take action NOW 
watch youtube videos 

Posts Tagged ‘Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce’

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 »

CEA Continues to Educate Consumers about Negative Impacts of an LCFS Across the Nation

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Last week various newspapers reported about the special election in Massachusetts and how it could affect the success of President Obama’s policy agenda, including climate change. In fact, The Winnipeg Free Press reports the following in their article, “Obama’s loss is our gain”:

The political setback will stop Obama’s cap-and-trade bill on greenhouse gas emissions dead in its tracks. This is excellent news for Canada. The so-called Waxman-Markey Bill, which was passed by the House by a very narrow margin, would dole out green energy subsidies that various states and municipalities are planning to use to discriminate against Canadian energy imports. It would also designate Canada’s oilsands as “dirty fuel” and prohibit the U.S. federal government from using it.  Even if Canada set up a similar system of cap-and-trade, the chances that American lobbies would start trade action is huge. With good sense and prudence, Ottawa is trying to make Canadian rules as similar as possible to the American regime.

While the status of climate legislation in Washington, D.C. may now be questionable, the threat of Low-Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) still exists. Indeed, many states and regions across the nation are working to pass LCFS proposals, particularly in the Mid-West, the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic.

This is why Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) continues to work to educate, inform and engage American consumers about the economic and national security threats that an LCFS poses.  Oilprice.com reports these points in their story, “Canada’s Alluring Energy Supply Regaining it’s Lustre Despite Continued Criticism”:

Some American government officials, including a group of Northeastern governors, are beckoning for a low-carbon fuel standard that would stem Canadian crude oil from spilling into the United States, said Travis Windle, spokesman for the Washington-based Consumer Energy Alliance. The non-partisan group, which advocates wise energy use, is pushing a national advertising campaign about the low-carbon fuel standard.

On the whole, the United States is bent on beefing up its oil ties, Windle noted, adding the reserves account for 20 percent of American energy. Last August, the State Department gave the go-ahead for a pipeline called the Alberta Clipper to carry crude from Canada to U.S. refineries in Wisconsin.

Despite the fact that the Alberta Clipper pipeline is being developed to carry crude from Canada to U.S. refineries in Wisconsin, the Badger State is currently working to pass an LCFS proposal that would actually block these fuel supplies from entering the state.

Fortunately for Wisconsinites, Scott Manley with Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce has been leading the charge on this issue in Wisconsin and educating consumers about the negative consequences of this proposal. In fact, he shares his concerns with Wisconsin’s global warming legislation in the following Green Bay Press Gazette op-ed:

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. Worse yet, the supporters of this misguided bill have not identified any meaningful benefit that would be achieved relative to global temperatures or climate.

Last month Manley took to the pages of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to highlight the devastating economic effects associated the LCFS legislation that was recently introduced. In a column entitled “Global warming bill kills state jobs,” Manley writes:

Wisconsin families cannot afford these tremendously expensive policies given our current recession and fragile economy. Wisconsin has the single-most manufacturing-intensive economy in the country. Our family-supporting manufacturing jobs pay an average wage of $62,959 – more than 35% higher than the state average. Unfortunately, we already have lost 160,000 manufacturing jobs in the past decade, including 60,000 jobs lost since 2008 alone.

In light of the critical effects that an LCFS could have on jobs and the economy in the U.S., the governors in the Mid-West, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic that are currently considering an LCFS – as well as leaders in Washington – should consider these facts and stop these policies while they still can.

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

Maryland, Wisconsin Policymakers, Experts Reject Low-Carbon Fuel Standards

Monday, January 18th, 2010

The recent agreement by 11 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic state governors to begin the formal process of implementing a job-killing Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) this drawing major criticism from policymakers and experts that understand that such scheme will lead to higher prices at the pump for struggling consumers and a deeper, more dangerous dependence on unstable regions of the world to meet our nation’s energy needs.

Maryland Delegate Richard Sossi – a member of the Environmental Matters Committee – recently expressed his concerns with this LCFS in a Star-Democrat column. In his piece entitled “Maryland comes out far worse under an LCFS,” Delegate Sossi – whose Eastern Shore district encompasses Caroline, Cecil, Kent & Queen Anne’s Counties – writes:

Remarkably, with gasoline and home heating prices currently the highest they’ve been all year, 10 Northeast and mid-Atlantic states joined Maryland last month down the treacherous road of implementing a future LCFS. In each case, the governors who signed this pact cited the LCFS as a “market-based” approach to lowering the carbon content of fuel – a policy that is undeniably attractive, notwithstanding the scientific fact that it, as it’s presently being sold to the public, cannot and will not be accomplished.

