Find Out the Answer
take action NOW 
watch youtube videos 

Archive for September, 2009

« Older Entries

Happy Birthday, China

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

What do you get for the country that has everything? LCFS supporters in Congress want to give communist China the gift of 2 million barrels a day of secure, U.S.-bound energy

In just a few hours, the People’s Republic of China will formally begin the celebration of the 60th anniversary of its founding – marked, in part, by an Olympics-style military parade and tattoo showcasing its expanding political, strategic and economic clout.  

Fundamental to China’s growing influence over the past several decades has been its ability to secure affordable, reliable forms of energy – a task the Chinese government has taken on with relentless determination and a renewed willingness to go anywhere, do anything, and pay whatever it takes to procure the resources it needs to strengthen its global position relative to its competitors and raise the standard of living for its citizens.

So, what do you get for the nation that has everything? A tie rack, it would seem, is out of the question. Unfortunately, some in Congress are working right now to send our friends in China a birthday gift that will ensure steady, reliable access to energy resources from Canada – offered in the form of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) policy that will allow the Chinese to claim oil reserves previously earmarked for use by American consumers.

Originally included in early drafts of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill narrowly approved by the U.S. House, provisions seeking the imposition of a nationwide LCFS were not added to the initial Boxer-Kerry draft released today. But although U.S. energy consumers and those who value American security appear to have gotten a reprieve from this devastating proposal in this latest round of horse-trading, all signs continue to point to an LCFS being offered as an amendment to cap-and-trade either in committee or on the Senate floor.

Later today, U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a vocal proponent of LCFS, will be holding a press conference to put forth a series of concerns that Senate Republicans have with the Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade draft. Ahead of the event, and in view of the serious economic and security consequences that an LCFS would visit upon the American people, we offer below just a few of the questions that reporters, policy-makers, and members of the general public might want to ask as the debate enters a new phase:

1)       Senator Alexander, now that both the House and Senate have introduced climate bills that exclude a job-killing Low-Carbon Fuel Standard from the text, will you take this opportunity today to rescind your long-standing support for the policy, and commit to dropping all plans to add it into subsequent iterations of the bill as it moves to the Senate floor?

2)       Senator Alexander, a recent analysis compiled by one of President Obama’s own energy advisors found that an LCFS would divert more than 2 million barrels a day of secure, Canadian energy from the United States to our competitors in China. In view of communist China celebrating its 60th birthday this week, do you believe this is an appropriate gift – especially if it comes at the expense of U.S. consumers?

3)       Senator Alexander, you’ve been quoted as saying an LCFS is an “effective way” to reduce carbon emissions without “raising the price of gasoline.” Both of these assertions have been disproven by non-partisan analysis, most recently in a report published in the American Economic Journal by professors from California and North Carolina. Do you still believe that a policy which seeks to limit the amount and type of energy Americans can access would be a free lunch for the American economy?

4)       Senator Alexander, earlier this month, Consumer Energy Alliance sent a letter to National Security Advisor James Jones asking him and the National Security Council to analyze the impact on U.S. security that passage of an LCFS would create. Will you shelve your plans to offer an LCFS amendment in both committee and on the Senate floor until the results of that study are made available to your office?

5)       Senator Alexander, you stand today alongside the minority leadership of the U.S. Senate. Is your support for an LCFS proposal that would ban Canadian energy from crossing the U.S. border a position that your colleagues believe would strengthen U.S security?

More from SecureOurFuels.org:

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | 7 Comments »

Venue Menu: Sierra Club Attempt to Venue Shop on Alberta Clipper Lawsuit Struck Down in Federal Court

Monday, September 28th, 2009

CA Federal Judge Reassigns Frivolous Case to Minn. Where Alberta Clipper Stands to Create Jobs, Spur Economic Growth

The San Francisco-based Sierra Club – along with its anti-energy allies, including EarthJustice – has placed the Alberta Clipper pipeline project squarely in its legal crosshairs. These groups, which oppose the safe and responsible development and use of traditional energy forms, such as coal, natural gas and oil sands-derived oil, are suing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her deputy, James Steinberg, and, for good measure, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with an eye on stopping abundant supplies of secure Canadian oil from reaching American consumers.

