The odds of a 2007 Energy Bill passing the Democratic Party-led U.S. Congress, with President Bush's blessing, "Are still likely," according to a Washington-based, public policy lobbyist with knowledge of the matter.

"The bill will need a few revisions, but I'd say it's a 70/30 go, in favor of the bill being signed by the president," the lobbyist told Bloggingstocks Tuesday, on condition he not be identified by name.

The lobbyist, who represents primarily Democratic Party-based constituencies, said the the bill's renewable energy component and potential tax increases remain the hangups in the bill.

Modification likely

"More than likely President Bush will get the renewable energy component modified, but the Democrats may gain extra footing with better solar/wind energy credits," he said.

The bill current would require utilities to generate more power from renewable energy. Lawmakers from the Southeast U.S. have said they're concerned that utilities in their states will not be able to meet the requirement, due to a lack of wind power, The Wall Street Journal reported.

LDK Solar (NYSE: LDK), a manufacturer of multicrystalline solar wafers, was sold off down $16.65 to $51.65. Piper Jaffray said "We have confirmed that the LDK financial controller recently left the company." LDK October option implied volatility of 133 was above its 12-week average of 69 according to Track Data, suggesting larger risk.

Daily options Update is provided by Stock Specialist Paul Foster of theflyonthewall.com.

In 1908, a Ford Model-T traveled 25 miles on a gallon of gasoline. In an attempt to return to those halcyon days, the U.S. voted late Thursday night to pass a new energy bill that sets lofty CAFE goals for the American car fleet.

Along with mandating a fleet average of 35 mpg by 2020 and energy-efficient appliances and lights, the measure will require the fuel industry to raise ethanol production to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Slightly less than 5 billion gallons were produced in 2006.

The first engine to use ethanol as a fuel was built in 1826.

In recognition of the damage to the nation's grain crop prices that increased ethanol production would wreak if it were based on corn, the measure mandates that most of that increase come from cellulose (think wood pulp).

The auto industry, in an embarrassing admission of its continuing inability to forecast consumer demand (if you remember its attitude about the Volkswagen Beetle in the 1960's, you know what I mean), was prepared to filibuster the bill, but the Senate was able to garner enough votes to override. However, the Republicans were able to use this lever to pry out of the bill language that would have taxed the petroleum industry to create a fund a program promoting fuel efficiency. They also were successful in removing a requirement that 15% of the nation's electricity be generated via windmills, solar power and the like.

President Bush's approval on the bill is still in question, though, as he opposes many of the measures including one allowing the government to punish companies found guilty of price-gouging.

In many arenas, the Republican and Democratic parties have little to distinguish between them, but this bill sharply differentiates their approach to the energy problem. This compromise seems to me seems, a strong vote for more of the same policies that have maintained the status quo for generations.

With the passage of a new energy bill that requires a drastic increase in the average fuel efficiency of automobiles sold in the U.S., automakers are feeling a bit steamed right now. Mandating significant increases in gas efficiency for vehicles even within a little more than a decade is an enormous task for automakers. New designs, manufacturing processes and probably a hundred more things become necessary.

At the same time, the financial pressure the big three automakers are under make large changes like this hard to swallow. But this doesn't only affect domestic manufacturers ---- all automakers selling vehicles in the U.S. have to conform. The trick is that other automakers like Honda and Toyota started reacting to the market's need for more fuel-efficient cars (and the marketing of them) long before domestic automakers did. Now, those automakers are sitting in a much prettier setting than General Motors (NYSE:GM) or the Ford Motor Co.(NYSE:F). It's estimated that the fuel economy changes mandated for the future will cost GM $40 billion alone. Yikes.

The just-passed energy bill required a fuel economy increase of about 40% (to 35 miles per gallon) by 2020 -- just over 12-and-a-half years from now. Is that even technically possible? Most global automakers, who are united on this front (with the curious absence of Nissan), say that this expectation is way out of whack. The bill was passed late last night in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 65-27, and a vote by the U.S. House is probably coming next week. President Bush also added his opinion, stating that Congress must be "realistic" about this kind of legislation, and that he opposes much of it (while still supporting alternative methods like ethanol use).