Is the Obama administration trying to marginalize America’s largest business group?

“The uneasy relationship between the Obama White House and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has steadily eroded over the past several months, with the business group’s opposition to health care and climate change legislation triggering an all-fronts backlash from the administration,” Fox News reports, “White House targets Chamber.” “The administration is now trying to neutralize the Chamber by doing an end-run around the group and dealing directly with its members.”

“Obama and top aides quietly have met with 50 to 60 big-time corporate CEOs over the past few months in an effort to cultivate their support on key issues — the White House denies that it has encouraged any companies to sever ties with the Chamber.”

Liberal groups have highlighted such firms as Apple cancelling their Chamber membership over climate change legislation. Another influential firm, Nike, resigned its seat on the board of directors.

(It’s somewhat hypocritical of Apple and Nike to support the proposed cap-and-trade legislation pending in Congress. Both companies manufacture their products in third-world countries exempt from limits on carbon emissions. The Chamber’s membership also includes many companies with U.S. factories that would face steep costs to stay in business if cap-and-trade would become law.

Obama’s allies are turning up the heat on the U.S. Chamber as well. A group of small businesses in Iowa, called 1Sky, recently issued a news release in which they criticized the Chamber for not supporting climate change legislation.

New environmental regulations for transportation fuels being considered in Congress would deal a “devastating” blow to U.S. projects like the proposed Hyperion Energy Center in Union County, according to a coalition of business groups.

Some majority Democrats back legislation that would lower carbon emissions in U.S. vehicles. The Low-Carbon Fuel Standards, or LCFS, would penalize heavier, dirtier oil such as the crude from the Alberta, Canadian oil sands that Hyperion plans to process.

Last month, Hyperion secured a state air quality permit for its $10 billion refinery, which would process of 400,000 barrels per day.

“No permit in the world is going to save this project if LCFS is put in place,” said Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the Consumer Energy Alliance, a 125-member group that includes oil companies, retailers, trucking and transportation groups and business organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

At top is a YouTube video of a TV ad that the CEA is airing in South Dakota, as well as three other states — North Dakota, Montana and Tennessee — with industries dependent on heavier oil. The S.D. ad encourages viewers to call the state’s two U.S. senators — Republican John Thune and Democrat Tim Johnson.

The group’s television and radio campaign, scheduled to last two weeks, attempts to educate consumers about the issue, warning that LCFS threatens to cost Americans jobs, drive up prices at the pump and increase U.S. dependence on Mideast imports.

A broader, better known climate control bill, known as Waxman-Markey, or cap-and-trade, passed the House in June without the low-carbon fuel provision, which was removed during negotiations. But CEA officials fear supporters will revive the low carbon language and insert it into other legislation during the current session of Congress.

How much would the climate bill under debate in the U.S. House Friday cost the average American?

The answer varies widely, depends on the source, data use and assumptions made.

The Waxman-Markey, named for its House sponsors, would put the first national limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases from major sources like power plants, refineries and factories. It would up an open market to trade credits permitting emissions.

Critics argue much of those added costs would be passed on to consumers, mostly in the form of bigger monthly electric bills, higher gas prices at the pump and the added expense of producing and delivering goods and services.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. In their talking points, majority Democrats note that’s less than the cost of a single postage stamp per day.

But The Wall Street Journal says a closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it “contains so many caveats as to render it useless,” “The cap and tax fiction.” The Wall Street Journal points to much different numbers contained in a more comprehensive analysis from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

The Heritage study found the Waxman-Markey bill would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

The Heritage authors also note that costs would vary by region. States more dependent on coal and oil, for instance would shoulder a heavy load.

MidAmerican Energy Co., Iowa’s largest utility, has been running a barrage of newspaper and television ads saying Waxman-Markey would boost household utility bills by at least 25 percent. MidAmerican operates large coal-fired power plants at Port Neal, just south of Sioux City.

Journal political blogger Bret Hayworth reports that Iowa Fifth District Congressman Steve King has scheduled a public forum on so-called cap and trade legislation on July 6 at Western Iowa Tech Community College.

Majority Democrats are crossing their fingers as the U.S. House today votes on a controversial climate control bill, ”“Close win predicted for cap and trade”

Most, if not all, Republicans and some moderate Democrats are expected to vote against the 1,200-page bill, commonly known as cap and trade because it would cap carbon emissions and set up an open market to trade credits permitting emissions.

Negotiators made last-minute changes to entice state legislators from states like Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota and Minnesota, “Energy bill compromise aims at farm states.”

The bill’s authors agreed to a compromise that will delay proposed federal regulations that would factor in land-use changes in implementing biofuel mandates. Farm groups say the new rules will hurt the biofuels industry.

Backers said the bill, designed to reduce emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, would move the country away from fossil-based fuels and toward renewable energy, creating new “green” jobs and slowing climate change.

Opponents, which refer to the bill as “cap and tax,” predict it would impose huge new costs on consumers and drive jobs to countries where emissions are still unregulated and free.