MB Civic

WASHINGTON, June 19 — Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, has introduced a bill that would allow American oil companies to work in partnership with Cuba, drilling for energy supplies off its coastline. A proposed measure from Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, would eliminate a slew of tax breaks for oil and gas companies.

Representative Dan Lungren, Republican of California, has proposed legislation that would award $1 billion to the first automaker in the United States to sell 60,000 mid-size sedans that can travel 100 miles on a gallon of gas.

Any notion that energy policy was set for a while after President Bush signed the first major energy bill in a decade last August would be wrong. Not only are gasoline prices higher now than they were then — more than $3 a gallon in many parts of the country — but elections are approaching. Judging from the bulk of new energy-related legislation floating around Congress, woe to the lawmaker with no response to the voter who asks, “So, what have you done about energy costs?”

“Not a legislator in the United States wants to go home over the July 4 holiday and not point to something he or she did,” said Jason S. Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a coalition of experts that works for bipartisan energy policy. “Whether that’s a cynical politician or one who’s reacting to his constituents is a matter of perspective.”

Since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita shut down refineries in the Gulf of Mexico region last summer, speeding the rise of gasoline costs, House members have introduced 267 energy-related bills and senators have introduced 210, according to an analysis by the Senate energy committee.

Many of the bills are directed at gasoline prices as lawmakers seek to increase domestic oil supplies; other proposals would help expand refinery capacity; and some would overturn offshore-drilling bans. At least one would lower personal income taxes to offset rising gas prices.

John B. Breaux, a former Democratic senator from Louisiana and now a lobbyist who has represented energy companies, called the flurry of bills being introduced “acts of desperation by Congress to address very serious problems.”

“The energy bill will do a lot of good,” he said. “But this is an election year, the problems are still there and people want immediate solutions.”

Whether they get them is another matter. Energy experts agree that the world crude oil price, now about $64 a barrel, has greater influence on gasoline costs than anything Congress does, short of changing the federal per-gallon tax.

Beyond that, energy legislation rarely passes easily, given how lawmakers are divided over the long-term changes needed to wean the country from foreign oil and to lower prices. Republicans and energy producers generally favor expanding domestic fuel supplies through drilling and nuclear development. Democrats and environmental groups generally prefer greater use of renewable fuels and more emphasis on conservation.

A further complication is the limited time available for debate before the mid-October recess that precedes the Nov. 7 elections.

Last year’s energy bill was the rare piece of omnibus legislation that drew the parties together, largely because it had something for everybody and satisfied the growing realization across party lines that renewable energy would play a growing role in the nation’s energy portfolio. As one example of its even-handed approach, the bill gave energy companies tax breaks for exploration yet offered no path toward opening new energy fields in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve or the Outer Continental Shelf.

“The energy bill was massive, but it was a compromise,” said Representative Joe L. Barton of Texas, chairman of the House energy committee. “A lot of the things the most aggressive environmental groups wanted, they didn’t get. A lot of the things proponents of domestic development wanted, they didn’t get.”

“Now,” he added, “they’re coming back to get them.”

The result is a flow of legislation, which has had a dizzying effect on the committee chairmen who have to decide which measures deserve consideration and which have a chance to win bipartisan support. Senator Pete V. Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who is chairman of the energy committee, said the 2005 bill had served as “an open invitation for people introducing legislation that purports to solve one or more problems in one or more ways.”

“If you can dream up a solution,” he said, “we’ll have five bills tomorrow.”

But none of the measures are likely to pass, he added, without strong support from both parties, especially in the Senate, where Democrats have routinely used the threat of filibuster to block initiatives they oppose, like drilling in the Arctic reserve.

Of all the energy measures that build on the 2005 law, three have a modest chance to pass both houses this year. One would open a new section of the Gulf of Mexico to drilling. One would define and outlaw gasoline price gouging. A third would give the president authority to set fuel efficiency standards for cars. Interest is also growing to increase the use of ethanol in gasoline blends.

Mr. Grumet, whose coalition helped get the 2005 law passed, predicted that any bill of consequence would pass only if it addressed both demand and supply issues. As an example, he said lawmakers were discussing a measure that would combine the Gulf drilling bill with one that reduced demand for oil.

“There’s a Goldilocks problem with energy issues,” he said. “Bills are usually too hot or too cold. They’re almost never just right to legislate.”