Find Out the Answer
take action NOW 
watch youtube videos 

Posts Tagged ‘David Holt’

CEA Launches Major TV/Ad Campaign in Midwest on Perils of LCFS

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Ads urge residents to call their lawmakers, oppose effort to attach job-killing Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to Senate energy and climate bill

WASHINGTON — As efforts continue behind closed-doors in Washington to attach a job-killing Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to upcoming energy legislation in the Senate, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) announced today the purchase of television and radio time all across the Midwest with an eye on educating residents about how an LCFS could lead to fewer jobs, less security and more expensive fuel for them and their families.

“At at time of record unemployment and great economic uncertainty, the only way to advance a policy such as the LCFS that kills Midwest jobs and drives gas and diesel prices through the roof is to hope and pray your constituents don’t do their homework on it,” said CEA president David Holt.

“Unfortunately, LCFS supporters aren’t all that interested in telling the whole story – like what will happen if an LCFS is used to prevent sources of secure Canadian energy from getting to consumers who need it,” added Holt. “The effort we’re announcing today represents an attempt to paint a more complete picture on the consequences of an LCFS, and hopefully inspire folks to take a closer look at how the policy will impact them and their families.”

According to a recent study by Charles River Associates, a nationwide LCFS could result in the loss of as many as 4.5 million jobs by 2025, with as many as 1.1 million jobs lost throughout the Midwest. The study also finds an LCFS may result in a decline in average household purchasing power for the region of as much as $2,000 a year – all while spiking the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel by as much as 170 percent.

At its core, an LCFS would discriminate against certain sources of reliable, affordable petroleum used to make gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene and heating oil. The theory justifying the LCFS says that if the supply of these resources is cut, enough alternatives will arrive on the market to replace them – even if sufficient amounts are currently considered decades away from commercial realization.

The CEA television and radio ads are available here: http://www.secureourfuels.org/multimedia/

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

CEA Asks Gov. Gregoire to Consider All the Facts Associated with LCFS

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

CEA president: LCFS will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but may lead to severe economic and security consequences for citizens of Washington 

HOUSTON – As Washington governor Christine Gregoire continues to weigh the prospect of imposing a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) on her state, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) president David Holt sent a letter to the governor yesterday laying out several specific facts and figures related to the potential impact of an LCFS on Washington – facts the governor should consider before taking another step forward on the initiative.

Holt’s letter is in response to the governor’s May 2009 executive order instructing her administration to assess the merits of enacting California’s LCFS or a similar proposal to help meet the state’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

The full text of the letter can be found online HERE and below:

April 5, 2010

Dear Gov. Gregoire,

With your administration’s July deadline quickly approaching for assessing the relative merit of implementing a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), I write today in my capacity as president of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) to ask that you carefully weigh the unintended economic, security and environmental consequences this action would have for the state of Washington.

Although proponents of an LCFS believe its adoption would reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it will actually lead to increased fuel prices and greater dependence on foreign, unstable nations without reducing GHG emissions from your state’s vehicles. Some studies have even suggested that an LCFS may actually increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, every gallon of gasoline combusted in our vehicles emits a chemically consistent 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2), regardless of octane or vehicle type. Given that the agency charged with promulgating standards to protect America’s air quality openly shares this fact about fuel emissions, moving forward with an LCFS is simply not logical if the intended goal is to reduce a state’s GHG emissions.

CEA is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization actively working to reduce America’s reliance on foreign energy imports, maintain affordable energy prices for consumers and covert our nation’s abundant energy resources into jobs, revenue and opportunity for all Americans. While CEA generally supports the goals typically associated with proposals to enact an LCFS – such as lowering GHG emissions from the transportation sector, increasing the use of natural gas and commercially developing the production of cellulosic ethanol – we are strongly opposed to the implementation of an LCFS that fundamentally discriminates against fuels derived from unconventional sources of energy, including Canada’s oil sands.

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.

The repercussions of an LCFS go beyond unrealized environmental benefits and diminished energy security. With five refineries, your state serves as a principal refining hub for the Pacific Northwest. According to the Energy Information Administration, the refining capacity in Washington is about 627,850 barrels/day. Currently, these refineries receive most of their oil from Alaska, but declining production there means that Washington’s refineries will become increasingly dependent on crude imports from Canada and elsewhere in the near future.

Without additional sources of oil, the more than 2,000 direct and 20,000 indirect workers supported by Washington’s refiners would find themselves at risk of losing their jobs. According to a report from the Washington Resource Council, these refiners paid more than $400 million in wages and almost paid the same amount to the state through sales, excise, occupation and various other taxes in 2007. Without these facilities and their associated jobs, your state would lose a significant revenue source, leaving a large budget gap to be filled by increased taxes or cuts in taxpayers’ services.

