Apparently rock musician Sammy Hagar is not one of U.S. Sen. John Warner's (R-Virginia) constituents.

Sen. Warner has suggested that the U.S. Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices, The Associated Press reported.

However, Warner has not specifically sponsored legislation calling for a roll-back to 55 miles per hour: he has only asked U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to research which speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology, and also wants to know if the Bush Administration would support a Congressional effort to mandate a lower speed limit, The AP reported.

Last 55 mph law: 1973-74

The United States last imposed a 55 mph speed limit in 1974, as part of an effort to conserve gasoline in response to the world's first oil shock, the 1973-74 oil crisis.

In light of oil's rise to triple-digit prices, the United States' inability to pass an energy policy aimed at increased efficiency, renewable energy, and energy independence, represents an opportunity squandered -- on two fronts: transportation and power generation.

True, oil has retreated from the $135 range to the $125-128 range, but the nation now faces record-high gasoline/diesel prices, along with high prices for heating oil, natural gas, and coal. As a result, the broad-based disposable income -- so essential for U.S. economic growth -- has been squeezed, with many economists now arguing adequate GDP growth is not possible, if energy prices remain at current levels.

At minimum, the U.S. faces a period of economic and social adjustment -- corporate, public, personal -- as it copes with the brave new world of $4 gasoline ... and that's if gasoline remains in the $4 per gallon range. A variety of scenarios could quickly send gasoline over $5 per gallon and higher in 2009.

Clean coal has hit speed bump on the path to the nation's cleaner energy future.

The United States Government has canceled support for a clean coal demonstration project after the project's development costs nearly doubled, to $1.8 billion, citing the need to limit taxpayer exposure, according to a New York Times report.

Further, more than a decade into the research process, it remains an unanswered question whether the clean coal technology -- capturing and injecting carbon dioxide back into the ground -- can be executed in a safe and cost-effective manner.

Among other hurdles, scientists need to determine which soil formations are most environmentally appropriate for holding and organically processing the carbon dioxide, and that don't contain the risk of dioxide bubbling back to the surface, or polluting ground water.

Investors and traders know that major news items move markets, and stocks. Big headlines can mean millions, and billions.

Still, to stay in-touch with trends, and the pulse of money, markets, and investment, one has to survey the information landscape thoroughly, and know when a lesser-publicized data point or fact may be indicative of a larger phenomenon -- one that could tell telegraph where markets are headed.

One such data point occurred a few weeks back. It was a little-discussed item: it didn't receive much coverage in the financial press, and it certainly wasn't the lead story on the 'week in review' financial news shows. But it's a telling data point, nonetheless.

Coal. Detestable coal.

Politically incorrect coal.

The stuff of Dickens' England. Black-lung disease. Strip-mining. And global warming.

Coal is the 'Rodney Dangerfield of energy forms,' because, like the late comedian, it gets no respect.

Have you ever heard of a positive association regarding coal? As a child in the United States, way back in the twentieth century, you dared not misbehave prior to the holidays, lest you get, coal in your stocking.

(No one ever spoke of a reprimand involving 'getting oil in your stocking.' No sir. Oil is considered 'black gold.')

Well, in the near future you and many others may look favorably on collecting coal, and a lot of it, if current trends continue regarding that other notable energy form, oil.

For Mac Murphy of New Rochelle, NY, a husband and father of two teen-age daughters in college, the rise in the price of gasoline is not an incidental expense.

"It's like an extra car payment, for crying out loud," Murphy said as he pumped $3.39 per gallon unleaded regular gasoline into his wife's car Tuesday.

Gas pump shock

Murphy pays for his daughters' gas bills while the two are studying at college. Each has a car. Up until about a year ago, the bills were about $20-$25 per month each. These days, they're sending back monthly bills that are routinely over $50 each, and those gasoline expenses combined with his and his wife Laura's gas purchases, means ..."about $300 dollars a month in gasoline expenses."

The family has done its best to limit gasoline expenses by carpooling and eliminating unnecessary trips, and next year the family will trade in one car for a substantially more-fuel-efficient vehicle. Still, given that he and his wife each commute by car to different locations, there's only so much they can do to reduce their gasoline costs. Further, Murphy says the expense "is only likely to increase this summer, when gas hits $4 per gallon."

When told by an inquirer that gasoline may actually approach $5 per gallon this summer in high-cost cites such as his metro New York region, Murphy was apoplectic.

U.S. crude oil inventories increased 3.2 million barrels for the week ending February 22, 2008, the U.S. Energy Information Administration announced Wednesday (pdf). Economists surveyed by Bloomberg had expected a 2.6 million barrel increase.

Oil continued to trade at near-record levels on the news. Oil was down 33 cents to $100.25 per barrel Wednesday at mid-day, after trading above $102 earlier in the session. The other major energy commodities were mixed at mid-day. Heating oil gained about 1 cent to $2.81 per gallon, unleaded gasoline rose 1 cent to $2.53 per gallon, and natural gas declined fell about 10 cents to $9.11 per million BTUs.