Of course, what will be accomplished, and rather quickly, is that the existing network that Maryland depends upon to access its energy will be fundamentally reshaped – and certainly not for the better. The good news, if there is any, is that this ship has not yet permanently sailed: Maryland still has time to consider these implications, and, as of this writing, still has time to back away from the agreement our governor signed in the waning hours of 2009.

And in Wisconsin, Scott Manley of the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) took to the pages of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to highlight the devastating economic effects associated the LCFS legislation that was recently introduced. In a column entitled “Global warming bill kills state jobs,” Manley writes:

The so-called Low Carbon Fuel Standard would cost Wisconsin motorists more than $3.2 billion in higher gas prices … tax could cost consumers as much as 61 cents per gallon.

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. Worse yet, the supporters of this misguided bill have not identified any meaningful benefit that would be achieved relative to global temperatures or climate.

Wisconsin families cannot afford these tremendously expensive policies given our current recession and fragile economy. Wisconsin has the single-most manufacturing-intensive economy in the country. Our family-supporting manufacturing jobs pay an average wage of $62,959 – more than 35% higher than the state average. Unfortunately, we already have lost 160,000 manufacturing jobs in the past decade, including 60,000 jobs lost since 2008 alone.

In fact, last month the WMC and 23 of the state’s largest business groups, representing contractors, homebuilders and retailers, wrote Gov. Doyle and legislative leaders detailing their concerns about this proposal, including the LCFS provision. Here’s a key excerpt from that letter:

The proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard would increase costs to Wisconsin motorists by an additional $3.279 billion by 2020.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Another California idea that makes little sense for Wisconsin is adopting a California-type LCFS aimed at restricting our use of Canadian oil. Unlike California, Wisconsin relies on Canadian crude oil to produce the majority of our transportation fuel. By raising costs an estimated $3.3 billion for motorists, a LCFS will hit Wisconsin consumers at a time when we can least afford it.

Hopefully the governors in the Mid-West, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic that are currently considering an LCFS – as well as leaders in Washington – will consider these facts. In order to stop LCFS policies, it is critical that concerned policymakers and consumers continue to send Congress the message that an LCFS will kill American jobs, increase greenhouse gas emissions, deepen our dependence on unstable regions of the world and drive prices at the pump even higher.

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

Wisc.’s Business Leaders to the Guv: LCFS is a Job-Killer

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

In a recent memo from a nearly two dozen leading Wisconsin farming, business, manufacturing, and economic development organizations to Gov. Jim Doyle’s Global Warming Task Force, the broad coalition weighed-in on several critical policy objectives now being considered as part of a larger, comprehensive climate bill in Madison.

The coalition of businesses and consumer interests writes this:

For reasons outlined below, we respectfully ask that you consider advising the chief legislative authors that you have serious reservations over the costs and related implications of various implementation proposals, as well as the notion that all Task Force recommendations be packaged en masse into a single bill.

Of particular interest, the group highlights the damaging economic effects associated with a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). This policy, which is also being considered on the federal level in Congress, would effectively ban affordable and secure Canadian oil reserves – which helps meet 50 percent of Wisconsin’s needs – from reaching consumers, farmers and small businesses in the Badger state.

And the group lays this out to the task force in their memo:

The proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard would increase costs to Wisconsin motorists by an additional $3.279 billion by 2020.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Another California idea that makes little sense for Wisconsin is adopting a California-type LCFS aimed at restricting our use of Canadian oil. Unlike California, Wisconsin relies on Canadian crude oil to produce the majority of our transportation fuel. By raising costs an estimated $3.3 billion for motorists, a LCFS will hit Wisconsin consumers at a time when we can least afford it.

And while the comprehensive global warming legislation has not yet been formally introduced (though it’s just around the corner), members of this coalition – especially the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) – continue to be outspoken about the negative consequences that such proposals as an LCFS would have on the state’s business climate.

In a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel op-ed, WMC vice president James A. Buchen writes this under the headline “Low carbon fuel tax is lose-lose:”

A Low Carbon Fuel Standard sounds harmless enough, but this misguided policy would penalize Wisconsin’s dominant source of motor fuel: Canadian crude oil. Studies have shown that such a standard will raise gas prices … an LCFS would also threaten many of our state’s family-supporting manufacturing jobs that supply the Canadian oil industry.