The issue started to gain traction this past August, as the State Department, acting on behalf of the president, issued an executive order, permitting the construction of the Alberta Clipper pipeline, which will help deliver affordable, reliable, stable and much-needed Canadian energy supplies to American consumers.

Here is a key excerpt from the State Department’s Presidential Permit:

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

Naturally, this commonsense action on the part of the Obama administration to bolster America’s economic and strategic security did not sit well with the Sierra Club, et al. So they did what any reasonable American would do in a situation: they unleashed an army of high-priced attorneys on the federal court system, filing a flurry of lawsuits aimed at preventing the permit from being executed.

Of course, those suits weren’t exactly filed indiscriminately – far better to drop off that paperwork in a state like California (which receives virtually no energy from Canada) than Minnesota, which receives 83 percent of its total take from there. So that’s exactly what they did. And darn it if they weren’t THIS close to getting away with it.

Thankfully, though, the Sierra Club was delivered a major judicial blow recently. The Honorable Susan Illston, U.S. District Judge in the U.S. District Court’s Northern District of California, ruled for a change of venue, from California to Minnesota.

Here’s more from a Law360 article on Judge Illstaon’s ruling:

A federal judge has sent a Sierra Club suit against the U.S. Department of State from California to Minnesota, saying that the environmental group’s attempt to block the construction of an oil pipeline from Alberta to Wisconsin would be better heard in the jurisdiction with the greatest local interest.

Judge Susan Ilston granted the State Department’s motion to transfer the case from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Wednesday, finding that the majority of the activities underlying the suit took place within or very near that district’s jurisdiction.

The Sierra Club and several other preservation groups sued the State Department, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and related officials on Sept. 3 over the planned construction and operation of a system of pipelines to carry crude oil from sources in Alberta to refineries in the United States.

Specifically, Judge Illston writes this in her September 23 order to transfer the case’s venue:

After two years of study and a public comment period, the State Department issued an ROD on August 3, 2009, indicating the Department’s intention to issue a Presidential permit to Enbridge.

The majority of the activities underlying this suit took place within or very near the jurisdiction of the District of Minnesota. First, although the State Department’s issuance of the Presidential permit took place in Washington, D.C., the permit was issued after studying the affected locations in Minnesota and Wisconsin, consulting with tribal leaders in these two states, and holding public meetings in Minnesota.

Moreover, the rights and interests of persons living in and near Minnesota will be substantially affected by the outcome of the suit. Construction of the pipeline will have not only environmental and aesthetic implications for local people in Minnesota and surrounding border regions of North Dakota and Wisconsin, but significant economic implications as well.

In sum, the Court is persuaded that transferring this case is in the interests of justice and will maximize the convenience of all interested persons.

While this case has will now be moved to Minnesota – which receives an overwhelming 83 percent of its oil from Canada and relies on this key North American trading partnership to fuel much of its economy – the threat of further disruptions to the Alberta Clipper development, as well as a national, one-size-fits-all low-carbon fuel standard – which would effectively ban Canadian oil from reaching U.S. consumers – remains very grave.

Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is working hard to draw attention to this serious threat. Through major national news outlets, newspaper op-ed pages, and directly to the White House’s National Security Council, CEA continues its fact-based LCFS offensive.

And as the U.S. Senate readies its climate change bill, American consumers who favor North American energy supplies over those from unstable, hostile regimes in far away regions of the world should send a loud message to Congress that an LCFS is wrong for our security and for our pocketbooks.

Posted in Blog | 2 Comments »

Wisconsin Consumers Soundly Reject Job-Killing LCFS Proposal

Monday, September 28th, 2009

WVU Prof. Warns an LCFS Would “Jeopardize National Security”

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), an association with “nearly 4,000 members that include both large and small manufacturers, service companies, local chambers of commerce and specialized trade associations,” released scientific public opinion research data on several energy proposals today, including a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). Because an LCFS would increase our dependence on unstable regions of the world to fuel our economy, while also increasing prices at the pump, Badger state consumers have overwhelmingly rejected this job-killing proposal.

This from a WMC-commissioned poll released today of 500 Wisconsin voters conducted earlier this month:

A Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is a bias against using Canadian crude oil – the dominant source of gasoline and diesel fuel for Midwest states like Wisconsin. Penalizing Canadian oil with a LCFS would likely result in fuel supply shortages and higher prices at the pump. The U.S. Congress rejected this flawed policy in the federal cap and trade legislation, as did the Minnesota Legislature. (72 percent voter opposition)

The business group has also weighed in on LCFS proposals, and the economic damage that such a regime would present. In June, the WMC wrote this about an LCFS: 

Myth #3: A Low Carbon Fuel Standard Will Secure Our Energy Independence

Reality: A Low Carbon Fuel Standard Will Raise Gas Prices In Wisconsin

While many of us think of the Middle East oil sheiks when we consider crude oil production, you may be surprised to learn that the majority of crude oil entering the Wisconsin marketplace comes from Canada. Canada has the second-largest crude oil reserve in the world, and because it is located on our own continent with one of our closest allies and trading partners, it represents a stable and secure source of motor fuel in our state. We refine it right here at a facility in Superior, Wisconsin, as do our neighbors in Minnesota, Illinois and Indiana.

Unfortunately, a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) would punish Canadian crude oil because it takes more energy to extract it from the ground. The financial penalties assessed against Canadian crude would result in significantly higher pump prices for Wisconsin motorists, as well as the possibility of supply disruptions. If that occurs, we may be forced to rely upon oil from hostile regimes and members of the OPEC cartel to replace the loss of Canadian crude oil.

If you think a LCFS will benefit ethanol production, think again. Regulators in California and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have studied the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of crop-based ethanol, and found it to be worse than conventional gasoline from a global warming standpoint. Any way you cut it, a LCFS is a lose-lose proposition for Wisconsin because it punishes our dominant fuel source, and punishes an alternative fuel produced here in our own state.

It’s no wonder that consumers in states like Wisconsin – which receives 47 percent of its oil from Canada – squarely reject LCFS proposals.

And public opinion appears to be right in line with what academics well-versed in energy issue are saying, too. West Virginia University professor Syd S. Peng, who holds the university’s Charles E. Lawall Chair of Mining Engineering, wrote a column chock full of facts regarding LCFS proposals in Washington over the weekend. Under the headline “Energy proposal offers problems for W.Va., nation,” Peng wrote this in the Charleston Gazette:

A proposed national low-carbon fuel standard would severely restrict and possibly prevent access to these critically important resources.

Although a provision for a national low-carbon fuel standard was pulled from proposed climate legislation before the House approved the measure in June, it could pop up again. A similar measure is awaiting action in the Senate. Two states, California and Oregon, have adopted a low-carbon fuel standard, and other states might do the same. But restricting the use of some fuels and not others will require the United States to use more expensive oil, and it would jeopardize national security.

A national low-carbon fuel standard could leave the United States vulnerable to a sharp rise in oil prices resulting from an extended drop in world oil supplies.

Prof. Peng’s comments on how an LCFS would threaten our national security comes just days after Consumer Energy Alliance wrote the president’s national security advisor, Gen. James L. Jones, asking his National Security Council to take closer look at the security consequences underlying an LCFS.

If you agree with nearly 3 in 4 Wisconsin consumers and Prof. Peng that American consumers cannot afford higher prices at the pump or deeper dependence on unstable regions of the world for our energy, then send Congress a message to oppose an LCFS.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Reuters: Because of its LCFS, “California appears to have no choice but to increase [oil imports from afar]”

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

Due to its high taxes and heavy-handed regulations, Californians already pay some of the highest prices for their energy in the nation. And it’s about to get even worse, thanks to the state’s upcoming implementation (assuming it can find someone to figure out how to implement it) of a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) – a policy that discriminates against certain affordable and reliable North American energy supplies from reaching its market. Under such a plan, consistent with its design, California must have to increase its oil imports from afar.

In a Reuters analysis entitled “California faces future of rising oil imports,” Bruce Nichols and Robert Gibbons delve into the complexities and negative real-life macroeconomic consequences associated with the Golden State’s LCFS.

Here are key experts from the in-depth analysis.

On Affordable, Reliable North American Energy Resources Being Banned from California

There also are plans to expand pipeline capacity from oil sands-rich Alberta to Canada’s West Coast, possibly loading tankers to California by the middle of the next decade.

But most if not all will go to Asia if California’s low carbon fuels standard is applied — over Canadian objections — to the oil sands.

