Archive for January, 2012

CARB Retreats to 9th District; CEA Reiterates Support For Judge O’Neill’s Ruling that LCFS is Unconstitutional

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012

Fresno, California – After the U.S. District for the Eastern District of California rejected a request to lift a stay on low carbon fuel standards (LCFS) in California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has shifted to a new court in the 9th Circuit in hopes of a new decision.  Last month, Judge Lawrence O’Neil ruled the standard unconstitutional and in violation of the commerce clause. On Monday January 23rd, CARB’s attempt to win a stay of a decision halting its LCFS program was again denied.

In response to the development, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) Executive Vice President Michael Whatley stated:

“The decision by CARB to appeal the decision by the District Court is disappointing, but unfortunately not surprising. We look forward to a decision by the Ninth Circuit upholding the District Court and confirming the unconstitutional nature of California’s low carbon fuel standard.”   

“In addition to discriminating against out of state fuels, the California LCFS would have driven gasoline and diesel prices for consumers through the roof while providing no real benefits for the environment.  Rather than appealing Judge O’Neill’s sound decision, CARB should scrap this faulty program.”

On January 5, CARB appealed the ruling and followed up Friday with a filing to lift the stay on the potential program.  On Monday, Judge O’Neill rejected that petition. Today, CARB filed its appeal with the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. Details surrounding the timing of the injunction are still being developed.

A copy of Monday’s amended decision can be found here.

A copy of the court’s original decision can be found here.

CEA Commends U.S. District Judge O’Neill for Enforcing Original Ruling Against Unconstitutional LCFS Program

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012

Fresno, California – Monday night, U.S. District Judge O’Neill rejected a request to lift a stay on low carbon fuel standards (LCFS) in California.  Judge O’Neill stated that he would not reverse his original ruling that an LCFS in California is unconstitutional as it would violate the commerce clause. 

In response to the development, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) Executive Vice President Michael Whatley stated:

“We commend Judge O’Neill for standing firm on his initial decision against this harmful and unlawful policy.  Not only is an LCFS unconstitutional, but it would also hurt the California economy, farmers, consumers and truckers by raising fuel prices sharply and burdening consumers. 

“As proposed, the LCFS favors oil from unfriendly regimes and blocks the use of oil from friendly nations like Canada.  And ironically, the policy will have the opposite of its intended effect by creating more greenhouse gases in the long run.”

The federal district court finding on December 29th found an LCFS in California to be unconstitutional.  Specifically the court found that “LCFS discriminates against out-of-state and foreign crude oil while giving an economic advantage to in-state crude oil.” It also found that “the LCFS discriminates against out-of-state corn ethanol and impermissibly controls extraterritorial conduct.” Because the state had failed “to establish that no alternative means exist to address their legitimate concerns of combating global warming,” the LCFS is invalid. The court stayed enforcement of the LCFS pending further judicial review. 

On January 5, CARB appealed the ruling and followed up Friday with a filing to lift the stay on the potential program.  Last night, Judge O’Neill rejected that petition.

A copy of yesterday’s amended decision can be found here.

A copy of the court’s original decision can be found here.

CEA Responds to CARB’s Filing to Lift Stay on Low Carbon Fuel Standard in California, Defends Constitution.

Friday, January 20th, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – Today the California Air Resources Board (CARB) filed to lift the stay on a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) in California.  This follows a federal district court finding on December 29th that found an LCFS in California to be unconstitutional.  Specifically the court found that “LCFS discriminates against out-of-state and foreign crude oil while giving an economic advantage to in-state crude oil.” It also found that “the LCFS discriminates against out-of-state corn ethanol and impermissibly controls extraterritorial conduct.” Because the state had failed “to establish that no alternative means exist to address their legitimate concerns of combating global warming,” the LCFS is invalid. The court stayed enforcement of the LCFS pending further judicial review.

On January 5, CARB appealed the ruling and followed up today with a filing to lift the stay on the potential program.

In response to the development, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) Executive Vice President Michael Whatley declared:

“CARB’s decision isn’t surprising to us.  They have attempted to subvert the intent of the Constitution at every turn and the courts agree.  No matter whether the stay is lifted or not we will continue to fight this blatant attack on the commerce clause and the ripple effects that CARB’s misguided Low Carbon Fuel Standard will have on farmers, families, truckers and energy consumers around the U.S.”

A copy of the court’s decision can be found here.

