Consumer Energy Alliance

Low-Carbon Fuel Standard

Now We’re Talking, Part 1

Monday, March 8th, 2010

By David Holt, President of Consumer Energy Alliance

Higher energy costs lead to higher utility and gasoline prices for consumers.  Enacting a national Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) will divert affordable, previously U.S-bound energy supplies from Canada to our competitors, reduce access to critical energy products such as diesel and home heating fuel, and increase prices at the pump – all without doing a thing to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, greenhouse gas emissions will increase as we turn our back on North American sourced oil and begin importing increasing amounts of energy from other continents via long ocean voyages.  We won’t use less energy because there is a LCFS; we’ll just obtain it elsewhere.

These conclusions are well documented.  Please download the PowerPoint on LCFS presented by one of the top energy policy analysts at the U.S. Department of Energy at a transportation conference last summer – and be sure to take a look at slides 16 and 17. You might also scan an LCFS study published in the American Economic Journal by professors from North Carolina and California. According to their research, an “LCFS cannot be efficient…,” and,  “…contrary to the stated purpose, an LCFS can actually raise carbon emissions.”

Since it was founded in early 2006, Consumer Energy Alliance has worked to promote policies that ensure an adequate supply of energy.  CEA is not opposed to using cleaner, more environmentally-friendly sources of energy and has embraced a “we need it all approach.”  In light of this mission, we were surprised at the recent statement from Natural Recources Defense Council (NRDC) lawyer, Liz Barratt-Brown, who asserted in an environmental advocacy blog that CEA’s opposition to the LCFS must mean that our organization is “against shifting to cleaner fuels”.   She alleged that CEA uses “deception” to represent ourselves.

While conducting its research project on CEA, it appears NRDC missed a recent post on our blog hailing the administration’s commitment to energy conservation programs, especially its efforts to promote and sustain a robust plan for home weatherization and re-insulation.  NRDC also missed CEA’s press release applauding the mayor of Houston for getting an important solar energy project across the finish line in that great city. And it must have missed CEA’s many public statements in support of wind power where  more needs to be done, and done now, to cut through the red tape and bring more of these installations online in parts of the country where wind generated electricity is both needed and efficient.

It’s true that CEA counts producers of conventional energy sources among its coalition, after all we are the Consumer Energy Alliance; a complete listing of our affiliates has always been available online. In her NRDC blog, Ms Barratt-Brown  finds it convenient to characterize our organization as an assemblage of “Big Oil” interests.  Were her blog even handed, it would note that we represent an even larger number of energy consumers: a full 60 percent of our affiliates are energy consumers.  While these consuming groups don’t see eye-to-eye with the producing groups on every issue all of them embrace and support CEA’s broad mission to advance a national energy policy that encourages us to conserve what we have, allows us to safely produce what we need, and invests in the kind of technology we believe will be critical in creating jobs, revenue and opportunity in the future.

It’s a big effort, to be sure, but it is one supported by a larger and more diverse group of interests than NRDC may realize. Among our more than 130 member companies, we’re proud to work with steel manufacturers, plumbing and heating contractors, community and neighborhood organizations, seafood producers, biodiesel producers, fertilizer groups, truckers, airlines, tourism officials, and many, many others. But the backbone of our organization isn’t found there. It’s made up of the more than 265,000 everyday Americans who have signed up over the years to support our cause, men and women who believe in a balanced, sensible energy strategy for this country, and understand the relationship between such a strategy and the creation of jobs, security and affordable energy.

Yes, we disagree with NRDC on some issues.  However, there is reason to believe that we agree on a number of other matters.  We know that NRDC is not anti-consumer just as we are not anti-environment.

I’m delighted to continue a dialogue in the future, and I’m also hopeful that we can dispense with the personal attacks and schoolyard insults, and get down to the serious business of crafting commonsense energy solutions for the American people.

Tags: American Economic Journal, American energy, balanced energy, CEA, Consumer Energy Alliance, David Holt, greenhouse gas, LCFS, Liz Barratt-Brown, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC
Posted in CEABlog | No Comments »

Truckers join fight against low carbon fuel standard

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

In states like California that have adopted low carbon fuel standards, truckers are emerging as one of the biggest opponents – and with good reason. The American Trucking Association recently joined in a lawsuit against the California Air Resources Board over the state’s low carbon fuel standard, which it says would not only open the door to an increase in foreign crude oil, but would also make it harder for truckers in California to compete with those in neighboring states.