During this time of economic uncertainty, Washington cannot afford to lose more jobs or turn its back on more state revenue. Given the substantial economic and energy security costs of this proposal, and the absence of any quantifiable GHG reductions, CEA asks you to consider rejecting the adoption of an LCFS policy in Washington.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

David Holt

President

Consumer Energy Alliance

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | 1 Comment »

Canadian Energy Under Attack in Washington, In China’s Crosshairs

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Proposals are being advanced in Washington – with the not-so-implicit backing of President Obama – that would effectively halt safe, secure, affordable, reliable and much-needed Canadian energy supplies from reaching American consumers. Coined a low-carbon fuel standard, or LCFS, such a one-size-fits-all regime would block secure sources of North American energy from entering the US market. Proponents claim an LCFS would lower greenhouse gas emissions (not true) and lessen our energy dependence on unstable regions of the world (false again).

David Holt, president of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), a non-profit, non-partisan organization made up of nearly 120 affiliates and almost 200,000 grassroots supporters laid out the fact in a Washington Examiner column over the weekend entitled “Why are we conceding Canadian oil to China?”:

Consumer Energy Alliance, of which I’m proud to serve as president, has started a nationwide campaign to educate the American public on the perils of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard – a policy that some in Washington believe would kill off the Canadian oil sands market for good, by depriving the market of its primary buyer and consumer (us). No Canadian oil sands means no Canadian oil, and that’s sits just fine with LCFS proponents.

Well, so much for that idea. Whether the United States decides to use these secure, affordable energy resources or not – the Canadians don’t appear all that interested in waiting around for a final decision.

And who can blame them? In China, they’ll have a partner that values those energy resources, stands ready to help produce them, and eventually will provide the Canadians with a massive new market in which to sell them.”

Holt added this, too, with regard to China’s move to invest in Canadian oil sands to fuel its economy:

But instead of simply piping [Canadian] energy down the continent and into the homes and heating and fuel tanks of American consumers just a couple hours away, that energy will be transported to the Pacific coast, loaded onto a barge, and shipped 6,500 miles across the ocean to be processed in Chinese refineries.

The threat of an LCFS being imposed nationwide, and harming each and every American consumer is very real. And so to is the prospect of China inching its way closer to securing more and more Canadian energy reserves.

In fact, just weeks ago, PetroChina inked a nearly $2 billion dollar investment in Canada’s Athabasca Oil company. Canadian media, and energy producers, are taking notice of this hemispheric shift in energy trade. Today, the Canwest News Service – under the headline “Oilsands pipe to B.C. coast makes ’strategic sense’: CEO” – reported that “China’s interest in Alberta oil puts idea back in spotlight.” The article also quoted Tom Katinas, CEO of Syncrude Canada Ltd., extensively.

Here are a few key excerpts:

The head of Canada’s biggest oilsands producer says a pipeline to West Coast makes strategic sense to help diversify Alberta’s export markets.

But Tom Katinas, CEO of Syncrude Canada Ltd., told the Global Business Forum in Banff that the U.S. will remain Canada’s key buyer.

“I would love to see a pipeline that goes from Alberta out to the West Coast to be able to export some of the Alberta oil,” he said, speaking on a panel on Friday, the last day of the conference.

Even moving a small amount of that oil, largely heavier grades from the oilsands, would help boost Alberta’s economic position, he said.

So, as policymakers in Washington work to slash supplies of affordable and reliable energy, China – one of our top global competitors – is working just as hard, if not harder, to ensure that its people and its economy have access to job-creating energy resources.

Help CEA fight for secure energy supplies, and work to stop an LCFS from becoming law.

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

Talkin’ to Truckers on “The Open Road”

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

David Holt, president of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), recently joined Dave Nemo on his radio show “The Open Road” to discuss the energy, national security and economic problems associated with low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) proposals under consideration in Washington.

In case you missed it, here are some of the key takeaways from Holt’s interview:

On the Reality of an LCFS

  • “The LCFS is a misguided attempt to improve the environment by forcing fuels onto the American public that would reduce carbon. At first blush – like communism – it kind of makes sense. But if you really peel back the onion a little bit, we don’t have the technology to meet the designs of these low carbon fuel standards and it would actually increase imports … petroleum fuels that are found in the Middle East, Libya, Nigeria and Russia.”

On the Problems with a One-Size-Fits-All LCFS Approach

  • “When you are forcing this one-size-fits-all low carbon approach you are actually penalizing the North American crudes. We currently get about 4 billion gallons a year of oil sands from Canada … So our national energy security is hooked to our friends from the north who are looking at these federal proposals and discussions on LCFS and saying, ‘Do we have the market in the U.S. that we think that we did? Perhaps we should start talking to China and other nations that are more than willing to take our crude from oil sands.’”

On China, Russia, and Venezuela Positioning Themselves to Secure Energy Supplies

  • “There was a major deal signed last week between China and Canada to specifically start taking Canadian oil sands and shipping it over to China. We also now have Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez over in Russia negotiating for the Russians to come into the Western Hemisphere to grab some of the available energy there. This is a global issue and we are the only nation on earth looking at ways to restrict our own energy.”

On the Effects that an LCFS Will Have on the Price at the Pump

  • “An LCFS is designed to do just that: raise energy prices. It will make our fuels scarcer and increase our fuel prices by at a minimum of 60 cents per gallon for diesel fuel … At a time when this country needs to get back on its feet, this is not the right policy and certainly not at the right time.”

