Yesterday, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle announced a new climate change bill for the Badger state. According to the Milwauke Journal-Sentinel, Doyle’s proposal aims to “expand renewable energy, energy efficiency and open the door to new nuclear reactors.” However, Doyle neglected to mention that his climate change bill – Assembly Bill 649 – also contains a job-killing Low-Carbon Fuel Standard.
Fortunately, business groups is the state are standing up for jobs, consumers and Wisconsin families by fighting this proposal that would increase prices at the pump across the board. In fact, the state’s largest business lobbying group, the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), said that these new mandates will “increase energy costs and hurt businesses.” The Associated Press quotes Scott Manley, WMC environmental policy director:
“With 9 percent unemployment, we should be focusing on ideas to create jobs like cutting taxes, controlling spending, controlling red-tape, and clamping down on frivolous lawsuits,” said Scott Manley, director of environmental policy for WMC.
Last month, the WMC and twenty-three of the state’s largest business groups, representing contractors, home builders and retailers, sent Gov. Doyle and lawmakers a letter detailing their concerns about this proposal, including the LCFS provision. They even cited a study that found the proposal could cost more than 43,000 jobs and billions of dollars.
The groups also highlighted the negative economic impacts associated with an LCFS, which is also being considered in Congress. As you may know, an LCFS would effectively ban affordable and secure Canadian energy reserves – which currently meets nearly 50 percent of the Badger state’s energy needs. And the group lays this out to the task force in their letter:
The proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard would increase costs to Wisconsin motorists by an additional $3.279 billion by 2020.”
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Another California idea that makes little sense for Wisconsin is adopting a California-type LCFS aimed at restricting our use of Canadian oil. Unlike California, Wisconsin relies on Canadian crude oil to produce the majority of our transportation fuel. By raising costs an estimated $3.3 billion for motorists, a LCFS will hit Wisconsin consumers at a time when we can least afford it.
In addition to this letter, James A. Buchen, WMC vice president, writes this in a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel op-ed entitled ‘Low carbon fuel tax is lose-lose’:
A Low Carbon Fuel Standard sounds harmless enough, but this misguided policy would penalize Wisconsin’s dominant source of motor fuel: Canadian crude oil. Studies have shown that such a standard will raise gas prices … an LCFS would also threaten many of our state’s family-supporting manufacturing jobs that supply the Canadian oil industry.
Because Canadian oil is located on our own continent and comes from one of our closest allies, it represents a stable and secure source of energy for Wisconsin.
Unfortunately, an LCFS would punish Canadian oil because it requires more energy to produce, refine and bring to market than “lighter” forms of crude oil. Worse yet, an LCFS would not even reduce Wisconsin greenhouse gas emissions because gasoline refined from Canadian crude oil burns just the same as other conventional sources of gasoline.
Lawmakers must consider whether it makes sense to enact an LCFS and trade friendly Canadian oil for a greater reliance on OPEC and Middle East oil.
Wisconsin consumers, their pocket books and the state’s energy security are all under attack by this LCFS scheme. That’s why it is so critical that consumers continue to send Congress and Gov. Doyle the message that an LCFS will kill American jobs, increase greenhouse gas emissions, deepen our dependence on unstable regions of the world to keep our economy moving and lead to even higher prices at the pump.
[...] in Wisconsin, where LCFS legislation was recently introduced, labor unions are speaking out about how this proposal that will increase prices at the pump for [...]
[...] states and regions across the nation that are working to pass LCFS proposals, particularly in the Mid-West, the Northeast and the [...]
[...] states and regions across the nation that are working to pass LCFS proposals, particularly in the Mid-West, the Northeast and the [...]
[...] many states and regions across the nation are working to pass LCFS proposals, particularly in the Mid-West, the Northeast and the [...]
[...] LCFS still exists in the Badger State, as well as in many other states and regions, including the Mid-West, the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic. Hopefully more state and national policymakers will take [...]
[...] threat of an LCFS being adopted in a host of states and regions throughout the U.S., including the Mid-West, the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic, policymakers must engage in a strong dialogue about the [...]