The truckers have a point. While we here at CEA have been largely focused on the threat such standards posed the overall domestic oil industry, low carbon fuel standards could also make interstate commerce a lot more difficult, especially if different states pass different variations of the law.

It’s very similar to what could happen on a global scale. While a preference for lighter crudes from far away could trigger a surge oil imports, businesses looking to save costs locally could simply hire truckers from, say, Nevada, instead of California, who must pay dearly to comply with the low carbon fuel standard and inevitably will pass that cost along to their customers.

In some instances, a low carbon fuel standard might require truckers to buy new trucks capable of running on so-called low-carbon fuels, at a cost of $100,000 or more per vehicle. It’s a staggering amount that truckers will be hard pressed to afford, particularly if they see increase competition from out-of-state fleets.

This story notes that out-of-state truckers running on more affordable heavy fuels “might continue to pass through parts of California with impunity.” Alternatively, in-state truckers based close to the border could just drive to another state to fill their tanks. A new set of winners, losers … and scammers would emerge. And all for what? Increased dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia and other places far from home.

Tags: american trucking association, california air resources board, domestic oil industry, LCFS, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, truckers
Posted in CEABlog | No Comments »

CEA: California LCFS Bad for Consumers, Bad for Producers, and Violates Federal Law

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Consumer Energy Alliance files complaint with District Court in Fresno asking for immediate injunction on Low-Carbon Fuel Standard

FRESNO – February 2, 2010   California’s recently implemented Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) violates federal law by attempting to regulate “commerce and conduct” outside of the state, while imposing a mandate that even regulators admit will result in “little or no net change” to the carbon intensity of fuels on “a global-scale.” Such is the formal complaint filed by Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California today, asking the court to suspend the imposition of a statewide LCFS until a number of substantive legal concerns can be addressed.

“The practical outcomes of the California LCFS are higher fuel costs for consumers, dramatic reductions in the availability of those fuels, and a rapid expansion of the state’s already unacceptable level of dependence on foreign, unstable regimes for its energy,” said Michael Whatley, vice-president of CEA and former chief counsel for the U.S. Senate subcommittee on clean air and climate change. “More relevant to today’s filing, the California LCFS also actually violates federal law – and stands in direct contravention of key consumer protections and safeguards enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.”

Formally adopted last month after the state’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) issued its final approval, the California LCFS, according to its authors, seeks to reduce the carbon-intensity of fuels included in the state’s transportation mix “while stimulat[ing] the production and use of alternative, low-carbon fuels.” But under the bizarre accounting methodology of the plan, energy sources with physically identical chemical properties and carbon contents can – and, in fact, must be – treated differently under the law, with in-state sources significantly advantaged over resources that are found and produced outside California.

“Perhaps it wasn’t the state’s intent, but as written, the California LCFS is an example of parochial protectionism run amok,” added Whatley. “But make no mistake: This isn’t the type of protectionism that will benefit California consumers; it’s the type that will ensure sources of essential energy are harder to find in the future, and much more expensive to purchase.”

In support of that statement, Whatley pointed to a recent analysis of the proposed state LCFS completed by California-based Sierra Research. In that study, analysts from Sierra found that an LCFS will increase the cost of fuel in California by $3.7 billion over the next decade – all while producing “no detectable change in climate.”

With more than 260,000 grassroots supporters and 130 affiliates representing both the major consuming and producing segments of the U.S. energy sector, CEA has been an active contributor to the national debate on LCFS – including the proceedings in California – for the better part of the last two years.

Last August, the Washington, D.C.-based Center for North American Energy Security, a CEA member, sent a letter to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) detailing the myriad short-comings with the LCFS, and several CEA members (including the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association and the American Trucking Associations – which joined CEA in filing the complaint today) have lodged formal comments with CARB objecting to the plan as well. In addition, CEA wrote directly to U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in October identifying several significant consequences that consumers should expect to encounter under the initiative.

