet if we elect people to office who have only rigid and monopolizing views on these values and are not willing to listen to others, respect their point of view, and compromise, these values cannot be advanced and our country will not be well served. 

Dick Lugar understands this. Dick Lugar was and is an effective legislator. And that is why his defeat symbolizes what is and will be wrong with Congress. Voters chose a lecturer and ideologue over a legislator. 

We have witnessed a disturbing trend over the last several years on both sides of the aisle in sending people to Congress with rigid ideas, who are unwilling to listen and who reject moderation. The first wave included Republicans, but Democrats, too, are trending the same way. Just recently, moderate, bipartisan Democrats in Pennsylvania were defeated in their primary elections. People are fed up with Congress. They dislike the gridlock and partisanship that exists in this institution, but we are sending people there who will only make it worse. Dick Lugar’s defeat is the latest example.

If we, as Americans and as voters, keep nominating, rigid, uncompromising, partisan people to any office in our country, the institution of our government will continue to break down and all of us will suffer.

The beauty of the American constitution is that it is a pragmatic document created by a group of revolutionary compromisers. This pragmatic outlook, centered in making the system work to create that more perfect union underlay the growth and dynamism of the American commonwealth for centuries. It was true even during the administrations of such ideological presidents as Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Regan.

For most of our 200-plus years, governance trumped pure ideology. No longer, and Senator Richard Lugar is the latest victim of the ideological jihadists.

His defeat in Indiana yesterday is not only a loss for Indiana but for America. As a former mayor and as a six-term senator, he clearly saw the only way to create that more perfect union was to work with others who did not by virtue of party, of outlook, of geography or upbringing share one’s own world view. He instinctively knew that moving steadily toward goals that would benefit the greatest number of Americans was preferable to fighting for a crusade that benefitted a minority of the minority. Finding common ground was better than finding common enemies.

No politician so clearly reveals him or herself as when they make a concession speech. In the emotional tsunami that is an electoral defeat, all public patina fades away. The person is revealed. Senator Lugar’s speech [below] is not bitter. It is not vengeful. It is not small-minded. It is an evocation of an American view of public service quickly and perhaps forever being lost to us all. It is a shame that his greatness, which so contributed to America’s predominance in the 20th century, will be denied us in these early years of the 21st century.

Speech via WISHTV: