take action NOW 
watch youtube videos 

Posts Tagged ‘CEA’

« Older Entries

Help Secure America’s Energy Future! The U.S. Department of State Needs to Hear from You!

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

As issues related to energy and climate continue to be debated in the nation’s capital, policymakers would do well to keep top-of-mind the importance of reliable, affordable resources from Canada Given the 2.5 million barrels of petroleum that Canada sends our way each and every day, our neighbors to the north clearly play a unique role for the U.S. as our closest, strategic trading partner in the world.  In fact, every barrel of crude oil the United States imports from Canada is one less barrel being purchased from people and places in the world whose interests don’t align with ours.

Since IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) recently released a report highlighting that Canadian oil sands production is expected to grow from 1.34 million barrels a day to between 3.1 million and 5.7 million barrels a day by 2030  (which could make up as much as 36 percent of United States oil imports by 2030), it is essential that we have the infrastructure in place to handle those volumes.

To build this needed expansion, Consumer Energy Alliance supports the proposed TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline project and the recently released U.S. State Department’s  Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) – a statement that confirms the delivery of secure, affordable supplies of Canadian energy to American consumers can be done without bringing harm to our environment. But wait: Don’t tell us you missed your chance to weigh-in on the proposed Keystone pipeline with Secretary Clinton? The deadline, after all, was June 1. Or at least it was. Good news is, this week it was announced the deadline will be extended to June 16, 2010 – and CEA is asking for your help to communicate your support for the project to the U.S. State Department.

Securing stable and affordable energy from our North Aerican allies through projects such as the Keystone Pipeline is in our national interest. While a final decision by the State Department has not been made on the Keystone Pipeline, what we’ve seen so far portends positive news for American consumers. And here’s why:

The project will consist of three new pipelines – one from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska; another from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas; and the final one, from Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, Texas. The Keystone will initially carry 700,000 barrels of crude per day, eventually increasing to 900,000 barrels — significantly strengthening America’s energy and economic security, as well as creating thousands of family supporting jobs along the way. In fact, it is projected that during construction, Keystone XL will create more than 13,000 jobs funded with private investment, as well as additional revenue for local governments from the economic activity associated with construction and from pipeline property taxes.

Considering the economic and energy security benefits of Canada’s vital resources, policymakers should continue to expand America’s access to safe, affordable energy supplies to help ensure improved energy security and stable prices for consumers.

However, as CEA’s Michael Whatley recently mentioned at the Center for North American Energy Security’s energy summit, under a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), Canada would intentionally be singled out for exclusion. As a result, a nationwide LCFS would shut down projects like the Keystone XL and Alberta Clipper altogether – jeopardizing thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity.

Despite the State Department’s positive draft decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, CEA’s grassroots supporters and affiliates will continue to be active contributors to the ongoing debate about commonsense energy legislation can create jobs and help drive down prices at the pump, and how misguided LCFS proposals threaten our nation’s energy security.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | No Comments »

Forecast for the Canadian Oil Sands: America’s Top Source of Imported Oil

Friday, May 21st, 2010

This week, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) released a report highlighting the what-should-be-welcome reality that Canadian oil sands are expected to become America’s top source of imported oil this year, surpassing conventional Canadian oil imports and almost equaling the volume of crude received each day from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined.

The United States currently produces about five million barrels of oil a day and imports 10 million more—Canada accounts for about 1.9 million barrels of the daily imports and about half of it is from the oil sands. However, IHS CERA projects oil sands production growing from 1.34 million barrels a day to between 3.1 million and 5.7 million barrels a day by 2030 – which could make up as much as 36 percent of United States oil imports by 2030.

The New York Times highlights this remarkable report in a story entitled “Reliance on Oil Sands Grows Despite Environmental Risks:”

In a new report, it projects that “The uncertainty and the slowdown in drilling permits in the gulf really underscores the growing importance of Canadian oil sands, which over the last decade have gone from being a fringe energy source to being one of strategic importance,” said Daniel Yergin, an oil historian and chairman of IHS CERA. “Looking ahead, its importance is only going to get bigger.”

In a world in which so many oil-producing nations are far away, unstable or hostile to the United States, Canadian oil sands hold great political appeal.

Echoing The New York Times, Consumer Energy Alliance’s (CEA) Michael Whatley recently characterized the situation this way at the North American Energy Security Summit hosted at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C.:

“Canada is our closest trading partner in the world and our most important strategic ally in the hemisphere. Energy isn’t merely incidental to that relationship; it’s fundamental to it. No nation in the world sends more energy to the United States each day than Canada. And if we expect to have even a fighting chance at reducing our nation’s dangerous dependence on far-away, unstable energy in the future, Canadian energy will have to play an even more active role in helping us get there.”

Interestingly, The New York Times reported on this same event, stating “a phalanx of Canadian diplomats took advantage of a previously planned trip to Washington to promote oil sands” and an opportunity for Alberta’s premier, Ed Stelmach to highlight “what we have to offer, which is security of supply” and “a safe stable government.”

Reporting on the CERA predictions under the headline “Tar sands will become top source of U.S. imported oil this year,” Nathanial Gronewold with E&E News adds:

While future output will depend on the investment climate and government policies, but analysts see the tar sands’ development continuing to grow as the region becomes the United States’ most important foreign source. In their high-growth scenario, researchers say oil sands could constitute 47 percent of total U.S. crude imports and become the source of fully 26 percent of all crude oil and refined products.

Gronewold continues with an overview of how innovation is improving the environmental footprint of the oil sands: 

“Innovation in oil sands has been a constant theme,” the report says. “Since its inception, the industry has made and continues to make major technological strides in optimizing resources, innovating new processes, reducing costs, increasing efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing its environmental impact.” Technological progress should further lighten the burden of water pollution and other environmental concerns, the report adds.

However, despite the fact that newer and more efficient technologies have been deployed to develop the oil sands in an environmentally sensitive way, it seems that environmental groups bent on the sands’ destruction have agreed upon a strategy of releasing report after report filled with the same old tired criticisms of the oil sands. Fortunately, this broken record won’t change the truth – namely, that innovations in technology have helped reduce the sands’ carbon emissions per barrel by more than 30 percent since 1990.

Irrespective of this progress, these same groups would like to see a dangerous Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) scheme passed in the United States – a policy that would severely restrict American access to secure and affordable sources of energy, and through that, result in higher prices at the pump for U.S. consumers, and a deeper, more dangerous dependence on some of the most unstable and unfriendly regions of the world to keep our economy running.

Given that more than 20 states across the country are currently considering LCFS policies, the Canadians don’t appear all that interested in waiting around to see what happens next. In fact, plans are already under way for pipelines to be built from Alberta to Canada’s west coast for shipments to Asia and Ed Stelmach, Alberta’s premier, recently flew to China with a trade mission to Shanghai, Beijing and Harbin.

According to the Montreal Gazette’s recent story on Stelmach’s visit, titled “Alberta welcomes more Chinese investment in oilsands”:

When Premier Ed Stelmach said in Shanghai this week, “our doors are open,” it was a clear invitation for more Chinese investment in Alberta’s oilsands. In an interview Tuesday, the premier said that the world financial crisis means Alberta oil companies are looking for new investors and China is clearly on their radar.

Like many American consumers, CEA is concerned that China’s and India’s insatiable appetite for stable energy resources to continue to aggressively grow their economies, coupled with the consideration of job-killing LCFS proposals in the U.S., could send a troubling message to our strongest and most important trading partner to the north.

So as China continues to secure steady streams of affordable energy, like those produced from Canada’s sands, state and federal policymakers should reject dangerous LCFS schemes and remember America’s top source of imported oil this year and the unique role that Canada plays both as America’s largest fuel supplier and its closest friend.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Message From the Husky State: Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Will Hurt Washingtonians

Monday, May 17th, 2010

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.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

CEA at North American Energy Security Summit: Energy Not “Incidental” to U.S.-Canadian Partnership, But “Fundamental”

Tuesday, May 11th, 2010

Last week Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) vice president Michael Whatley joined the U.S. State Department, Alberta’s premier, and top U.S. and Canadian energy experts for a North American Energy Security Summit hosted at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC.

Alberta premier Ed Stelmach reinforced the fact that Canada stands ready, willing and eager to build upon the unique and valuable relationship that exists with the United States to leverage energy resources into jobs, security and opportunity on both sides of the border. And following his remarks, David Goldwyn – a senior State Dept. advisor – weighed in regarding America’s historic partnership with Canada on issues related to energy security, affordability, and reliability, describing this strong and strategic relationship as a “model” for others to follow.

ClimateWire highlights Mr. Goldwyn’s remarks in story entitled “With offshore oil spilling, Alberta pushes its inland”:

“Having technically recoverable petroleum reserves that are on our border, and they’re delivered by pipelines that are controlled by a stable democracy and an ally and a friend in an open and transparent regulatory regime enhances … global energy security today and into the future,” David Goldwyn, who oversees international energy issues at the U.S. State Department, told an audience at the Canadian Embassy yesterday.

Following remarks from Stelmach and Goldwyn, CEA’s Michael Whatley added this about the importance of North American energy security:

Canada is our closest trading partner in the world and our most important strategic ally in the hemisphere. Energy isn’t merely incidental to that relationship; it’s fundamental to it. No nation in the world sends more energy to the United States each day than Canada. And if we expect to have even a fighting chance at reducing our nation’s dangerous dependence on far-away, unstable energy in the future, Canadian energy will have to play an even more active role in helping us get there.

Nick Snow of the Oil & Gas Journal reports this under the headline “Forum showcases benefits of Alberta oil sands development”:

The US Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to limit GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act poses the biggest threat, added Michael Whatley, vice-president of the Consumer Energy Alliance. “Demand has rebounded since the economy hit bottom in 2008 and 2009. China and India are trying to get more supplies than ever out of world markets,” Whatley observed. North America has sufficient energy supplies to meet growing demand, but US policies restricting access and mandating low-carbon fuels restrict their development, he said. “Let’s be clear: Demand is going to increase,” Whatley said. “Taking North American energy resources off the table will affect consumer prices and hurt the economy.”

Hosted by the Center for North American Energy Security (CNAES), the day’s event drew broad participation, including a number of U.S. and Canadian energy, economic and environmental experts. The discussion and debate throughout the day ranged from the capacity and permitting of local pipelines, to federal procurement rules for accessing oil sands-derived energy, all the way through to the political debate surrounding Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) proposals, a policy that would severely restrict American access to secure and affordable sources of energy from Canada.

Canwest News Service’s Sheldon Alberts captured the possible threat of an LCFS in an article under the headline “Gulf spill makes oilsands more appealing”:

Still, oil sands supporters remain suspicious of the Obama administration and fear it will seek a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) targeted at carbon-intensive energy sources like the oil sands. Michael Whatley, vice-president of … Consumer Energy Alliance, said it was ‘no coincidence’ that an early version of U.S. climate change legislation from the House of Representatives included plans for a low carbon fuel standard. Whatley said there’s also concern the Obama administration could target the oilsands through the Environmental Protection Agency … ‘The LCFS is a high priority for this administration,’ Whatley said at the Canadian Embassy. ‘They can move down that road. We are very concerned that they will.’

And under the headline “After spill, Stelmach touts oil,” the Globe and Mail reports this:

Mr. Stelmach said he’s only trying to ensure the oil sands gets fair treatment in the face of a wave of federal and state efforts that threaten to penalize Alberta’s heavy crude and other high-carbon fuels. Pending regulations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – which is poised to cap greenhouse gases since Congress won’t – threaten to cut off the sale of oil sands crude from Alberta to refineries south of the border. And dozens of states are moving ahead with regulations that would penalize carbon-intensive fuels and spur use of greener alternatives. Major U.S. energy consumers, meanwhile, worry that a low-carbon fuel standard may be inevitable in the United States. “We’re very concerned,” said Michael Whatley, vice-president of the Consumer Energy Alliance, a broad coalition of major U.S. energy consumers.

Given the recent announcement that climate change legislation may be introduced very soon in the U.S. Senate, CEA will continue to remind policymakers about the dangerous consequences of imposing an LCFS in the U.S., as well as the importance of our closest trading partner and the barrels of secure and reliable fuel Canada sends the United States each day.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 3 Comments »

CEA: Energy Not Merely “Incidental” to U.S. Relationship with Canada, But “Fundamental”

Friday, May 7th, 2010

CEA joins State Department, Premier of Alberta, Top U.S. and Canadian Energy Experts for North American Energy Security Summit at Canadian Embassy


WASHINGTON – America’s historic and ongoing partnership with Canada on issues related to energy security, affordability, and reliability is a “model” for other nations to follow, a senior advisor from the U.S. State Department said today at the Canadian Embassy – and according to Alberta premier Ed Stelmach, Canada stands ready, willing and eager to build upon that existing relationship and leverage those resources into jobs, security and opportunity on both sides of the border.

“Canada is our closest trading partner in the world, and our most important strategic ally in the hemisphere,” said Michael Whatley, vice president of Consumer Energy Alliance and a panelist at today’s summit. “Energy isn’t merely incidental to that relationship; it’s fundamental to it. No nation in the world sends more energy to the United States each day than Canada. And if we expect to have even a fighting chance at reducing our nation’s dangerous dependence on far-away, unstable energy in the future, Canadian energy will have to play an even more active role in helping us get there.”

This morning’s summit, hosted by the Center for North American Energy Security (CNAES) and held at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C., drew the participation of a number of U.S. and Canadian experts on energy, the economy and the environment – addressing issues ranging from the capacity and permitting of local pipelines, to federal procurement rules for accessing oil sands-derived energy, all the way through to the political debate surrounding the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), a policy that would severely restrict American access to secure and affordable sources of energy from Canada.

Addressing the summit earlier today, both Stelmach and senior U.S. State Department official David Goldwyn agreed that the energy resources made available to U.S. consumers today by way of the oil sands have strengthened our nations’ existing strategic partnership and contributed to robust economic development both in Canada and here in the United States. Stelmach additionally provided summit-goers with an update on the latest technological advances being deployed to develop the oil sands in an environmentally sensitive way, technology that has helped producers reduce the sands’ carbon emissions by nearly 40 percent over the past two decades.

Added Tom Corcoran, executive director of CNAES and a former member of Congress from Illinois: “As the energy and climate change debate continues to take shape in the U.S., policymakers should remember the 2.5 million barrels of petroleum Canada sends the United States each and every day — and the unique role that Canada plays both as America’s largest fuel supplier and its closest friend.”

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | No Comments »

CEA to State, National Policymakers: Follow Wisconsin, Reject LCFS Proposals

Friday, April 23rd, 2010

Last week Wisconsin media reported that a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) provision was dropped from a comprehensive energy and environment bill being considered in the legislature. In a statement following this victory for Wisconsin consumers, David Holt, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) president, says this:

“The removal of the economy-killing LCFS is good news for consumers in the Badger State and we are pleased that Wisconsin’s legislators have woken up to the harsh realities associated with this dangerous proposal. By discriminating against Canadian fuels, an LCFS would restrict Wisconsin fuel supplies, raise gas and diesel prices at the pump and expand our dependence on energy from some of the most unfriendly regions of the world.

 “Unfortunately, the threat of an LCFS still exists in many other parts of the country, including those states that comprise the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA), of which Wisconsin’s governor is a member. CEA encourages the members of the MGA to understand that discriminating against Canadian fuel supplies is bad energy policy.”

However, Wisconsin consumers are not out of the woods yet. The Badger State remains an active member of the MGA, which is currently engaged in promoting an LCFS. In fact, MGA is expected to issue comments on its draft LCFS framework soon — releasing its final draft recommendations by June, and rendering its final recommendations to MGA member states by the end of 2010.

This issue is crucial to the Badger State since nearly half of Wisconsin’s oil comes from Canada, some through the Lakehead Pipeline System, and some via Illinois and Minnesota – two other mid-western states that rely heavily on secure, Canadian energy to keep their economies running. You see, under an LCFS regime, these stable supplies of Canadian crude would find themselves on the chopping block in the Midwest, casting serious doubt as to how states like Wisconsin would make up the difference in displaced supply.

Worse yet, Wisconsin isn’t the only state that is currently considering an LCFS. There are also efforts in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic to pass a one-size-fits-all LCFS.