Because Canadian oil is located on our own continent and comes from one of our closest allies, it represents a stable and secure source of energy for Wisconsin.

Unfortunately, an LCFS would punish Canadian oil because it requires more energy to produce, refine and bring to market than “lighter” forms of crude oil. Worse yet, an LCFS would not even reduce Wisconsin greenhouse gas emissions because gasoline refined from Canadian crude oil burns just the same as other conventional sources of gasoline.

Lawmakers must consider whether it makes sense to enact an LCFS and trade friendly Canadian oil for a greater reliance on OPEC and Middle East oil.

Thankfully, Wisconsin voters understand the threats posed by an LCFS law, and overwhelmingly oppose it.

Mr. Buchen is right: Wisconsin Consumers Soundly Reject Job-Killing LCFS Proposal.

A detailed Wisconsin Policy Research Institute analysis from November, entitled “The Economics of Climate Change Proposals in Wisconsin,” rendered this about the governor’s task force LCFS proposal:

An analysis of a similar [LCFS] proposal at the national level indicates that the 10% reduction could only be achieved at the cost of a large reduction in the consumption of energy from transportation fuels. In other words, employees of Wisconsin firms and businesses would have to drive fewer miles, and thus consume less fuel.

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

JUST THE FACTS: Top Canadian Official, Wis. Manufacturers Underscore LCFS Threats

Monday, November 30th, 2009

Last week, former Vice President Al Gore sat down with The Toronto Star to warn Canadians about how the “dangers of the oil sands.”

But rather than focusing on and highlighting the positive economic and security benefits associated with Canada’s vast energy supplies – which provides American consumers, families and businesses more than 2.5 million barrels of petroleum each day and are considered one of the world’s largest known energy deposits – Gore claims that these abundant reserves will “jeopardize the survival of our species.”

Despite this rhetoric, and baseless claims that “Gas from the tar sands gives a Prius the same carbon footprint as a Hummer,” affordable energy advocates are getting the facts out.

Ed Stelmach, the Premier of Alberta, writes this in yesterday’s Toronto Star under the headline “Oil-sands hysteria only confuses climate debate”:

A realistic and reasonable discussion about oil-sands development must be based on fact. Sadly, Gore’s doomsday assertions about an industry that makes up less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are neither realistic, reasonable nor factual.

The fact is, Alberta’s responsible energy development yields tremendous benefits for all Canadians. While the Canadian economy may not be important to Gore, it certainly is to Canadians. Alberta’s energy resources mean jobs for hundreds of thousands of Canadians across this country and, incidentally, thousands of Americans as well.

Critics of the oil sands, such as Gore, seem to dismiss the fact that 80 per cent of emissions from a barrel of oil come from the end use – the tailpipe. In reality, Ontario drivers produce more greenhouse gas emissions than the oil sands. Comprehensive and independent studies have shown that when considering the full life cycle of a barrel of oil – including getting the oil out of the ground, refining it, then transporting it to market – there is very little difference in greenhouse gas emissions from a litre of gas made from oil sands or Saudi crude.

But it’s not just secure energy advocates in government speaking out on this critical issue. Reliable, affordable energy is the linchpin to America’s manufacturing base. And their voice is being heard, too.

In a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel column, James Buchen, vice president of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, writes this about the dangers of an LCFS – which would effectively block over 50 percent of Wisconsin’s oil that currently comes from Canada:

A Low Carbon Fuel Standard sounds harmless enough, but this misguided policy would penalize Wisconsin’s dominant source of motor fuel: Canadian crude oil. Studies have shown that such a standard will raise gas prices; it’s a bit like a global warming gas tax. But it gets worse because an LCFS would also threaten many of our state’s family-supporting manufacturing jobs that supply the Canadian oil industry.

Today, more than 50% of our state’s motor fuel comes from Canadian oil…Because Canadian oil is located on our own continent and comes from one of our closest allies, it represents a stable and secure source of energy for Wisconsin. We refine this vital energy resource at our state’s only oil refinery in Superior, and President Barack Obama’s administration recently approved plans to expand the pipeline from Alberta to our state. Equally significant are the thousands of Wisconsin manufacturing jobs tied directly to the Canadian oil industry as suppliers of heavy equipment.

Driving up the cost of Canadian oil with an LCFS will punish Wisconsin consumers by hitting families, farmers, truckers and businesses with higher prices at the pump…We simply cannot afford to saddle consumers with higher energy costs as we struggle to emerge from a deep economic recession.

