The Checks and Balances Project commissioned Colorado pollster Chris Keating to conduct research that shows that 79 percent of Coloradans favor a crackdown on oil price speculation and market manipulation to reduce gas prices. The survey showed 77 percent of Colorado voters think reducing oil consumption through efficiency would also be an effective way to reduce prices.

“Coloradans are tired of paying for their gas twice: once at the pump and again through their taxes,” said Matt Garrington, deputy director of the Checks and Balances Project. “It’s clear car and truck drivers in this state want solutions to this problem now, including a crackdown on market manipulation, a balanced approach to energy development and an end to taxpayer handouts for oil companies.”

Garrington told The Colorado Independent that the surveyors asked open ended questions along the lines of “Why do you think oil prices are so high? and What could be done to bring prices down?”

“We didn’t lay out policy options to choose from. We just asked people what they thought,” he said.

According to Garrington, Coloradans strongly favor ending taxpayer subsidies for oil companies. Seventy-two percent of Coloradans say ending oil company subsidies and transferring those subsidies to companies that are developing wind and solar power would be an effective strategy for the nation.

Garrington pointed to a ThinkProgress study that shows how market manipulation affects the price of oil. The study shows that while the effect of speculation varies, it can increase the price of oil substantially.

“It’s time for oil and gas companies to stand on their own two feet,” said Garrington. “Coloradans understand that we simply can’t afford to pay billions in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. It is simply immoral to continue the Big Oil gravy train when Americans have been asked to sacrifice billions in cuts to Medicare.”

To reduce gas prices, he said seven of 10 Coloradans favor diversification of the sources of energy by creating a national renewable electricity standard that requires 20 percent of electricity to come from sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.

The live telephone poll conducted May 24-26, 2011 by Keating Research, Inc. as an internal messaging survey. It was released to the public on the eve of the Americans for Prosperity “Running on Empty” Colorado tour stops that promote increased oil drilling. The Checks and Balances Project criticized the group as a front for Big Oil and noted that billionaire oil refinery tycoons David and Charles Koch fund the organization.

“The Americans for Prosperity tour is running on empty ideas. Instead of investing our energy dollars into drilling deeper and putting Colorado land and water at risk, we need to build cars that can go further on a gallon of gasoline and to tap into the clean energy of the wind and sun – energy sources we have right here in Colorado that never run out,” said Garrington.

Results of the survey were based on 603 interviews with registered Colorado voters statewide. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

Responding to additional questions by email, Garrington said this about why the poll was conducted and why it is being released now, several months after the polling was completed.

“Checks and Balances was interested in learning where the public was at on gas prices and subsidies in the context of the larger political debate happening in Washington. We chose to release the poll in response to the Americans for Prosperity tour, which is backed by Big Oil and the Koch Brothers. AFP is using gas prices to try and take political advantage of the American public and leverage more handouts for Big Oil – this time in the form of our public lands, drinking water, and air quality.”

Colorado’s two senators, Michael Bennet and Mark Udall, voted with the majority to end the tax breaks, but as the measure needed 60 votes to pass, it fell largely on party lines.

From The New York Times:

The Senate on Tuesday blocked a Democratic proposal to strip the five leading oil companies of tax breaks that backers of the measure said were unfairly padding industry profits while consumers were struggling with high gas prices.

Senate pages delivered charts about tax breaks for oil companies to the chamber on Tuesday. Democrats sought to eliminate five tax breaks, producing an estimated $21 billion over 10 years.

The latest on President Obama, the new Congress and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

Despite falling eight votes short of the 60 needed to move ahead with the bill, top Democrats said they would insist that eliminating the tax breaks to generate billions of dollars in revenue must be part of any future agreement to raise the federal debt limit.

“We have to stand up and say, ‘Enough is enough,’ ” said Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota. “While oil prices are gouging the pocketbooks of American families, these companies are on a pace for a record profit this year.”

Udall argued for the bill, while also calling on the Congress to enter into a broader discussion of energy policy. Below is the complete text of Udall’s floor speech on the subject:

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the energy-related votes that we face this week the Senate.

