Policymakers in Washington, D.C. appear to have selective attention when it comes to energy issues. These politicians' interest is peaked when energy prices spike, causing them to hone in with laser-like focus on the issue. Then, as prices drop, these same politicians move on to the next hot issue of the day. This sporadic attention, and lack of long-term focus, ignores the reality that the trajectory of energy prices has steadily climbed for decades, despite short-term volatility. Oil is trading just above $90 a barrel and the national average for regular unleaded gas at the pump currently stands at $3.62. The fact is that the cost of these commodities is much higher today than when President Obama took the oath of office in 2009 – when oil was $40 a barrel and gas was less than $2 a gallon.

The reality is that energy prices are inherently volatile and greatly influenced by world events. Unrest in the Middle East and Africa has directly contributed to recent upswings. Some in Washington D.C. will argue there is little an Administration can do, others want to blame the oil companies and hold hearings, while still others hope that if they ignore it will all go away. Frankly, none of these approaches will help protect us against the natural volatility inherent in world markets. Perhaps this is the most compelling reason why policymakers have been unable to successfully tackle this issue. Rather than hiding or playing the blame game, policymakers and the Obama Administration alike should focus on realistic approaches to bring about American energy security.

Increasing energy diversity – realistically – is the only way to increase American energy security.

Our nation deserves a realistic and transparent approach to energy policy. Renewables are great, we need them, but traditional fossil fuels are necessary too and we need a solid, well thought out approach to using all of the available resources in our portfolio. However, in practice, this is where our energy policy is weakest. Some argue that green technology is a myth, others say that we have to end our addiction to fossil fuels. Well, both sides are right, and both are wrong.

Renewable energy is critically important to ease energy demands as we progress forward. Over time, and in the future, the technologies associated with renewables will continue to improve. But, we need to be pragmatic when we speak about the current limitations and costs associated with these technologies. In reality, renewable energy sources remain a miniscule portion of our nation’s energy portfolio.

Natural gas, on the other hand, represents a growing proportion of our energy demand. Fueled by comprehensive regulatory structures at the state level in places like Pennsylvania and North Dakota, natural gas production grows each and every month. Efforts to boost domestic production deserve to be embraced. By leveraging natural gas as a bridge fuel, we can cut power plant emissions by almost half and we can encourage adoption of LNG fleet and private vehicles.

Efforts to boost trade in energy with strategic allies – such as the Keystone XL pipeline – are also critical to reducing volatility in energy prices. By reducing reliance on foreign sources of oil, our country will be better positioned to deflect world energy market volatility caused by unforeseen events. Basic economic principles of supply and demand do work, and extra supply will lower prices despite what some say. Case in point, an 11% increase in natural gas production has resulted in natural gas prices dropping almost 50%.

If approved, the Keystone system would be able to replace every drop of Venezuelan or Saudi crude. Even though opponents concede this fact, they argue we can somehow stop Canada from developing its reserves if we don't buy it; frankly, that’s not going to happen. China would gladly take it. Alternatively, these opponents argue that the crude will be refined in the U.S. only to be exported as a finished product. Even if that were the case, how are creating U.S. jobs, producing an American product to sell in foreign markets, bringing profits back to the U.S., and lowering U.S. trade deficits, negatives?

The bottom line is that energy and fuel costs will continue to play a key role and policymakers and politicians need to come together to develop a true "all in" energy policy in order to provide the country with a safe, affordable and stable source of energy products for our economy.

The gas price roller coaster does little more than fuel increasingly out of touch rhetorical campaign one-liners. The President has little control or influence on gas prices during their Presidency. If anything, our economy’s lack of insulation against gas price volatility today could be attributed evenly to past Presidents and Congresses since the 1970’s. We have lacked a comprehensive energy vision for going on 40 years, so the notion that action by the current President could significantly impact prices is misguided at best and intentionally misleading and politically opportunistic at worst.

Unfortunately, the current state of the economy only intensifies the focus on price. The fact is, price is only one variable when evaluating the true cost of energy. Consumers pay bills, not rates or prices. The bill at the gas station is the product of price per gallon times the number of gallons used. Similarly, an electricity bill is the price per kWh times the number of kWh’s used. Basic math teaches us that changing either of the variables in the correct way will lower the total bill. For example, $4 per gallon gas would matter far less if vehicles averaged 60 miles per gallon or could run on alternative fuels or electricity.