What follows are several key excerpts taken from the CEA complaint filed in Fresno this morning:

42.        Because “carbon intensity” is designed to account not only for a fuel’s physical characteristics, but also the energy necessary to bring the transportation fuel to market in California, chemically identical fuels are assigned different carbon intensities under the LCFS.  LCFS  § 95486(b), Tables 6–7.
44.        By regulating the “fuel pathway” of transportation fuels – i.e., the manner in which transportation fuels are produced and ultimately reach the California market – the LCFS directly regulates interstate commerce and conduct occurring outside of California.
47.        CARB has admitted that, because no other states have adopted a similar standard, “fuel producers are free to ship lower-carbon-intensity fuels to areas with such standards, while shipping higher-carbon-intensity fuels elsewhere.”  CARB, California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard: An Update on the California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program (Oct. 2009) at 1.
48.        According to CARB, “[t]he end result of this fuel ‘shuffling’ process is little or no net change in fuel carbon-intensity on a global scale.”  Id.
49.        In fact, the “fuel shuffling” promoted by the LCFS likely will lead to an overall increase in GHG emissions, because it will mean redirecting fuels and feedstocks destined for California to other states through less efficient and redundant supply lines.  Id.; see also CARB, Final Statement of Reasons (Dec. 2009) at 234–35.
50.        The burdens imposed by the LCFS on the interstate market for transportation fuels and fuel feedstocks in California are clearly excessive when measured against the putative local benefits of the LCFS in California.

More from Consumer Energy Alliance’s Secure Our Fuels campaign:

• Memorandum of Understanding: Draft NESCAUM MOU dated Nov. 17, 2009
• Analysis: CEA comments to NESCAUM on draft LCFS plan
• Study: LCFS would do nothing to lower global GHG emissions; it may even increase them
• PowerPoint: Carmen Difiglio presentation on LCFS
• Interactive Map: See which states stand to lose the most under an LCFS
• Column: Why Are We Conceding Canadian Oil to China?
• Issue Alert: Happy Birthday, China

Tags: carbon footprint, climate change, domestic energy, emissions, Fresno, GHG emissions, LCFS, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, oil and gas, Secure Our Fuels, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Posted in CEA News | 1 Comment »

While you were toasting…

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

CEA’s recent year in review offered a long list of achievements in public policy, technology and public opinion that all helped advance our goals of fostering a strong domestic energy industry and economy.

We also noted that there was a lot more work to be done.

Indeed, word came down on New Year’s Eve that 11 states had committed to following California’s lead in adopting a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, essentially a wildly inaccurate measure of the carbon footprint left by various fuels. We’ve noted before that such standards are less likely to reduce emissions and more likely to increase imports of Middle East crude oil. Yet, because the standard has a nice ring to it and may appear to offer the sort of simple solutions people crave, it is catching on quite quickly.

It is heartening to see pockets of opposition, such as this one out of Pennsylvania that notes that the premise of carbon accounting on which the policy is based is, at best, challenging to calculate, and at worst, just like we said, inaccurate.

But from where we stand now, too many lawmakers are taking the sound byte over the hard science and signing on to what could be a devastating policy for the future of domestic energy and our dependence on foreign resources.

As we outline our goals for the New Year, educating lawmakers, businesses and the general public about this not-so-low carbon standard must be a top priority. The future of many domestic energy suppliers and refiners will be riding on the outcome.

Tags: California, carbon footprint, crude oil, domestic energy, emissions, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, Middle East
Posted in CEABlog | No Comments »

Wicked Cold: Draft MOU Asks Northeast Guvs to Endorse Future of Higher Gas, Heating Oil Prices

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Consumer Energy Alliance sends letter to 11 Northeast governors asking officials to look before they leap on regional LCFS

WASHINGTON – December 28, 2009   The imposition of a California-style Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) on 11 Northeast and mid-Atlantic states would dramatically restrict consumers’ access to local and affordable supplies of motor and home heating fuel – all without doing a thing to limit global greenhouse gas emissions. That’s the message conveyed this week by Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), as the governors of these states decide whether to formally commit their constituents to a plan that could pave the way for higher prices at the pump, and sharp reductions in the availability of home heating oil.

“An LCFS isn’t about reducing carbon emissions, it’s about restricting access,” said CEA vice president Michael Whatley, who represented the organization in two regional LCFS hearings held earlier this winter. “Unfortunately, for residents of the Northeast, that means less access not only to affordable gas and diesel fuel, but to the critical fuel oils that are used to heat more than two million homes in the region.”

