Secure Our Fuels

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.