On California’s Energy Demand Increasingly Outpacing its Supply, Forcing Prices Higher for Consumers

California’s own fields supplied 60 percent of its needs as recently as 1986, but by 2008 that was down to 38 percent, according to California Energy Commission data.

Alaska bridged the gap for a while, supplying 46 percent of California’s crude as recently as 1991, but its output has declined too and last year accounted for 13.4 percent of supply, CEC data show.

Meanwhile, California’s appetite for gasoline and diesel fuel grew 50 percent after 1980, so crude imports have climbed to 48.5 percent of total supply last year from just 4 percent in 1991.

On China Moving Further and Further into Once Secure American Energy Markets, Supplies

Demand at California’s refineries will pull crude from new locales as once-prolific output from within the state and Alaska declines and China boosts its demand for crude from suppliers like Ecuador and Canada.

But in August, Ecuador announced a two-year deal to ship 2.9 million barrels a month to China, raising questions about the reliability of this supply.

“Growth in China, growth in India, mobilization of those societies, is really going to tilt the center of gravity to the Far East,” said Ken Medlock, an energy expert at Rice University’s Baker Institute. “So you’ll see flows begin to move differently than they have in the past.”

This analysis provides an objective examination of California’s unnecessarily insecure energy markets. While it’s unfortunate for California consumers that some of their state leaders did not fully recognize the economic and energy security havoc an LCFS would wreak – not to mention the fact that an LCFS may actually increase global greenhouse gas emissions – it’s articles like these that continue add to the steady and growing drumbeat of opposition to a national, one-size-fits-all LCFS.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 1 Comment »

CEA Continues Fact-Based LCFS Offensive

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

Just weeks into its nationwide educational campaign highlighting the threat posed by a federal, one-size-fits-all low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) to American consumers, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) continue to pound the pavement, ensuring that common myths about North American oil sands are countered, and that Americans have the facts they deserve.

Last week, a column appeared in the Boston Globe by James Hansen and Aaron Sanger, denouncing the safe, secure, reliable Canadian energy resources that help fuel the US economy. In an effort to correct the record about Canadian energy and the jobs and energy security it provides the US, CEA’s president, David Holt, responded to Hansen’s piece in today’s Boston Globe. Under the headline “If we don’t want it, others will benefit,” Holt wrote this:

We’re told that carbon emissions from the oil sands “are three to five times greater’’ than from conventional oil; not mentioned is that the carbon content of oil is constant, as is the carbon profile of the fuels produced from it. Every gallon of oil-derived gasoline emits 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. And it doesn’t matter if that oil came from Canada or Colorado, the Middle East or the Midwest.

Hansen and Sanger’s solution for destroying the oil sands market? Stop buying things from businesses that use this energy. Others have suggested an outright ban on the oil sands, and have rallied around a policy known as the low-carbon fuel standard to achieve it.

But denying Americans access to this energy won’t deprive the world of its existence. If we don’t want it, our friends in China will be more than happy to take it off our hands – and emit significantly more carbon in the production, transportation, and consumption of this energy than if it had been used to create jobs, security, and competitive economic advantages closer to home.

But CEA’s fight to protect affordable and reliable energy resources has not been limited to major national news outlets. CEA highlighted the grave economic threats posed by an LCFS recently in Montana’s Sidney Herald. Montana – who receives 93 percent of its oil from Canada – would be among the most adversely affected states, should an LCFS become law. Here are key experts from the article entitled “Energy campaigns take off early across country”:

“No state stands to lose more under an LCFS than Montana – it’s not even close. That’s because no state in the Union relies more on Canada to supply its consumers with secure, affordable supplies of energy – 93 percent of the state’s oil comes from there,” says Tucker. “Every bit of that supply would be banned from crossing the border under a federal LCFS – resulting in higher fuel prices for Montanans, far less availability, and serious uncertainty as to how, when and from where Montana is going to fill that supply vacuum.”

“This is when the government comes in and says, ‘here, buy some pieces of paper which we confer value on, calling them carbon credits,’” Tucker says. The government would then use that money to research and develop “greener” fuel technology.

“LCFS is not about less carbon content, it’s about using less fuel,” Tucker says.

