Last week, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) and the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) teamed up to defend struggling consumers from higher gas and home-heating fuel costs by hosting a call with the media to highlight the dangerous consequences – from an economic and national security perspective – with Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) proposals.
During the call, CEA’s vice president and in-house LCFS expert Michael Whatley and COHA fellow Shantel Beach underscored key findings of COHA’s new report. They also discussed the impacts that an LCFS could have on U.S. energy security and fuel and home-heating costs, as well as its potential effects on economic competitiveness.
Following the conference call, Mitch Potter with the Toronto Star reports this:
Consumer Energy Alliance…sounded a warning this week on the dangers the regional efforts pose to oil imports from Alberta, noting that Washington could embrace the measures as an alternative to cap-and-trade legislation and instead push for a federal low-carbon fuel law. The warning echoed a report last month by Washington’s Council on Hemispheric Affairs, which said strict environmental measures that discriminate against Alberta oil could push Canada in search of other markets.
America’s loss [under an LCFS] would likely be China’s gain, the [CEA’s] vice-president Michael Watley told the Star, pointing to the development of Enbridge’s proposed 1,200-kilometre Northern Gateway pipeline, a project to link the oil sands to Kitimat on the northern B.C. coast, placing Alberta oil on tap for the thirsty Asian market.
In fact, this “thirsty Asian market” may soon find more resources to secure (that would have otherwise been delivered to U.S. consumers). Last week, Canada’s Environment Minister Jim Prentice and Gaétan Caron, chair and CEO of the National Energy Board, announced the establishment of a three-member joint panel for the environmental and regulatory review of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project.
The Calgary Herald reports this under the headline “Governator’s fuel plan could cause ‘collateral damage’ to U.S.”:
[Shantel Beach] explained that if Alberta can’t sell its oil to the U.S., it has a willing market in China, which has a 60 per cent stake in Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.’s MacKay and Dover oilsands deposits. Regulatory approval for the Northern Gateway Pipeline to the West Coast would be a spigot the Chinese would welcome.
Low-carbon fuel legislation will do nothing to prevent global warming and will only jeopardize America’s fuel security, according to Shantel Beach, a researcher with the Washington, D.C.,-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA). Michael Whatley, vice-president of the oil-industry backed Consumer Energy Alliance, joined Beach on the conference call and said this about LCFS legislation: “If we are talking about policies that are going to take (18 per cent of U.S.) imports off the table, you’re talking about major, major ramifications in terms of U.S. fuels policy.
Whatley characterized LCFS schemes as “a cap-and-trade system for transportation fuels.” He also discussed the states and regions across the nation that are working to pass LCFS proposals, particularly in the Mid-West, the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic.
In the article “Critics Of States’ Low-Carbon Fuel Rules Raise CO2 Lifecyle Concerns,” Inside EPA reports this about state LCFS efforts, and CEA’s efforts to help protect consumers from unstable and higher energy costs:
CEA’s Michael Whatley said that state and regional LCFS, such as a Northeast/Mid-Atlantic effort under way for transportation fuel and heating oil that is designed to force a national LCFS, are “moving forward seriously and moving forward fast.” … Whatley said the regional and state efforts “are more important to date,” given congressional action is unlikely.
CEA said it is “strongly opposed to efforts to implement [a LCFS] for the sake of discriminating against fuels derived from unconventional sources such as heavy oil, oil shale and the Canadian oil sands.” … And it warns neither a regional nor national LCFS would have a measurable effect on production of Canadian oil sands because “producers will simply shift those supplies to other markets in the event of such a ban.”
As concerned and struggling consumers continue to learn more about the economic and national security threats posed by LCFS policies, the stronger the opposition to such policies continues to mound. In fact, opposition to global warming laws (and LCFS) has dramatically increased in California recently, which was the first state to pass an LCFS. According to the California Chronicle, the increase in opposition “was based on concerns that the measure will kill jobs, increase costs and further erode the state´s fragile economy” – all relevant concerns for American consumers. The Pew Research Center study released similar polling numbers this week, as well. American consumers are rightfully concerned most about jobs and the economy, which would be hurt even more under an LCFS.
In order to stop job-killing LCFS policies, CEA members and others concerned about higher prices at the pump and driving down our nation’s dependence for oil from unfriendly regions of the world must not give up this fight. We need more energy – of all forms – and we need to use the energy sources we have more wisely at the same time. Send this message to Congress, if you agree.
[...] a LCFS – would only deepen our dangerous dependence on oil from unfriendly regions of world, and severely hit struggling consumers in their pocketbooks at a time when they can afford it [...]