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.
