Back in 2004, former Xcel Energy Chairman and Chief Executive Wayne H. Brunetti made this famous plea as political leaders contemplated carbon emission limits and other policies to fight global warming:

"Give us a date, tell us how much we need to cut, give us the flexibility to meet the goals, and we'll get it done."

Five years later, policymakers still haven't set the rules Brunetti sought to unleash American industrial innovation-- the force that can transform the nation into one powered by clean, renewable fuels. The indecision isn't good for the planet or businesses. Passing strong energy and climate legislation -- in particular, finally setting a price on carbon -- must be a top congressional priority in 2010.

The economic and security advantages of doing so are just as compelling as the science. The United States consumes about 25 percent of the world's annual oil production, yet has just 3 percent of its proven reserves. Consumers and industry will face higher energy prices as developing nations compete with us for dwindling supplies. The world's largest reserves are also found in the world's trouble spots: Russia, West Africa and the Persian Gulf. Unfriendly regimes could easily threaten U.S. oil supplies and wreak economic havoc here. Those who dismiss the science of global warming shouldn't be so careless about this national security threat.

Often lost in the global warming debate is that the Midwest especially has a stake in the energy policy decisions that lie ahead. Minnesota, Iowa and North Dakota are among the top wind-energy states. The region is also home to promising energy start-up companies. These local firms' growth and hiring is on hold because of the dithering we've seen in Congress and elsewhere -- such as Copenhagen's recent climate conference.

Although Minnesota explorer Will Steger has been the region's voice on climate change policy, leaders also need to listen to business-minded Midwesterners such as Gerald Groenewold at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks.

Groenewold runs the university's respected Energy and Environmental Research Center, which develops clean energy technology and spins it off commercially. Uncertainty over energy policy is jeopardizing the center's work and, by extension, the region's economic well-being. The problem? Limited venture capital.

"It's just hamstrung right now with respect to investments. There's plenty of money out there...but (investors) are not willing to invest in these technologies and new approaches to energy transmission until they have a sense of direction: here's what we want, here's what's going to be required and here's what we have to do," Groenewold said. "Until Congress gives guidance, we have gridlock."

It's time to end the counterproductive holding pattern businesses are locked into. The U.S. House has already passed carbon legislation. Senators wearied by the bruising health care debate nevertheless need to come back and tackle an equally complex undertaking: energy policy. In addition to carbon, congressional action is needed on nuclear power and waste, as well as the federal government's role in building power lines. Research funding for technology that cleans coal plant emissions must also be addressed.

"Bring this to an end and do something," said Groenewold. "Give us a road map, for goodness' sake."