by Lisa Mascaro

If Congress hopes to pass a comprehensive energy bill this year, the White House must lead the way just as it did with health care, Wall Street reform and other administration priorities, a group of environmental organizations said in a letter today to President Obama.

"The Senate needs your help to end this paralysis," said the nine groups, including the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and others. "White House leadership is the only path we see to success, just as your direct leadership was critical in the passage of the recovery plan, health care reform, and other administration successes."

Spurred on by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Senate is expecting to tackle the difficult issue of energy policy in July, as lawmakers return to work July 12 following a weeklong holiday recess.

But deep divisions within the president's own party remain and some doubt the ability of Democrats and Republicans to agree to a bill that could win the 60 votes needed to advance. The House has already passed a bill.

by Lisa Mascaro

Moved by photos of the devastation from the Gulf oil spill, Democratic senators emerged this afternoon from a caucus-wide meeting determined to tackle a comprehensive energy bill this summer -- regardless of legislation's ability to win the 60 votes needed to pass.

Senators called the meeting "motivating" and "almost like a little revival - a lot of clapping, a lot of yelling" as one speaker after another voiced a desire to debate the thorny issue.

"It's one of the best caucuses I've seen and I've been here over 25 years," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).

"There is an incredible moment in front of us that has in many ways unified the public -- and that is how do we stop the terrible thing that happened in the gulf from being repeated," he said. "Even if we lose, we carry a message that has meaning."

What remains to be seen are the details of a bill that Senate leaders plan to craft from various measures and whether it would contain a provision to cap carbon - essentially a tax on polluters.

by Lisa Mascaro

After his Oval Office address was largely panned by pundits, President Obama took his push for energy legislation directly to supporters today in a video message reiterating his pledge to round up the votes needed to pass a bill.

"In the coming days, I will work with both parties to find the necessary votes to move comprehensive energy and climate change legislation forward," Obama said in the video sent to supporters from Organizing for America at the Democratic National Committee.

Obama is scheduled to meet on Wednesday with a bipartisan group of senators in a high-profile effort at bridging the political divide over energy legislation.

Finding the 60 votes needed to move an energy bill in the Senate is a difficult political task as even the president's own party is divided over various elements, especially a possible price on carbon emissions that scientists believe are causing climate change.

The president has talked tough before, most notably during an early June speech in Pittsburgh when he similarly said he would work to get the votes. He also has asked supporters in recent emails to back his efforts to legislate a carbon price.

by Jim Tankersley and Jennifer Martinez

Oil and gas companies have told the Obama administration that environmental regulations for deep-water drilling rigs do not immediately need to be toughened because the Deepwater Horizon explosion was an unforeseeable event, not a failure of federal oversight, according to documents filed last week with the White House.

The industry's chief lobbying arm, the American Petroleum Institute, submitted written comments to the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The council is reviewing whether the federal Minerals Management Service -- the now-splintered and much criticized agency charged with regulating oil drilling -- has appropriately conducted reviews mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA.

"One accident does not mean that the practice and procedures of MMS are inadequate to implement NEPA's requirements, especially when the cause of the accident has yet to be determined," wrote the lobbying group, which represents 400 oil and gas companies, including BP.

Anadarko Petroleum, which owns a quarter share of the leaking BP well, wrote in a separate filing that it believes the government's enforcement of environmental laws has not "in any way played a role" in the Gulf of Mexico spill.

Since the April 20 explosion, the MMS has drawn fire from environmentalists for routinely exempting hundreds of offshore drilling projects from detailed environmental analysis, including the one for the Deepwater Horizon rig. The practice is known as granting "categorical exclusions." That practice is a specific focus of the White House review.

Continue reading: Big oil: oversight not the problem

by Lisa Mascaro

Hours before President Obama is to address the nation about the oil spill in the Gulf, the administration released an analysis of a Senate cap-and-trade bill showing such a system would cost less than $1 a day in higher household energy costs.

The bill's authors, Sen. John Kerry (D-Ma.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.) welcomed the Environmental Protection Agency's assessment, saying they believed Obama would make a push tonight for comprehensive energy and climate change legislation like theirs.

"The American Power Act will decrease energy bills for families and protect consumers while offering the most effective cost containment measures of any previous climate legislation," the senators said in a joint statement. "We look forward to hearing from the President this evening on just how critical passing a comprehensive solution is for our country."

The EPA's analysis showed American's household energy costs would rise an average of $79-$146 annually through 2050. The senators also pointed to a separate analysis out today from the ClimateWorks Foundation showing the bill would create 540,000 jobs annually through 2030, as well as an economic analysis released in May showing the legislation would reduce American oil consumption by 1.8 million barrels a day - many times the amount gushing in the Gulf.

"If Americans want to take a stand, this is the time," Kerry said.

Even though the House passed a climate change bill last year, the legislation faces a tougher climb in the Senate where Democrats are regionally divided and unable to collect the 60 votes needed to advance the bill.

You can read the EPA analysis here.

The Senate today rejected an amendment offered by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would have stopped the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. The vote on a motion to proceed failed 47-53.

As Lisa Mascaro reported yesterday, the measure was backed by a majority of Republicans and many industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who feel it is Congress' role, not the EPA's, to impose such regulations. President Obama had threatened to veto the measure if approved.

Six Democrats, including Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, joined the unanimous GOP conference in the unsuccessful effort.

By Jim Tankersley

This is the story of a Spanish study that rankled green groups last year as the House debated climate legislation, and of how the Energy Department came to publish a "rebuttal" of that study - touching off a war of words between supporters and foes of federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

The parties involved do not dispute the facts of the matter. But it's worth noting, in full disclosure, that this story came to light through a public records request by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank that has fiercely opposed emissions limits. The Tribune Washington Bureau obtained copies of those records from the Institute and from the Energy Department.

Back to the tale: Last spring, a university study from Spain roiled Capitol Hill. The study, funded by a free-market think tank with links to the fossil fuel industry, calculated that government subsidies for the wind-power industry killed more jobs than they created, because the subsidies drained money from the (more efficient) private sector.

Republicans pounced on the study, saying it undermined President Obama's argument that the climate bill would create new "clean-energy" jobs, including jobs in the wind industry. When the criticisms endured throughout April and into May, and with a vote on the climate bill looming, environmentalists and renewable energy lobbyists began to worry.

On May 12, 2009, more than a month after the study was released, a group of climate activists scheduled a conference call to discuss how to refute the Spanish researcher's claims. The group included officials from the American Wind Energy Association - a wind industry trade group, known as AWEA, which spent millions of dollars lobbying last year in Washington.

The call also included researchers from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a division of the Energy Department, which produces often-highly-technical papers on renewable energy potential and development in the United States, including exhaustive research on renewable energy jobs.

Shortly after the call, the researchers began to devise what would become an unusual "white paper" for the Laboratory: a direct rebuttal of the Spanish study.

"I think it might make sense for us to pull together some proper analysis in the near term" on the Spanish study, one of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory researchers wrote on the afternoon of May 12, in an email obtained by the Tribune Washington Bureau. "AWEA policy people are quite concerned." A colleague replied: "We need to come up with an appropriate response to these criticisms soon. I just spoke to a few people at AWEA about this."

by Jim Tankersley

Earlier this week, Energy Secretary Steven Chu caused a stir in the Golden State - and many circles across the country - with his warnings that global warming could spell the demise of California agriculture by century's end.

Chu isn't a climate scientist - he's a Nobel-winning physicist - but he's served on several climate-change commissions, and in his position, will be one of President Obama's point men on the climate issue. His comments came in a 40-minute interview, his first since being confirmed as secretary.

"This is a real economic disaster in the making for our children, for your children," he said, near the end of an extended riff on the topic.

Here, for the first time, is that riff, only slightly edited for length. For all sides of the climate debate, it makes for fascinating reading.

.

by Jim Tankersley

President Obama will officially ask the Energy Department today to speed up its efforts to set congressionally mandated efficiency standards - some of them long-overdue - for household appliances.

It's a move sure to be welcomed by environmentalists and by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who preaches efficiency as a key weapon in the administration's fight to curb global warming.

Obama's presidential memorandum will ask the department to issue several standards by August, as mandated by law, covering products that include ovens, lamps, microwaves, dishwashers and air conditioners. He'll also ask the department to give high priority to speeding up standards that promise especially large energy savings for consumers.

A variety of court orders and congressional laws have left the energy department with a backlog of efficiency standards it needs to set, and a schedule of others it must complete in coming years. Obama's memo includes directions to complete that schedule on time, and early if possible.

The administration's bigger efficiency push goes beyond appliances.

By Jim Tankersley

There's a difference between a Nobel-Prize-winning physicist and your garden variety cabinet nominee. That difference: nerdiness. And we mean that in the best possible way.

Witness this fantastically detailed video posted on the change.gov website, official online home of the Obama transition team. In it, Nobel-winning energy secretary nominee Steven Chu -- a former Stanford University professor and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory director -- fields web-submitted questions.

His answers span nearly 14 minutes, touching on the impacts of global warming by degrees of temperature, the best historical comparisons for the current push to overhaul America's energy supply through scientific innovation (German fertilizer, you might be surprised to know) and the need for a national and perhaps global electric transmission grid, which he says "you don't need to be a rocket scientist" to understand.

"What is in the root of science is wanting to understand how the world around us works," Chu says near the end. Watch for yourself -- you may find yourself understanding a few things better, whether or not you agree with his policy positions.

By Jim Tankersley

For all the fire they can spit on C-SPAN, ranting about procedure or policy, the truth is that most United States senators are exceedingly polite to one another in public. Friendly, often.

Every once in a while - like, say, when a sitting member of a senate committee appears before that committee for a hearing into his pending nomination to a cabinet post - you get, in the words of one participant, "a full-fledged bouquet-tossing contest."

And oddly enough, a few nuggets of policy plans.

That's the scene this morning in a meeting of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, which is quizzing committee member Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) on his nomination to be Interior Secretary under President-elect Barack Obama.

Republicans and Democrats have repeatedly told Salazar how much they admire his integrity and how they'll miss him when he leaves the Senate. They've called him brother, professed their love, and invited him to visit their states (and, in the case of Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, offered to arrange for him to wrestle alligators in the Everglades).

"I think Mel just probably left to go buy you flowers," Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) joked after Martinez called Salazar a "good friend." This after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), made the crack about bouquet tossing.

By Jim Tankersley

Barack Obama has pitched his stimulus package as a quick jolt for the ailing economy and a "down payment" on his priorities as president. But those goals appear to be colliding in at least one key area: energy independence.

The stimulus plan increasingly appears unlikely to include major investments in so-called "green infrastructure" - the wires and rails that could deliver renewable energy to Americans' homes and help them kick their gasoline addictions - according to alternative-energy advocates who are discussing the plans with the Obama transition team.

It's a timing issue. The blueprints and, in many cases, the authority simply don't exist to lay miles of high-speed rail lines, or to build a sprawling web of new power lines to create a truly national electric grid.

"Before you spend billions of dollars on new lines, you have to spend millions of dollars on design work," said Michael Moynihan, the green project director of the liberal think tank NDN, who has worked extensively on green infrastructure and the stimulus. "Nobody had been thinking about this much money (becoming available). So the planning just has not been done."

by Jim Tankersley, and updated

Only on Capitol Hill - and maybe an elite physics department near you - does a Nobel-winning scientist garner round-the-corner lines, an overflow crowd and a cascade of flashbulbs when he steps out in public.

