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.

Natural Resources Defense Council Executive Director Peter Lehner, in a blog today, said this goal is achievable.

We can achieve 60 mpg by 2025 using and improving on technologies that already exist such as hybrid electric cars. And, of course, we have the know-how to do it without compromising affordability, safety, or consumer choices.

And he says new standards will help reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil:

Not only will they save drivers money at the pump and make America’s car industry more competitive, but they will also dramatically reduce our need for foreign oil and cut down on global warming pollution. By 2030, it will cut our oil consumption by 49 billion gallons per year and more than 535 million metric tons of carbon pollution.

The letter comes as the Obama administration is expected to release new fuel efficiency rules later this month.

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) shared an eight-page outline of their draft legislation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next four decades, including provisions to limit business costs while ramping up domestic production of oil, gas and nuclear power.

According to several sources in the meeting room, the bill calls for greenhouse gas curbs across multiple economic sectors, with a 2020 target of reducing emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels and an 80 percent limit at midcentury. Power plant emissions would be regulated in 2012, with other major industrial sources being phased in starting in 2016.

Lest environmental advocates get overly excited, the bill contains some major concessions to industry. Five of its eight titles — Refining, America’s Farmers, Coal, Natural Gas and Nuclear — will make green activists a bit wary. And E&E adds this tidbit:

In a bow to industry demands, the senators’ proposal would pre-empt U.S. EPA climate regulations under the Clean Air Act and halt dozens of state climate laws and regulations now on the books.

Not surprisingly, business and industry groups were fairly encouraged by today’s presentation. Here’s what the top lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told The Hill:

“The fairest comment would be, directionally speaking, the way they are trying to conform and shape this bill I would suggest is largely in sync with what most people in American industry think is the direction you are going to have to go if you are going to have a successful program,” Josten said.

Kerry says the tripartisan climate team will deliver a full outline of the bill to a larger group of senators next Tuesday.

That ought to please both environmentalists and fiscal conservatives in Congress, right? Don’t get your hopes up. From The Vine:

The president can propose whatever he wants; what really matters is whether lawmakers follow through. And the tax breaks for oil and gas producers have a lot of support in Congress—last year, in the FY2010 budget, the White House wanted to repeal $31.5 billion worth of fossil-fuel subsidies, and that idea was buried.

Remember that 12 Democratic senators just spent the weekend raising money for lobbyists, including some from oil companies.

The White House is holding a conference call on the energy and climate implications of the budget momentarily. More to come…

Update: White House officials on the call are presenting the administration’s three-pronged approach to energy issues in the budget. One element is a “focus on clean energy jobs and energy efficiency”; another is “a commitment to science research and energy innovation.” But the third, “increased funding for clean energy jobs in the nuclear sector,” will have some environmental advocates concerned. This point is largely in line with President Obama’s increased emphasis on nuclear power of late, including in his State of the Union last week. But considering that the budget will eliminate the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, it’s bound to raise some questions about how exactly this nuclear expansion will work.

In an interview with The Associated Press yesterday, LaHood rejected the possibility of raising the gas tax in the economic downturn, preferring to “[think] outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America.” The VMT tax would likely require the installation of a GPS chip in every vehicle in the country to track mileage.

It’s hard for me to see how this is not worse than a gas tax on every level. First of all, getting the program started will be a logistical nightmare. (Think installing digital converter boxes in 6.5 million households has been hard? Try putting GPS chips in the country’s estimated 250 million passenger vehicles.) It will also be a tremendous expense at a time when LaHood’s former Republican colleagues in Congress haven’t exactly welcomed excessive government spending.

But most importantly, it gets the incentives all wrong. Under LaHood’s plan, the driver of a Rav4 (22/28 MPG) would pay no more than the driver of a Prius (48/45), even though he’s consuming twice as much gas. A shopper at a Toyota dealership will see the Rav4′s lower price tag and spacious interior and feel little motivation to spring for the cosy Prius.

The only possible rationale for a VMT tax is political. A higher gas tax is tangibly painful for drivers who find themselves shelling out much more at the pump. It’s a hard sell. A little GPS chip in their cars and some extra tax forms, on the other hand — well, that just might be sneaky and abstract enough to work.

Still, if a gas tax is politically impossible when gas prices are just about as low as they’ll get, then when will it be feasible?

UPDATE: Transportation Department spokeswoman Lori Irving just shot down everything LaHood said: “The policy of taxing motorists based on how many miles they have traveled is not and will not be Obama administration policy.” Guess our transportation secretary was just speculating when he told the AP, “We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled.”

LATER UPDATE: Press Secretary Robert Gibbs also dismissed the notion of a VMT tax. “It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration,” he said at this afternoon’s press briefing. Again, makes you wonder why LaHood would bring it up without consulting anyone.

In the past year, the Obama campaign has made a lot of promises on energy, related to jobs, climate change, clean energy, gas prices and the list goes on. Now energy analysts, the environmental community and Americans struggling with a failing economy want to know exactly how the new president plans to deliver on these promises.

