Andy Roddick's hopes of making a second successive Wimbledon final ended as he was stunned 4-6 7-6 (7-3) 7-6 (7-4) 6-7 (5-7) 9-7 by unseeded Yen-Hsun Lu.

The world number 82 produced a superb performance and held off a typically spirited comeback from the fifth seed.

Lu led 3-0 in the fourth set tie-break but Roddick hit back to level matters.

Roddick had a break point to lead 5-4 in the fifth but Lu, from Taiwan, saved it and went on to become Asia's first Grand Slam quarter-finalist since 1995.

His performance emulated that of Japan's Shuzo Matsuoka, who reached the last eight at Wimbledon before losing to Pete Sampras.

Lu had never previously progressed beyond the third round of a Grand Slam nor made it past the second round at SW19 in six appearances.

He faced a formidable task against the American, whose Wimbledon record boasts three final appearances, one semi-final and one quarter-final.

Roddick took the first set with the only break point out on Court Two but Lu took the next two sets, neither of which featured a break point, on tie-breaks to edge ahead.

There were also no break points in the fourth set which again needed a tie-break to settle it and after Roddick put a backhand long and Lu held his serve twice, he seemed on the verge of a famous victory.

However, nerves may have played a part as after a Roddick ace, Lu put two forehands long to see his lead disappear. The fifth seed then moved ahead and an ace put him 5-4 up.

Roddick earned a set point when Lu netted another forehand and the American then produced his 11th ace of the set and 29th of the match to level the contest at two sets apiece.

The fifth set was understandably tight but Roddick had his chance to move ahead in the ninth game only for Lu to save a break point and go on to hold.

The pressure was now on the 27-year-old as every service game was to keep him alive in the match.

It finally told in the 16th game as Lu played a superb passing shot on his first match point to wrap up a memorable triumph.

Roddick praised Lu after the match but pinpointed errors in his own game, saying: "My returning was really bad.

"I served well - I wasn't broken until the final game of the match and hadn't been broken since the first set against Michael Llodra.

"Through the first three sets I was playing horrendously, really badly. I think the fifth set was the best set I played as I was hitting the ball well and making him struggle to get through service games sometimes, but when you dig yourself a hole it is hard to get out when you have given them confidence.

"I thought he did a good job controlling the middle of the court all day, he had a gameplan and stuck to it and deserved the win more than I did."

Lu, who beat Andy Murray at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, was understandably delighted and dedicated his victory to his late father, who passed away 10 years ago.

"I am thinking of my family and am really proud of myself," he said. "In that moment of victory I sat and told myself I had done it for my father, for myself and for all the people who have support me.

"I knew Andy is very tough on grass because he has a big serve but I wasn't doing anything different to the last time we met.

"I knew I had to stay with him as in the last two matches, because of the pressure, I overplayed but today I took my time and tried to find chance to win a set.

"I was still thinking of the chance I had in the fourth set tie-break when going into final set but told myself I had to fight as I knew there was no tie-break and he has better serve than me. I didn't believe I can win as he is a better server than me."

He now faces third seed Novak Djokovic in Wednesday's quarter-finals and added: "I don't know how far I can go but I will fight to the end."

So as President Obama convenes senators for a come-to-Jesus moment this morning on energy and climate legislation it looks like Senate proponents of an economy-wide cap-and-trade climate bill are preparing to settle for a narrower emissions cap in the electric power sector.

Yet another concession to lawmakers' skittishness about pricing carbon, the scaled-back approach will not please the absolutist but it does have the virtue of realism. It always seemed a bit of a fantasy that a comprehensive carbon pricing scheme could reach 60 votes in the Senate this year. And for that matter it's possible the narrower approach really could amount to a first step toward a broader system for reducing emissions, as Eileen Claussen and Jim Rogers, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Duke Energy respectively, wrote in an op-ed in Politico last week. Incrementalism isn't always timidity.

And yet, for all that, there is every reason to worry that the latest efforts to gain political consensus in the Senate are continuing to neglect a crucial aspect of cleaning up the country's energy system--technology innovation.

As we and many others have been saying for years, the nation badly needs to sign up for a new push for energy system innovation that seeks countless efficiencies but also triples to quintuples today's anemic baseline level of federal energy innovation R&D. (For some great discussion of this need see recent posts by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, a group of 34 Nobel Laureates, NYT Dot Earth blogger Andy Revkin, and Teryn Norris of Americans for Energy Leadership).

The trouble with the new utility-only approach to emissions reductions, however, is that none of its proponents are saying anything that makes it seem likely that an adequate slice of the potential revenue the narrower system might generate will be reserved for technology innovation.