That was the reception this morning for Steven Chu, the physicist and director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Labratory, when he showed up in a Senate committee room this morning for a hearing on his nomination as Barack Obama's energy secretary.

Hillary Clinton may have the bigger star power in the confirmation world today, as she prepares for a committee grilling on her nomination as secretary of state. But here in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, packed with energy lobbyists and non-profit executives, Chu is the one basking in a warm, bipartisan welcome.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who chairs the energy committee, opened the floodgates of praise for Chu's academic and scientific record, saying he uniquely possesses "the vision and insight necessary to forge an energy policy for the 21st century."

The committee's top Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, told Chu "It's probably fair to say that you are uniquely poised in your ability to bring with you your background that relates the science and the technology" of the energy department.

Chu's home state senators, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein of California, were equally effusive: "Simply stating, in my opinion," Feinstein said, "there is no one brighter or more equipped than this man to become secretary of energy."

Chu may face at least mildly tougher questioning later, when committee members get a chance to question him on energy policy, nuclear weapons stockpiles and the Obama Administration's plans for global warming, among other topics.

By Jim Tankersley

You can't cross a street in Washington these days without bumping into someone with a 12-point set of recommendations for President-elect Barack Obama and the massive economic stimulus plan he and Congressional leaders are drafting. And now that Congress is back in session, some of those plans are making their way into the public record - and key lawmakers' ears.

To wit: The Senate Environment and Public Works committee convened a briefing in a Senate hearing room this morning, on the topic of "green" investments and their role in economic recovery.

Testifying before a crowd of fawning Democratic senators were a pair of hot names in energy circles: New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, author of "Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Renew America," and clean energy venture capitalist John Doerr, whose track record includes investments in Google and Amazon.com.

Both men called clean energy development the solution to America's economic, environmental and national security challenges. They urged major tax incentives to help speed renewable technologies to competitiveness and big spending to build an infrastructure to carry renewable energy from the wind turbines and solar panels that produce it to the cities and suburbs that consume it.

By Jim Tankersley

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will urge Congress this morning to invest heavily in so-called "clean coal" research, to expand incentives for nuclear energy and renewable fuels, and to keep its hands off domestic oil and gas drilling.

The powerful business group will host its annual "State of American Business" speech this morning in Washington, and this year, the event is focused squarely on America's top problem: how to reignite the domestic economy.

The plan Chamber officials are set to unveil includes several energy-themed pieces. And it urges caution on what is shaping up to be a top priority for the incoming Obama Administration: cracking down on carbon emissions to fight global warming.

By Jim Tankersley

Forget "hope" and "change" and "yes we can." The word that will matter most, when Barack Obama assumes the Oval Office, is "doable."

Teary-eyed jubilation is giving way to clear-eyed realism. As his campaign rhetoric runs into governing reality, Obama will have to contend with a set of political and practical restrictions that are perhaps more daunting than any faced by an incoming president since Franklin Roosevelt took over amid the Great Depression. And he will have to tailor his early policy agenda accordingly.

Obama is set to inherit a plunging economy, ongoing wars and a massive federal deficit coupled with a long national wish list. His party owns large House and Senate majorities, but the numbers hide major disagreements over priorities. He will be pulled by core Democratic groups who have waited years to advance their interests, by the weight of his campaign promises and by the expectations of a beleaguered electorate.

So what can he do? With those constraints and history in mind, politicians and policy experts suggest several domestic and foreign initiatives, costing relatively modest amounts by today's spending standards, many of them tinged in green. Read on for their full list, from today's Chicago Tribune.

by Frank James

Beating up on the oil companies approached a sport over the summer, particularly for Democrats, when oil prices rose to $140 a barrel and gas prices at the pump topped out over $4 a gallon.

But as oil prices fell as a global recession began to take hold, reducing demand for petroleum, the oil companies seemed to become less villainous for Democrats including Sen. Barack Obama who, among other things, had called for a windfall-profits tax.

Given that background, it will be interesting to see if ExxonMobil's announcement today of record third-quarter profits gets the Democtats' idea of a windfalls-profits tax back on the front burner. The company reported record net income of $14.83 billion for the third quarter which was up 58 percent higher that the comparable year-ago quarter.

by Katie Fretland

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that she would be open to including expanded offshore oil drilling in an energy bill, if proponents of drilling in federal waters can prove it is a good alternative to solve the country's energy crisis.

"I have to put everything on the table ... I don't think it's a good alternative, but if they can prove that it is and they want to pay royalties to the taxpayer, let us use those royalties to invest in renewable energy resources, then we have something to talk about," the California Democrat told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Pelosi, who has voiced opposition to expanded offshore drilling, said it would still not provide any immediate relief from high gasoline prices. However, she said she is prepared to preside over legislation that takes a comprehensive approach.

Read the full transcript of the interview, courtesy of "Meet the Press":

by Frank James

For the past few months as oil-futures prices were breaking records with a barrel of oil topping out around $150, Many congressional Democrats raised concerns about speculators in the "dark" market driving up those crude-oil prices. Sometimes it sounded as though congressional Democrats were looking for bogeymen to pin the price spikes on in an effort to demonstrate to voters that they were doing something.

These claims came against the counter narrative by economists, oil-industry experts and many Republicans that it was less speculation than world demand that was forcing prices higher. No less than Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said he didn't believe speculators were the likely culprit because of a lack of evidence, including signs of energy supplies being hoarded.

The speculation question yields no easy answers and is indeed one of the murkier areas when it comes to what is happening exactly with energy prices.

It's worth noting however that speculation is evidently playing a larger role in oil markets than was earlier hought.

This from The Wall Street Journal:

Data emerging on players in the commodities markets show that speculators are a larger piece of the oil market than previously known, a development enlivening an already tense election-year debate about traders' influence.

by Frank James

Americans have been driving their cars and trucks a lot less, forcing down demand for oil and hence oil prices. That should be unequivocal good news, right?

Wrong. The nation's highway infrastructure is paid for by the federal gas tax. Fewer trips to gas stations means less tax revenue to fund the rebuilding aging highways and bridges or the addition of new stretches to the nation's interstate highway system.

So alarm bells are going off at the Transportation Department, on Capitol Hill, and in state capitals across the country, about the decline of driving and the effect on the Highway Trust Fund.

The Transportation Department issued its latest report this morning with statistics on the national drop in driving, which gave Transportation Secretary Mary Peters another chance to sound the alert on the impact the driving fall-off will have on the trust fund. For the record, Americans drove 4.7 percent less in June 2008 than the previous June, with the largest declines coming in rural areas. It was the eighth consecutive month of declines.

Here's a snippet from the Transportation Department's press release:

WASHINGTON - New data released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that, since last November, Americans have driven 53.2 billion miles less than they did over the same period a year earlier - topping the 1970s' total decline of 49.3 billion miles.

Last month, Secretary Peters unveiled the USDOT's transportation reform plan which offers lawmakers several options to consider when Congress takes up highway and transit legislation next year. "It really makes little sense to try to upgrade our infrastructure using a revenue source as ineffective, unsustainable and unpopular as the fuel tax," she added...

by Matthew Hay Brown, updated with Boehner aide response

House Minority Leader John Boehner used some vivid language last week to describe the political consequences House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would face for refusing to hold a vote on expanding offshore drilling.

Now Pelosi's top deputy is urging him to take it back.

Boehner, who has joined the Republican protest demanding that Pelosi call the House back from the August recess to vote on a GOP energy bill, was asked Friday about the possibility of a special session in which Democrats focused on other issues, such as children's health insurance, without tackling drilling.

"She's gonna bring us back and not deal with it?" asked the Ohio Republican, as quoted by Politico. "The American people are gonna hang her."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who has enjoyed a cordial relationship with Boehner, said he was "disappointed" by the "inappropriate comments."

"Republicans are clearly frustrated that the American public is not buying their Johnny-one-note energy policies of the past, but such comments are harmful to a useful debate over our nation's future," the Maryland Democrat said. "I hope the Minority Leader will apologize for his remarks, and work with Democrats in a bipartisan, constructive manner to increase our domestic oil supply, invest in renewable energy and end our dependence on foreign oil."

A spokesman for Boehner said today that the minority leader had "used a figure of speech to reflect the frustration Americans feel every time they fill up at the pump."

by Matthew Hay Brown

The recent exchange of letters between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner occasioned by the debate over drilling has been typical for the two leaders when they have been divided over an issue.

Less so is the gambit by Boehner today.

The Ohio Republican and his colleagues in the GOP House leadership are bypassing their Democratic counterparts with a letter sent directly to the majority party's rank-and-file. They're asking Democrats to join the Republicans who have been staging a floor protest this week in calling on Pelosi to reconvene Congress for a vote on "increasing American-made energy."

"Since Last Friday, House Republicans have stood with the American people in an unprecedented nationwide protest against Speaker Pelosi's decision to adjourn the House for the rest of the summer without a vote on the energy solutions Americans are demanding," Boehner said. He said he would return to Washington tomorrow to join the protest.

"Republicans will not rest until the American people have been heard and Speaker Pelosi has allowed an up-or-down vote on the energy reforms our nation needs," he said.

Republicans, who have been giving speeches in the dimmed House chamber since last week, want to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas exploration.

Democrats, who have dismissed the revolt as a stunt, say oil companies should focus first on developing the tens of millions of acres on which they already have permission to drill. They also want President Bush to release supplies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Both sides acknowledge that there is little they can do to reduce prices at the pump in the short term. The text of the Republican letter follows.

by Frank James

Obama tire gauge, please meet the McCain light switch.

Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign has spent much of the last few days making sport of Sen. Barack Obama's suggestion that Americans could reduce the nation's demand for oil by making sure their tires are properly inflated.

Hey, all's fair in love, war and politics, right?

But at an April campaign appearance, Mccain provided his own helpful tips on conserving energy:

And I'm sorry to tell you that the price of oil -- as far as I can tell -- is not gonna go down anytime soon until we eliminate our dependency on it.

We can do that as a nation -- we can turn out the lights five minutes earlier, we don't have to drive the extra block.

Does that mean we'd have to sit in the dark for five minutes and always walk the last block to our destination? Just asking.

Maybe Obama's campaign should run over to Home Depot and buy a supply of light switches to send to reporters all over town the way to McCain campaign sent out those tire gauges to mock Obama. Just a thought.

By the way, unless I missed it, Democratic opposition researchers really fell down on the job on this one. Had to rely on the Jed Report blog.

by Frank James

Now that many of us have had a good laugh following Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign's use of tire-inflation gauges as weapons of mass distraction against Sen. Barack Obama, can we acknowledge that properly inflated tires could indeed save a tremendous amount of energy?

So can driving at or slightly above the speed limit. Or keeping a vehicle tuned up so it operates more efficiently.

Even though there's a dispute over whether Obama's claim that inflated tires and tune-ups would save more oil than could be extracted by drilling off-shore, it seems indisputable that there could be considerable savings from such relatively easy efforts.