“It’s been talked about in a vacuum,” Michael Whatley, vice president of CEA, said. Last spring, low-carbon fuel regulations were in the Waxman-Markey bill, but they were cut out of the version of this bill that passed the House this June. If the bills aren’t budging that contain LCFS, and it’s being cut out from other bills, surely the vacuum of discussion must be air tight and inconsequential, except that the vacuum is Capitol Hill. LCFS is out of the current bills, but if the bill continues moving on, some suspect an amendment will be tacked on.

On its Web site, www.secureourfuels.org, the page which explains LCFS ends with this, “LCFS? How about ‘Little Chance in Fooling Society?’ At least we hope.”

CEA will continue to fight for all forms of energy – wind, solar, hydro, coal, oil and gas – to help ensure that American consumers have access to affordable and reliable energy resources. An “all-of-the-above” approach to our long-term energy security will help see that this goal is achieved.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 3 Comments »

ICYMI: CEA in DC Examiner: Why are we conceding Canadian oil to China?

Monday, September 21st, 2009

 

  • Does Canadian oil have more carbon in it than oil from the Middle East? No. Does gasoline derived from Canadian oil emit more carbon dioxide than gasoline from Middle East oil? Nope. But none of that matters: Under an LCFS, ‘heavy’ oils – wherever they come from – get the boot, and light oils – no matter how unstable their source – are given the glass slipper.

 

  • The upshot? States, especially in the upper Midwest, that rely heavily on Canadian crude to run their economy get to decide between going without gas, diesel and heating oil, or paying an outrageously high price for the energy essential to their lives.

Why are we conceding Canadian oil to China?
David Holt
Special to the Examiner
September 20, 2009

It takes 13.5 hours for United’s direct flight from Dulles to reach Terminal 3E in Beijing. But if news out of Canada is any indication, the trip required to visit our friends from China may soon prove a lot shorter than that.

In a recently announced deal, state-owned oil giant PetroChina agreed to invest $1.7 billion to help develop two promising oil sands fields in Canada’s Alberta province. Why would a Chinese company help produce an energy resource it currently has no means of transporting back to China? Just wait. All the major pipelines may run north-to-south right now, but China’s involvement in the oil sands means an east-meets-west pipeline is just around the corner.

Consumer Energy Alliance, of which I’m proud to serve as president, has started a nationwide campaign to educate the American public on the perils of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard – a policy that some in Washington believe would kill off the Canadian oil sands market for good, by depriving the market of its primary buyer and consumer (us). No Canadian oil sands means no Canadian oil, and that’s sits just fine with LCFS proponents.

Well, so much for that idea. Whether the United States decides to use these secure, affordable energy resources or not – the Canadians don’t appear all that interested in waiting around for a final decision.

And who can blame them? In China, they’ll have a partner that values those energy resources, stands ready to help produce them, and eventually will provide the Canadians with a massive new market in which to sell them.

Whither the United States? We’re currently debating an LCFS policy in Washington that aims to ban Canadian crude from crossing the border. Quite the contrast.

How does an LCFS work, and why would Canadian crude be put squarely in its cross hairs? The way it’s being sold to the American people, you’d think it was a plan to encourage cleaner gasoline in our fuel tank, and less carbon dioxide emitted from our tailpipe. You’d be wrong. An LCFS doesn’t seek to make the fuel we use today any better or more efficient; it seeks to make the fuel we use today scarcer, and less affordable.

Canceling Canadian crude would certainly be the way to do it. Currently, nearly 800,000 barrels of Canadian oil sands energy travel into U.S. refineries every day, with plans for that figure to expand by leaps and bounds over the next few years.

Opponents of affordable energy, for their part, have seen the direction this ship is headed for some time, and for years have worked feverishly to develop a Rube Goldberg-type machine capable of drying up those supplies without directly confronting the consumers and producers whose lives and livelihoods depend on them. They found such a device in the LCFS.

The LCFS playbook, such as it is, was drafted in California, adopted in full by President Obama while in still in the Senate, and expected to make its return to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate-change legislation this fall.

The basic mechanics for the program are these: The Environmental Protection Agency would be given unilateral authority to determine which sources of oil are OK for refiners to process, and which are not. It would use a calculus known as a “lifecycle” carbon score to justify those decisions, with Canada, Mexico and much of the oil produced in the United States deemed to be the losers, and oil from some of the most unstable regions of the world deemed to be the winner.