In Pennsylvania, former Illinois congressman Thomas Corcoran of the Center for North American Energy Security recently took to the pages of the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader to highlight the devastating effects that an LCFS could have on the Keystone State. In a column entitled, “Low-carbon pact will only lead to higher energy prices,” Corcoran writes:

 It’s ironic that LCFS advocates cite the imperative of combating greenhouse gases and curbing energy costs as reasons to support such a program. Not only are both assertions untrue, but they represent the direct inverse of what the program will actually achieve. Independent studies have determined that gas and diesel prices would increase, as would overall global greenhouse gas emissions because nations like China – our chief competitor in the global economy – are already working to secure Canadian supplies in the event that we block imports to the United States.

The former U.S. congressman and energy experts adds this in this column:

Pennsylvanians cannot afford higher energy prices. With gas prices steadily climbing toward $3 a gallon and home-heating costs on the rise, Gov. Rendell and leaders in Harrisburg should be working day and night to develop policies that will reduce energy prices rather than supporting an LCFS that will prohibit imports of abundant and secure North American energy resources, drive fuel prices even higher and increase worldwide carbon emissions.

CEA is encouraged by the decision in Wisconsin to drop the LCFS provisions and hopes that more state and national policymakers will take notice and follow Wisconsin’s lead by rejecting these misguided proposals. CEA will continue to educate the public about the dangers of an LCFS, and tirelessly advocate for commonsense policies that aim to keep energy prices stable and affordable by promoting more energy of all forms, and using what we have more wisely at the same time.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 1 Comment »

Message from US Consumers to Wash., Mich., NY: Consider the Impacts an LCFS Could Have on Energy Costs, Security

Monday, April 12th, 2010

In a letter last week Washington governor Christine Gregoire, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) urges her to fully consider the harmful effects that a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could potentially have on the state. Signed by president David Holt, CEA’s letter comes almost one year after Governor Gregoire issued an executive order to begin the process of determining whether Washington should implement a California-style LCFS, or a similar proposal.

This from Holt’s letter to the governor:

Adopting a California-style LCFS, aimed at restricting the state’s use of Canadian oil, makes no sense for the state of Washington. Unlike California, Washington receives more than 25 percent of its crude from Canada. An LCFS would not only inhibit the state from obtaining and using that crude, but it would also restrict your state’s access to more than 10 percent of its current gasoline supply, which is refined in Montana and derived from Canada’s oil sands.

Indeed, to replace the supply lost under an LCFS, Washington will likely need to increase crude shipments from the Middle East, leading to additional energy security concerns. And as mentioned, as it relates to the imperative of reducing GHGs, several prominent studies have found that an LCFS may actually generate greater net emissions compared to the reference case (no LCFS) by requiring imports from distant, unstable countries instead of relying on crude from our North American neighbors such as Canada and Mexico. Under this scenario, not only would an LCFS increase our nation’s dependence on foreign energy sources, but it would also add significantly to global GHG concentrations.

As Holt notes, Washingtonians – including the governor and elected state leaders – should understand that an LCFS will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, such a misguided policy could lead to severe economic and security consequences for consumers across the state.

Unfortunately, Washington isn’t the only state that is currently considering adopting an LCFS. There’s even efforts underway in Washington to pass a national, one-size-fits-all LCFS.

The Michigan Manufacturers Association (MMA) has been a dogged advocate for policies that aim to reduce and stabilize energy costs for consumers and small businesses across the state. Randy Gross – director of environmental and regulatory affairs at MMA – recently penned a column entitled “LCFS targets U.S. economy”  in the Traverse City Record-Eagle. He also recently wrote a Muskegon Chronicle letter to the editor under the headline “Canadian crude oil, Michigan economy in the crosshairs”. Here are key excerpts:

Most folks may not know how critical our Canadian neighbors are in fueling the Michigan economy. Indeed, more than 63 percent of our state’s gasoline and diesel fuel begins its life as unrefined oil in Canada. Unfortunately, efforts under way in the capital right now threaten that critical relationship — and the millions of people on this side of the border whose jobs and livelihoods depend on continued access to this secure, affordable and reliable energy.

For example, in Detroit the Marathon refinery produces almost 100,000 barrels of a day of gasoline and diesel fuel derived from Canadian energy — energy that provides thousands of good-paying jobs to Michigan families, as well as pensions and health care. In this troubled economy, why would any lawmaker in Michigan even consider putting those jobs on the line?

