Posts Tagged ‘SecureOurFuels.org’

State LCFS Profile: Washington State

Monday, February 1st, 2010

What Is a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)?

Sold to the public as a way to clean up our transportation fuels while cutting down on the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, in reality the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) isn’t about making the fuels in your car any better, cleaner or more affordable than it already is – it simply seeks to render those fuels more difficult to find and even more expensive to purchase.

State of Play: LCFS in Washington State

Late last year, the Washington Policy Center made public the contents of a classified memo from Gov. Chris Gregoire’s chief of staff laying out a sophisticated plan for implementing the California LCFS model in Washington. The memo reveals that the ultimate objective of the Washington LCFS is to force regulators in Washington, D.C. to impose a similarly destructive mandate nationwide.

Two weeks after receiving that document, Gov. Gregoire issued Executive Order 09-05 – directing her cabinet to “assess whether the California low-carbon fuel standards … would best meet Washington’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.” Consultants were hired and public workshops were scheduled. And even though serious questions remained unanswered (“Is the policy ahead of the science?” asks one agency PowerPoint), Washington regulators commenced with their work. The governor is expected to announce what comes next in July.

Production and Distribution: How/Where Does Washington Get Its Energy?

Washington has few fossil fuel resources, but with five refineries, the state is a principal refining hub for the Pacific Northwest. In fact, according to the Energy Information Administration, the refining capacity in Washington is about 627,850 barrels/day. While these refineries receive most of their oil each day via tanker from Alaska, declining production there means that Washington’s refineries will soon become increasingly dependent on crude imports from Canada and elsewhere. Additionally, the Trans Mountain Pipeline from Alberta supplies more than one-tenth of Washington’s crude oil.

Washington gets some of its oil from Saudi Arabia, Angola and Argentina as well, but more than 25 percent of its total haul comes from Canada – supplies that would be targeted for elimination under an LCFS. The chart below captures the relevant percentages.


LCFS Impact on Washington State

Since Washington receives more than 25 percent of its crude from Canada, a quarter of the state’s secure, affordable oil supply would be threatened under an LCFS. Also, about 10 percent of the state’s gasoline – refined in Montana, but derived from Canada’s oil sands – would also be prevented from crossing the eastern border.

How would Washingtonians make up the difference? Increasing imports from the Middle East, currently residing at nine percent of the state’s energy consumption or relying on the use of hydrogen and electric plug-in cars that will not be commercially viable for decades.

And what about jobs? Refiners in Washington directly employed 2,003 workers in 2007 (latest numbers), and indirectly supported another 20,000. They paid out more than $400 million in wages. And they sent nearly that same amount to Olympia in the form of sales, excise, occupation and sundry other taxes.

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 overseas, 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 overseas 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.

New Campaign Seeks to Educate Public on Negative Impacts of a Nationwide Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)

Monday, August 31st, 2009

Multi-State Effort Includes Major TV/Radio Ad Buy, Warns of Increased Energy Costs and Expanded Reliance on Energy from Unstable Regions

WASHINGTON, D.C. Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), a nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition comprised of 120 affiliates and more than 180,000 grassroots supporters, today launched a multi-state campaign to educate American consumers on economic and national security impacts associated with a national Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS).  If enacted, an LCFS would threaten American jobs, increase prices at the pump, and expand U.S. dependence on energy imports from unstable foreign regimes.

“In any form, a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard would represent a major blow to America’s economic health and strategic position,” said CEA’s Michael Whatley, a leading expert on LCFS proposals. “That’s because the energy we import daily from friends like Canada would essentially be prohibited from crossing our border. If these abundant resources are cut off, our dependence on unstable regions of the world would skyrocket, and so would the price American consumers pay at the pump.”

Added Whatley: “This campaign seeks to alert the American public of the implications of this policy, and enlist its support in ensuring it does not come to pass.”

Known as CEA’s “Secure Our Fuels” campaign, the work of enlisting the American people in support of affordable energy begins nationwide today, with radio and television ads running in several key states to engage those who stand to be most impacted under an LCFS. Efforts aimed at those initial states – Tennessee, Montana, North and South Dakota – will eventually broaden out to include many more, from the Intermountain West to the Atlantic coastline.

As part of the national launch, CEA also unveiled a new website to serve as a networking tool and information repository for its coalition: SecureOurFuels.org.

Most Americans might not know what an LCFS is, what it stands for, or even that its stated goal – reducing the carbon content of fuel – isn’t the true intent of the policy. Unfortunately, that’s precisely how advocates of a nationwide fuels mandate want it to remain, hoping to use the pending climate bill to advance a policy that will kill American jobs, expand our foreign energy dependence, and discriminate against secure supplies of energy available in our hemisphere.

Throughout this campaign, CEA will work with and engage its regional affiliates to ensure that working families, small businesses, organized labor, and everyday American consumers understand the threat posed by an LCFS.
Visit SecureOurFuels.org to view our latest television and radio ads, and learn more about how an LCFS will increase energy costs for American consumers while expanding our dependence on foreign, unstable regions of the world to fuel our economy.

NOTE: To view these television and radio advertisements, click HERE.

###

Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that supports the thoughtful utilization of energy resources to help ensure improved domestic and global energy security and stable prices for consumers.

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