Coloradans – and all Americans – are feeling the sting of skyrocketing gas prices. And “pain at the pump” puts a crimp in the budgets of hardworking families and small businesses everywhere. I hear this every time I am back in my home state, talking to folks. They think it’s unfair – and I agree.

Runaway gas prices are not acceptable … and we must work across the partisan divide to bring a stop to it.

In fact, I recently called on the State Department and the U.S. Trade Representative to do everything they can to crack down on global oil market manipulation. And I joined my colleagues in urging the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to ratchet up their efforts at preventing over speculation in oil trading domestically. Taking these steps would help reduce the chance that market manipulation is hurting American consumers.

But from a larger perspective, the challenge is that we simply do not have any quick fixes. And substantial relief today would have required us to take steps years ago to reform our energy system – but unfortunately we let those opportunities pass us by. That is the unvarnished truth the American people need to hear, not false promises or bumper sticker solutions.

The real solutions involve tough choices and strategic investments in clean energy that will help wean our nation off foreign sources of oil. It really is the only way we will be able to dig ourselves out of this hole and lower gas prices. And importantly – it’s one of the ways that we will get the United States back on the path to winning the global economic race.

Unfortunately, neither of the votes that we will take this week will reduce gas prices for consumers. Like most Americans, I’m frustrated that once again politics is getting in the way of progress. I’d much rather that we be debating a comprehensive energy policy this week that includes a renewable electricity standard, promotes energy efficiency and encourages responsible development of domestic resources like safe nuclear power and natural gas.

We need to move beyond partisan fights and blame games. Instead, we need to work toward what we all can agree are key priorities: developing energy that brings affordable prices to American families and businesses; building a sustainable long-term energy future; and doing it in a way that protects our clean air and water for future generations. Put simply, establishing energy security – perhaps above any other issue – will assure our nation’s future success.

Now, we each often say that our states are the best laboratories to create innovation. But in Colorado, we have a great example of this in action.

Back in 2004, Colorado cast aside partisan politics and bumper sticker solutions by taking a big, brave step forward and embraced the emerging clean energy economy. That year I led a bipartisan ballot initiative with the former Republican Speaker of the Colorado House, Lola Spradley, in a campaign to convince the voters of Colorado to approve a state-based RES that would harness renewable resources like the sun, the wind, and geothermal energy. We barnstormed the state, speaking over and over again – to anyone who would listen.

There was a lot of industry opposition to an RES, and dire predictions that it would cost consumers money and damage Colorado’s economy. But, Mr. President, those arguments were proven wrong. And Colorado industries, consumers and people across the political spectrum have embraced clean energy as part of Colorado’s effort to win the global economic race.

In fact, last year, the Colorado legislature approved and former Governor Bill Ritter signed a bill to increase the RES standard even further: from 20 percent to 30 percent renewable energy by 2020. This makes the Colorado RES the second most aggressive standard in the nation, only after California.

Even more refreshing is that in the years since Colorado established one of the earliest and strongest Renewable Electricity Standards our energy producers have embraced the move. One of our state’s largest utilities, Xcel Energy, has become a national leader in clean energy. In proving that clean energy can be profitable and competitive, Xcel is making the case for how an RES can create jobs, stimulate the economy and help us achieve energy independence.

The clean energy economy is one of the greatest economic opportunities of the 21st century, and the global demand for clean energy is growing by one trillion dollars every year. The lesson to be learned from Colorado is that clean energy can unleash the American entrepreneurial spirit. We must pursue forward-thinking policies that will help America seize and lead this growing market.

Make no mistake – we are in a race against foreign competitors and are quickly being left behind. Last year, I returned from China where I discussed clean energy issues with American businesses located there. I saw it firsthand…they are ready to eat our lunch when it comes to clean energy. China is pursuing renewable energy and clean energy technology so ambitiously, not because they want to save the planet, but because it makes good business and economic sense.

In fact, China has announced that it is investing over $738 billion dollars over the next 10 years in clean energy development – nearly the size of our entire American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Just imagine, their economy uses a comparable amount of energy, but they take clean energy so seriously that they plan to invest a stimulus-sized amount of money solely in renewables.