Our leaders in both Lansing and Washington, D.C., need to say “no” to an LCFS. The people of Michigan cannot afford to adopt a policy that will lead to higher prices at the pump, fewer American and Michigan jobs and threatened energy security. We need legislation that will improve Michigan’s competitiveness, nationwide and worldwide.

And in New York, former Illinois congressman Thomas Corcoran of the Center for North American Energy Security recently took to the pages of the Buffalo News to highlight the devastating effects that an LCFS could have on the Empire State. In a column entitled, “Low-carbon fuel standard would hurt New Yorkers,” Corcoran writes:

Under the standard, secure sources of oil from Canada and even our own Gulf Coast score much worse than sources of crude from Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. Just about every bit of New York’s 75 million- barrel reserve would be targeted for elimination under the low-carbon fuel standard. The Northeast would have to import more light crude from unstable and unfriendly regimes found in the Middle East, Africa and Libya.

The standards could also impact heating oil from New York refineries. Since about one-third of New York households use fuel oil as their primary energy source for home heating and the Empire State required more than $537 million last year in federal funding from the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, restricting New York’s availability and use of home heating fuel just doesn’t make sense.

CEA will continue to lead the drumbeat of support for commonsense energy policies that encourage more energy production of all forms – especially stable and secure North American supplies derived from Canada. At the same time, we will continue to fight for smart conservation measure that will help drive down our demand and overall energy use. We must continue to use what we have more wisely, while working to balance our needs with the energy that we have here at home and in North America.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Canada’s Top US Diplomat: U.S. mustn’t discriminate against Canadian oil sands

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer amplified Canada’s concerns – shared by CEA – with a federal, one-size-fits-all Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), as well the number of states considering similar measures late last week. In an interview with Reuters, Ambassador Doer said that the United States should not discriminate against Canadia’s secure oil sands supplies that help keep energy prices affordable for American consumers, warning that trade restrictions could cause Canada to pursue other markets for these job-creating, North American resources.

In a Reuters article by Ayesha Rascoe under the headline, “U.S. mustn’t discriminate against Canadian oil sands,” Doer says this about an LCFS:

“We absolutely want states and provinces to not discriminate against one sector without looking at the big picture,” Doer said. With an estimated 173 billion barrels, Canadian oil sands are the largest source of crude [for the US] outside the Middle East.

Doer continued:

Ultimately if the United States becomes less open to oil sands, Doer said the fuel can go elsewhere. “This is a commodity that can sold somewhere else. It’s not as if the United States is the only country interested in purchasing oil,” Doer said.

Plans are already in place to build a multibillion-dollar pipeline to Canada’s West Coast, where tankers could ship oil sands-derived crude to refineries in Asia, although the industry has said it could supply both markets.

Ambassador Doer brings addresses an important point: Do US consumers want to continue our strong energy trading partnership with Canada to keep our economy moving, or do we want to deepen our dependence on unstable region’s of the world – who just happen to have oil reserves that score better under a convoluted LCFS scoring scheme? An LCFS, after all, favors energy produced nations like Nigeria over Canada. The answer to that question should be clear for all Americans.

Interestingly, similar concerns were echoed by Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, who recently wrote this about an LCFS on National Journal’s energy blog, under the headline “Consumers Benefit from Free Markets”:

Many independent experts – including a top U.S. Energy Dept. advisor – have determined that global greenhouse gas emission would increase under a one-size-fits-all LCFS. An LCFS, of course, aims to ban heavier forms of secure, North American energy reserves from entering the United States.

Unfortunately, the real loser is the American economy, struggling families and small businesses, which rely on Canada’s oil sands to meet nearly 20 percent of our nation’s daily fuel needs. Other winners? OPEC nations, who produce lighter forms of crude, which scores favorably under a convoluted LCFS scheme.

Each week, more and more policymakers and organizations are recognizing the host of dangerous consequences associated with LCFS schemes. In fact, a recent  Deutsche Bank report determined that America’s strong energy trading partnership with Canada is not only an economic winner but that it’s imperative for US security.

While many Americans still have never heard of an LCFS, Consumer Energy Alliance will continue to educate the public about this terrible misguided policy that could lead to higher prices at the pump, fewer good-paying jobs for Americans and expanded dependence on dangerous, unstable region’s of the world to keep our economy fueled.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

National, State Groups Join CEA in Efforts to Combat Job-Killing LCFS Schemes

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Here at Secure Our Fuels, we’ve been working hard to engage and educate concerned consumers, families and small businesses about the overwhelmingly negative economic and national security threats posed Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) schemes.