Does Canadian oil have more carbon in it than oil from the Middle East? No. Does gasoline derived from Canadian oil emit more carbon dioxide than gasoline from Middle East oil? Nope. But none of that matters: Under an LCFS, “heavy” oils – wherever they come from – get the boot, and light oils – no matter how unstable their source – are given the glass slipper.

The upshot? States, especially in the upper Midwest, that rely heavily on Canadian crude to run their economy get to decide between going without gas, diesel and heating oil, or paying an outrageously high price for the energy essential to their lives.

Both outcomes work just fine for LCFS proponents — whose objective has nothing to do with producing cleaner fuels, and everything to do with making sure Americans are able to afford less of them.

The ends justify the means, LCFS supporters say – as long as we’re reducing carbon emissions, and saving the planet. Too bad we’re not. As the announcement from PetroChina makes plain, the Canadian oil sands will be just fine, thank you, with or without the exportation of that energy to the United States.

But instead of simply piping that energy down the continent and into the homes and heating and fuel tanks of American consumers just a couple hours away, that energy will be transported to the Pacific coast, loaded onto a barge, and shipped 6,500 miles across the ocean to be processed in Chinese refineries.

How again does that scenario result in fewer carbon emissions? It doesn’t. But don’t tell that to LCFS proponents. Might as well be speaking Mandarin.

David Holt is president of Consumer Energy Alliance, a nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition comprised of more than 120 affiliates and almost 200,000 grass-roots supporters. Visit SecureOurFuels.org to learn more.

NOTE: Click HERE to view this column on-line.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | No Comments »

Canadian Energy Under Attack in Washington, In China’s Crosshairs

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Proposals are being advanced in Washington – with the not-so-implicit backing of President Obama – that would effectively halt safe, secure, affordable, reliable and much-needed Canadian energy supplies from reaching American consumers. Coined a low-carbon fuel standard, or LCFS, such a one-size-fits-all regime would block secure sources of North American energy from entering the US market. Proponents claim an LCFS would lower greenhouse gas emissions (not true) and lessen our energy dependence on unstable regions of the world (false again).

David Holt, president of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), a non-profit, non-partisan organization made up of nearly 120 affiliates and almost 200,000 grassroots supporters laid out the fact in a Washington Examiner column over the weekend entitled “Why are we conceding Canadian oil to China?”:

Consumer Energy Alliance, of which I’m proud to serve as president, has started a nationwide campaign to educate the American public on the perils of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard – a policy that some in Washington believe would kill off the Canadian oil sands market for good, by depriving the market of its primary buyer and consumer (us). No Canadian oil sands means no Canadian oil, and that’s sits just fine with LCFS proponents.

Well, so much for that idea. Whether the United States decides to use these secure, affordable energy resources or not – the Canadians don’t appear all that interested in waiting around for a final decision.

And who can blame them? In China, they’ll have a partner that values those energy resources, stands ready to help produce them, and eventually will provide the Canadians with a massive new market in which to sell them.”

Holt added this, too, with regard to China’s move to invest in Canadian oil sands to fuel its economy:

But instead of simply piping [Canadian] energy down the continent and into the homes and heating and fuel tanks of American consumers just a couple hours away, that energy will be transported to the Pacific coast, loaded onto a barge, and shipped 6,500 miles across the ocean to be processed in Chinese refineries.

The threat of an LCFS being imposed nationwide, and harming each and every American consumer is very real. And so to is the prospect of China inching its way closer to securing more and more Canadian energy reserves.

In fact, just weeks ago, PetroChina inked a nearly $2 billion dollar investment in Canada’s Athabasca Oil company. Canadian media, and energy producers, are taking notice of this hemispheric shift in energy trade. Today, the Canwest News Service – under the headline “Oilsands pipe to B.C. coast makes ’strategic sense’: CEO” – reported that “China’s interest in Alberta oil puts idea back in spotlight.” The article also quoted Tom Katinas, CEO of Syncrude Canada Ltd., extensively.

Here are a few key excerpts:

The head of Canada’s biggest oilsands producer says a pipeline to West Coast makes strategic sense to help diversify Alberta’s export markets.

But Tom Katinas, CEO of Syncrude Canada Ltd., told the Global Business Forum in Banff that the U.S. will remain Canada’s key buyer.

