• “Even the guys that have created this program will admit none of the low carbon fuels that they are trying to force drivers into using are ready for primetime. And the vernacular that they use is that this is a technology-forcing regulation, which means that if we mandate that people use it, then someone will come along and make it.  Our economy can’t stand that kind of whipsaw right now.”
• “Consumer Energy Alliance actually put out a study about a month ago that showed that if you put a low carbon fuel standard in place, it’s going to raise gas and diesel prices by 90 percent over five years, and up to 170 percent over ten years. So we’re basically going to go anywhere from doubling to tripling our gas prices for the next ten years…”
• “You can get people to drive less. You can get people to burn less gas … These are all different ways that you can try and reduce emissions, [but] at the end of the day when you’re talking about diesel or you’re talking about gasoline, a gallon is a gallon is a gallon. [Y]ou cannot reduce the carbon emissions that are coming off of combusting a gallon of diesel or a gallon of gasoline.  They call it a hydrocarbon for a reason.”
• “Cellulosic ethanol, and renewable diesel; those are great things.  But the fact is that our economy is completely dependent on being able to move goods around the country, and being able to move people around the country and so we can’t take gasoline and diesel off the table until those other fuels are ready for primetime. “
• ”We did a forum on low carbon fuel standards in Boston last month and we had Anne Lynch from  the Massachusetts Motor Transportation Association up there come and speak at the forum and she said … 93.5 percent of all goods in Massachusetts are coming from the bed of a truck. … Now if you’re going to double your transportation costs for everything that goes in the grocery store or everything in a furniture store in the northeast, what is that going to do to the prices of those things? The economic ripple effect … would be absolutely extraordinary.”
• “There is a climate change and energy bill that Senator [Harry] Reid intends to bring up sometime this fall and we fully expect to see folks trying to impose a low carbon fuel standard on that bill. And we also expect, frankly, that we’re going to see some folks talking about an amendment on the OCS bill and try to get a low carbon fuel standard in there… So fortunately right now it looks like we’ve dodged a bullet, but we can’t really rest on our laurels at this point.”

CRA found that a nationwide LCFS program, implemented in 2015 with gasoline prices at today’s level, could result in an average national price for gasoline of nearly $5 per gallon in 2020 and close to $7.50 a gallon by 2025. The study also projected that a nationwide LCFS program would cause an estimated net loss of 2.3 million to 4.5 million American jobs by 2025 from baseline levels. As many as 1.5 million of these jobs would be in the manufacturing sector, while as many as 3 million would be in the service sector.

According to a recent article in Diesel Fuel News by Jack Peckham on the LCFS forum, titled “U.S. Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Hikes Fuel Prices 90% to 170%; Shuts 55 Refineries: Study”:

A new study released June 17 by Charles River Associates (CRA) for Washington, D.C.-based energy producer/ consumer group Consumer Energy Alliance finds that a national U.S. nationwide low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) starting in 2015 could cause diesel and gasoline prices to soar by 90% to 170% by 2025, while drastically reducing U.S. oil refining capacity… “It is highly unlikely that it will be possible to produce sufficient quantities of fuel with sufficiently low emissions to meet the [notional LCFS national] standard without drastically reducing the total amount of fuel consumed,” according to CRA.

An LCFS could also drive down household annual purchasing power by between $1,400 and $2,400 by 2025 and cause the U.S. Gross Domestic Product to decline by approximately 2 to 3 percent, or $410 billion to $750 billion, by 2025.

Given these dramatic study findings, Michael Whatley, vice president of CEA and a leading policy expert on the LCFS, stated the following during a media teleconference last week:

“Any way you slice the data, the future projected by this study is a frightening one – higher fuel prices, fewer jobs, and lower consumer purchasing power. This nightmare scenario is clearly one that policymakers in the United States should avoid at all costs.”

“Intuitively, it’s always made sense that policies such as the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, which seeks to restrict Americans’ access to secure and affordable sources of energy, would result in higher fuel costs and fewer jobs. But with the release of this study, we can now quantify those impacts under several different scenarios, and understand how they apply to different regions across the United States.”

Reporting on this launch under the headline, “Low carbon fuels will bite deep into economy, says industry study” Tom Fowler in the Houston Chronicle adds:

The LCFS is supposed to hurry up the development of new fuel technologies, according to the study. The LCFS will drive major changes “because the targets are beyond reach with foreseeable fuel technology,” the study says. “None of these changes are likely to involve new technology, because again the time frame is too short to provide new transportation infrastructure or new vehicle technologies on a large scale. Thus the LCFS is turned into a policy that in effect rations gasoline until the required improvement in emissions per gallon is met.”