Indeed, a lot of conservation amounts to common sense and is relatively straightforward. Even if the nation and states decide they want to extract oil from beneath the ocean 50 miles off the shore of Florida or Virginia, it's still a lot easier to save a given barrel of oil through conservation than to find it, bring it to the surface and transport it.

McCain himself has acknowledged that conservation is an important part of his strategy to achieve energy security.

On June 17, in a speech on energy security in Houston, the senator from Arizona said:

In the face of climate change and other serious challenges, energy conservation is no longer just a moral luxury or a personal virtue. Conservation serves a critical national goal.

So if conservation is so vital to the national well-being, as McCain says, why ridicule a conservation method as simple but effective as proper tire inflation?

by Matthew Hay Brown

The lights have been dimmed and Congress has gone home, but a couple dozen House Republicans continued their floor protest today of what they're calling the "Pelosi shutdown" - the decision by Democrats last week to adjourn for the previously scheduled August recess without voting on opening new areas to drilling.

"What heartens me as I hear the speeches of the men and women gathered around me is that I know in my heart we are speaking and giving voice to the will of the overwhelming majority of the American people who want this Congress to return to Washington, D.C., and give the American people more access to American oil," said Rep. Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican.

"I'm absolutely confident that, if this Congress were brought back to Washington, D.C., and given an opportunity to vote on giving more access to the American people of American oil, that there is a bipartisan majority in the Congress that would pass that measure."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has labeled calls to open more domestic areas for drilling "a hoax." Democrats have pushed Bush to release supply from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and say oil companies should explore the tens of millions of acres on which they already hold drilling leases before they are given new areas are opened up.

"Democrats offered a real solution to high energy prices that would bring immediate relief within 10 days by forcing the President to free our oil from the nation's stockpile," Pelosi said. "The Republicans propose to give away public lands to Big Oil, which will not immediately reduce the price at the pump and save Americans only 2 cents 10 years from now. This Republican hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to reduce the price at the pump and promote energy independence."

by Frank James

It was hard to not get twisted up in pretzel knots listening to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose explanation on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" about why she hasn't allowed a vote on Republican energy legislation that would ease restrictions on offshore drilling was, to be polite, confusing.

It may have left some in the audience feeling bewildered as a seabird fouled by an oil spill.

Pelosi, a California Democrat, accused Republicans of being monomaniacal on the drilling issue and of suggesting to voters that drilling would immediately lower gas prices. She wasn't going to play along with something that would mislead voters, she asserted.

Here's the problem with that. Anyone who has listened to the debate has heard House Republicans say they are willing to consider a range of options from the use of renewable energy sources to new alternative fuels to conservation so long as they can get a vote on off-shore drilling.

Evidence for this is found in energy legislation introduced by House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, the American Energy Act which includes the language to encourage conservation and alternative-fuels research though it obviously places the stress on getting drilling opened up on the Outer Continental Shelf of the U.S. coasts.

REP. PELOSI: What we have presented are options that would really make a difference at the pump. Free our oil, Mr. President. We're sitting on 700 million barrels of oil. That would have an immediate effect in 10 days. What our colleagues are talking about is something that won't have an effect for 10 years and it will be two cents at the time. If they want to present something as part of an energy package, we're talking about something. But to single-shoot on something that won't work, and mislead the American people as to thinking it's going to reduce the price at the pump -- I'm just not going to be a party to it.

But then, she seemed to later suggest that she would indeed be a party to that, if only House Republicans are smart enough to push the right parliamentary buttons. Her statement came in response to Stephanopoulos's insistent questioning as to why she didn't permit a vote if her faith in her position was so strong.

REP. PELOSI: They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote and they may get a vote. But I'm trying to -- we have serious policy issues in our country. The president of the United States has presented this -- but for this our economy would be booming, but for this, gas would cheaper at the pump. It's simply not true. And even the president himself in his statement yesterday and before then has said, there is no quick fix for this by drilling.

So she will allow the American people to be misled, in her view, by Republican legislation that she says only offers the illusion of addressing high gas prices, so long as Republicans are smart enough to figure out how to get their legislation to the floor? That doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's what she appeared to say.

by Frank James

Scores of Republican House members will return to the Hill today, despite Congress being on recess, to engage in legislative guerrilla tactics meant to turn the screws on Speaker Nancy Pelosi who has so far refused to allow a vote on domestic oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge.

Republicans took to the House floor on Friday to protest against Pelosi even though the Speaker made sure to turn the cameras and most of the lights off. Their specific complaint was that Pelosi allowed the House to recess without allowing the House to vote on energy legislation.

It was raucous political theater reminiscent of what Republicans did when they were last in the minority in the early 1990s.

With a majority of the public now saying it favors increased domestic drilling for oil, the House GOP finally feels the wind at its back on an issue. It isn't about to let up on Pelosi, whose opposition to a floor vote on drilling is getting increasingly unpopular with voters.

Even Sen. Barack Obama, the all-but-official Democratic nominee, moved away from Pelosi's position last week, a sure sign that the limb Pelosi is on is being sawed away by no less than the leader of her party.

Here's a press release the House Republican leadership issued yesterday.

House Republicans to Resume Floor Protest on American Energy Monday

In an urgent memo sent to GOP Members and staff Saturday ("A Call to Action on American Energy"), Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) hailed Friday's action, which was led by Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Tom Price (R-GA), and others, and encouraged House Republicans to return to the Capitol beginning Monday morning to help keep the historic effort going.

by Frank James

In the Senate, it nowadays apparently takes a self-appointed, biparitsan "gang" of senators to get past the partisan gridlock. For instance, there was the Gang of 14 group of senators who helped the Senate get beyond an impasse on judicial appointments a few years ago.

Today, a new group of senators calling itself the Gang of Ten, announced that it had arrived at a compromise energy proposal meant to break the partisan logjam that exists on the issue.

The group's members are:

Sens. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

Note that Graham, who is close to Sen. John McCain, the unofficial Republican presidential nominee, is a gangmember. He was also on the Gang of 14. He evidently likes joining these senatorial gangs.

The proposal contained in the Energy Reform Act of 2008 would essentially fund new technologies in order to reduce nation from its reliance on foreign oil. It would partly pay for the spending by reducing some of the oil industry's tax deductions.

The proposal sets as a goal having 85 percent of the nation's auto fleet fueled by something other than oil in 20 years. Reflecting its compromise nature, it also contains conservation and drilling ideas.

The senators, who had a press conference today, said they hoped their proposal could be the starting point for the entire Senate when lawmakers return in a few weeks from their summer recess. At this point, with congressional Democrats and Republicans at loggerheads on the energy issue, anything is probably worth a try.

Here's a lengthy excerpt from a Conrad press release with the proposals key provisions:

Richard Perle. Chicago Tribune photo by Chris Walker.)

by Frank James

Richard Perle, a leading neocon who argued forcibly before the Iraq War for the invasion and ouster of Saddam Hussein, looks to be trying to get in on the action when it comes to oil in Iraq and Kazakhstan.

It's the Iraq part that sentence that is bound to fuel a lot of war critics' resentment towards Perle, which is already high to begin with. It's likely to give renewed impetus to the claim that Iraq was a war of choice for oil.

As The Wall Street Journal reports:

Mr. Perle, one of a group of security experts who began pushing the case for toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein about a decade ago, has been discussing a possible deal with officials of northern Iraq's Kurdistan regional government, including its Washington envoy, according to these people and the documents.

It would involve a tract called K18, near the Kurdish city of Erbil, according to documents describing the plan. A consortium founded by Turkish company AK Group International is seeking rights to drill there, the documents say. Potential backers include two Turkish companies as well as Kazakhstan, according to individuals involved.

The story goes on to report this:

People with knowledge of the discussions said they involve Alexander Mirtchev, a Washington consultant and adviser to the government of Kazakhstan, and an associate of his, Kaloyan Dimitrov. Mr. Perle has attended events promoting the interests of Kazakhstan, an oil-rich nation whose ruler, Nursultan Nazarbayev, is involved in a long-running U.S. investigation of 1990s-era oil-company bribery. Mr. Perle has publicly lauded President Nazarbayev as "visionary and wise," according to a publication distributed by the Kazakh embassy in Washington.

Asked about pursuing oil concessions, Mr. Perle said, "I am not involved in any consortium involving Mr. Mirtchev or Mr. Dimitrov, nor am I 'framing plans for a consortium'" involving either one. He declined to elaborate.

by Matthew Hay Brown

House Minority Leader John Boehner and 10 fellow GOP congressmen left Washington this morning for Alaska, where they plan to spend the weekend highlighting the domestic energy production potential at settings such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says they've headed in the wrong direction.

"Two-thirds of northern Alaska is open to drilling, so if they're serious about increasing the domestic production of oil, they should take a left at the Arctic Refuge and keep going west for about 150 miles," the Maryland Democrat said. "That will put them in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska - the best source for Alaskan oil, and an area that is already open for business."

As oil costs continue to climb, Boehner and other Republicans want to open up more areas to domestic drilling, part of what they're calling an "all of the above" approach to meeting the nation's energy needs. With polls showing growing support for more exploration, President Bush this week lifted the executive prohibition on offshore drilling imposed by his father 18 years ago.

"Our American energy tour will shine a spotlight on what the Democratic majority can't seem to grasp: We can bring down the price of gasoline," Boehner said. "America is rich with emerging energy technologies, as well as a vast supply of natural resources that has been put off limits by the majority party."

by William Neikirk

Former Vice President Al Gore returned to the nation's capital today to issue a stunning challenge: The United States must abandon fossil fuels in generating electricity over the next decade to conquer the danger of global warming.

He said it should be done, could be done, but didn't express confidence that it would be done. His speech raised the question of whether Gore, as a political figure, has enough clout and stature to inspire the kind of solution he outlined.

The former vice president knows he is stepping on many toes and special interests in trying to summon support for such a national crusade. The fact that his rhetoric has yet to break a Washington deadlock over climate change would be reason to doubt the power of his own persona and his scary scenarios.

And will ordinary Americans sign on to this plan? That is a key issue, especially since the country is grappling with gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon and an economy teetering on the edge of a recession. Although viewed as an alarmist by conservatives, Gore hopes that the current climate will make Americans more willing to go along with his drastic plan.

The survival of the country is at risk, Gore warned, and "the future of civilization is at stake" as the planet warms as a result of heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" accumulating in the atmosphere.

And, he said, U.S. national security would be severely threatened without the kind of plan he outlined today. He raised the specter of "hundreds of millions of climate refugees" being able to cause political instability around the world.

The Nobel Prize-winning Gore called for a national effort akin to the country's effort to put a man on the moon, inspired in a famous speech by President John F. Kennedy.

by Frank James

Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke spent much of his time on Capitol Hill today discussing the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis as well as the outlook for the nation's economy.

However, in his prepared testimony and in his responses to questions from senators on the Senate Banking and Housing Committee, he also responded to congressional concerns that high oil prices are due in part to dark forces, immoral speculators who are artificially driving up oil prices in order to reap diabolically huge profits.

Many lawmakers have been blaming such sinister speculators for the run-up in oil prices and are pushing legislation that they hope would being such speculation into the open.

But Bernanke threw some sugar into lawmakers' gas tanks today. The Fed Chair who is essentially the nation's economist in chief, said he doesn't buy the speculation theory. Also he urged lawmakers against passing legislation that could interfere with the legitimate functions served by speculation, like hedging against future oil price increases.

