The topic of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is heading up across Washington state. At the beginning of April, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) president David Holt sent a letter to the state’s governor, Christine Gregoire, urging her to fully consider the harmful effects that an LCFS could have on the state. And on the heels of CEA’s call for commonsense energy policies, a major organization from the Husky state recently emerged to voice its opposition to the implementation of a California-style LCFS which would effectively ban stable forms of Canadian energy from reaching Washington consumers.
Lea N. Wilson – executive director of the Washington Oil Marketers Association – recently penned a Bellingham Herald column entitled “Low-carbon fuel standard would hurt Washingtonians.” Here are key excerpts:
There’s a lot more than weather and wine that makes Washington different from California. But judging by Gov. Chris Gregoire’s recent legislative intentions, Washington may start to look a lot more like our coastal neighbor – and not to our benefit.
In short, an LCFS will only make the fuels in our tank harder to find and more expensive to purchase. And supporters of the initiative admit that if successful, an LCFS will make traditional energy sources so expensive that we Washingtonians will learn to favor those alternative sources that have yet to reach maturation and availability. Does your car run on hydropower? Mine doesn’t, and probably won’t for a long time.
Wilson continues:
And this will only hurt what has become a healthy and burgeoning trade relationship between Washington and our border neighbors to the north. Canada imports almost $6.6 billion worth of goods from Washington, including refined oil products. But with the burden of increased transportation costs lingering under LCFS provisions, we stand to lose much of that revenue.
Certainly our governor must know that Washington derives its energy from different places than California does – and further, that an LCFS scheme conjured up by consultants in Sacramento might not achieve its desired effect here in the Evergreen State. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear as if that knowledge is making a shred of difference.
Gov. Gregoire’s administration is charging toward its July deadline, when it is set to fully assess what an LCFS would bring to Washington. But what we outlined here leaves little to assess: an LCFS will increase the cost of fuel during an economically challenging time, and make us ever more energy dependent.
Wilson is correct in voicing concerns about Governor Gregoire’s fast approaching July deadline and the fact that Washington’s fuel supply would be threatened under an LCFS policy. While Washington’s economy, and its consumers and small businesses, does rely on oil from Saudi Arabia, Angola and Argentina, more than 25 percent of its crude comes from Canada. Therefore, over a quarter of the state’s secure, affordable oil supply would be threatened under an LCFS.
Additionally, about 10 percent of the state’s gasoline – refined in Montana, but derived from Canada’s oil sands – could be prevented from crossing its eastern border. The consequences are far greater and more profound for the state’s workforce. Discrimination called for under an LCFS against Canada’s energy could also impact many jobs in the state, since refiners in Washington directly employed more than 2,000 workers in 2007 (latest numbers), and indirectly supported another 20,000 – paying out more than $400 million in wages.
Regrettably, Washington isn’t the only state in the nation that is currently considering adopting a California-style LCFS – which would effectively ban stable and reliable forms of North American energy from reaching U.S. consumers. The American people oppose higher fuel costs and increased imports from unstable regions of the world. Unfortunately, the real-life outcome of an LCFS will lead to higher prices at the pump and a deeper and more dangerous dependence on unstable regions of the world to ensure that our economy continues to move and grow.