Given that the current political obsession with price is unlikely to change in the middle of election season, our leaders in Washington should at least try to deal with price in an accurate manner. Take the current actions by of some Members of Congress to obstruct the military from investing in alternatives to oil, in this case advanced biofuels. Citing cost to taxpayers as their main concern, certain Members of Congress aim to prohibit the military from utilizing alternative sources of fuel if the price is higher than that of gasoline. Hard to know where exactly to start with this one, but let’s give it a try.

Pinning our policies to inaccurate pricing as suggested will result in misguided policies such as this ill-advised attempt to keep our military dependent upon one fuel source despite the hidden cost it bears to utilize that fuel. If Congress is really concerned with the cost to taxpayers, then they should pursue more “full cost accounting” which focuses more on the full cost of the good as opposed to the price of a single unit. In this case, full cost accounting would include pricing hidden costs such as military operations to sustain oil supplies. Failure to account for such hidden costs is a common market failure that skews the marketplace and hinders innovation and competition. Furthermore, just because a consumer does not see these hidden costs at the pump does not mean they are not paying for them. These hidden costs are ultimately shoved onto taxpayers and contribute further to our annual deficit and ultimately the national debt.

To be clear, I am not dismissing cost as an important variable, nor do I wish oil prices were higher. Rather, I am simply pointing out that policies aimed solely at keeping prices low will not increase market efficiency, nor save taxpayers money. Instead of focusing on gas prices, the competing parties could better serve the American people by embracing a comprehensive energy vision that deals with our many energy issues ranging from transportation to electricity. I hope that politicians will be able to move beyond the false, politically motivated dichotomy between fossil fuels and alternative energies, and concentrate on moving toward a truly all of the above advanced energy policy that can create an energy future that is affordable, clean and secure. In the meantime, voters would be wise to remember that there is little that any candidate can do to impact short-term gas prices. If you believe any candidate that promises otherwise, then I have some magic beans that might interest you.

As a policy matter, don’t read much into the recent dip in oil and gasoline prices. Sure, dropping at the advent of the summer driving season bucks historic trends, but this is just one more episode of fluctuations in prices on the global market. To be sure, there’s no one to thank for this trend, either.

Just as prices dropped during the recession in 2008, prices are dropping now. Europe’s fiscal maladies are undercutting growth, Japan’s economy is slow to recover, China’s economy is seeing its weakest growth in over a decade, and the U.S. economy is failing to gain momentum. At the same time that global demand is weakening, OPEC is upping production to edge out competition from new fields in the Western Hemisphere. On top of this, diplomatic tensions with Iran are easing, diminishing nerves in the marketplace. The fundamentals haven’t changed; we’re just benefitting from the confluence of several global trends putting some bearish pressure on the oil markets.

The seemingly low oil prices are looking good right now to those on the campaign trail, but the celebration will be short-lived. The trend we’re seeing now reflects a weak economic recovery at home and abroad. So while households and small businesses across the country will benefit from a temporary alleviation in pain at the pump, the economic policies that allow gas prices to dip are prolonging this sluggish recovery and doing some real damage to the country in the process.

There are serious policy proposals that could come out of this recent trend. Washington should consider this a wakeup call to implement permanent, pro-growth reforms that will send people back to work and get our economy rolling again.

Congress should quit trying to use gas prices to score political points. The latest example happened last week as Republican House members toured districts spinning Big Oil talking points and asking taxpayers for more public land giveaways and handouts to oil companies. But, a new study [PDF] by the non-partisan Headwaters Economics adds a much-needed dose of reality to their Big Oil fever. It shows that giving tax credits for drilling doesn’t actually increase production.

The study found that geology, technology and price determine drilling production. A comparison between Montana and North Dakota found that despite Montana’s much lower drilling tax rates, North Dakota saw much higher production. This literal side-by-side of two states found that, since 2009, oil production has more than doubled in North Dakota while Montana’s production, where the tax rate is less than half, has declined by 14 percent. This is an important lesson. Oil companies can only drill where the dinosaurs died in the ground and where Mother Nature then turned them into oil. For instance, states such as Arizona or Maine will never have the robust oil industry that North Dakota or Texas has simply because there is very little oil under the ground in those states.

The report also found that a combination of high prices and the use of fracking contributed to a dramatic growth in domestic natural gas drilling starting in 2003. By 2008, a national recession and lower natural gas prices led to a dramatic reduction in drilling.

At the local level, the special tax breaks that are thrown at oil companies have a real, negative impact. Lower tax revenue leaves communities ill-equipped to handle the increased strain on public safety, infrastructure and education demands that accompany increased energy development. At the federal level, subsidizing oil production has little-to-no effect on production and transfers money from hard-working Americans to highly profitable oil companies that don’t need a handout. Just last year, the top five oil and gas companies made $137 billion.

Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay twice at the pump. Congress should have a cooler, calmer conversation about energy. It’s high time we end tax breaks to oil companies and reinvest those funds in American energy solutions such as transportation improvements, high tech vehicles, and the next generation of renewable fuels. We can bet that oil prices will climb again in the future, but if we make investments now we can lower costs by reducing our dependence on oil as transportation fuel.

As summer driving season begins, low gas prices present an obvious benefit to struggling American families eager to load up the car and discover some summer fun. But in D.C., low gas prices mean we can finally stop talking about energy policy as a game of scarcity.

Certainly the historic pattern has been to ignore energy prices as they drop, but House conservatives aren’t ready to give up their ambition for a serious domestic energy policy that prioritizes the economic opportunities related to resource development. Perhaps lower gas prices will open the door to a robust policy discussion about how to plan for a future in which prices will inevitably rise again.

To get there, President Obama and his allies in Congress will have to overcome their absurd proclivity to value a domestic energy policy framed around fossil fuel scarcity. The United States is a potential energy powerhouse, with investment pouring into the domestic development industry from around the world and creating thousands of jobs. This conflicts with the Democrats’ preferred alternate reality in which fossil fuel supplies dwindle and lose their competitive advantage over renewable energy in short order. It is not sufficient to subsidize renewable energy; they want fossil fuels to be deemphasized and under-produced until they’re priced out of the market.

Yet with sustained eight-percent unemployment, gasoline prices still comparably high, and a public that has rejected the liberal approach to domestic energy, there may be hope for a serious federal conversation on energy policy. The optics of opposing all domestic development are increasingly hurting the administration, and high energy prices in an election year don’t bode well for the president’s job security. Sure, the left is still pushing for a future powered by the sun, the wind, and other forces of nature, but the administration is also allowing Shell to develop new fields in offshore Alaskan waters this summer. Such a move indicates there may be a way to find common ground on domestic energy policy.

What if Washington took this relative lull in gas prices as an opportunity to put forth a bipartisan energy policy that demonstrates the United States is not just a major energy consumer; it’s a major energy producer? Congress could approve Keystone XL, remove regulatory and physical bottlenecks to the transport of oil in and through the U.S., regulate the industry in a way that promotes safety while granting opportunities to thrive and create jobs, expand access to new exploration areas, empower fuel choice in transportation, diminish the strategic importance of imported oil, and turn the energy sector into a true domestic wealth-generator.

Gas prices aren’t cheap – certainly $3.66 a gallon doesn’t sound like much of a discount – but they are falling in the current global oil climate. Let’s be mindful that while there’s little we can do to limit upward trends in gas prices, there’s plenty we can do to take advantage of low prices right now, before they surely climb again.

The biggest upshot on lower gasoline prices is ... more money in consumers wallets, a welcome development in a tenuous economy. As history has shown, our energy policy has been driven largely by crisis; when prices are high no one is happy and everyone is talking about it. When prices are low -- everyone forgets, and each time we seem to re-set the low. Now the benchmark of $4.00 a gallon gasoline seems to be the new pressure point.

Beyond gasoline, prices of diesel fuel -- have decreased as well -- with the National average diesel fuel price decreased more than 5 cents to $3.96 per gallon, the first time it has been under $4.00 since late February. This is also good news for the cost of moving goods, and those investing in more fuel efficient new clean diesel cars.

Even though fuel prices should represent more of the functioning of a global commodity market rather than a political weathervane, gasoline prices will continue to be held up as failures or successes depending on perspective. The real excitement should be less on weekly price swings and more about the US becoming a new energy developer and producer, controlling more of our destiny by developing domestic resources, greater committments to renewable and biofuels, while recognizing the global nature of energy markets driving prices.

A truly all of the above energy strategy would just as well have an oil derrick or refinery as a backdrop as it would a wind mill factory, and know the differences and realities of each.

From the consumer perspective, there is no downside to lower gasoline prices. The falling prices at the pump have been a welcome relief to motorists and businesses, many of whom have faced difficult budget decisions as gas prices began rising last year. Looking at the headlines over the past holiday weekend, the drop in prices has made an impact. According to AAA, over 30 million Americans traveled by car this past holiday weekend, a half million more persons than last year. AAA attributes this modest, but promising, increase to lower than expected fuel costs.