Colin Sullivan with E&E News writes about the CRA study under the headline “Study claims national low-carbon fuels rule would spike gasoline prices,”:

The firm modeled a 10-percent reduction in carbon intensity over 10 years and found the cost of fuel and goods would experience a price shock because of supply constraints caused by so-called low carbon fuel standards. The study was completed by Charles River for the Consumer Energy Alliance, which represents truckers, shippers and airlines, among other sectors.

Sullivan continues with an excerpt from the press conference to explain an LCFS:

David Montgomery, an analyst at Charles River, compared the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) concept to diluting coffee with cream. He said the dilution of fuels to trim their greenhouse effect is such that prices would spike as clean fuel supply lags behind the current pace of demand, especially as oil sands and other sources prominent in North America are forced out of the market.

“If enough cream is not on the table to achieve the desired mix, then the only alternative is to reduce the amount of coffee in the cup,” he said. “To reduce transportation fuel consumption sufficiently for the LCFS to be met requires very large increases in fuel prices, so that consumers will limit their driving and demand new vehicles that are much more costly.”

Interestingly, concerns about price impacts on consumers were echoed in both an Albany Times-Union story that highlighted the economic impact of an LCFS on the eastern United States, and an article in The Trucker that reported the devastating impacts that increased gas and diesel prices would have on truckers, titled “Low carbon standard could hike gas and diesel prices 80 percent, study shows.”

While a federal LCFS was added to the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill in 2008 and proposed as part of the Waxman-Markey bill in 2009, the LCFS provision was removed before the bill was passed by the House. Regrettably, supporters of a national LCFS continue to work for its enactment, even as proposed programs are being developed in several states and regions.

As highlighted in the CRA study, the real-life outcome of an LCFS will lead to higher prices at the pump and more economic distress – the last thing America’s struggling economy needs at this time. Instead, we need to ensure that Americans have access to secure and stable fuel supplies as our economy continues to move and grow.

WASHINGTON – Is the U.S. government ready to take meaningful steps toward reducing America’s reliance on far-away, unstable energy while leveraging secure, proximate energy sources to create jobs and opportunity here at home? That’s the conversation that took place today at the U.S. State Department, as the agency held another in a series of public forums on whether to grant a final permit in support of the Keystone XL pipeline project, which, upon completion, is slated to deliver 900,000 barrels of affordable Canadian energy a day to consumers in the U.S. who need it.

“Some might consider the State Department an unlikely setting for a discussion on energy in the United States,” said Michael Whatley, vice president of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) and on hand today to provide comments in support of the Keystone project for CEA. “But actually, the Keystone pipeline project is right up State’s alley – especially since the project has the potential to advance key national imperatives related to energy security, affordability and access for millions of Americans. The best part is: It has the potential to do all that without bringing harm to the environment. That’s why CEA supports the project, and that’s why we will continue to work with all stakeholders involved to ensure it happens swiftly and responsibly.”

Once completed, the Keystone XL project will consist of three new pipelines spanning roughly 1,380 miles across the United States from Canada, with the capacity to deliver roughly 900,000 barrels of secure, affordable Canadian energy to American consumers over the long-term. Despite that reach, the actual environmental footprint involved in executing the project is minimal – with the total disturbed area for the project only expected to be 150 square miles. Because the pipeline originates in Canada and crosses into the United States, State Department approval is required.

In addition to CEA, a number of organizations representing consumers, organized labor, and state and local governments appeared at today’s forum to lend their unique perspectives on why the Keystone project is so important to them and their constituents.

“We came here today to show our strong support for the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline,” said Russ Breckenridge, a legislative representative of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada. “Right now the construction industry is currently facing on average 20 percent unemployment, and in some areas our members are facing 40 percent. The TransCanada pipeline will begin to put our members back to work with high-quality jobs, with full benefits and worker protection.”

Added Breckenridge: “Our organization wouldn’t be supporting this project if safety was any concern. … As President Obama has told our organization many times, his number one priority is creating jobs and turning the economy around. The Keystone project will achieve these two goals.”

Richard Moskowitz, vice president and regulatory affairs counsel for the American Trucking Associations – a CEA member – told the forum that the trucking industry supports the use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector, but “for the foreseeable future we will be dependent on diesel fuel to deliver virtually 100 percent of the consumer products in the United States.”

Moskowitz also addressed concerns related to the carbon output of fuels expected to be delivered by the pipeline: “The carbon required to transport that oil from Alberta down to Houston is going to be less than the amount of carbon required to transport that oil across Canada, load it on super-tankers, and bring it to China – which is what will happen if we don’t use that oil here in the United States.”