But we can’t just rely on renewable energy … rather, America must have an all-of-the-above energy policy. For example, conservation and energy efficiency efforts offer the quickest way to reduce energy demand today. And safe nuclear energy and natural gas can and should fill a larger share of our energy portfolio as they both are cleaner fuels. In addition, we all know that America will be dependent on fossil fuels for years to come … so, it’s not realistic to exclude them in our strategy. All of these elements should be in America’s energy mix and we must acknowledge that to really embrace 21st century solutions.

But when you look at the future demands for clean energy and the economic opportunities ahead of us, renewable resources hold the greatest promise. And the more home-grown renewable energy we can produce, the less money we need to spend buying oil from foreign nations who wish to do us harm – which means less money spent at the gas pump. I don’t think anyone in this chamber can argue with the proposition that we should be moving aggressively toward energy independence with dividends like that.

It is time we made a concerted national effort to reclaim our position at the front of the pack. We should be harnessing the wind and sun and other renewable resources here in America, and putting Americans to work in good-paying jobs developing, building, and leading the clean energy revolution. It’s an example of what we call back home “Colorado common-sense.”

But instead of pursuing those common-sense goals that are sure to move our economy forward, we are here today exchanging political punches on issues largely unrelated to our energy independence and the prices Americans pay at the pump.

While I support reducing tax breaks for the five largest oil companies, I honestly wish this issue was a smaller part of a larger discussion on a comprehensive energy strategy that allows the U.S. to lead the global economic race. That said, I will vote to repeal these needless tax breaks for BIG oil. Traditional energy production has received billions in subsidies over the last 70 years. And the top five oil companies in particular make billions in profits that far exceed the need for government support.

I happen to agree with the thousands of Coloradans who have told me: these companies – among the biggest in the world – don’t need and shouldn’t receive taxpayer money, especially as we look for ways to consolidate our tax code and reduce the deficit.

Now, it’s important to me that this bill is limited to the top five companies and does NOT include small, independent producers that provide many jobs in Colorado. I should note that there are some tax credits – like the production tax credit for wind, the investment tax credit for solar, and the intangible drilling costs tax credit for SMALL oil and gas producers – that are important to jobs in Colorado and across the country. While my ideal energy market would be free from any tax credits, I also want to make sure we continue to invest in domestic energy industries that still need help getting off the ground. Just as with most policy, it is a delicate balance.

As I wind down my remarks today, my request to my Senate colleagues is that we would take responsibility for our economic future and get serious about energy independence. This means shedding our doctrinaire positions, and our “my way or the highway” approaches.

There are ways to responsibly drill for oil while also increasing our renewable electricity usage.

There are ways to safely expand nuclear power while also boosting energy efficiency.

There are ways to harness natural gas as a bridge fuel while also spurring a generation of electric cars.

These are NOT either-or propositions.

We must seize this clean energy opportunity so that two, four, and 10 years from now we are not still sidetracked on political infighting because we’ve once again failed to make the tough decisions. A comprehensive energy policy is critically important to our nation’s economic recovery and our long-term energy future. Believe me, Americans are ready for it – in fact, they are demanding it. Thank you.

Senate Democrats are expected to push for a vote this week on the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act of 2011, a bill to cut tax subsidies for Exxon Mobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Shell and Chevron.

The money saved by closing these loopholes — estimated at $21 billion over 10 years — would be used to pay down the deficit.

“At a time when families are feeling the pain at the pump and our deficit keeps growing at an alarming rate, we simply can’t afford to keep giving away billions in taxpayer handouts to oil companies that are doing nothing to help lower prices,” said bill sponsor Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) “The ‘Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act’ is based on a simple premise: we need everyone to do their share to lower the deficit, not just working families and the elderly.”

The bill would eliminate five special oil company exemptions.

In a Senate committee hearing last week, the leaders of Exxon Mobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Shell and Chevron called the proposal anti-completive and discriminatory and warned that it would threaten American jobs and harm innovation.

But with gas prices over $4 per gallon in much of the country, many Americans are most concerned with high fuel costs.

A report prepared for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) by the Congressional Research Service says that eliminating tax breaks for large oil companies is unlikely to have much affect on gasoline prices, because crude oil is the largest factor in the price of gas, and the price of crude oil is set by world market.

