It’s significant that President Obama chose to make his first Oval Office speech about energy – the oil spill that has riveted the nation’s news media for the past two months, and, more particularly, what we should do as a nation to stem what the president aptly termed our century-old addiction to petroleum.

Obama did not make a clarion call for Congress to pass an energy bill – he still has some sorting out to do about cleaning up the spill and restoring the Gulf Coast environment. But, it’s clear he’s ready to take the next step, and make sure Congress does as well.

It’s striking how differently this administration has handled the oil spill from the only comparable petroleum disaster within the U.S. That was the Exxon Valdez grounding in 1989, where a tanker spilled 11 million gallons into Prince William Sound in Alaska.

Back then, the Bush (Sr.) administration was content to let compensation be decided by the court system – which took more than a decade and reduced initial awards of about $7 billion to less than $1 billion when it was all over. Exxon (now Exxon Mobil) barely had to reduce a dividend.

Obama is insisting on a much higher standard for BP, as British Petroleum prefers to be known. Oil companies, just like investment banks and securities traders, have been taking undue risks in recent years, and must be held accountable if future misconduct is to be deterred. The president’s tough stance may convince voters, if not pundits, that he’s serious about representing their interests. The Gulf Coast recovery plan, when it’s done, needs to be equally comprehensive.

But the big event for Maine is what happens to the energy bill, passed a year ago by the House, but still stalled in the Senate. The lobbies involved are every bit as formidable as the health care interests that needed to be dealt with earlier, with the further complication that state interests are so different.

Maine’s interests are clear. This state has no oil reserves and no extractable coal. It has no functioning nuclear plants, and its hydro capacity, with the possible exception of tides, is nearly fully exploited. It is also even more heavily dependent on petroleum than most states, since we use it not only to drive our cars but to heat our homes and businesses.

Maine also could not be better situated to benefit from federal R&D spending and direct investment when it comes to renewable energy. We have a large wood-fiber reserve, and an even better wind resource, particularly as off-shore wind becomes viable. These factors make it inconceivable that our two Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, would ultimately vote against a strong energy bill.

Their votes will be needed. When doing the math, the most relevant recent tally was on Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s amendment to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from doing what the law requires, and what the courts have ordered it to do – regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Alaska Republican was only doing what’s expected from an oil state senator. Her amendment was defeated 53-47, with all 53 “nos” coming from Democrats.

Snowe and Collins joined their GOP colleagues, for now, insisting that EPA not regulate biofuels – a small point in the bigger picture. The 53 Democrats are a relatively reliable base for eventual passage, which means that a few more Republicans will be needed to meet that magical (or notorious) filibuster-proof threshold of 60.

Some Republicans should be available. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, for one. He’s good at reading the tea leaves, and he knows his constituency. New Hampshire’s Judd Gregg is about as conservative as they come, but he understands that his state is in the same boat as Maine. The president doesn’t have the votes today, but he may when they’re counted, probably during a late-night session deep into August when senators are anxious to be out campaigning.

But this isn’t about who wins or loses in November. It’s much more important than that. How the nation responds to this economic and environmental crisis will mark us down for decades, if not centuries to come.

It’s often objected that skepticism about global warming will harm any ambitious bill’s prospects for passage. But you can be a creationist and still support the bill. The need for a transformation of our energy economy is overwhelming.

Health care and financial reform were both written off, yet made it through the congressional gauntlet nonetheless. The energy bill is more consequential still. Mainers must make sure their senators know this.