In today’s LaCrosse (Wisc.) Tribune, CEA’s vice president, Michael Whatley, writes this in under the headline: “Proposed standard would hurt customers, manufacturers”:

Sold to the public as a plan to defy the laws of science by forcing a reduction in the carbon content of fuel (which the Environment Protection Agency says is constant), Mial’s reporting rightly calls out the LCFS for what it actually is: an attack on Wisconsin consumers and manufacturers by denying Wisconsin’s chief source of secure and affordable energy from crossing the U.S.-Canadian border. He also captures one of the fundamental realities that LCFS supporters would rather your readers not know; namely, that Wisconsin’s loss under such a policy might just turn out to be Asia’s gain, since it’s likely that far-away interests will “take every gallon” of energy that a Wisconsin LCFS would necessitate we leave behind.

Whatley adds this:

 Unfortunately, even as legislators from both parties in Madison have started to wake up to the harsh realities associated with an LCFS, a group known as the Midwestern Governors Association, of which Wisconsin’s governor is a member, continues down the road of LCFS study and implementation at breakneck pace. Later this year, the association expects to produce a final LCFS plan that states like Wisconsin will be asked to endorse in full. But that proposal won’t get far if more folks in the state take the time to read news items like this one.

Fortunately for the Badger State, the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) and the Wisconsin Petroleum Marketers Association (WPMA) have been actively working fend off job-killing LCFS scheme by educating key stakeholders about the host of negative impacts this proposal would have on the state. In fact, both WMC and the WPMA recently released straightforward documents about how an LCFS would hurt Wisconsin, its economy and its ability to compete.

With over 4,000 members statewide, WMC estimates that an LCFS would have the following effects:

The so-called Low Carbon Fuel Standard would cost Wisconsin motorists more than $3.2 billion in higher gas prices according to the WPRI study. This global warming gas tax could cost consumers as much as 61 cents per gallon according to a study by the Marshall Institute. All told, these expensive policies are projected to cost each Wisconsin family more than $1,000 each year by the time they are fully implemented.

In a separate LCFS overview document, the WPMA identifies some of the potential impacts on Wisconsin and other Midwestern states that depend on Canadian derived-fuel supplies to keep their economies moving:

If Wisconsin and other Midwestern states adopt a LCFS, existing and proposed pipeline infrastructure could be used to bypass the region. In addition, Canadian crude will likely be produced for export to developing nations such as China and India. These nations have lower environmental standards than the U.S., which means there would be a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and other air pollution, if that crude is ultimately refined elsewhere. It also would be less energy efficient and a potentially greater risk to the environment for Canada to transport its crude abroad by oil tanker versus keeping it in North America.

The Midwestern United States is the most efficient transportation destination and refiner of Canadian oil sands crude, which reduces its environmental impact. Oil sands crude oil is a growing resource that is attracting significant investment. If Wisconsin restricts Canadian crude oil, it will be used somewhere else in the world.

Interestingly, some of these same concerns were identified in a recent letter from Thomas Corcoran, executive director of the Center for North American Energy Security (CNAES) — which urges the nation’s governors to oppose an LCFS that would discriminate against affordable and secure fuels, such as those from Canada’s oil sands or other non-conventional sources. In this letter, Corcoran writes this:

 Such a proposal would be misguided for many reasons. First it would not result in any reductions of GHG emissions, but it is likely to increase them. The effect would be to discourage imports to the Northeast of fuels derived from oil sands and other conventional resources in North America, such as the oil sands in Canada or oil shale in the Western U.S. Fuels barred from the Northeast would simply be sold elsewhere in the world, where controls may be more lax and emissions from fuel transportation increased.