“I would love to see a pipeline that goes from Alberta out to the West Coast to be able to export some of the Alberta oil,” he said, speaking on a panel on Friday, the last day of the conference.

Even moving a small amount of that oil, largely heavier grades from the oilsands, would help boost Alberta’s economic position, he said.

So, as policymakers in Washington work to slash supplies of affordable and reliable energy, China – one of our top global competitors – is working just as hard, if not harder, to ensure that its people and its economy have access to job-creating energy resources.

Help CEA fight for secure energy supplies, and work to stop an LCFS from becoming law.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Back to School: CEA Asks NSC to Study Security Risks Associated with an LCFS

Friday, September 18th, 2009

The non-partisan Consumer Energy Alliance, with its nearly 200,000 grassroots supporters and more than 120 affiliates, firmly believes – as independent studies have shown – that a national, one-size-fits-all low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) will be damaging for American consumers, our struggling workforce, and our national security.

Under an LCFS, more carbon intensive energy forms, such as affordable, available, and reliable Canadian oil sands – which help meet one-fifth of the US’s fuel demands – would be discriminated against, giving favor to lighter, sweeter crude oils found in some of the most unstable regions of the world.

To help better assess and shed light on this very serious potential risk, CEA has formally requested that the White House’s top national security advisor, Gen. James L. Jones, and the National Security Council, examine security effects associated with an LCFS, particularly as it would impact the Alberta Clipper pipeline investment, which the State Department gave its blessing to recently.

In the letter, CEA’s president David Holt wrote:

I’m writing to you today to ask the Council to conduct a thorough evaluation of how the advancement of an LCFS policy might impact our national security by casting serious doubt on our ability to make full use of the Alberta Clipper pipeline. With billions of dollars at stake, billions of units of much-needed energy hanging in the balance, and serious implications related to the status of our continued relationship with Canada, it would seem such a request fits well within the interests and mandates of your department. Please know that Consumer Energy Alliance stands ready to assist you in any manner you deem appropriate.

Major news outlets were quick to cover this breaking news, especially in light of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s visit this week to the White House. Under the headline “Canada energy at risk under low-carbon fuel standard: group,” Reuters reported this:

Rules to add costs to fuels that emit the highest levels of carbon dioxide would deny millions of Americans access to stable Canadian energy and add to the nation’s security risks, an interest group backed by oil companies said Thursday.

The Consumer Energy Alliance said a so-called low carbon fuel standard would restrict the use of fuel derived from Canada’s oil sands, a major supplier of crude oil to the United States. The group called for an Obama administration study of of the issue.

Written by Ayesha Rascoe, the Reuters story – which also appeared on Forbes.com and CNBC.com – added this:

U.S. President Barack Obama has expressed support for a low carbon fuel standard but his administration has not taken a tough stance against Canadian oil sands.

With an estimated 173 billion barrels, Canadian oil sands are the largest source of crude outside the Middle East. But development of these reserves requires open pit mines and carbon-spewing processing plants, placing oil sands producers at a disadvantage under any fuel standard that rewards low carbon sources.

The group argued that a low carbon fuel standard would hinder the nation’s ability to take advantage of the recently approved $3.3 billion Alberta Clipper pipeline project, which will mostly transport crude from the oil sands.

The threat of an LCFS is very real. American consumers cannot afford higher prices at the pump, and we cannot allow several powerful policymakers to move us on path toward even further dependence on unstable regions of the world to keep our economy moving. Tell your representatives to stand up for working-families, small businesses, manufacturers and retirees, and to fight LCFS efforts in Congress.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

CEA Asks National Security Advisor to Analyze Security Risks of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard

Friday, September 18th, 2009

Letter to Gen. Jones comes on heels of China’s $1.7 billion investment in two Alberta oil sands projects, State Department approval of Alberta Clipper 

HOUSTON – How could the passage of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in Washington adversely impact U.S. security, all while costing American workers thousands of high-wage jobs and billions in lost revenue? That’s the question Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) president David Holt put before President Obama’s national security advisor today, asking Gen. James L. Jones and the National Security Council to take a closer look at the security consequences underlying an LCFS. A copy of the letter can be accessed here.