Here are exchanges he had with Senators Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Mel Martinez:

by Matthew Hay Brown

No sooner had President Bush blamed rising gasoline prices on Democratic intransigence this afternoon than congressional leaders dismissed his decision to lift the executive ban on offshore drilling as a political stunt.

"Once again, the oilman in the White House is echoing the demands of Big Oil," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "The Bush plan is a hoax. It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence. It just gives millions more acres to the same companies that are sitting on nearly 68 million acres of public lands and coastal areas."

"I've been in Washington long enough to know a political stunt when I see one," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "The good news is the American people won't be fooled. If the President wants to lower gas prices, he should stop hosting press conferences and start taking action."

Bush's Rose Garden announcement amounted to the latest salvo in a monthslong battle over energy policy while the cost of oil has continued to climb. Republicans - and growing numbers of Americans generally - have favored opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore areas to exploration.

"For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production," Bush said during his Rose Garden announcement. "Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal - and now Americans are paying at the pump."

Bush's decision to lift the ban imposed by his father on drilling in the outer continental sheft leaves only a congressional prohibition in place. He called on lawmakers to remove it forthwith.

"The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress," he said. "Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court. Democratic leaders can show that they have finally heard the frustrations of the American people by matching the action I've taken today, repealing the congressional ban, and passing legislation to facilitate responsible offshore exploration."

by Frank James

A few days ago I caught T. Boone Pickens' TV ad on cable. Pickens is one of the nation's best-known oil men but you don't normally see him in ads, so that was an attention-grabber.

In the ad, he notes that in order to pay for imported oil, the U.S. sends $700 billion to foreign oil producers every year. "That's four times the cost of the Iraqi War and it's killing our economy. It will be the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind... I've been an oil man my whole life but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of."

That's the other grabber, an oil man who says we can't produce our way out the problem. Then he says the oil crisis has to be the top priority for the next president and Congress.

At the ad's end, Pickens teases us by saying he has an answer to the problem of foreign oil and that we should stay tuned.

Today, on The Wall Street Journal's op-ed page he delivered his answer. His answer is blowing in the wind.

I have a clear goal in mind with my plan. I want to reduce America's foreign oil imports by more than one-third in the next five to 10 years.

How will we do it? We'll start with wind power. Wind is 100% domestic, it is 100% renewable and it is 100% clean. Did you know that the midsection of this country, that stretch of land that starts in West Texas and reaches all the way up to the border with Canada, is called the "Saudi Arabia of the Wind"? It gets that name because we have the greatest wind reserves in the world. In 2008, the Department of Energy issued a study that stated that the U.S. has the capacity to generate 20% of its electricity supply from wind by 2030. I think we can do this or even more, but we must do it quicker.

The way Pickens sees it, wind power would let the U.S. take the natural gas now used to produce electricity -- it powers about 22 percent of our electricity -- and shift that gas to transportation. That would allow us to greatly expand the fleet of vehicles in the U.S. that can operate on natural gas. Pickens says the current U.S. natural-gas fleet numbers only about 150,000 vehicles compared with eight million world wide.

by Matthew Hay Brown

After weeks of Republican criticism of Democratic opposition to expanding drilling in Alaska and beyond, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer today unveiled a new mantra for his party.

"Democrats are for greater domestic production," the Maryland Democrat told the Capitol press corps this morning, and repeated: "Democrats are for greater domestic production. Democrats are not against drilling."

Of course, Hoyer was talking about exploiting the 88 million acres on which oil companies already hold federal leases - not the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve or the areas off the East, West and Gulf coasts that Republicans (and growing numbers of Americans generally) want to explore.

"Just to give you an idea of what that means," Hoyer said, "eighty-eight million acres is Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and most of Maryland is now available. ...

"Democrats are not against drilling. What we are for is urging and making sure the oil companies, who are getting the highest price for the product in history - don't need any additional tax incentives to do so - ought to be spending their money on exploring and bringing more product to market."

At the other end of the Capitol, Senate Republicans said the way to do that is the Gas Price Reduction Act, GOP legislation that would allow coastal states to open up the outer continental shelf for drilling and end a moratorium on exploiting oil shale.

"To do something important, we all know, requires dealing with the problem of supply and demand," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters. "Additional domestic supply needs to be part of the package."

by Matthew Hay Brown

Three months ago, congressional Democrats began pressing President Bush to halt new shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Today, with gasoline prices still climbing, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked him to begin drawing the reserve down.

"Deploying a small portion of the resources in the SPR would provide much needed assistance to American consumers facing record prices and help our economy during a serious period of instability," Pelosi wrote to Bush. "I strongly urge you to use every available tool, including deployment of the SPR, to provide timely relief for American consumers and businesses."

Bush initially resisted the calls to stop adding 60,000 barrels of oil each day to the giant undergound caverns in Texas and Louisiana where the reserves are stored, but relented after Congress passed legislation to do so by veto-proof margins.

It's unclear whether Pelosi's current request will garner the same bipartisan support.

"The fact is, the American people expect and deserve far more than what Speaker Pelosi is proposing," House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a statement. The Ohio Republican did not indicate whether he favored drawing down the reserve.

"With her call for President Bush to release supplies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the speaker is admitting yet again that increasing the supply of oil will help reduce the price of gasoline," Boehner said. "I agree that more supply is necessary, and so do my House Republican colleagues who have been arguing for decades in favor of more American energy production."

Pelosi's letter follows.

by Jim Tankersley

A pair of Republican congressmen from Illinois are set to unveil a plan that promises to all-but end America's foreign energy addiction within 15 years.

Reps. Peter Roskam and John Shimkus will detail the proposal - which they dub the Energy VISION Act - at a Chicago press conference this morning. It seeks to cut American oil imports by 9.5 million barrels a day, which would theoretically allow the country to run only on oil produced in Canada, Mexico, and the United States and its territories.

The plan mixes conservation and alternative fuel production with aggressive domestic energy exploration, including drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and opening vast swaths of land to oil shale development. Democrats have criticized similar domestic production proposals in other Republican energy bills, saying they will do little to reduce gasoline prices in the short- or medium-term.

In a press release, Roskam and Shimkus say the time has come for energy independence.

"Soaring energy prices place an enormous financial weight on our family's budget today, far greater than any time in this nation's history," Roskam says. "Energy costs now consume nearly one-fifth of the after-tax incomes of low and middle-class families - double that of just 10 years ago. It has come time for a national energy policy that places us on a path to independence. This is a common goal to all Americans - Republican and Democrat. For our economic security, our national security and environmental security we must be energy independent within the next 15 years."

"It is past the time to take action," Shimkus says. "There are concrete solutions available. We need to develop our own oil supplies in places like Alaska and off our coastlines that are currently off-limits. We must continue to advance our technology in ethanol, biofuels, wind, and solar power. And even more importantly for the economy of Illinois, we need to use available technology to convert our vast supplies of coal to environmentally safe liquid fuels. No single source is going to be a magic bullet, but by diversifying our efforts we can go a long way toward energy self-sufficiency."

Read on for details from the VISION plan, which is based on the calculation that America needs to replace 9 million barrels of oil a day to wean itself from non-U.S./Mexico/Canada oil.

by Matthew Hay Brown

Returning to Washington after the Fourth of July break - when it is likely that they got an earful from constituents about the rising cost of energy - Republicans and Democrats appear no closer to agreement on legislation to address prices at the pump.

The problem for both sides, as lawmakers concede privately, is there appears to be little they can do in the short run to bring down the cost of oil. But neither party has let that deprive them of the debate.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took the Senate floor today to tout the Gas Price Reduction Act already rejected by Democrats for its provisions to expand drilling in the United States.

"The goal of finding more energy at home, rather than relying on the Middle East, is not a fantasy," the Kentucky Republican said. "America is already the number three oil producer in the world, and a number of states have indicated that they would like to open up the area off their coasts to even more oil exploration but they're prohibited by a federal ban. ...

"We should also lift the ban on oil shale development which the new Democrat Congress enacted last year," McConnell continued. "Our western states are sitting on a sea of oil three times as large as the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. Yet, at the insistence of the Democrat majority, we aren't allowed to touch it."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dismissed the GOP proposal.

by Matthew Hay Brown

Congress left Washington last week for the Fourth of July break, but gasoline prices take no holiday - and neither does the campaign by congressional Republican leaders to push for more domestic drilling.

House Republican Leader John A. Boehner is highlighting today's CNN/Opinion Research poll finding that 73 percent of Americans in favor of expanded offshore drilling for oil and natural gas in protected U.S. waters. The survey of 1,000 Americans from June 26 to 29 is the latest to show rising support among beleaguered consumers for increasing access to America's oil reserves.

"For decades, Democrats have locked up our nation's natural energy sources, and with $4.10 per gallon gasoline and $145 per barrel oil, American families and small businesses are literally paying the price. While the Democratic Majority refuses to schedule meaningful legislation to help reduce gasoline prices, the American people are saying 'enough is enough.' "

Democrats say such drilling would harm the environment while doing little to reduce prices at the pump. Forty-nine percent of poll respondents believe environmental protection should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth, while 44 percent said the government should focus on economic growth, even at the expense of the environment.

Carroll Muffett, deputy campaigns director at Greenpeace, called the choice "a false dichotomy."

"In truth, what is truly good for the environment is what is truly good for the economy, because a shift to better energy solutions would create jobs," Muffett told CNN.

by Mark Silva

With President Bush traveling to Florida today to raise money for Cuban American congressmen in South Florida (see the Swamp below), the Bush family is getting its off-shore oil-drilling rigs in a row.

The president called on Congress this week to lift a longstanding moratorium on oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, in a bid to eventually ease pressure on gas prices - though the administration's own Energy Department has reported that new drilling probably couldn't get underway before 2017 and even by 2030 the potential product of this drilling stands to have little impact on the world supply or price of oil.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, like most politicians in Florida, has long opposed off-shore drilling. But this week, Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist, joined the party's presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, in voicing support for new drilling - the day before the president made a public show of the issue in the Rose Garden.

Now Jeb Bush is falling into line. The former governor, hosting a two-day summit on education reform near Orlando that today will draw New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the podium, spoke about the issue with reporters Thursday. The L.A. Times' Peter Wallsten, a veteran of Florida political reporting, was on the phone. The Times' Top of the Ticket reports the former governor's comments:

"You can protect the natural resources and the coastline of the state and also be part of national effort to deal with a national security crisis that our country faces right now," Jeb Bush said. "It's a huge economic problem for a lot of Americans, which is four-plus dollars a gallon gasoline. It's a burden that was never anticipated when we were discussing drilling policy 20 years ago, 10 years ago, five years ago, two years ago.

"So I think you've got to give people in public life a little bit of room when the context changes for them to also adjust their views."

No word from Dad yet: The former president Bush imposed an executive ban on offshore drilling in 1991. His son has said he is willing to lift that prohibtion, if Congress will lift its own moratorium enacted in 1981.

In this 2006 file photo, the Discoverer Deep Seas drillship sits on station off the coast of Louisiana as Chevron drills for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

by Mark Silva

It appears that Western oil companies will be getting their hands on Iraqi oil a lot sooner than they will ever see whatever reserves are held within off-limit reaches of the American Outer Continental Shelf.