Highest ever Heating Prices for Northeast States This Winter: NESCAUM’s LCFS will boost prices to unsustainable levels

Friday, January 13th, 2012

In October, the U.S. Energy Information Administration announced that the average price paid by households in the Northeast this winter for heating oil may be the highest ever, “almost $27 per MMBtu ($3.71 per gallon) or more than double the projected average cost of natural gas ($12.93 per MMBtu) delivered to households in the Northeast.” As the winter months begin to take their hold, rising costs are placing Maine’s residents at risk.  Despite this threat, Maine and the remaining Northeast States Coordinated for Air Use Management (NESCAUM) members have plans to implement a costly low carbon fuel standard (LCFS), a program which will drastically decrease available heating oil imports and drive costs through the frozen roof. 

A study conducted by IHS CERA on NESCAUM’s latest senario analysis of an LCFS found that the economic analysis undertaken was “critically flawed” and overly-optimistic. Not only will the cost for fuel sky-rocket, there will not be enough qualifying low-carbon fuel to sustain the population’s needs. With the highest share of households in the nation using fuel oil for winter space heating, Maine cannot afford to implement an LCFS.  With no fossil fuel reserves of its own, Maine relies on Canada for 60% of its petroleum imports. Home heating oil is no different. Not only would an LCFS drastically reduce the amount of Canadian fuel oil available to the state, fuel costs will skyrocket as demand for limited fuel sources such as biofuels increases.   As IHS CERA confirms in their report, these fuels are not produced commercially today and have been consistently more expansive than petroleum diesel for years. 

A recent article in the New York Times, Federal Cuts Give Maine a Chill as Winter Approaches November 27, 2011, unveils the unfortunate reality that is already plaguing northeastern states—increasing home highlighted heating oil prices. An LCFS will only do more harm:

“ Michele Hodges works six days a week but still cannot afford a Maine winter’s worth of heat for her trailer in Corinth, a tiny town where snowmobiles can outnumber cars. Ms. Hodges and her two teenage daughters qualified for federal heating assistance last year, but their luck might have run out. President Obama has proposed sharply cutting the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and Maine is at this point expecting less than half of the $55.6 million that it received last winter, even as more people are applying.”

“ At Penquis, a nonprofit agency in Bangor where people can apply for federal heating aid, more than 9,000 households have done so since August, said Melanie Hurlburt, a division manager there…’Clients are calling me back when they get the benefit and saying, ‘What am I going to do?’ Ms. Hurlburt said. ‘I hear a lot of reports about what temperature they plan to keep their homes at, and I’m amazed — you know, 50 degrees. You’re barely above keeping your pipes from freezing.’ In Bangor, the average low in January is seven degrees.”

For the time being, some of Maine’s wealthier residents such as novelist Stephen King, who grew up in a trailer home just miles away from where he now resides, are trying to do their part to help those in need. 

“Everybody is just hurting, and everybody is scared,” Mr. King said in an interview last week. “If we took everything we had and tossed it into the pot, it still wouldn’t make much of a difference.” Still, he said, “There was no question of not helping when we saw how much the cut was.”

But for now, most Mainers are forced to push through and make do.  We cannot place these people at any greater risk.

“Robert Ketch, 72,…said he lived on a monthly Social Security check of about $900. Mr. Ketch said that if turned down for assistance, he would survive the winter by doing what many a Mainer before him has. ‘Tough through it,’ he said.”

Maine’s reliance on Canadian energy imports both for the purposes of fueling vehicles and warming houses renders the state among the most vulnerable to the price and supply disruption that an LCFS would cause. 

For a state that is already struggling to make the through the winter months, implementing an LCFS would be detrimental to the health and survival of these northeast communities. 

 

CEA Emphasizes Support for Decision Blocking California LCFS in Wake of CARB Appeal

Thursday, January 5th, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – Today the California Air Resources Board (CARB) appealed the Dec. 29 ruling levied in the Eastern District of California that declared the state’s low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) unconstitutional.  The Board filed its appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for  the 9th District.  In response to the development, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) Executive Vice President Michael Whatley declared:

“The Consumer Energy Alliance strongly supports the District Court’s decision.  In addition to driving up gasoline costs and hammering the California economy, a low carbon fuel standard will place out of state energy sources at a significant market disadvantage, which the court ruled would violate the commerce clause of the Constitution. We agree with Judge O’Neil that “the effects of the LCFS on global warming are speculative at best” and are disappointed that CARB has chosen to appeal the decision to the Circuit Court rather than abandon this costly and non-effective set of regulations.”

While CEA supports the development of all energy sources – including low carbon transportation fuels such as electricity, natural gas and cellulosic ethanol – it is important to ensure our policies are developed and implemented in a way that will not have undue, and unnecessary, impacts on American consumers and businesses.”

 A copy of the court’s decision can be found here.

The Renewable Fuels Association’s response can also be found here.

 

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