“Fundamental to the future of America’s security is the extent to which our ability to access secure, affordable North American energy supplies is protected, preserved and responsibly expanded,” said Holt, whose 120-plus member organization advocates the thoughtful use of a broad array of renewable, alternative and conventional energy sources, while also promoting conservation. “A Low-Carbon Fuel Standard represents a direct attack on that future, putting in place new bans on secure, Canadian energy at precisely the time we should be doing everything we can to reinforce those ties, strengthen them, and leverage the availability of secure, affordable energy to create jobs, revenues and opportunity here at home.”

Last month, the State Department granted a key permit to the Alberta Clipper project — upon completion, a pipeline through which 450,000 barrels of secure, Canadian energy is expected to travel its way to the United States each day. The imposition of an LCFS, however, aims to prevent that Canadian energy from crossing the border, forcing Americans to fill that vacuum with energy from foreign, often unstable suppliers.

In full recognition of the LCFS threat, Canada recently opened its doors to a major investment in its oil sands region by the Chinese government, as the state-owned oil giant PetroChina inked a $1.7 billion USD deal to develop two separate projects in Alberta. Previous to this news, it was always assumed that the majority of energy derived from Canada’s oil sands would be made available to the United States. After it, those who viewed the oil sands as a one-buyer market were thoroughly disabused of that notion.

“From the start, LCFS advocates have premised their support on the idea that all you’d need to destroy the Canadian oil sands market is have Congress pass an LCFS, and thus ban that energy from crossing the U.S. border,” added Holt. “China’s investment in the region should put an end to all that talk. They want this energy, are prepared to come take it, and in the process of using it, will emit significantly more carbon dioxide than if that energy was sent to its original destination. The upshot? American security is weakened, our economy takes a serious hit, and a major world competitor gains access to a secure, affordable resource right in our front yard.”

NOTE: Click HERE to view full text of the letter, which was sent to Gen. James L. Jones and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Click HERE to view the Reuters piece filed on this issue. And visit SecureOurFuels.org to view our latest television and radio ads, and learn more about how an LCFS will increase energy costs for American consumers and expand our dependence on foreign, unstable regions of the world to fuel our economy.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | 1 Comment »

Talkin’ to Truckers on “The Open Road”

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

David Holt, president of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), recently joined Dave Nemo on his radio show “The Open Road” to discuss the energy, national security and economic problems associated with low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) proposals under consideration in Washington.

In case you missed it, here are some of the key takeaways from Holt’s interview:

On the Reality of an LCFS

  • “The LCFS is a misguided attempt to improve the environment by forcing fuels onto the American public that would reduce carbon. At first blush – like communism – it kind of makes sense. But if you really peel back the onion a little bit, we don’t have the technology to meet the designs of these low carbon fuel standards and it would actually increase imports … petroleum fuels that are found in the Middle East, Libya, Nigeria and Russia.”

On the Problems with a One-Size-Fits-All LCFS Approach

  • “When you are forcing this one-size-fits-all low carbon approach you are actually penalizing the North American crudes. We currently get about 4 billion gallons a year of oil sands from Canada … So our national energy security is hooked to our friends from the north who are looking at these federal proposals and discussions on LCFS and saying, ‘Do we have the market in the U.S. that we think that we did? Perhaps we should start talking to China and other nations that are more than willing to take our crude from oil sands.’”

On China, Russia, and Venezuela Positioning Themselves to Secure Energy Supplies

  • “There was a major deal signed last week between China and Canada to specifically start taking Canadian oil sands and shipping it over to China. We also now have Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez over in Russia negotiating for the Russians to come into the Western Hemisphere to grab some of the available energy there. This is a global issue and we are the only nation on earth looking at ways to restrict our own energy.”

On the Effects that an LCFS Will Have on the Price at the Pump

  • “An LCFS is designed to do just that: raise energy prices. It will make our fuels scarcer and increase our fuel prices by at a minimum of 60 cents per gallon for diesel fuel … At a time when this country needs to get back on its feet, this is not the right policy and certainly not at the right time.”

As Dave Nemo and his listeners learned, the American public – especially the truckers responsible for moving the goods and products consumers rely on everyday – have reason to be concerned about an LCFS.

Click HERE to read an article by leading trucking publications about this important issue.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

« Older Entries

DOCUMENT CENTER

INTERACTIVE MAP

Find out the fuel profile of your state – and what a one-size-fits-all national fuel mandate might mean for jobs, gas prices, and security.

image