Despite the price decrease, we must remember that in 2011 the average cost for a gallon of gasoline was $3.52 a gallon, which cost average American households $4,155. This represented about 8.4% of a median family income and was the highest percentage spent on fuel since 1981. Today’s national average is $3.63, down almost twenty cents from last month. Clearly, fuel costs will continue to be a significant drain on family incomes, notwithstanding modest decreases in price. In speaking with your average trucker, farmer or small business owner, few would argue that $3.63 is a low price for fuel.

A twenty-cent decrease in the price of gasoline should be no means pivot the discussion on the campaign trail away from energy policy. Of course the urgency of the matter will dissipate; it’s hard to keep Washington’s focus on anything for too long. For this exact reason, Consumer Energy Alliance advocates year-round for policies that influence long-term stability in energy prices. Of note, policymakers must be aggressive now to purse an “all-of-the-above” energy policy that harnesses domestic energy resources with the understanding that actions now will help promote stability in the long-run.

A quick look to the West Coast illustrates this point nicely. After the 1973 oil embargo and subsequent price spikes, Congress passed the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline Authorization Act, which helped speed along construction of the pipeline and provide an efficient method of transporting crude from Northern Alaska. From 1977 onward, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) has played a major role in supplying the U.S. West Coast. By 1988, the West Coast, including Alaska, produced enough crude to meet its own needs, partly thanks to the 738 million barrels of crude a day produced in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.

By 2009, however, Prudhoe Bay production had plummeted to around 235 million barrels a day and foreign imports accounted for around 47% of consumption on the West Coast. In that twenty-plus-year time span, Congress and the Administration could have allowed access to other resource abundant areas of Alaska, including the Chukchi & Beaufort Seas, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), and the 10-02 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and helped offset naturally declining production in Prudhoe Bay. Despite dramatic fluctuations in oil prices over that time-span, the Administration is just now allowing exploration of the Chukchi and Beaufort to move forward, after erecting hurdle upon hurdle to those development plans. Meanwhile, the fate of the NPR-A and ANWR remains highly tentative.

Oil prices will continue to fluctuate dramatically in the absence of a sound, long-term energy plan. As oil prices go, so goes gasoline & diesel prices. As difficult as it may be to maintain the candidates’ focus on energy policy in the absence of $4 a gallon gasoline, history proves that making bold decisions now will lay a solid foundation for the future and mitigate the impact of the next oil price crisis.

Instead of learning the lessons of history, and making policy decisions based on the long-term, worldwide issues of energy supply and demand, the United States has been trapped in an infinite loop of discussion whose rhetoric and policy proposals are driven by little more than the current price at the pump.

The short answer to this week’s question is that the current decline means that gas prices will likely be less of a campaign issue than they otherwise would have been. But this does not mean that this will lead to meaningful and necessary advances in energy policy.

We don’t need to look far to see the basis for that prediction. The record of legislative accomplishment in the two years since the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill is close to zero. To be sure, the U.S. House of Representatives has proposed and passed a few bills, but virtually every one of them would have directly or indirectly undermined the regulatory reforms put in place after the spill that improved safety and environmental protection. These have included proposing to set tight and unreasonable deadlines for approving offshore oil and gas exploration plans and drilling permits, and a bill that would have deleted “Environmental Enforcement” from the name of the newly-formed “Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.” In short, the legislative reaction, at least in the House, to a massive oil spill that highlighted the weaknesses in offshore regulation was to work to undo the long overdue reforms that were implemented in its wake. These are not serious efforts to deal with real problems through the development of a sound and balanced energy policy; they constitute political grandstanding.

Energy policy is currently stuck in the mud, and unfortunately it will take more than declining gas prices to change that reality. It will take a recognition that our energy needs requires serious legislative attention, the thoughtful and strategic support of both fossil fuels and clean energy, and the willingness to engage in serious debate and discussion that values the promotion of national interests above those of narrow partisan and industry interests.

The history of gasoline prices and crude oil prices is one of cycles. Prices go up but don’t stay up forever; nor do they stay down forever. Our short term memories, especially those of politicians, block out that reality. Now that prices are lower and are likely to stay low, perhaps politicians can set aside partisanship and find common ground on a long term energy development policy that is based on reality and experience.

The higher prices earlier this year were due to a number of factors, many of which were beyond the President’s control or Congresses. The two that President Obama could control, aggressive exploration and changing expectations, he did not. For that reason, crude oil prices were some what higher than necessary.

