Following the recent introduction of climate legislation in the U.S. Senate that did not contain provisions to enact a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), former U.S. Rep. and President of the Center for North American Energy Security (CNAES), Thomas Corcoran, penned a column in The Daily Caller titled, “Low-carbon fuel standards may be closer than you think” about the numerous state efforts that are under way to pass harmful LCFS policies across the U.S. Here are key excerpts:
While they may not know it yet, the decision to leave the LCFS on the cutting room floor is a rare spot of good news for a broke and broken American public. After all, ever since the governor of California signed an executive order in 2007 setting his state down the LCFS path, those of us who have seen this movie before began to brace for the inevitable national standard from Washington—part of the less-than-implicit pact we have with the world’s eighth largest economy to bail it out anytime it bites off a mandate too big for it to chew.
But given a second glance at the legislative movement taking place throughout the country, perhaps we’ve been duped. True, it’s unlikely that an LCFS will be resurrected as part of the Kerry-Lieberman bill. But that doesn’t mean it’s prepared to stay in the grave forever. Right now, in more than 20 states across the country, efforts are under way to copy the California model and paste it into statute—with or without the consent of the legislature. And while you may think you’d be safe if you happen to live in one of the remaining 30 states, it’s time to think again.
Corcoran continues with a summary of current state LCFS efforts:
The rest of the West Coast has caught on as well. In Washington, final recommendations on the provisions of the state’s LCFS are due to the Department of Ecology by November. And in Oregon, proposed changes to House Bill 2186, which would enact an LCFS there, are due by year’s end. So if all goes as planned, the entire western coast could be under an LCFS regime before the ball drops on 2011.
One state, however, has recently bucked the trend. In reviewing the Clean Energy Jobs Act brought before the state legislature, Wisconsin lawmakers moved to drop the LCFS provisions originally included in the bill, citing concerns over costs, particularly to the manufacturing sector that is essential to the state’s economic livelihood.
In the case of an LCFS, which effectively bans stable and reliable forms of North American energy, American consumers can only hope that these states don’t continue to take their cues from the Golden State. In fact, before moving any further in their LCFS process, states may want to pay attention to a recent article from Environment and Energy News, titled “Calif. will suffer if it acts alone on GHGs — state auditor.”
In this article, E&E Reporter, Colin Sullivan, reports that California’s legislative auditor recently found in an analysis that “if California proceeds on greenhouse gas curbs without regional involvement, the state’s economy is likely to suffer short-term harm as electricity prices rise and business flees to neighboring states.”
Sullivan also reports:
“These adverse effects will occur in large part through economic leakage, as certain economic activity locates or relocates outside of California where regulatory-related costs are lower,” analyst Mac Taylor wrote in a letter to a California lawmaker dated May 13.
The nonpartisan legislative auditor specifically examined the effects of A.B. 32 if the Western Climate Initiative, or WCI, fails to coalesce when California launches its cap-and-trade program in 2012. WCI had been on track to move forward with California but lately has suffered defections. Recent reports indicate only New Mexico and a few Canadian provinces will be prepared to implement the law’s far-reaching emissions cuts.
Nonetheless, Taylor in his letter to Logue said the climate law would cause the price of goods and services to rise; lower business profits; and reduce production, income and jobs. Taylor said A.B. 32 would likely create green jobs but not enough to offset the economic losses.
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.
States should instead follow the lead of the Badger State by rejecting harmful LCFS schemes due to concerns about the extreme economic hardship that such policies could bring upon its citizens. With the economy still rebounding and national unemployment stuck around almost 10%, now may not be the best time for states to follow California’s lead off of an economic cliff.