BOSTON, Mass. – The environment minister from the Canadian province of Alberta participated in a regional energy conference in Boston today that, among many important issues, examined the potentially adverse consequences of imposing a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) on the Northeast, a policy that could greatly reduce the region’s access to secure and affordable energy from Alberta.

“Alberta is committed to reducing the environmental impact of oil sands development, and we have already made great strides.  We are uniquely able to provide safe and secure energy resources that are essential to the northeastern United States and beyond,” said Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner. “We are not asking for special treatment, only fair treatment. When one considers the full life cycle of a barrel of oil, the carbon intensity of Alberta’s oil sands is very much in line with many other sources of crude, including those in the United States.”

An improperly designed LCFS in the Northeast could discriminate against reliable, affordable sources of Canadian fuel and raise the prices of gasoline and diesel, forcing New England states to increase imports from foreign, far-away suppliers, participants discussed today. Massachusetts imported more than 2.8 million barrels of petroleum products from Canada in the month of March alone, according to the Energy Information Administration – supplies that would be put in danger under an LCFS.

“During this time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, instituting a region-wide policy designed to drive up gas and diesel prices and make essential energy commodities such as home heating oil a whole lot more scarce doesn’t make a whole lot of sense,” said Michael Whatley, vice president of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) and the emcee of the forum today. “Maybe the more unfortunate reality of the LCFS, though, is that it won’t do a thing to reduce global concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But that’s the LCFS: All pain, no gain.”

This afternoon’s regional low carbon fuel forum, hosted by CEA, drew the participation of the environment minister of Alberta, as well as a number of local and regional stakeholders, consumer groups and policy experts to discuss the regional impact of an LCFS, an initiative supported by Gov. Patrick and being pushed by the Boston-based group known as the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM).

Addressing the forum earlier today, Renner provided participants with an overview of the latest technological advances being deployed to develop Alberta’s oil sands in an environmentally sensitive way, highlighting among many other important points that CO2 emissions from the production of oil sands has come down by an average of 39 percent per barrel since 1990.

But maybe the two are a lot closer connected than meets the eye. Consider that in March alone, Massachusetts imported 2.8 million barrels of petroleum products from Canada, including fuels derived from Alberta oil sands, the second largest known source of oil in the entire world. Resources developed, processed, refined and eventually delivered to the Boston Harbor – in the forms of gasoline, diesel fuel and home heating oil, upon which nearly one million Bay State residents depend to keep their homes warm during the winter.

Today, I have the privilege to be in Boston to participate in an energy summit with the environment minister of Alberta, on hand to discuss new ways that his province can partner with New England to achieve shared goals related to security, the economy and the environment. The one big challenge to that progress? The imposition of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), a policy being developed right here in Boston that would greatly reduce your state’s access to Albertan energy, while greatly increasing your reliance on suppliers half-a-world away.

Last December, Gov. Patrick joined 10 other governors in signing an agreement on an LCFS. Proponents argue it will improve the environment by lowering the carbon content of your fuels, all without costing consumers and motorists a thing. The reality, though, is that this issue is a lot more complex than those proponents suggest – with consequences that will significantly Bay State access to secure, affordable Canadian energy.

Under the LCFS proposal being considered, transportation and home heating fuels would be given a carbon value based upon emissions produced over their lifetime. All fuels require energy for their production — but so-called heavier crudes (such as those found in Alberta) receive higher scores because they require marginally more energy to produce. Under an LCFS, these are the fuels targeted for elimination.

But as study after study has shown, the carbon intensity of oil derived from Alberta’s oil sands is very much in line with the intensity found in a host of other crude sources, including in the United States – which is why study after study has also shown that greenhouse gas emissions aren’t actually lowered by the LCFS.

The reality is, the oil sands’ environmental footprint continues to shrink each and every year. Carbon dioxide emissions from the production of oil sands has come down by an average of 39 percent per barrel since 1990.  In some facilities, the reduction has been as high as 40-45 percent.

In 2007, the government of Alberta implemented greenhouse gas regulations requiring a 12 percent reduction in emissions per barrel. Emitters can meet the reduction target, acquire approved offsets, or pay $15 for every excess ton of emissions into a fund supporting research on improving the environment. As of 2009, over $186 million was paid into that fund, with many millions more expected to be deposited this year. Additionally, the Alberta and Canadian governments, along with industry, have invested over $10 billion in carbon capture and sequestration projects to reduce carbon emissions from energy production.

Alberta has taken significant strides to reduce the environmental footprint of oil sands production, and has the ability today to provide essential energy resources to the northeastern United States from a friendly, reliable trading partner. We’re hoping today’s energy forum brings some of those issues to light. For those in the area, we certainly hope you can find the time to stop by. For those who aren’t – we got you covered as well.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.