I was interested to see some of these issues broken down by Guy Caruso, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who formerly headed up the Energy Information Administration (the agency that does independent analysis for the Dept. of Energy). In an interview with E&E TV, Caruso discussed key points that Obama’s administration will need to keep in mind when tackling energy. Here are some that stood out.

Plummeting oil prices: Gas prices getting below $2.50 is good news for consumers faced with grim economic times, said Caruso. “[I]t’s like a tax cut when the average consumer now fills the car up for $40 instead of $60,” he said, implying that low gas prices will help Obama take on financial problems. But, that assumes Americans will use the same amount of gas that they used over the summer when gas was $4 a gallon. It’s still unclear whether consumer behaviors will change or remain the same, as I reported here.

Offshore drilling: Caruso says there’s no telling what position Obama will ultimately take on this. Obama, who initially opposed offshore drilling, eventually caved and publicly supported lifting the moratorium on drilling in coastal areas. This is exactly the same thing his opponent Sen. John McCain did — although Obama’s support didn’t quite reach the “Drill, Baby, Drill” levels that McCain’s did. Now, environmentalists are hoping Obama will flip-flop again, this time in their favor. Already, Obama Transition Team co-chair John Podesta, has said that the President-elect may reverse an executive order by lame duck President Bush which allows drilling in Utah. However, Caruso says, Obama may continue to support offshore drilling in other domestic areas in order to hold onto certain “bargaining chips.”

Green jobs: Over and over again, Obama has talked about creating 5 million green jobs. “And I think now reality sets in,” Caruso said. “I mean 5 million jobs is a huge number of jobs.” Plus, certain factors which could create green jobs could also eliminate other jobs. For example, Caruso talked about regulatory policies that affect fossil fuel industries. If a carbon tax is implemented, clean energy will gain a competitive advantage and green jobs will open up; but, that could potentially lose jobs for the oil, gas and coal industries.

Renewable Energy: While Caruso didn’t go into too much detail about how the new White House should think about clean energy, he mentioned a couple significant points. First off, the transition from dirty fuels to clean fuels will probably take decades. Obama, like most politicians, said Caruso, don’t like to talk about things in terms of decades. As for his administration’s first 100 days, Caruso suspects that Obama will have trouble getting a renewables-heavy energy package to pass Congress, even with a strong Democratic majority. However, incentives for renewable energy are sure to show up in a financial package, Caruso believes, so environmentalists can at least rest easy on that note.

Sen. Barack Obama is already helping lower the cost of gasoline, according to a new video from his campaign.

“Gas Station for Obama,” a YouTube clip uploaded on Thursday, features recent footage from a small gas station in Detroit that slashed prices to “show support for Barack.”

The station is decked out in Obama’s logo, and the owner explains that he is helping people save money because he operates in a low-income neighborhood. Obama T-shirts are also on sale at cost, he says.

PRODUCTION NOTES: This spare footage feels more like a documentary clip than a campaign video. The music and narration that accompanies flashier Obama videos are gone, supplanted by the station owner’s own narration.

Yesterday the Interior Dept. inspector general unveiled three lurid reports of sexual misconduct, drug dealing and partying with oil executives at Interior’s Mineral Management Services.

Today the House oversight committee said there will be a hearing next Wednesday to scrutinize MMS and their oil and natural gas drilling program.

The investigation seems to merit congressional follow-up. Particularly since the Justice Dept. has said, without explanation, that it won’t prosecute two officials that may have committed multiple felonies– Lucy Q. Denett, the former associate director of MMS; and Gregory W. Smith, the former director of the oil and gas program.

So what is the brewing scandal about? It seems to be a blanket indictment of the MMS royalty-in-kind program, in which natural gas and oil companies lease federal land and then give the government usually 1/6 of what gas and oil they extract.

MMS has 50 employees and, according to the IG report, 19 took gifts from oil and gas executives with “prodigious frequency.” Employees went to parties with oil and gas executives that featured cocaine and marijuana. Two female employees had sexual relationships with industry contacts.

But where the federal investigation really gets interesting are specific allegations against the former top officials Denett and Smith. Denett reportedly went out of her way to arrange MMS consulting contracts for two former colleagues. One, Jimmy W. Mayberry, has pled guilty to a felony conflict-of-interest charge related to his MMS consulting work.

An entire IG report, meanwhile, is devoted to Smith, the former royalty-in-kind director. Smith used his position to get an outside consulting job while he was stiill working at Interior; took gifts from oil and gas officials; had sex with two subordinates, and purchased cocaine several times from his secretary and her boyfriend.

Reaction to the scandal has so far focused largely on how it might effect Congress’s offshore drilling debate. After all, MMS is in charge of the Florida coast, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other resource-rich, federally owned land.

But these are no ordinary accusations of government mismanagement. Congressional investigators will surely focus on the broader issue of oil drilling. Will they also find out why Denett, Smith and several of their former colleagues aren’t being prosecuted?

Here are some highlights from Reuters’ highlights of the energy situation: All of U.S. Gulf of Mexico oil output has been shut down; about 95 percent of natural gas output has been shut, and 433,600 Louisiana residents have lost power as a result — 101,500 in evacuated areas, 332,600 in occupied areas.

Read the whole factbox.