Earlier this year, Congress had the good sense to reject a national LCFS, recognizing it would harm consumers. Wisconsin lawmakers should follow suit. Any way you cut it, a Low Carbon Fuel Standard is a lose-lose proposition for Wisconsin consumers and workers.

Help keep America’s energy secure, affordable and reliable by telling Congress to oppose a job-killing LCFS. American consumers cannot affordable higher energy costs and an even deeper dependence on unstable regions of the world to fuel our economy.

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

Wisconsin Consumers Soundly Reject Job-Killing LCFS Proposal

Monday, September 28th, 2009

WVU Prof. Warns an LCFS Would “Jeopardize National Security”

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), an association with “nearly 4,000 members that include both large and small manufacturers, service companies, local chambers of commerce and specialized trade associations,” released scientific public opinion research data on several energy proposals today, including a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). Because an LCFS would increase our dependence on unstable regions of the world to fuel our economy, while also increasing prices at the pump, Badger state consumers have overwhelmingly rejected this job-killing proposal.

This from a WMC-commissioned poll released today of 500 Wisconsin voters conducted earlier this month:

A Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is a bias against using Canadian crude oil – the dominant source of gasoline and diesel fuel for Midwest states like Wisconsin. Penalizing Canadian oil with a LCFS would likely result in fuel supply shortages and higher prices at the pump. The U.S. Congress rejected this flawed policy in the federal cap and trade legislation, as did the Minnesota Legislature. (72 percent voter opposition)

The business group has also weighed in on LCFS proposals, and the economic damage that such a regime would present. In June, the WMC wrote this about an LCFS:

Myth #3: A Low Carbon Fuel Standard Will Secure Our Energy Independence

Reality: A Low Carbon Fuel Standard Will Raise Gas Prices In Wisconsin

While many of us think of the Middle East oil sheiks when we consider crude oil production, you may be surprised to learn that the majority of crude oil entering the Wisconsin marketplace comes from Canada. Canada has the second-largest crude oil reserve in the world, and because it is located on our own continent with one of our closest allies and trading partners, it represents a stable and secure source of motor fuel in our state. We refine it right here at a facility in Superior, Wisconsin, as do our neighbors in Minnesota, Illinois and Indiana.

Unfortunately, a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) would punish Canadian crude oil because it takes more energy to extract it from the ground. The financial penalties assessed against Canadian crude would result in significantly higher pump prices for Wisconsin motorists, as well as the possibility of supply disruptions. If that occurs, we may be forced to rely upon oil from hostile regimes and members of the OPEC cartel to replace the loss of Canadian crude oil.

If you think a LCFS will benefit ethanol production, think again. Regulators in California and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have studied the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of crop-based ethanol, and found it to be worse than conventional gasoline from a global warming standpoint. Any way you cut it, a LCFS is a lose-lose proposition for Wisconsin because it punishes our dominant fuel source, and punishes an alternative fuel produced here in our own state.

It’s no wonder that consumers in states like Wisconsin – which receives 47 percent of its oil from Canada – squarely reject LCFS proposals.

And public opinion appears to be right in line with what academics well-versed in energy issue are saying, too. West Virginia University professor Syd S. Peng, who holds the university’s Charles E. Lawall Chair of Mining Engineering, wrote a column chock full of facts regarding LCFS proposals in Washington over the weekend. Under the headline “Energy proposal offers problems for W.Va., nation,” Peng wrote this in the Charleston Gazette:

A proposed national low-carbon fuel standard would severely restrict and possibly prevent access to these critically important resources.

Although a provision for a national low-carbon fuel standard was pulled from proposed climate legislation before the House approved the measure in June, it could pop up again. A similar measure is awaiting action in the Senate. Two states, California and Oregon, have adopted a low-carbon fuel standard, and other states might do the same. But restricting the use of some fuels and not others will require the United States to use more expensive oil, and it would jeopardize national security.

A national low-carbon fuel standard could leave the United States vulnerable to a sharp rise in oil prices resulting from an extended drop in world oil supplies.

Prof. Peng’s comments on how an LCFS would threaten our national security comes just days after Consumer Energy Alliance wrote the president’s national security advisor, Gen. James L. Jones, asking his National Security Council to take closer look at the security consequences underlying an LCFS.

If you agree with nearly 3 in 4 Wisconsin consumers and Prof. Peng that American consumers cannot afford higher prices at the pump or deeper dependence on unstable regions of the world for our energy, then send Congress a message 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