As Dave Nemo and his listeners learned, the American public – especially the truckers responsible for moving the goods and products consumers rely on everyday – have reason to be concerned about an LCFS.

Click HERE to read an article by leading trucking publications about this important issue.

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

North American Energy > OPEC

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

This week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper traveled to Washington to meet with President Obama and congressional leaders on Capitol Hill.

CEA’s David Holt, who released this statement about yesterday’s meeting, was quoted in today’s Globe and Mail:

“Canada is among our most important economic and strategic partners and a critical supplier of secure, affordable energy to American consumers; indeed, we get more of our energy from Canada than any other country in the world,” said David Holt, president of Consumer Energy Alliance, an alliance of big energy producers and consumers.

The benefits of preserving our relationship with Canada on energy are overwhelming: increased security, reduced dependence from unstable regions of the world – including OPEC – the creation of good-paying American jobs, and stable energy costs for all American consumers, small businesses, manufacturers and retirees.

In fact, an Associated Press article that appeared in today’s Bemidi Pioneer under the headline “Pipeline brings economic bliss to Bemidji” about the Alberta Clipper pipeline project highlighted the significant economic impacts associated with US-Canadian energy development:

The influx of workers building the new Alberta Clipper oil pipeline across northern Minnesota has meant a shortage of rental housing in the Bemidji area.

Some homeowners are renting rooms to pipeline workers and a local hotel that’s been closed for several years may reopen as construction activity ramps up.

Bemidji Area Chamber of Commerce President Lori Paris says that despite the housing struggles, construction of the pipeline has pumped up the local economy and benefited the hospitality industry.

Enbridge Energy says some 3,000 employees will eventually be working on the $8 billion pipeline expansion.

Prime Minister Harper’s commonsense commitment toward working with the US government on energy security is commendable. And according to a Toronto Sun column today, he also understands that Canada’s oil sands are “a key engine of [the] economy.”

Will leaders here in Washington come to realize that blocking Canadian energy supplies from reaching American consumers, as well discouraging the development of oil shale and other non-conventional energy forms here at a home, through a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) would weaken our energy security, threaten jobs and potentially force prices at the pump to spike?

Be a part of the fight for affordable energy. Contact your representative and tell them not to turn our backs on North American energy.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 2 Comments »

TN, DC Op-Eds Separate Fact From Fiction on LCFS

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

Separate columns in The Washington Times today and The Tennessean this weekend put forth a compelling case – from two very different perspectives —  why the imposition of one-size-fits-all low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) would be an economic coup de grâce for American consumers, and just a plain old coup for foreign, unstable energy producers.

Appearing in today’s Washington Times, David Holt, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) president, explains why an LCFS would hurt American consumers, cost jobs, and further jeopardize our long-term energy security. Here are excerpts of his piece:

It turns out that, short of engaging in outright alchemy, tweaking the molecular profile of refined fuel products isn’t done easily, safely or well. But if an LCFS can’t actually effect a chemical change in the carbon makeup of our fuels, how can its supporters claim it will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide they emit?

The answer is that LCFS isn’t about making the fuels on which we rely today better, cleaner or more energy-efficient. It’s about making those fuels scarcer, more expensive and less available to those who need them. Achieve that, the logic goes, and the alternative energy technologies that can’t compete right now — for one, because they don’t exist in commercial quantities, if at all — will have a fighting chance in the future of gaining market share from the reliable, all-too-affordable energy sources that dominate our markets today.

Holt closed with this:

An LCFS means higher prices at the pump, fewer good-paying jobs for Americans, complicated Wall Street trading schemes and expanded dependence on energy from unstable regions of the world.

State legislators understand full-well the economic and energy security consequences that an LCFS presents, too. Tennessee state representative Susan Lynn demonstrated independence, leadership and her commitment to affordable energy in a column that ran this weekend entitled “State comes out on short end under fuel standards.” Rising above intra-party politics, Rep. Lynn even questioned her state’s senior U.S. senator, Lamar Alexander, support for an LCFS:

Yet little has been made of something called LCFS or Low-Carbon Fuel Standards, which would fundamentally alter the way in which Americans acquire, process and consume energy.

The New York Times reported that LCFS could be “extremely costly.”

A group of professors from California and North Carolina said the plan “cannot be efficient.”

And a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations said it “would exacerbate energy security problems without delivering compensating climate benefits.”

Unfortunately for Tennessee, our senior senator seems to be supportive of talk for a future Public Act requiring LCFS in the United States Code.

Representative Lynn added this:

So, what would a successful LCFS deliver? Increased American dependence on foreign oil. Check. More good-paying American jobs sent overseas. Check. Higher energy costs for every consumer. Check. And, since the “heavy” oil we reject will be gobbled up by our chief global competitors in India and China, higher worldwide carbon emissions to boot.

If you agree with Mr. Holt and Rep. Lynn that an LCFS will make American consumers pay more at the pump for energy from some of the most unstable regions of the world, contact your representatives, and tell them to oppose an LCFS.

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

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