With news that four oil companies are near agreement with Iraq for "service'' contracts to help Iraq extract its oil and significantly boost production, these companies stand to gain a foothold in an expanding supply of oil for the world market. What makes us doubt that any of that will result in lower gas prices here at home?

President Bush is calling on Congress to lift a moratorium on drilling in most of the Outer Continental Shelf, suggesting that these long off-limit tracts of off-shore oil-rich earth may hold as much as 18 billion barrels of oil, nearly three decades of oil coming from Saudi Arabia, the world's largest producer.

This offers no immediate relief for gas prices, the president acknowledges, but in the long run could boost the world supply and ease prices. Congress, however, is unlikely to go along with the president's proposal.

The Bush administration's own Energy Department has reported that it could take so long to first lease and then explore and then produce anything in these regions that its impact on both supply and price is questionable - with production "unlikely before 2017.''

The Energy Department's own 2008 Annual Outlook reports that "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.

The potential estimated annual production from the Outer Continental Shelf in the lower 48 states is projected, in 2030, at 2.4 million barrels a day. The world's oil producers put out nearly 90 million barrels a day today.

The added oil production from the region would offer a modest increase, the Energy Department report concludes, noting that "because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.''

(Transocean drill ship, Discoverer Enterprise, the world's largest. Photo: Company handout/AFP/Getty Images)

by Frank James

One of most relevant news stories in the last 24 hours was in the New York Times. With all the talk about whether to drill for oil offshore or not, there's just this one not so little sticking point that many people probably didn't realize: There's aren't enough ocean-drilling ships to meet today's demand, let alone any signicant new demand.

As President Bush calls for repealing a ban on drilling off most of the coast of the United States, a shortage of ships used for deep-water offshore drilling promises to impede any rapid turnaround in oil exploration and supply.

In recent years, this global shortage of drill-ships has created a critical bottleneck, frustrating energy company executives and constraining their ability to exploit known reserves or find new ones. Slow growth in oil supplies, at a time of soaring demand, has been a major factor in the spike of oil and gasoline prices.

Houston-based Transocean is the largest provider of such ships to the oil industry and sees the logjam in orders lasting for years.

Transocean believes the deepwater market will continue to be constrained until at least 2012. Over three-quarters of the drill-ships currently under construction have already been contracted to oil companies eager to benefit from triple-digit oil prices, Mr. Long said.

(Charles Riede, AP File Photo)

by Frank James

When Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat, broached the idea for the nationalization of the nation's oil refineries at a Capitol Hill press conference yesterday, it was a safe bet that congressional Republicans would seize on a patently controversial idea to paint House Democrats in toto as extreme.

The office of Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the House Minority Leader, didn't disappoint. Last night, they put up a press release that started this way:

Bombshell: House Democrats Call for Government Takeover of Oil Refineries

Should the Federal Government Run the Entire Oil Industry? Senior Dem Says: "To Me, That Sounds Like a Very Good Idea"

It continued to strike this note:

In front of a sea of news cameras at a press conference earlier today, when senior House Democrats discussed the ongoing energy crisis that has spun out of control on their watch, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) dropped this bombshell as he stood next to House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL): He proposed a Washington takeover of the entire oil industry!...

by Frank James

House Democrats responded to President Bush's proposal to end the moratorium on drilling for oil offshore as well as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by telling the president to drop dead, although they used a lot more words to make the same point.

The Democrats' main argument was that the oil industry is already in possession of 68 million acres of oil leases and that Big Oil should drill away on those before they come around asking the federal government for any more land or ocean floor.

At a Capitol Hill press conference following Bush's White House Rose Garden appearance, Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts ridiculed the president as essentially a mouthpiece for the oil and gas industry.

Then he urged Bush to support legislation that would charge oil companies fees that would increase the longer the companies hold onto the leases without producing oil on them:

And you know, today is an historic day. The president has decided to take out some of the oldest ideas which the oil and gas industry have had for destroying the most pristine wilderness and shoreline that we have in the United States. After eight years, President Bush and Dick Cheney have turned the GOP into the "Gas and Oil Party." That's the legacy that they are going to leave.

And what we're going to do, Mr. (Rahm) Emanuel, Mr. (Nick) Rahall, Mr. (Maurice) Hinchey and the Democratic Party is going to do, is we're going to give them a chance in the White House to put their money where their mouth is. We're going to give them a chance to impose fees on the oil industry on the public lands where they do not drill, where the American people have already given them an opportunity to drill. And we will increase the fees as the years go by, because otherwise, they will have wound up warehousing where the oil is in the United States that the American people, the Democratic Party, everyone wants them to drill, but they're refusing to drill, and at the same time, they're insisting that we should go to places that should be preserved forever.

by Mark Silva

President Bush, attempting to put political pressure on the Democratic-run Congress in an election year plagued by soaring gasoline prices, today called for a lifting of federal bans against off-shore oil drilling and other measures to boost oil production.

"For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline,'' the president said in a Rose Garden appearance this morning. "Families across the country are looking to Washington for a response.''

The president, who faces opposition in Congress for his proposals to drill off-shore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as to the leasing of Western federal lands for extraction of oil from shale, is attempting to leverage the rising price of gas - which has now surpassed $4 a gallon - in a bid to get Congress to budge before Election Day, if not sooner.

"There is no excuse for delay,'' Bush said, acknowledging that it will take years for any of his proposals to pump new oil into the American economy. "It's time to move swiftly.''

If Congress leaves for its July Fourth recess without action, the Republican president suggested, "they will have to explain why $4 a gallon gas is not enough of a reason to act.''

by Frank James

Has the U.S. passed the point where it can enjoy the luxury of restricting drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and even the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

That is clearly the decision that's been made by Sen. John McCain, the all-but-official Republican presidential nominee, who now supports drilling off the U.S. coast, though he's still hanging on, for now, to his opposition to drilling in Alaska. Florida politicians and fellow Republicans like Gov. Charlie Crist and Sen. Mel Martinez have followed suit.

President Bush has long supported drilling in Alaska but is now calling for lifting the federal ban on off-shore drilling.

Democrats, at least to this point, are showing no such change of heart. Indeed, it will be harder for Democrats to make a similar shift because the party has an environmental constituency that would make such a move painful for any Democratic politician who dares suggest that such drilling bans be lifted.

Many Democrats and environmentalists argue the nation can't "drill it's way out of the problem," that any effort to increase the domestic production of oil just continues the nation's addition to that energy source by postponing the needed transition to alternative and renewable fuel sources and increased conservation.

by Frank James

Well, so much for Saudi Arabia's plan to lower world oil prices by promising to produce more oil.

Crude oil futures rose to nearly $140-a-barrel before deciding that it had scared the bejesus out of everyone and settling at closer to $137 in trading today.

Today's new record, coming as it did after the Saudis vowed, late last week, to pump more oil in an effort to send oil prices lower, showed that even the nation with the world's largest known oil reserves has limited marketplace power.

As the Associated Press reported, oil futures surged because of the weaker dollar.

Many investors buy commodities such as oil as a hedge against inflation when the dollar falls. Also, a weaker dollar makes oil less expensive to investors dealing in other currencies. Many analysts believe the dollar's protracted decline is a major factor behind oil's doubling in price over the past year.

"We have a weaker U.S. dollar, and the buyers are out in force right now," said James Cordier, president of Tampa, Fla.-based trading firms Liberty Trading Group and OptionSellers.com.

Cheney speaks in April at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in Washington. (AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

by Frank James

You might think Vice President Cheney, after getting so badly burned by bad intelligence and his own faulty assumptions before the Iraq War would be a lot more careful about his use of "facts."

No such luck. The vice president, arguing for oil and gas drilling off the Florida coast on Wednesday tried to justify such drilling by saying that the Cubans were allowing the Chinese to drill in the ocean waters just 60 miles from the Florida at a time when Congress refused to permit U.S. companies to drill as close as that to the coast.

But the Chinese aren't drilling in Cuban waters 60 miles off Florida's coast.

According to the Associated Press:

Vice President Dick Cheney's office acknowledged on Thursday that he was mistaken when he asserted that China, at Cuba's behest, is drilling for oil in waters 60 miles from the Florida coast.

"It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there," according to the statement.

by Frank James

In this time of high-gas prices, here's a Web site to bookmark in case you haven't done so already: www.fueleconomy.gov.

Maintained by the Energy Department, the site tells us what we already know - that our big vehicles use a lot more gas than small vehicles. But it's sobering to see it in black and white, especially when you can make comparisons between vehicles and see the results in graphic form.

For instance, my family owns three cars, a 2002 Honda Odyssey minivan, a 1998 Ford Explorer and a 1991 Honda Civic with relatively low mileage which we've kept primarily out of inertia but also for moments like these when gas prices soar.

According to fueleconomy.gov, the Odyssey gets an average of 19 miles a gallon in city-highway driving, the Explorer 15 miles and the Civic 29 miles.

The cost to drive 25 miles in the Explorer, $6.57; the Odyssey, $5,18, and the Civic, $3.40. The annual costs? $3,942 for the Explorer; $3,109 for the Odyssey and $2,039 for the Civic.

Cooling towers needed to dissipate heat from supercomputers at the Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico. (Energy Dept. photo)

by Frank James

This just in from the wow-that's-really-cool department. The Energy Department tells us that its newest supercomputer has broken an important speed barrier, making it the fastest such technology in the world.

(It's safe to say it's not running Microsoft's Vista operating system.)

In words that would thrill only computer scientists, the department says:

... the new Roadrunner supercomputer is the first to achieve a petaflop of sustained performance.

Uhh, OK. The press release's author saw that reaction coming. So he/she has provided the following useful thought experiment:

A "flop" is an acronym meaning floating-point operations per second. One petaflop is 1,000 trillion operations per second. To put this into perspective, if each of the 6 billion people on earth had a hand calculator and worked together on a calculation 24 hours per day, 365 days a year, it would take 46 years to do what Roadrunner would do in one day.

Now that's impressive. Given that kind of computing power, it makes the supercomputer's $133 million price tag definitely seem worth it. That's about two cents per each of the 6 billion people with their hand calculators.

The new computer's job will be to simulate nuclear explosions to ascertain the effectiveness of weapons in the nation's nuclear armament stockpile. That's needed because the U.S. hasn't conducted underground explosions of such weapons since the Cold War ended.

Motorists on beltway outside Washington, D.C., May 23, 2008 (Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images

by Frank James

I've seen the future and it's in Connecticut, at least when it comes to gas prices approaching $5 a gallon.

The family left the DC area and traveled to to the Nutmeg State over the holiday weekend. The higher gas prices certainly appeared to us to have had a depressing effect on traffic on one of the busiest routers along the eastern seaboard, I-95.

During some holiday weekends, because of traffic volume, it's taken us eight hours or more to make the 250 mile or so trip from the DC suburbs to New York City.

But the lighter than normal traffic allowed us to make the journey to and from the metropolitan New York City area in little more than five hours.

That was the upside of raging energy prices; many people apparently decided to stay closer to home for the Memorial Day weekend.

by Mark Silva

SHARM EL SHEIKH, Egypt - A rebuffed President Bush complained today that "those who are screaming the loudest'' about Saudi Arabia stepping up oil production are the same people opposing his efforts to expand domestic oil drilling.