 While the debate over an LCFS scheme continues in Wisconsin, it’s clear that the more consumers learn and understand about this job-killing proposal, the more the opposition continues to grow. Unfortunately, the threat of an LCFS still exists in many other states, regions and in Washington. As CEA continues to educate the public about the dangerous realities of adopting LCFS schemes, hopefully more state and national policymakers will take notice and follow WMC’s, WPMA’s and CNAES’s lead by rejecting these misguided proposals.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 1 Comment »

CEA Comes Out Swinging in Debate Over Secure, Canadian Energy

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Last week, Whole Foods Market Inc. and Bed, Bath and Beyond Inc. announced plans to eliminate Canadian oil sands from its supply chain companies — in partnership with the environmental pressure group ForestEthics. The Globe and Mail reports that this action by Whole Foods is “part of its ecostrategy to cut energy costs, appeal to its environmentally aware customers, and raise the pressure on oil companies operating in northern Alberta to find cleaner ways of producing fuel.”

However, the Toronto Star reports on the reality of Whole Foods’ commitment:

The policy change is more easily said than done, given the complexities of the fuel supply chain. Whole Foods officials told the Toronto Star the company will continue to use fuels derived from Alberta tar sands “in the Rocky Mountain region because as of now there is no alternative source.

According to the Canadian Press, Whole Foods’ master plan to purge its transportation fleet of energy derived from the oil-sands appears to be focused on a single refinery in a single state – begging the question of how the company intends to apply this new policy to its remaining 288 locations spread across three countries. Also left unaddressed is how Whole Foods locations in states such as Montana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois can possibly expect to comply with this structure – given that more than 50 percent of petroleum supplies available in these states come from Canada.

On the heels of this announcement, Michael Whatley, vice-president of Consumer Energy Alliance and a leading American expert on the oil-sands, released this statement:

“The anti-oil sands position taken by these companies fails to take into account that GHG emissions from oil sands are comparable to other U.S. crude oil imports – and continue to go lower every year,” said Whatley. “More than that, it fails to recognize that turning our backs on this secure, affordable, North American energy resource will simply allow our competitors in China and elsewhere to claim energy that would’ve otherwise come to us — rendering our country even more dependent on the Middle East for its energy.”

“These announcements send a troubling message to our closest strategic and trading ally,” Whatley added, citing our nation’s long-time partnership with Canada. “One can only assume these companies will also boycott heavy oil produced in places like California, Mexico and Venezuela – as well as crude produced in the Middle East, and then shipped over 10,000 miles to get here. Otherwise, this exercise seems fairly hypocritical in the best case, and downright disingenuous in the worst.”

Don Martin with the National Post captured the relevance of this announcement in regards to Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in the U.S. through his article “Alberta’s economy doesn’t fit Whole Foods ‘values,’ ” where he writes:

Now, this is not going to raise any risk to oilsand exports bound for a nation with an insatiable thirst for fossil fuels, particularly with new pipelines snaking south from northern Alberta to underutilized American refineries. South of the border, a dozen states are in the process of drafting bitumen blockades called LCFSs, low-carbon fuel standards which Gary Mar, Alberta’s man in Washington, says actually means ‘Less Competition for Saudi’ if they block the Fort McMurray motherlode.

As this announcement was made, the Wisconsin state senate conducted a hearing on Governor Doyle’s climate change legislation, where two key committee members spoke out against the inclusion of an LCFS provision in the bill. According to Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR), both Senators Jeff Plale of South Milwaukee and Bob Jauch of Poplar say they’re concerned about how an LCFS would determine what kind of oil gets used in Wisconsin.

The WPR segment reports the following:

Sen. Plale says that bothers him because it would mean the state would have to buy more oil from places like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. And he says it would cost his district jobs. If the state goes with oil sands, the $40 million shovels that help process the sand are built in his district at either Bucyrus or Harnischfeger.

Sen. Jauch’s concerns are also local. His district includes Murphy Oil, which refines and sells the crude it buys from across the border in Canada. Jauch told members of Gov. Jim Doyle’s administration that they need to drop this plan to focus on the rest of the renewable energy bill.

Senators Jauch and Plale have been paying attention to their constituents and listening to small businesses across Wisconsin, such as the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, who recently wrote a column on the negative consequences of an LCFS.

While the fight in Wisconsin is far from over, it is clear that the threat of an LCFS still exists in the Badger State, as well as in many other states and regions, including the Mid-West, the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic. Hopefully more state and national policymakers will take notice of Wisconsin’s debate and follow Sens. Jauch and Plale’s lead by exposing the dangerous reality of adopting LCFS proposals.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries

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