WASHINGTON -- No matter which one is elected president in November, the energy policies proposed by Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama would increase costs for the average American, but other changes may not be as readily visible, experts say.

While the candidates’ policies are distinct, several energy policy experts agree that both want long-term changes that will not immediately address the high gas prices and energy bills seen today.

“To sum it up, what Joe-six-pack could expect is higher energy prices under McCain or Obama energy plans, higher deficits and gas prices,” said Jerry Taylor, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a nonprofit, libertarian-leaning public policy foundation.

Taylor attributes the prospect of higher prices to the fact that both candidates have proposed to intervene in energy markets in part by mandating and subsidizing more expensive sources of energy. Incentives for alternative forms of energy would be aimed at moving the country away from fossil fuels like coal.

“Each of them (has) plans to address energy issues and where they differ seems to be in scale and where they’re going to focus and make priorities,” said David Willett, spokesman of the Sierra Club, a nonprofit environmental organization that recently endorsed Obama.

“(There is) no short-term fix that would be visible to people when they pull into the corner gas station or get their heating bill,” said Jim DiPeso, policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, an nonprofit organization that supports Republican elected officials, including McCain.

Both candidates have outlined plans to address rising fuel costs, the energy issue that is likely to resonate most with voters. While McCain and Obama support a shift away from dependence on foreign oil and promote the research and development of alternative transportation fuels, their approaches differ.

Obama seeks to double the fuel economy standard for motor vehicles by 2026, while McCain has simply said he would enforce existing standards. The current industry-wide CAFE standard for cars and light trucks is 25 miles per gallon, on track to increase to 35 miles per gallon for 2011 model-year vehicles by 2020. The efficiency increase is mandated by the 2007 energy law.

McCain touts new oil and gas drilling off U.S. shores as a viable solution to the fuel fiasco, but not in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Obama opposes additional drilling in protected areas.

Fossil fuels -- coal and natural gas -- are still the cheapest forms of energy available, said H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization.

The candidates are divided on nuclear power, a clean but costly source of energy, favored by McCain, who proposes building 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030. Obama, who is not entirely opposed to nuclear energy, believes the industry should first develop a safer means of disposing of nuclear waste before putting up new reactors.

One year into a new presidency would have no effect on people’s lives, Burnett said. “Neither (candidate) has a draft energy law to present to Congress. They’ve got general ideas out there about what they want to do,” he conceded.

These bland forecasts contrast with the urgency heard in former Vice President Al Gore’s challenge last week to the nation to become totally reliant on renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, within 10 years.

Gore’s challenge, heralded as achievable by some and impossible by others, underscores the importance of solving the nation’s energy crisis, regardless of whether McCain or Obama takes the oath of office next January.

Gore’s blueprint is ambitious but important in pushing the nation to make energy independence a national priority, said the Republican Jim DiPeso.

“I think Mr. Gore was laying down a marker for both candidates and issuing a challenge that is quite ambitious,” he said. “We need to be ambitious.”

Gore’s 10-year goal “is a heavy lift but possible with technologies we have today,” said Tim Greeff, deputy legislative director of the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group that recently endorsed Obama.

The nation has the wind, solar and hybrid technology, among others, needed to reach that goal, said Greeff.

Not all experts share the same enthusiasm for Gore’s plan, however. “The Gore energy plan is flatly unachievable,” Cato’s Taylor said, citing a lack of available construction equipment to build a new energy infrastructure.

Experts offered varying opinions of what changes consumers might expect to see under the energy policies of the presidential candidates.

If McCain is elected, DiPeso anticipates seeing more research of alternative forms of energy within the first year and a half of his presidency.

Likewise, Obama advocates say McCain has consistently opposed a renewable energy plan that would require a certain percentage of America’s electricity to come from wind and solar power.

“I think under an Obama presidency, (we) would be more likely to see incentives for creating wind and solar,” Willett said.

Obama supported the 2005 energy bill, which provided subsidies for alternative-fuel cars. McCain voted against it.

But McCain’s supporters think his proposals will allow for more realistic expansion of electricity because of his nuclear proposals and the possibility of an increased supply of petroleum from expanded drilling, said David Kreutzer, policy analyst for energy, economics and climate change at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy think tank.

“Obama’s policies are based primarily on technologies we do not have available yet,” Kreutzer said. He plans to rely more heavily on conservation than expansion of energy supply, he said.