The tax changes are unlikely to affect oil output, the price of oil and, consequently, the price of gas, CRS found in an analysis of five breaks targeted by Democrats.

The Domestic Manufacturing Deduction

Oil companies get a 6 percent deduction in net income for domestic production.

Ending this would be equivalent to an increase on the tax on corporate profit, CRS said.

It is widely accepted that a proportional change in taxes on profit affects neither the firm’s incremental costs or revenues, and therefore does not change its behavior with respect to output. Since output does not change, there is little reason to believe that the price of oil, or gasoline, consumers face will increase.

The price of oil is high enough to provide incentive for continued production in the U.S, CRS said.

With current oil prices at, or near, $100 per barrel in the United States, it is unlikely that firms will slow production, or close wells as the result of the loss of the Section 199 deduction.

Intangible Drilling Costs

For nearly a century, oil and gas companies have been allowed to take immediate deductions for costs associated with exploring for oil. This was designed to enhance investment returns for financing risky exploration activities. But with oil prices high, companies don’t need incentives to explore. CRS:

Repeal of the immediate expensing of intangible drilling costs provision and replacement with a form of cost amortization more consistent with depreciation methods common in other industries likely will have no effect on current U.S. oil production, and hence no effect on current gasoline prices.

Dual Capacity Rules

Since the 1950s oil companies have been allowed to deduct the tax payments they make to other countries.

These tax payments are broadly defined, and, according to the Center for American Progress, companies have been allowed to claim credits for payments in countries that have little or no business tax.

CRS said that since elimination of this break amounts to a tax on profit it should have no effect on output or pricing decisions, and therefore no effect on the price of gasoline.

“The incidence of the tax would appear to be on shareholders.”

Oil companies are allowed to deduct a flat percentage of revenues from a well. This break is called “percentage depletion.” CRS says that it has been eliminated for most companies and should not be a factor in investment and pricing decisions by the five major oil companies.

The companies are also allowed to deduct the cost of tertiary injectants used in drilling. CRS found that the cost of ending this tax break would be very small for industry.

“[T]he five major oil companies, to which repeal would apply, earned over $32 billion in net income in the first quarter of 2011. Repeal of the [tertiary injectant] deduction for the industry is estimated by the Obama administration to yield only $6 million in revenue in 2012.”

The tax revenue generated by ending these five exemptions is expected to be 5 percent of the earnings of the largest oil companies, the report found.

“As ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee that oversees the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, I have a responsibility to ensure speculators are not exploiting oil supply fears to make big profits,” Boswell said in a prepared statement.

“The CFTC determined in 2008 that Wall Street speculators were increasing their positions in energy markets to capitalize off of political unrest in heavy oil-producing nations. Energy prices drive up the cost of goods across the board — from input costs on the farm to the food on the kitchen table. I am calling for a hearing to make sure that Wall Street and Big Oil are not purposely driving up prices once again to make a quick buck on the backs of the middle class and small business owners who are hit the hardest when the price of gas skyrockets.”

Boswell and U.S. Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont co-authored a letter to Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas). Both GOP leadership members represent states that hold a special interest in the oil industry’s success, but Boswell remained optimistic that his request would be given serious consideration.

“The Agriculture Committee has a history of investigating oil speculation when gas prices reach record levels, regardless of what party is in charge,” he said. “It is my hope that Committee leadership will take the issue of rising gas prices seriously, as well as our hearing request, and allow daylight to be shed on this important issue.”

In addition to Boswell and Welch, the letter to leadership was also signed by Democratic U.S. Reps. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Terri Sewell of Alabama, James McGovern of Massachusetts, Bill Owens of New York, Joe Courtney of Connecticut and Larry Kissell of North Carolina.

The full text of the letter appears below:

Dear Chairmen Lucas and Conaway:

We are writing to request the Committee conduct a hearing to examine the recent rise in energy prices, particularly for oil and gasoline. The American public wants reassurance that these high prices are completely attributable to market forces and not due to speculation or manipulation in the futures or spot markets for energy.

The Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, has a long history of examining rises in energy prices and how they impact the agricultural sector. Since 2006, the Committee has held three hearings on this issue, under both Republican and Democrat majorities, which only further demonstrates the bipartisan commitment of the Committee to examine drastic price fluctuations in the price of oil.