In fact, it's pretty obvious that with few emissions allotments to auction off much less revenue would be generated through a utility-only program than under an economy-wide pricing system.

That's a problem because not only do we need to get a lot more money into the innovation system as soon as possible (so new technologies can roll out in time to help reduce climate change in this century) but because a smaller revenue pie will only intensify the inevitable interest group scuffle over the money to the detriment of the R&D claim.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors met recently in Oklahoma City, and they put out two resolutions related to immigration. Interestingly, these resolutions are not specifically about immigration in cities per se. They put out a statement strongly opposing Arizona’s SB1070 law, supporting a court challenge, and voicing opposition to other states enacting similar laws. In another statement, the mayors leaned on the federal government to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Linking the two, the mayors recognize that states and local governments bear many of the responsibilities and costs of immigration with not enough reimbursement from the federal government. In their view, municipal leaders should “protect the well being and safety of all the people residing in their cities and to respect the rights of and provide equal services to all individuals regardless of national origin or immigration status.” However, they also realize the costs borne by municipalities for services to immigrants are largely not reimbursed by the federal government.

Comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level as proposed in a recent “conceptual framework” floated by Democratic Sens. Schumer, Reid, Menendez, Feinstein, and Leahy, would further fortify the border, beef up interior enforcement, institute a biometric ID card, better regulate the future flow of workers, and register and legalize qualified unauthorized immigrants.

However, what the mayors surely know is that even if comprehensive immigration reform happens (and there is much speculation about that), cities and other municipalities will still bear the costs and responsibilities of taking care of their residents. For those places that will see a sizable share of their immigrant population legalizing (of the estimated 11 million to 12 million present in the United States), funds will be needed to build the local infrastructure to process applications, verify residency, and hold the adult education and English language classes needed to turn the unauthorized into legal residents.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors met recently in Oklahoma City, and they put out two resolutions related to immigration. Interestingly, these resolutions are not specifically about immigration in cities per se. They put out a statement strongly opposing Arizona’s SB1070 law, supporting a court challenge, and voicing opposition to other states enacting similar laws. In another statement, the mayors leaned on the federal government to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Linking the two, the mayors recognize that states and local governments bear many of the responsibilities and costs of immigration with not enough reimbursement from the federal government. In their view, municipal leaders should “protect the well being and safety of all the people residing in their cities and to respect the rights of and provide equal services to all individuals regardless of national origin or immigration status.” However, they also realize the costs borne by municipalities for services to immigrants are largely not reimbursed by the federal government.

Comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level as proposed in a recent “conceptual framework” floated by Democratic Sens. Schumer, Reid, Menendez, Feinstein, and Leahy, would further fortify the border, beef up interior enforcement, institute a biometric ID card, better regulate the future flow of workers, and register and legalize qualified unauthorized immigrants.

However, what the mayors surely know is that even if comprehensive immigration reform happens (and there is much speculation about that), cities and other municipalities will still bear the costs and responsibilities of taking care of their residents. For those places that will see a sizable share of their immigrant population legalizing (of the estimated 11 million to 12 million present in the United States), funds will be needed to build the local infrastructure to process applications, verify residency, and hold the adult education and English language classes needed to turn the unauthorized into legal residents.

Regular readers of the Avenue have seen this blog more than once make the case for a national infrastructure policy, focused on strategic investments that boost our competitiveness in a global economy. We recognize that repetition doesn’t necessarily make the national infrastructure debate seem any less wonkish or abstract. But it’s playing out now in Michigan, where the state legislature is in the final throes of debating whether to build a modernized bridge connector between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario.

The Detroit metro is part of the largest bi-national trading corridor on earth, linking the U.S. and Canadian auto industries and other sectors with highly integrated, transport-dependent “just-in-time” supply chains. Thirty-five U.S. states count Canada as their largest export market, including every Great Lakes state.

More than a quarter of U.S.-Canadian trade flows through one single chokepoint: the Ambassador Bridge, built in 1929 to connect Detroit with Windsor. This is the largest exchange point--and commerce bottleneck--on the planet.

Recognizing the need for a new, better crossing, the U.S. and Canada, along with Michigan and Ontario, created the DRIC (Detroit River International Crossing) as part of a highly integrated multi-modal transportation plan, and a long overdue 21st Century overhaul, of this key crossing. The DRIC would yield long-run economic benefits by facilitating more trade and commerce through the region, and between our nations. It would be a particular boon for Detroit. If that battered metro is to be a serious force, rather than a bypassed backwater, in the global economy, it needs functional, efficient infrastructure at its international intersections.

Finalizing a deal between major auto manufacturers and federal officials, the two sides announced new fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles beginning in 2012. The goal is to increase the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks sold in the United States, thereby lowering the country’s emissions from the personal transportation sector.