People equals Democrats in this equation, and expansion equals ANWR.

The president, who failed this week to convince Saudi leaders to significantly boost oil production to help alleviate pressure on prices, said today that Americans will have to step up to the oil drilling platform as well.

The United States cannot keep blaming others for failing to provide enough petroleum, the president said, while the U.S. itself is unwilling to explore new oil fields. In particular, Bush wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling - which environmentalists and Democratic leaders adamantly oppose.

"Our problem in America gets solved when we aggressively go for domestic exploration,'' Bush told reporters here today. "Our problem in America gets solved if we expand our refining capacity, promote nuclear energy, and continue our strategy for the advancement of alternative energies, as well as conservation.

"And one of the interesting things about American politics these days is those who are screaming the loudest for increased production from Saudi Arabia are the very same people who are fighting the fiercest against domestic exploration, against the development of nuclear power, and against expanding refining capacity,'' he said.

"We've got to do more at home,'' the president said. "And we need a Congress who will be responsive to those requests.''

by Matthew Hay Brown

The Senate voted overwhelmingly today to suspend shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the House is expected to follow suit momentarily. House Republican leaders say the move, intended to reduce prices at the pump by easing demand on the global market, should be only the beginning.

In a letter today, Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Minority Whip Roy Blunt call on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to couple the suspension with drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the development of offshore oil resources, and/or the removal of restrictions on commercial oil shale leases on federal land.

"Over the long term the introduction of new supplies will certainly reduce prices," Boehner and Blunt write.

"By how much? Well, calling upon the logic you employed to derive the price reduction from redirecting 70,000 barrels of oil a day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it stands to reason that bringing online the one million barrels a day the Interior Department says is available in ANWR would reduce gasoline prices by 14 times the price reduction achieved by redirecting oil from the SPR. And though estimates of recoverable deepwater resources along our Outer Continental Shelf are notoriously outmoded, the 80 billion barrels of oil we believe is there right now would constitute a price reduction several times larger than redirecting oil from the SPR."

Republicans in the Senate made a similar proposal today in the form of an amendment to the bill to suspend shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The amendment failed, 42-56, before the bill passed, 97-1.

The League of Conservation Voters offered backhanded praise for the amendment, which was supported by Sens. Mitch McConnell and Pete Domenici.

"The Republican Leadership who sponsored this amendment did something of a public service today: they compiled a list of some of the worst ideas to deal with America's energy future, our economy and the environment and put them all in one place for the Senate to reject by a significant margin," League legislative director Tiernan Sittenfield said.

The House Republicans' letter follows.

Undated government photo of U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve's Big Hill site near Beaumont, Texas. (Source: Department of Energy/ via Bloomberg News)

by Frank James

How concerned are lawmakers during this election year about a voter backlash against Congress because of high gas prices?

Well, the Senate voted 97 to 1 to temporarily suspend the federal government's pumping of crude oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, with Republicans voting with Democrats despite President Bush's veto threat. So they're pretty worried.

Bush has insisted that it's necessary to fill the reserve so that the nation will be better able to withstand an unforeseen emergency, like a disruption in global oil supplies. Evidently the only senator who voted the way the president wanted the Senate to was Sen. Wayne Allard, a Colorado Republican who, co-incidentally, isn't running for re-election.

But many lawmakers and some energy-industry experts have questioned the wisdom of pumping oil back into the ground when people are paying almost $4 a gallon for gas and oil topping $120 a barrel. (The reserves being put in underground caverns in Louisiana and Texas.)

The oil being pumped into the SPR is sweet crude, the low-sulfur good stuff that can be readily made into gas and diesel fuel.

Here's a snippet of a Congressional Quarterly story with some additional details:

The Senate defied the White House Tuesday with a bipartisan vote to require a temporary halt to the oil deposits in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as the House prepared to pass its own mandate later in the day.

The Senate by 97-1 adopted an amendment to unrelated legislation (S 2284) overhauling the national flood insurance program that would temporarily suspend shipments to the SPR.

by Matthew Hay Brown

House Democrats expect bipartisan support today for a bill that would suspend new shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

By reducing demand on the global market, Democrats say, the move could cut the cost of gasoline by as much as 24 cents per gallon.

Wishful thinking, says the White House.

"The SPR fill that we have now is one-tenth of one percent of daily supply," White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said Monday. "So it would have a negligible impact on gas prices. But we know that there's a lot of members of Congress who are interested in this idea."

Among the members interested are several prominent Republicans.

"I'd like to do is see us do something about ... the Strategic Petroleum Reserve," House Minority Whip Roy Blunt told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Sunday. "I think we should stop filling it. The White House doesn't agree with that position. But that's one thing that would have impact at the pump."

In April, 16 Republican senators signed a letter asking President Bush to suspend the shipments. Not counting the Clinton-McCain embrace of a gas tax holiday, shutting off the flow to the reserve is one of the few attempts at reducing gas prices on which both parties have been able to find agreement.

by Frank James

If you want to show that you have a subtle understanding of the world economy, when asked why gas prices are high you might want to offer an answer that mentions world oil demand, the declining dollar etc.

But those weren't among the reasons Sen. John McCain, the all-but-official Republican presidential lnominee, offered during his interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News Channel last night. It's the fault of the oil "cartel," meaning the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, he said.

"I think it's because of one fundamental problem. It's because you have a cartel that controls virtually all of the world's oil supply. And they, obviously, can set the price of oil to the highest level that can sustain it," McCain told O'Reilly.

Many problems with that answer. One, OPEC is responsible for about 40 percent of the world's oil exports, not "virtually all" the world's supply, as McCain said.

Also, as indicated earlier, economists place much of the blame for high oil prices on factors other than OPEC. There's demand in rapidly developing countries like China and India, for instance.

by Matthew Hay Brown

The gas tax holiday gained a powerful ally in the House today when Minority Leader John Boehner signed on to legislation that would tie a summerlong suspension to a freeze on earmarks.

"Since Democrats refuse to lead on gas prices and earmark reform - top priorities of the American people - Republicans will," the Ohio Republican said.

Economists and other critics say a gas tax holiday would do little or nothing to reduce prices at the pump, but would deprive the Highway Trust Fund of billions of dollars in revenue.

The legislation introduced today by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, seeks to offset those loses by freezing spending on earmarks - an issue on which Republicans are attempting to regain the moral high ground.

"For far too long, taxpayers have been footing the bill for billions upon billions in wasteful Washington spending that our nation neither needs nor can afford," Boehner said. "An earmark ban will halt this pork-barrel spending until Congress comes up with a straightforward plan to reform the earmark process and restore some sanity to the federal budget."

by Matthew Hay Brown

The congressional stalemate over prices at the pump continues.

Senate Democrats unveiled new energy legislation this afternoon that they said would address the root causes of rising gasoline prices. But their Consumer-First Energy Act, with its proposals to raise taxes on oil companies, is likely to be blocked by Senate Republicans.

Meanwhile, the Republican proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, introduced this afternoon as the American Energy Production Act, is even less likely to go anywhere in the Democratic Senate.

"Even as it costs Americans more every day to fill up their gas tanks, Bush Republicans only offer more of the same failed energy policies that brought us to this point," Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

The Democratic legislation, by contrast, protects consumers, he said.

"Instead of helping big oil make more money at the expense of average Americans, we are forcing oil companies to change their ways," Reid said. "We will hold them accountable for unconscionable price-gouging and force them to invest in renewable energy or pay a price for refusing to do so."

by Matthew Hay Brown

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will give President Bush this much: He's one of a kind.

"Only President Bush could allow Big Oil to write our nation's energy policy, guarantee billions in oil tax breaks and refuse to stand up to OPEC or crack down on price gouging, and then shirk responsibility for gas prices that have more than doubled and oil prices that have quadrupled since he took office," the Nevada Democrat said today. "Only President Bush could be surprised to learn that gas was approaching $4 a gallon and then claim the White House is concerned about high gas prices."

Reid was responding to Bush's press conference this morning, during which the president said it was the Democratic Congress that was standing in the way of his efforts to restrain rising prices at the pump.

"One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand," Bush said. "Members of Congress have been vocal about foreign governments increasing their oil production; yet Congress has been just as vocal in opposition to efforts to expand our production here at home.

"They repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR," Bush said. "Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries. ... Congress continues to block provisions needed to increase domestic electricity production by expanding the use of clean, safe nuclear power."

(Photo by Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)

by Frank James

Sen. Richard Durbin knew he potentially could be stepping on a cow pie yesterday if he didn't carefully answer a reporter's question yesterday about the inflationary effect U.S. ethanol mandates might be having on food prices around the world.

The Senate's second-in-commade represents Illinois, after all, a state with large farm interests. And his party's presidential and congressional fortunes also depend on voters in states significant agricultural interests.

So Durbin was not only careful in what he said, but he was clear in asking reporters to report his answer accurately. He basically acknowledged that ethanol is part of the problem without saying much that would offend farmers. Budding politicians should study it as a great example of how to straddle an issue.

REPORTER: Senator Durbin, a lot of people, hunger experts, say that the demand for biofuels, ethanol and other biofuels, is contributing a lot to the increase in prices.

But we have to understand that it's had an impact on food prices, and let's be honest about it. Even in the corn belt, we'd better be honest about it.

By David Nitkin

The White House has abruptly announced a news conference in the Rose Garden at 10:31 a.m. today -- giving reporters less than two hours to prepare their questions for President Bush.

Bush will launch the news conference with an 8 minute statement, the White House says, "regarding Americans' understandable anxiety about issues affecting their pocketbooks."

According to the press office, "He will also call upon Congress to send him sensible and effective bills that will help Americans weather this difficult period and keep our country moving forward.

He will specifically reference:

1. Energy prices - Congress should pass legislation which would clear away obstacles to more affordable, more reliable energy here at home.

2. Rising food prices - Congress should reform our farm programs by passing a fiscally-responsible bill that does not impose new burdens on American consumers.

3. Mortgage payments - Congress should pass specific legislation that will help more families stay in their homes.

4. Student loans - Congress should give the federal government greater authority to buy federal student loans."

by Matthew Hay Brown

Republicans have taken to calling the 50 percent increase in gasoline prices since Democrats took over last year the "Pelosi Premium." Democrats say Republicans are looking at the wrong time frame.

"When President Bush took office, gas prices were less than half of what they are today - and oil was less than one-third," Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey says in today's Democratic radio address. "Then, seven years ago, President Bush and Vice President Cheney secretly invited executives from the big oil and big energy companies to the White House to write our national energy policy. ...

"Now, they are hauling in record profits," Lautenberg says. "We are paying record prices. And their profits are coming out of our pockets."

Republicans have been hounding Pelosi to explain the "commonsense plan" to hold down gas prices that Democrats promised two years ago.

"Two years later, they appear to have no plan other than to increase taxes on energy companies and stand in the way of increased domestic production," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said. "So what we want to know is, where is the 'commonsense plan' to lower gas prices? And what is taking them so long to unveil it? The American people are waiting--and paying more at the pump each day they wait."

