With the recent news that Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman are aiming to release their draft climate change legislation sometime in the next month, many policymakers and key stakeholders in Washington, D.C. are speculating about what that bill will actually look like, and what its potential effects may be. While it’s still too early to tell if a national, one-size-fits-all Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) will be included in the legislation, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is working tirelessly to educate the public and lawmakers about the harmful economic and national security implications associated with this job-killing proposal.
Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), writes this in a recent Daily Caller column entitled ”Energy and climate, March Madness-style” about pending Senate legislation, including LCFS provisions:
H.R. 1787 (Inslee LCFS bill): Perhaps not as well known to a broader national audience, the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) bill authored by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) is seen by many as a dark horse candidate for advancement—assuming early upsets of stiffer competition. Having toiled this past year in the obscurity that comes with being a mid-major, the Inslee LCFS bill has nonetheless pulled together an impressive resume of support, with more than 20 states currently considering a version of the Inslee plan that seeks to creatively (if not entirely effectively) achieve its emissions reductions by putting the kibosh on energy derived from Canada’s oil sands.
States often serve as indicators – or incubators – for federal policy. In the case of an LCFS, American consumers can only hope that Congress doesn’t take their cues from California – the first state to implement such a mandate. This from a recent Climatewire article about efforts underway in the Golden State to move forward with an LCFS:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) sent a letter to California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chairman Mary Nichols on Wednesday arguing that the state should give most allowances away in the early years of a cap-and-trade program and allow generous use of offsets…”As we have discussed many times, California’s goal is to implement A.B. 32 in such a way as to mesh our program as seamlessly as possible into a comprehensive national strategy,” [Schwarzenegger said.]…CARB spokesman Stanley Young echoed Schwarzenegger. “The crucial determining factor here is what’s happening in Washington, because our goal is to develop a program that will meld seamlessly into a federal program,” he said. “This is about considering the future in terms of how California can become part of a comprehensive national program.”
But do American consumers really want California’s LCFS mandate – which effectively bans stable and reliable forms of North American energy – to be the law of the land from coast to coast? We can’t say for sure.
But what we do know is that the American people oppose higher fuel costs and increased imports from unstable regions of the world. Unfortunately, that is the prescription laid out by an LCFS.
[...] bill in 2009, the LCFS provision was removed before the bill was passed by the House. Regrettably, supporters of a national LCFS continue to work for its enactment, even as proposed programs are being developed in several states and [...]
[...] bill in 2009, the LCFS provision was removed before the bill was passed by the House. Regrettably, supporters of a national LCFS continue to work for its enactment, even as proposed programs are being developed in several states and [...]