The changes have been long overdue. While engine-efficiency technology has continued to improve, the country’s fuel-efficiency standards have not followed suit. The standard for cars has been stuck at 27.5 mpg since 1990, while the light-truck standard rose from 20.0 mpg in 1990 to just 23.5 mpg in 2010. Due to these minimal increases the country’s average fuel efficiency has barely risen in the past two decades.

In the case of today’s announcement, the increases to 39.5 mpg for cars and 29.8 mpg for light trucks—all by 2016—mark a drastic about face. And there are quite a few reasons to like the change. First, it will reduce auto-sourced environmental pollutants. Second, it will reduce both our national consumption of oil and purchases of foreign oil. Third, it will save American households a projected $3,000 in gas purchases over the life of a new vehicle.

However, one story missed was the CAFE standard’s effects on our transportation revenues. As we’ve written about many times, our highway and transit trust funds rely on gas tax receipts. The new fuel-efficiency standards will mean fewer gas-guzzling cars, less gas tax revenue, and in the end less money to invest in our nation’s roads and rails. If the U.S. car fleet shifts its fuel economy from 22.5 mpg to even just 30.0 mpg, that will reduce gas tax revenues by 25 percent.

Having already required a general-fund bailout the past two fiscal years, the Highway Trust Fund’s solvency doesn't need more bad news. But there’s no way that, assuming gas taxes hold constant, the increasing CAFE standards won’t make our funding woes worse. So how will we move forward to fund our national surface transportation system? House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Oberstar recently introduced a $450 billion bill to reform the surface transportation program over six years, an enormous increase over the current authorizing legislation—and we already can’t afford that. Something’s got to give, whether it’s a scaled-back investment program, new revenue sources, or just a plain gas tax increase.

As Jon Chait noted over the weekend, the fate of the Senate climate bill has suddenly been thrown in doubt. Lindsey Graham is pissed off that Harry Reid wants to do immigration next instead of energy, and he's threatened to pull out of negotiations. Without Graham's support, the climate bill isn't going anywhere.

So everything's up in the air right now. The Hill reports that John Kerry and Joe Lieberman—the other two main authors—are trying to salvage the bill, and it even sounds like Reid's softening a bit:

“We need [Graham] to come back. Our hope is something can be worked out where he's comfortable about the separation of these two issues and the primacy of energy and climate legislation in Sen. Reid's scheduling,” Lieberman told the Journal.

Lieberman, according to the Journal, also said Reid told him Sunday that the majority leader is “ready to do energy and climate legislation as soon as it's ready and that he assumes it will be ready sooner than immigration reform.”

Reid has not commented specifically on sequencing of the measures, but hinted in a statement Saturday that a climate and energy package is further along than an immigration bill.

“I am committed to trying to enact comprehensive clean energy legislation this session of Congress. Doing so will require strong bipartisan support and energy could be next if it's ready,” Reid said. “I have also said we will try to pass comprehensive immigration reform. This too will require bipartisan support and significant committee work that has not yet begun.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Monday that he'd been told that an energy bill would be brought to the Senate floor this year, even possibly before immigration. ...

Lieberman said he had spoken with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) about the upcoming legislative calendar, and that the leader said he would be willing to bring up whichever bill is ready first, which an energy and climate bill appears to be.

"He said to me as explicitly as anyone could: he's going to give the energy bill floor time this year," Lieberman said during an appearance on MSNBC. "Harry Reid said to me yesterday that he will take up whichever of these two bills is ready first am he knows our bill is ready and the immigration reform bill is not.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Monday that he'd been told that an energy bill would be brought to the Senate floor this year, even possibly before immigration. ...

Lieberman said he had spoken with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) about the upcoming legislative calendar, and that the leader said he would be willing to bring up whichever bill is ready first, which an energy and climate bill appears to be.

"He said to me as explicitly as anyone could: he's going to give the energy bill floor time this year," Lieberman said during an appearance on MSNBC. "Harry Reid said to me yesterday that he will take up whichever of these two bills is ready first am he knows our bill is ready and the immigration reform bill is not.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Monday that he'd been told that an energy bill would be brought to the Senate floor this year, even possibly before immigration. ...

Lieberman said he had spoken with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) about the upcoming legislative calendar, and that the leader said he would be willing to bring up whichever bill is ready first, which an energy and climate bill appears to be.

"He said to me as explicitly as anyone could: he's going to give the energy bill floor time this year," Lieberman said during an appearance on MSNBC. "Harry Reid said to me yesterday that he will take up whichever of these two bills is ready first am he knows our bill is ready and the immigration reform bill is not.”