Following the recent agreement by 11 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states to begin the formal process of implementing a job-killing Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), Energy Washington Week reports that California air board officials believe that this action “may not only bolster chances that Congress will pursue a more-preferred national LCFS but should help California more smoothly implement its own LCFS.”
However, some industry and consumer groups, unions and even a left-leaning think tank continue to echo concerns about LCFS schemes. This from Energy Washington Week:
The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) “prefers that there be a careful analysis of how to best reduce transportation-related GHG emissions first, rather than a jump to a conclusion that an LCFS program is needed or not,” a WSPA source said.
Additionally, a source with the American Petroleum Institute (API) added this week that the industry views CARB’s LCFS as essentially a mandate to increase electric vehicles and electric-vehicle infrastructure, something that gasoline and diesel suppliers should not be tasked with. “We don’t think the LCFS is necessary, or should be added on top of the [federal] RFS,” the source said. “From a refinery or industry standpoint, we don’t make electric cars, we don’t sell them and we don’t charge them. So we don’t think we should be responsible for the electrification of the vehicle fleet.”
And a new study by the Conference Board of Canada should serve as a wake-up call to the 11 Northeastern states that recently formalized their support for job-killing LCFS schemes. At its core, the study compares Canadian transportation emissions to the oil sands emissions.
The National Post reports this:
The oil sands sector in Alberta should not be singled out as the villain responsible for Canada’s poor record on climate change, says a new study released on Tuesday by an independent research group.
“It is much easier to pursue and criticize a few private oil sands producers operating in a neighboring democratic nation than to criticize state oil companies operating in weak democratic or authoritarian nations that are far away,” said the report, Getting the Balance Right, The Oil Sands, Exporting and Sustainability. “More fundamentally, frustrating production by a few firms is easier than convincing millions of consumers to change their lifestyles and driving habits and thereby reduce end demand for oil products.”
The Toronto Sun quotes Len Coad, director of energy and environment at the Conference Board of Canada and author of the new study, who says:
“On a wells-to-wheels basis, oil sands are not significantly dirtier than oil from many other global sources. Furthermore, Canada and the United States will continue to rely on oil products for the foreseeable future, and the oil sands offer advantages as a preferred supplier for North America.”
Between today’s report by the Conference Board of Canada and yesterday’s from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, it’s clear that pursuing an LCFS will increase greenhouse gas emissions, deepen our dependence on unstable regions of the world and drive prices at the pump even higher.
Hopefully the governors in these states currently considering an LCFS – as well as leaders in Washington – will take heed the facts contained in these reports and recognize the importance of Canadian’s affordable and secure energy reserves, as well as their role as our closest, strategic trading partner.
