For the producer, the important ratio is that between production cost and sale price (profit).  Declining EROEI, barring significant and cheap technological advance, implies rising cost of production.  Rising energy production costs do not lead to more disposable income among consumers (individuals, institutions, non-energy sector industry), but to less (in the aggregate) as economic activity shifts to energy production.

At the same time, government facing the loss of revenue from individuals and non-energy sector industry negatively affected by rising energy costs, will be looking to make up the difference.  Pelosi's position to which you referred yesterday is just one expression of this inevitable tendency.

NATE:  Thanks for the post and the links.  Just a small comment about residents of the Bulkley Valley.  They don't need natural gas for heating, etc., but can use wood.  The key is in the technology.  Hi-efficiency pellet and chip furnaces produce very few emissions.  The last time I was up in that country, in the 1970's, the bee-hive burner was common and air pollution often horrible.  I believe that the bee-hive burner is only an industrial relic today.  In fact, I suspect that if every houshold, business etc changed from gas to bio-mass air pollution levels could still be reduced, as long as through incentive or regulation the wood burners (fireplaces, inefficient stoves) currently in use were shutdown.

Currently, wood pellets are shipped from the Ridley Terminal in Prince Rupert by the container load.

There is also of course geo-exchange.