In fact, Pelosi has spent a good part of the last week calling on Republicans to help pass legislation to crack down on price gouging, hold OPEC accountable for price fixing and end tax breaks for oil companies and invest the savings in renewable energy.

On Thursday, Pelosi urged Bush to halt deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. On Friday, Democrats called on the Federal Trade Commission to use the authority recently granted by Congress to investigate prices for possible market manipulation.

The larger problem is that for a price surge linked to market speculation, unrest in the Middle East, the week U.S. dollar and growing demand from China and India, there are no easy solutions. Lautenberg's address follows.

On April 23, 2008, a motorist fuels up at a San Mateo, Calif. gas station. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez, file)

by Matthew Hay Brown

House Democrats are concluding their gas price-themed by calling on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate gasoline prices for possible market manipulation.

In a letter today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and other senior Democrats called on Commission William E. Kovacic to exercise new investigative authority granted by Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

"Congress provided this authority to the FTC four months ago - but to date, the FTC has failed to exercise its power to protect consumers from skyrocketing energy costs," they wrote. "Recent price volatility and investor speculation in the oil market require the diligent oversight Congress called for, especially when oil prices break records daily."

On Thursday, Pelosi urged President Bush to stop suspend deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. She also has called on Bush and congressional Republicans to work with Democrats to pass legislation to crack down on gasoline price gouging, hold OPEC accountable for price fixing and end tax breaks for oil companies and invest the savings in renewable energy.

The letter follows.

by Matthew Hay Brown and David Nitkin

The White House is resisting bipartisan calls to halt new shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while gasoline prices at the pump continue to rise.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain today in asking President Bush to stop adding 60,000 barrels of oil each day the giant undergound caverns in Texas and Louisiana where the government keeps the reserve - a move they say would help reduce demand.

"Today the SPR is nearly 97 percent full," Pelosi told reporters today. "Independent experts report that suspending deliveries to SPR could cut as much as five cents on the low-end to 24 cents off a gallon of gas and provide real savings for families. ...

"Suspending delivery to SPR will not only increase supply, but impact energy prices by sending a signal to the market to stop runaway speculation."

The White House disagrees.

"The Administration continues to fill the reserve at a modest rate," spokesman Scott Stanzel said. "We don't believe the fill rates have a meaningful impact on oil supplies, as this oil equates to less than one tenth of one percent of daily world consumption. We continue to fill the reserve to provide an added layer of protection to the American people in cases of severe supply disruption."

Pelosi cited precedent for the move.

"Ahead of the first Gulf War, the first President Bush withdrew oil from the SPR. Withdrew oil from the SPR," she said. "We're not asking for that. President Clinton suspended SPR deliveries in 1995 and even the current President Bush withdrew oil from SPR and sold it on the market following Hurricane Katrina."

by Matthew Hay Brown

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, under fire from House Republicans for failing to contain rising gas prices, is appealing to President Bush for help.

In a letter today, the California Democrat asks Bush to direct the Justice Department to investigate oil cartel price-fixing, authorize the Federal Trade Commission to pursue and punish "price gougers," end tax breaks for oil companies and invest the savings in renewable energy.

"Lastly, your administration must use the authority given to it by the Congress to end market manipulation," Pelosi writes. "We cannot wait to act in the face of these price increases."

The letters appears to be a response, of sorts, to a campaign by the House Republican Conference accusing Democrats of breaking a promise to contain gas prices. Yesterday, they were calling the increase at the pump since Democrats took control of Congress last year the "Pelosi Premium."

Democrats say Republicans are blocking their efforts to wean America of foreign oil. Pelosi's letter follows.

by Matthew Hay Brown

Executives from Exxon Mobil, Shell and BP America all have been called to account before Congress today on oil company profits and rising prices at the pump. One oil baron who wishes he had been invited, according to House Republican Leader John A. Boehner, is Hugo Chávez.

With the hearing of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming now underway, Boehner has released the “testimony” of the Venezuelan strongman. As the Ohio Republican has it, Chávez is particularly interested in expressing grattitude to House Democrats for tax breaks that he says would benefit CITGO, the state-owned oil giant.

“It is especially relieving to know that while CITGO receives these tax breaks, five other major oil companies – including American-owned companies employing thousands of working Americans – will be forced to pay higher taxes, raising energy costs on consumers in your country and endangering scores of jobs as well,” Chávez says. “Please extend my gratitude to Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Whip Clyburn, Chairman Emanuel, and everyone who played a role in scheduling this legislation for a vote in the House of Representatives.

“Being a socialist dictator is a difficult – and often lonely – burden these days,” he continues. “As more nations move toward democracy, the number of socialist dictators in our world is declining, and we can use all the help we can get.”

It is, of course, an April Fool’s Day joke. The complete “testimony” follows.

by Frank James

Former Democratic U.S. Congressman Joseph Kennedy III has gotten a lot of attention, much of it negative, for his ads praising Venezuela for providing low-priced heating oil to Kennedy's company, Citizens Energy, which provides low-cost fuel to hard-hit low income Americans.

Last year, when he ran the first ads lauding Venezuela and Citgo, the nationally owned oil company, Kennedy ran into a conservative buzzsaw and he was criticized for acts tantamount to treason for aiding and abetting an enemy of the Bush Administration, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, a big fan of Cuba's maximum leader Fidel Castro and a man of whom it can be fairly said doesn't embody the best notions of democratic leadership.

Such hardline conservative feelings may be impossible to change. But ads running now that are similar to those that ran last year can evidently have an effect on the persuadable, which appears to be what is shown by a new study of 404 people, including self-described Democrats, Republicans and Independents, who were surveyed over the Internet by HCD Research Inc, using its MediaCurves.com technology.

What HCD found was that the ads with Kennedy do appear to win over some viewers who see Venezuela in a more positive light after viewing the ad than they did before. Of course, that is exactly the impact Venezuela means for the ads to have.

By Matthew Hay Brown

As oil futures topped $100 a barrel today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said congressional Democrats would try again to end government breaks for the industry – an approach that has been rejected by President Bush.

“It is unfortunate that President Bush opposed our legislation to repeal multi-billion dollar subsidies given to Big Oil companies,” Pelosi said in a statement. “We will again seek to repeal these subsidies and to enact strong legislation to stop price gouging at the pump and pursue anti-trust actions against OPEC entities that fix the price of oil.”

The White House, meanwhile, spoke of expanding domestic production, including drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“We have to figure out a way to increase supply here in the United States, done in environmentally sensitive ways, which we know how to do, so that we can have an increase supply of oil here while world demand continues to increase at a really astronomical pace for demand for oil,” White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told reporters.

Violence in the Nigerian oil center of Port Harcourt and rough weather that threatened oil-exporting ports in Mexico helped push the price of light, sweet crude for February delivery over the century mark, the Associated Press reports. Adjusted for inflation, the cost remains within range of highs set in 1980.

Prices at the pump, which tend to lag behind futures, rose slightly today, according to the Oil Price Information Service. The national average cost of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline climbed 0.6 cents today to $3.049. That was down from $3.061 a month ago, but up from $2.322 a year ago.

by William Neikirk

President Bush signed an energy bill into law today that would not have been his ideal of a good bill when he took office in 2001.

But times and politics change and so do presidents. He's still a driller but now he's become more of a conserver--greener than he was six years ago (in an environmental sense, I mean).

So it is now the law of the land that the nation's automakers must produce vehicles that get an average 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Also, it is also the law that appliances must be more efficient and that new incentives are in place to produce more renewable fuels.

The tenor of much of the commentary has been to praise Congress and the White House for their action--and then to ask: What took so long? To some, it seems like seven years of wasted argument over better mileage standards--otherwise known as CAFÉ standards.

by Christi Parsons

UPDATED

Illinois will soon be home to a new $1.5 billion coal generation plant, officials announced this morning.

The plant in downstate Mattoon will be a joint venture between the U.S. Department of Energy and the FutureGen Alliance, a non-profit consortium of coal producers and energy generators.

Illinois' congressional delegation has been trying since 2003 to persuade officials to choose Illinois for the plant, which promises a significant boost for the state economy and for the state's coal industry.

Sen. Dick Durbin, a leading champion of the project, was all over the announcement this morning.

"Downstate Illinois has the coal, the geology and the commitment needed to make this project a success," Durbin said in a press release that came out seconds after the announcement was made. "The success today is a tribute to the community, the state and all those who worked so hard to secure the FutureGen project for Illinois."

It doesn't hurt the politicians who fought for it any, either. The plant will be in Rep. Tim Johnson's downstate district. It was also a high priority for Reps. John Shimkus and Jerry Costello.

Barack Obama at the Redemption World Outreach Center in Greenville, S.C., on Sunday. Today. he presents an energy policy. AP photo by Mary Ann Chastain

by Mike Dorning

Presidential candidate Barack Obama hopes to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and combat global warming with a national auction system that would make every company pay for the right to emit smoke and other sources of carbon.

The "cap-and-trade" auction system is based on the idea that the easiest way to reduce the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming is to simply charge a price for pollution. The approach has long been favored by environmentally minded free-market economists who believe that a pollution "price" would reduce emissions more efficiently than complex government regulations.

Under the Obama plan to be formally announced in a speech today, the government would set a national cap on carbon emissions that by 2050 would be reduced gradually to 80 percent of 1990 carbon emissions. The national cap in turn would determine the number of individual carbon allowances available for auction to industry. So the price of a carbon allowance should reach the level necessary to limit emissions to the right level.

Promoters of the approach believe that such an auction system works better than complicated government standards for industry-by-industry emissions limits and the inevitable grandfather clauses to allow some old factories to continue polluting because it is not economical to retrofit them.

Instead, the market makes decisions about which plants install potentially costly control systems to limit carbon emissions, which ones do not, and which ones simply shut down. Companies make individual decisions on what, if any, controls are economical for individual factories based on the price set for carbon allowances by the national auction.

Alan Greenspan, author of The Age of Turbulence, has created some in Washington with his new memoir. AP photo

by William Neikirk

Alan Greenspan’s new book is full of odd detail. He confesses that Ayn Rand, the libertarian author and his mentor, called him "the undertaker" because of his serious manner and conservative clothing. As a boy, he collected railroad timetables, a vicarious if not nerdy way of seeing the world. Unlike most people, he wanted to get out of New York City.

The former chairman of the Federal Reserve writes that his wife, television correspondent Andrea Mitchell, jokes to friends that he proposed three times in his indecipherable "Fedspeak" before she grasped what he was saying. Wrong, said Greenspan. "Actually, I proposed five times—she missed a couple."

For all the lightness and heaviness sprinkled through Greenspan’s memoir, "The Age of Turbulence," this is a serious book by and about a serious man who felt secure enough to criticize President Bush and the Republican Party from which he came for failing to take fiscal discipline seriously. The GOP deserved to lose last year’s elections, he says, and Bush made a mistake in not vetoing a bill. What heresy it was to say that he is fonder of Bill Clinton than any president named Bush.

by William Neikirk

The energy story, already big, is about to get bigger. Oil prices rose sharply on Wednesday, briefly touching $80 a barrel. The Energy Department reported a large drop in oil inventories. Gasoline supplies and refinery utilization fell. Higher prices at the pump could follow.