In the last four months, oil prices have risen to date by 25% and we have not yet reached the summer peak season when oil and gasoline prices experience further increases. On March 31st, the House Committee on Natural Resources held its own hearing looking into rising gasoline prices. At that hearing, witnesses including Mr. William P. Graves on behalf of the American Trucking Association and Mr. Michael J. Fox, Executive Director of the Gasoline & Automotive Service Dealers of America raised concerns about continuing speculation in today’s energy markets.

Given the increase in energy prices and continued concern about speculation in energy markets, we believe it is appropriate and imperative that our Committee conduct its own hearing into energy prices and bring in representatives from the CFTC and the Department of Energy who can give us their views regarding what is occurring in the energy markets. We look forward to working with you to bring such a hearing to fruition in the immediate future.

Sincerely,

Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA-03)
Rep. Peter Welch (VT)
Rep. Tim Walz (MN-01)
Rep. Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Del. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (Northern Mariana Islands)
Rep. James McGovern (MA-03)
Rep. Bill Owens (NY-23)
Rep. Joe Courtney (CT-02)
Rep. Larry Kissell (NC-08)

But why then has Shell spent an estimated $200 million so far on research, development and demonstration (RD&D) at its Mahogany Research Project in western Colorado? And at what point will gas prices rise so high that the cost of producing shale oil suddenly makes sense?

Jeremy Boak

“All of the major companies are doing oil shale because they think it’s an interesting and high-potential area, but they’re not in a hurry to make it productive,” said Jeremy Boak, director of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research (COSTAR) at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden. COSTAR’s research is described on its website as “industry-driven and science-guided.”

“With [oil] prices going back up through the roof again,” Boak said, “[companies have] an awful lot of things to spend their money on and some of them more near-term than oil shale. The big budgets tend to move toward things that are a little closer in.” Still, Boak maintains the state and federal governments should be doing far more to encourage oil shale production than the current administrations.

The OPEC oil embargo during the Yom Kippur War saw gas prices in the United States spike from 38 cents a gallon in 1973 to 55 cents a gallon in 1974, in part prompting an oil shale boom in Colorado that culminated in the “Black Sunday” crash of 1982. Exxon literally pulled up stakes overnight and turned communities like Parachute, Rifle and Battlement Mesa into ghost towns.

Exxon is one of the companies pursuing a more scaled-back RD&D lease being offered by the Obama administration, which announced in February it was taking a “fresh look” at the Bush administration’s so-called “midnight regulations” in 2008 that established a royalty structure and opened up 2 million acres of U.S. Bureau of Land Management land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming for potential oil shale leasing.

“The previous 2008 regulations made critical decisions such as royalty rate before the RD&D program had a chance to deliver information and answers,” U.S. Interior Secretary and former Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar said in February. “They put the cart before the horse, and in so doing they heightened the risk of speculation and bad decisions and yet another oil shale bust.”

But Exxon officials say they’re keenly aware of past mistakes and determined not to repeat them.

“It sounds to me like there was a lot more hype back then, but it’s always hard to tell where the hype came from,” Boak said. “Was it really the companies that were hyping it or was it the people out there who thought they could buy 5,000 acres and make a killing? Land speculators. Was it the large corporations or was it the Bernie Madoffs of their era that were really trying to cash in on this?”

Ramped up in the late 70s with the embargo fresh in everyone’s minds, oil shale crashed once Middle East oil began flowing freely and the labor-intensive process of surface mining and retorting oil shale was no longer cost-effective. But 30 years later oil prices are skyrocketing again in the wake of ongoing political upheaval in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration on Monday put the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline at $3.79, closing in on the peak of $4.11 a gallon set on July 17, 2008. In Europe, gasoline broke the $8.60 a gallon barrier this spring as events unfolded in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

But even at those prices, commercial oil shale production is of limited interest to Europeans. While still part of the Soviet Union, Estonia developed a commercial oil shale industry, but there have been growing environmental concerns since that nation became part of the European Union.

