The 2010 #SOTU introduced a new concept of "clean energy": 

"But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)"

The 2011 SOTU and accompanying "Clean Energy Standard" reinforced the new concept of "clean":

"Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling.  So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal:  By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.  (Applause.)

Some folks want wind and solar.  Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas.  To meet this goal, we will need them all -- and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.  (Applause.)"

The 2012 SOTU was vague on the concept of "clean energy", allowing many to read into the phrase "what's true for natural gas is true for clean energy" what they wanted. Except for those wanting clarity. The accompanying Blueprint ("Built to Last") further reduced clarity by adding "renewable energy" to the list of concepts up for grabs:

" that by 2035, 80% of the nation’s electricity will come from clean sources, including renewable energy sources like wind, solar, biomass, hydropower, nuclear power, efficient natural gas, and clean coal."

Presumably, this is simply a case of bad writing/editing. But at this point, who can tell?