A higher level of political dispute could be the way. Democrats in Congress are considering a new energy bill that would mandate a greater use of ethanol and force automobile manufacturers to meet higher fuel economy standards--35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks by 2020 as approved by the Senate. A joint House-Senate conference will write the final bill.

Gasoline prices have come down from their highs of the summer, but the recent bad news could build the momentum for a measure that pressure Congress to include the higher mileage requirements, called CAFE standards for corporate average fuel economy.

by William Neikirk

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) has a plan for combating global warming. He would slap a 50-cent per gallon tax on gasoline, end the mortgage tax deduction for so-called "McMansions," and tax and put a cap on carbon dioxide emissions.

Proposals by a single congressman are usually not so noteworthy, but Dingell happens to be the powerful chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and accustomed to getting his way in Congress.

But the question is whether the House Democratic Leadership will go this far. He and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are often at odds on energy policy. But when Congress comes back this fall, legislation to combat climate change will be considered by the House.

He outlined his ideas in a town hall meeting in Ann Arbor Tuesday, according to a story in today's Detroit Free Press.

By William Neikirk

The Chevy Volt came to Capitol Hill today.

You can't buy it now, but General Motors hopes that it will be on the market in a few years at a reasonable price.

It's an electric plug-in. You could recharge the battery overnight and the next day you could drive 40 miles without using a single drop of fuel. If you have to go further than 40 miles, a gasoline engine would kick on, but only to recharge the battery. It's a hybrid, but the motor is electric.

There's a problem. The battery technology hasn't advanced enough to allow you drive to and from work (in most cases) without burning any fossil fuel. But research goes on, partly funded by federal money. And the Volt is a good lobbying tool.

It takes a regular 110 volt cord.

The Volt

by David Lightman

Most Americans blame oil companies for high gasoline prices--but many also blame President Bush, at least that's what a new Quinnipiac poll released today says.

I've written about it in today's Hartford Courant. Here's the top of the story.

By David Lightman
Washington Bureau Chief

WASHINGTON--A new Quinnipiac poll released today shows that most Americans blame oil companies for high gasoline prices--but many also blame President Bush.

The June 5 to 11 survey of 1,711 people found that while 43 percent thought oil companies were largely responsible for the runup in prices, 20 percent thought Bush was the reason.

The poll comes as both the House and Senate consider ways to reduce American dependence on oil. The Senate is debating a broad energy bill, with some votes expected today, while the House Resources Committee Wednesday approved legislation that would force oil companies to work more closely with landowners and ranchers...

Posted by William Neikirk at 1:15 p.m. CDT

The story from the White House at first appeared to be dramatic. President Bush announced that he has changed his position on climate change. He called on industrial nations to set a "goal" of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2008 (or the virtual end of his presidency).

On closer examination, it's hard to see the real change in his policy. He's already announced plans (unlikely to be enacted in his presidency) to use renewable fuels and conservation measures that he says will reduce greenhouse gases way out there in the future.

Posted by Frank James at 10:00 am CDT

Forget all the explanations from oil industry officials and analysts who say high and rising gasoline prices are tied to growing demand in other parts of the world and a shortage of U.S. refinery capacity. Most Americans either don't know about or aren't buying such explanations.

Instead they believe it's mostly because the oil industry is just plain greedy and is gounging consumers according to a Gallup Poll.

The poll also asked Americans for their views about why gas prices are so high. The most common single reason, mentioned by one in three respondents, is that oil companies are greedy and are gouging consumers. Nearly as many respondents offer practical explanations including problems with refineries (16%), increased demand (10%), more driving during the summer months (3%), and oil shortages (3%). Thirteen percent blame high gas prices on problems in the Middle East, including the Iraq War. The government also receives its share of blame; 9% say government involvement has led to the high gas prices, while 5% cite a lack of government regulation of oil companies.

Given this, small wonder the House just passed anti-gouging legislation. It may be little more than paper-tiger legislation, ineffective at bringing prices down since the price rises have little to do with gouging according to experts. But it resonates with a good many American consumers.

The poll also said most Americans expect to pay $4 per gallon for gas this summer. Most respondents, evidently, didn't think the oil companies were so greedy as to boost prices to the $5 dollar a gallon, however.

Posted by Frank James at 5:30 pm CDT

With the traditional start of the summer driving season about to begin with the fast-approaching Memorial Day holiday and gas prices topping out well over $3 a gallon, Congress decided to put the pedal to the metal today and pass an energy-related bill that it hopes will give voters the impression it's doing something.

Virtually every House Democrat and scores of Republicans approved in a 284 to 141 vote a piece of legislation called the "Federal Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act," whose affect on current gas prices, even if it became law tomorrow, would be essentially nil.

Could it have anything to do with the fact that, as of today, the Washington D.C. Taxicab Commission authorized a $1 per ride surcharge on Washington taxi cabs to offset the rising price of gas?

The Congressional Research Service summarizes the bill, HR 1252 which was introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) thusly:

Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act - Makes it unlawful for any person to sell crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates at a price that: (1) is unconscionably excessive; or (2) indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage unusual market conditions or the circumstances of an emergency to increase prices unreasonably.

Posted by John McCormick at 11:30 am CDT.

Speaking in the heart of America's automotive industry, Sen. Barack Obama on Monday called for tougher fuel-economy standards and more tax breaks for hybrid cars as part of a detailed energy proposal he unveiled before about 2,000 people here.

The Illinois senator said his proposals would cut the nation's oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels a day and take the equivalent of 50 million cars worth of pollution out of the air. He would achieve that goal in part by targeting a 4 percent annual increase in fuel economy standards.

The Democratic presidential candidate said the nation's "oil addiction" is a threat to national security because it is helping fund terrorism.

Posted by William Neikirk at 9:45 a.m. CDT

The U.S. economy slowed to a virtual crawl in the first quarter, rising at an annual rate of only 1.3 percent, the government said today.

The housing correction was responsible for much of the slowdown, and that is likely to continue for many months into the future.

It was the slowest quarterly growth in four years. In the fourth quarter of last year, the economy rose at a 2.5 percent annual rate.

Posted by William Neikirk at 6:15 a.m. CDT

Today is Earth Day. It is the 38th such day in our history. And never has the planet been under such threat, or so many scientists tell us. A United Nations scientific panel says that there is a 90 percent chance the earth is warming, with possible catastrophic effects later in this century.

Just as a dormant plant springs to life in spring, our politicians have awakened to these warnings. Just a few years ago, they treated global warming as one of those theoretical issues hardly worth attention.

And the public was swimming in ennui about the issue. Four years ago, the Gallup Poll called global warming "a bit of a yawn" to most Americans. Half the population worried about it to some extent, the other half didn't.

Now, global warming is heating up as an issue. News about melting glaciers and ice caps and endangered polar bears have had a huge impact on our psyche. The UN studies are unsettling, even if some question the data.

Posted by Mike Dorning at 3:40 pm CDT.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama announced a proposal on Friday to combat global warming by encouraging more use of ethanol in automobile fuel.

The Illinois senator's plan echoes an iniative of California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger issued an executive order this year requiring fuels sold in California to contain less carbon in order to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, which has been linked to climate change. The California governor set a goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the state's passenger vehicles by 10 percent by 2020.

Obama essentially would impose the California plan on the nation, requiring that fuels sold in the U.S contain 5 percent less carbon by 2015 and a 10 percent less by 2020.

Posted by William Neikirk at 6:10 a.m. CST

Why do many people take such delight in beating up on Al Gore?

The question is hard to answer. All I know is it seems to be a source of enormous enjoyment for many people. Perhaps it has to do something with the former vice president's wonderfully earnest qualities.

Take the story that the Associated Press spread around the country Tuesday. It seems that a conservative group figured out that Gore's Nashville 10,000-square foot mansion used more than 12 times the amount of electricity than the typical household in the city.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) testifies on global warming before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 30, 2007. Chicago Tribune photos by Pete Souza.

Posted by William Neikirk at 4:05 p.m. CST

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and President Bush think alike on more than one aspect of energy. It's already been noted that the senator and Bush have similar plans for boosting ethanol supply. (See previous item on the Swamp). Today, the senator pointed out he and Bush have similar plans on fuel economy standards for motor vehicles.

The senator sent a letter to Bush urging him to support an automatic annual increase in fuel economy standards for vehicles unless the government can prove the increase is unworkable. He said he has a bill to that effect, and that it fits the president's specifications for fuel economy legislation.

On issues like this, sometimes it is hard to tell who is the real Democrat and the real Republican.

Posted by William Neikirk at 9:15 a.m. CST

When President Bush announced a plan to cut U.S. gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years, it had that certain ring of familiarity. I had read something like this before. And so I checked, and found that one well-known senator, Barack Obama of Illinois, had co-sponsored a similar bill just a few weeks ago.

Obama joined Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, and Joseph Biden of Delaware in co-authoring the bill I had in mind. It would require that 60 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel fuel be included in the annual motor vehicle fuel supply by 2030.

The numbers may be different in Bush's plan, but it's the same idea. This kind of outright appropriation goes on all the time in politics.

Posted by Mark Silva at 2:05 pm and updated at 2:51 pm CST

President Bush plans to push for the conservation of oil tonight with a State of the Union address proposing a "20 in 10'' plan to cut American fuel consumption by 20 percent in 10 years, and he will press for tax incentives for health care, immigration reform and a continuation of his education reforms.

But the president plans to save for the second half of his nearly hour-long televised address to a joint session of Congress and the nation starting at 8 pm CST any mention of the controversial war in Iraq or a broader war against terrorism, fields in which the White House acknowledges Bush will break "no new ground.''

Posted by William Neikirk at 2:08 p.m. CST

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) joined four other senators today in introducing a bill that would put a mandatory cap on so-called greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. that contribute to global warming.

The question this year is whether President Bush, after resisting a mandatory system for dealing with global warming, might decide to join such an effort. He's at least acknowledged it's a problem and proposed a longer-range plan. But will he go the extra mile?

Posted by William Neikirk at 4:03 p.m. CST

Twelve states and 13 environmental groups urged the Supreme Court today to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate "greenhouse gas" emissions from new vehicles in order to prevent global warming.

The hearing showed how difficult it is to deal with an issue that deeply concerns the scientific community. There is no absolute proof that catastrophic climate change will indeed occur, despite alarming projections contained in a number of studies.

Posted by Mark Silva at 6:10 am CST

The mission of NATO has evolved from defending Europe against Soviet and Warsaw Pact aggression to providing security within Afghanistan. Yet NATO must be prepared to confront a newer challenge, the manipulation of energy as a weapon, says Sen. Richard Lugar (R, Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relatons Committee, and NATO member nations must underwrite the mission.

Lugar will serve as keynote speaker today at a conference of the German Marshall Fund in Riga, Latvia, where NATO's annual summit is getting underway. President Bush will attend that summit before flying on to Amman, Jordan, later this week for a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Here's an advance look at what Lugar will be telling European leaders on the eve of the NATO summit in Riga:

Posted by William Neikirk at 3:10 p.m. CDT

Who is this radical politician named Dick Lugar? Reported to be a quiet, solid conservative from quiet, solid Indiana, Lugar came out today with an aggressive plan to make the nation more energy independent.

And he had the temerity to criticize our political leadership on the energy question, which may seem a bit odd since he is a GOP senator from Indiana.