Boak says companies in Estonia, Brazil and China continue to blaze the oil shale trail, with one Estonian firm “hunting for properties” appropriate for oil shale development in the United States. Still, none of the foreign firms have been able to produce much more than a few thousand barrels of oil a day – a drop in the bucket in terms of global demand. And now the European Union is considering banning oil shale and tar sands development because of studies showing higher greenhouse gas emissions than from conventional fuels.

Meanwhile, Republican members of Colorado’s congressional delegation continue to beat the oil shale drum. Just last month in a guest column in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 3rd Congressional District Rep. Scott Tipton wrote: “The development of [oil shale] resources would lead to tens of thousands of good paying jobs and help stabilize our energy supply – putting an end to spikes in gas prices.”

Juxtapose that statement with what Tom Yelverton of ExxonMobil told the Daily Sentinel late last year: “At best, commercial production is a decade away and most likely more.”

Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado’s 4th Congressional District is a big backer of stepping up domestic oil and gas production, including oil shale, on the state’s Western Slope.

“It is all well and good to propose measures that may pay off decades in the future, such as alternative energy research and higher CAFÉ standards for vehicles,” Lamborn states on his website. “The most urgent and immediate solution though is to ramp up domestic production of oil and gas right now.”

Even the companies deeply involved on oil shale research say it’s years from becoming a commercial reality: “In fact, it could take up to 10 to 12 years of additional research, environmental analysis and permitting before a company could develop a federal oil shale lease,” Tracy Boyd of Shell told the Glenwood Post Independent in late 2008.

Editor’s note: This is the second in a two-part series on the future of oil shale in Colorado in the wake of rising gas prices and mounting unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. Click here for part one.

In 2009, drivers spent less on gas than in recent years:

Drivers in 2009 spent a markedly lower percentage of their income on gasoline than they did in 2008, and drivers in all but five states actually spent a lower percentage than they did in 2006. This is largely due to the fact that gas prices went down, dropping from the record high prices we saw in 2008. This is a notable change in the trend of the past few years, which saw increasing vulnerability. But with gas prices once again beginning to rise, vulnerable states will be even more at risk.

Deflation is not really a concern at the moment, though, since the decline is due entirely to falling energy prices. Gas in particular took a dive in May, with prices dropping 5.2 percent. Core inflation — a measurement leaving out energy and food prices, which tend to fluctuate more — increased a measly 0.1 percent month-to-month, growing 0.9 percent year-on-year. That is the lowest rate since 1966.

So what does the report mean? Mostly that concerns about imminent inflation are overwrought. Were the CPI to show strong growth, indicating increasing inflation, it would put pressure on the Federal Reserve to raise short-term interest rates.

The Democrats’ plan of moving a cap-and-trade bill this summer plays into GOP hands because as the cost of gasoline spikes, so does the public’s awareness of energy prices, Republican leadership aides say.

Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), the former House GOP conference chairman, said that the cost of gas is not likely to hit last summer’s national high of $4 a gallon, but he noted that oil prices have been creeping up recently.

Putnam said most Americans want to increase oil production, not restrict consumption, adding, “At some point, gas prices become a very potent political weapon again.”

There are few truisms in the land of Washington policy-making, where messaging is king and success often slave to public perception. But one is this: In times of economic downturn, the financial health of both people and industries will trump environmental concerns 99 times out of 100. And, as Democrats learned the hard way last summer, Americans faced with $4 a gallon gas have little appetite for policies that threaten to drive those costs higher  — a more tangible effect than climate change for most folks.

Perhaps the Democrats want to rethink their legislative calendar?

“Despite all the public discussion of fuel efficiency, SUVs and trucks are the industry’s biggest sellers right now as a remarkable number of buyers seem to be compelled by three factors: great deals, low gas prices and winter weather,” said Michelle Krebs, Senior Editor of Edmunds‘ AutoObserver.com.

Is anyone else thinking “Scarface” right now? As in: I have this big pile of coke on my desk and I just can’t keep my face out of it.

(Who said gas tax?)

The autos and the utilities could have a nice little symbiotic relationship. While the auto industry has something to build, utility companies have another place to sell their product.

The utilities are hoping for a major shift in vehicles from gasoline to electricity. If such a shift takes place, according to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, oil imports would drop by 52 percent.

The talks are exploratory right now, but worth watching.