Last week the environment minister from the Canadian province of Alberta participated in a regional energy conference in Boston hosted by Consumer Energy Alliance, that examined the potentially adverse consequences of imposing a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) on the Northeast, an initiative supported by 11 Northeast and mid-Atlantic governors, and being pushed by the Boston-based group known as the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM).
If implemented in the region, an LCFS could prevent secure and affordable Canadian energy from reaching consumers in the Northeast, making refined products like home heating fuel hard to find – forcing New England states to increase imports from foreign, far-away suppliers to make up the difference. Massachusetts alone imports more than 2.8 million barrels of petroleum products from Canada a month – supplies that would be put in danger under an LCFS.
During the forum, Michael Whatley, CEA’s vice president and the emcee of the forum, explained what an LCFS is and the state of this policy in the Northeast and stated this about an LCFS to the participants:
“During this time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, instituting a region-wide policy designed to drive up gas and diesel prices and make essential energy commodities such as home heating oil a whole lot more scarce doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Maybe the more unfortunate reality of the LCFS, though, is that it won’t do a thing to reduce global concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But that’s the LCFS: All pain, no gain.”
Following these comments, Rob Renner, the environment minister of Canada provided participants with an overview of the latest technological advances being deployed to develop Alberta’s oil sands in an environmentally sensitive way. Renner also discussed why an LCFS will not reduce carbon emissions and highlighted that CO2 emissions from the production of oil sands has come down by an average of 39 percent per barrel since 1990.
Reporting on this event under the headline, “U.S. emissions laws could backfire, Alberta minister warns,” Archie McLean in the Vancouver Sun reports:
New low-carbon fuel standards proposed in the Northeastern U.S. could actually slow the greening of the oilsands, Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner warned Monday. “We need to make sure that whatever we do doesn’t have the unintended consequence (of discouraging further investment) into technology that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Renner said from Boston, where he was attending an energy forum.
A number of eastern and Midwestern states are weighing similar laws, which would force refiners to cut back on the amount of oilsands fuel or buy offsets or credits. They recently signed a memorandum of understanding urging the U.S. government to impose national standards but warning they could go ahead on their own if those don’t materialize.
According to a recent article in Diesel Fuel News by Jack Peckham on the LCFS forum, titled “Truckers Fear Huge Diesel Price Hike from Low-carbon Fuel Standard”:
Massachusetts Motor Transport Association Executive Director Anne Lynch last week told a Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) panel discussion in Boston about a proposed U.S. Northeast regional low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) that such rules potentially could cause a 90% cost increase for diesel fuel. Any regionally-based LCFS mandate would put local truckers at a disadvantage to fleets operating in border areas outside the LCFS mandate, she added. What’s more, “there’s no [commercially competitive] powertrain that could handle these kinds of changes” contemplated by the proposed LCFS scheme, she said.
Peckham continues with an overview of how a broader LCFS could force a conversion of the U.S.light-duty vehicle fleet to electric power:
The problem is that relatively quick, massive conversion to electric power or high-level ethanol blends would require U.S. vehicle fleet turnover rates that far exceed historic turnover rates, expert panelists said. If the vehicle turnover rate (or ultra-low-carbon biofuels volume expansion) is “too slow” to meet LCFS “carbon reduction” deadlines, then forced, artificial restrictions on gasoline or diesel sales could result, causing huge fuel price increases, panelists warned.
CEA’s Michael Whatley said that a proposed Northeast region LCFS, patterned after the existing California LCFS, seems designed to favor electric vehicles, compressed natural gas (CNG) and certain types of supposedly low-carbon ethanol. However, much of today’s U.S. corn-based ethanol is produced at coal-fired, relatively high-carbon production facilities, according to California Air Resources Board calculations.
Following the myriad of concerns highlighted by the LCFS forum panelists, Northeasterners can only hope that the 11 governors from Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States currently considering an LCFS don’t follow the Golden State’s model. After seeing the potential economic harm that California may suffer through if they continue on their path implementing A.B. 32 and the law’s LCFS provisions, states would clearly be wiser to say no to the prescription laid out by an LCFS—higher fuel costs and increased imports from unstable regions of the world.