We are now faced with a situation where supplies are growing while demand isn’t. Saudi Arabia has been increasing its production because it realizes that in the long run, high crude prices will stimulate more non-OPEC production and that is not in its interest. In addition, the tensions between developed nations and Iran seem to be lessening, so the risk premium associated with the potential closing of the Strait of Hormuz is shrinking.

There is little prospect for a significant increase in demand either in Europe or the United States. Europe’s economy is a shambles because of the economic problems of Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal as well as the negative impacts of large EU subsidies for wind and solar. The economic situation in the EU is not going to be resolved soon and until it is clear that a resolution is in hand, its economic performance will remain poor and the demand for gasoline and diesel will stay weak.

Here in the US, crude oil consumption has plateaued and growth will be slow in coming years. The actions taken to significantly increase CAFE standards will ensure that less gasoline is used for some time. With a weak economy which looks like it is going to stay weak for at least another year, people are simply not driving as much as they had been or might like to.

But, more importantly, a shift in driving behavior has been taking place for over a decade. according to analysts at the Brookings Institute--Rob Puentes and Adie Tomer, vehicle miles traveled began to level off in 2000. Last year vehicle miles traveled per capita were about the same as 1997.

In addition, demographic conditions are causing a reduction in driving as well. The over 65 age cohort is growing while the under 30 cohort is growing more slowly than in the past. The elderly drive less and now so is the the younger generation. A high percentage of the under 30 age group does not have driver licenses or own a car. In 2010, for example, the number of 16 year olds who obtained driver licenses dropped from about 45% to 29%

A few decades ago, owning a car and cruising around were rites of passage. No longer. The cruising done now is on the internet. Another factor affecting demand is the number of younger adults who have elected to live in cities where they can use public transportation, walk, or ride bikes.

The shift in driving patterns and related demographic factors have been documented in a recent study by the Frontier Group--Transportation and the New Generation.

In addition, the abundance of natural gas will lead to a shift to natural gas powered vehicles, primarily fleets.

The forces that are putting downward pressure on prices are not going to change anytime soon. Unless there is some external event, such as increased tension with Iran or a hurricane that curtails refinery operations, we should expect prices to be at or close to their peak.

From a policy perspective, we need to pursue more North American exploration and production. Moving ahead with Keystone XL, debottlenecking pipelines, and rationalizing regulations that impact the oil and gas industry will not only help to keep prices low but will contribute to economic growth. The market is working and the best thing that government can do is not to obstruct it with unreasonable, counter productive regulations or subsidies to uneconomic alternatives. The “clean energy programs in EU nations have been a failure as well as a drag on their economies. Their experience should send a chill through politicians who encourage crony capitalism in the energy market but it probably won’t

Come November, the major issues will remain the economy, jobs, and solving the fiscal mess that has been created over the past decade. Energy and gasoline prices should be a second tier issue but ones that rightfully should get their share of attention and debate. The fact remains that abundant and affordable energy is essential for robust economic growth.

The recent drop in crude oil and gasoline prices is good news for businesses and households, especially as the summer driving season gets underway. But the downside of falling prices is that politicans, the media and the public will stop focusing on energy as a critical public policy matter. Indeed, the positive effect of $4.00 gasoline was to drive home the reality that America does not have a sound, domestically targeted energy strategy and that we need one both for economic and national security.

A slowing world economy is largely responsible for falling energy prices, as is the easing of tensions with Iran and increased production from Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries. Most of Europe has slipped back into recession, the economic recovery in the U.S. appears to be losing steam, and even fast-growing countries like China and India are recording lower rates of economic growth, thereby muting energy demand. But when the global economy starts growing again, oil supplies will tighten and prices will go up.

Several months ago, when some pundits were predicting $150 oil and $5 gasoline, President Obama embraced domestic oil and gas as part of his "all-of-the-above" energy policy. But now that prices have ameliorated, he's back to touting renewables as the path to energy independence. His about face will not get us there.

A viable "all-of-the-above" energy strategy would acknowledge that wind and solar have a limited role to play in the pursuit of a "greener" energy policy. For example, the International Energy Agency just reported that carbon emissions in the U.S. have fallen 450 million tons over the past five years, thanks mainly to greater use of natural gas for power generation. No other country reported a drop of this magnitude. The lesson here is that natural gas may not be as "green" as wind and solar, but the carbon savings from greater use of this fuel far exceed anything that could ever be accomplished by renewables.

Let's not let falling gasoline prices deflect us from a continued debate about a sensible energy policy for America - one that recognizes fossil fuels and nuclear power must be part of this nation's energy future.