Earlier this month, CEA obtained a draft copy of the LCFS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) currently in circulation among the 11 states involved in the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), a group actively lobbying for an LCFS. In it, states are asked to endorse the statement that an LCFS is “a market-based, fuel-neutral program to address the carbon content of fuels” – even though in reality the plan is government- (not market-) directed, fuel-discriminatory (especially against those from Canada), and does nothing to reduce the carbon content of fuel (which is constant).

Additionally, the MOU demands that states “commit to promote and support a national LCFS program,” the clearest admission yet that a regional LCFS scheme cannot succeed unless its burden is extended via federal mandate to competitors in neighboring states. “That’s been the purpose of this effort all along,” added Whatley. “In regional stakeholder meetings and in the draft MOU, NESCAUM has stated its ultimate goal is to implement a bad regional policy that will push the federal government into passing a national mandate – even if it means the Northeast ends up isolating itself from critical national and international fuel markets.”

According to reports, NESCAUM officials have asked each state’s governor to sign the MOU by December 31, 2009. In anticipation of that deadline, CEA last week sent each of the 11 governors participating in the NESCAUM effort a letter outlining several key considerations related to an LCFS – from the logistics involved in converting hundreds of thousands of vehicles to flex-fuel capable, to the realities inherent in the fact that 80 percent of transportation sector carbon emissions comes from the combustion of fuel, not the lifecycle components an LCFS will supposedly address.

More from SecureOurFuels.org:

• Memorandum of Understanding: Draft NESCAUM MOU dated Nov. 17, 2009
• Analysis: CEA comments to NESCAUM on draft LCFS plan
• Study: LCFS would do nothing to lower global GHG emissions; it may even increase them
• PowerPoint: Carmen Difiglio presentation on LCFS
• Interactive Map: See which states stand to lose the most under an LCFS
• Letter: GOP state rep from Tenn. asks Sen. Alexander to reconsider support for LCFS [WSJ]
• Column: Why Are We Conceding Canadian Oil to China?
• Issue Alert: Happy Birthday, China

Tags: cold weather, consumer prices, heating oil, higher gas, LCFS, low carbon, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, memorandum of understanding, michael whatley
Posted in CEA News | No Comments »

Our robots chime in on energy policy

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Please listen to this message regarding important energy issues from our CEA robots!

Tags: LCFS, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard
Posted in CEABlog | No Comments »

What research says about Low Carbon Fuel standards (and low chocolate standards)

Friday, December 11th, 2009

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is making the rounds again in news reports about national and global energy policies. And why not? What’s not to like about low carbon fuels? With such an innocuous name, this looming legislation is bound to resurface every time people talk about policies for reducing emissions.

But you know what they say about things that seem to be true.

As we’ve said before, low carbon fuel standards just don’t make a lot of sense. There’s no evidence that such a law would actually reduce emissions, and many reasons to conclude it would actually result in the U.S. increasing its dependence on Mideast Oil.

But since we’re all likely to be hearing more about the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in the months ahead, it’s worth broadening the argument beyond what those of us here at CEA have to say about it and showing what the science says.

Earlier this year the American Economics Journal published a paper which concluded that a low carbon standard does not decrease overall emissions. Rather, it simply changes the mix of fuels consumed in a manner that might actually have the completely unintended consequence of increasing overall consumption and emissions.

That’s essentially because this fuel standard does not seek to limit actual emissions. Rather it would try to limit production and consumption of certain carbon-intensive fuels, while inadvertently promoting the carbon-light ones. It sounds confusing and it is. Attempting to judge different types of oil or natural gas on the basis of their carbon content – with no regard for shipping costs and multiple other factors – is in the end a dangerous guessing game.

The authors of the study, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions under Low Carbon Fuel Standard? argue that energy consumers told to low-carbon fuels are likely to respond the same way as a child who eats a lot of chocolate and is told to eat more bananas. Rather than replacing the chocolate with a banana, the child would most likely eat the chocolate and the banana, increasing his overall calories.

It’s a useful analogy to remember when trying to make sense of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard … one that gives new meaning to the idea of a kid in a candy store.

Tags: American energy, chocolate, energy policies, LCFS, low carbon, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard
Posted in CEABlog | No Comments »

CEA Analysis Finds LCFS a Bad Option for Northeast

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

Consumer Energy Alliance analyzes Low-Carbon Fuel Standard compliance scenarios for 11 northeast states

WASHINGTON – November 13, 2009   A regional Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) imposed on 11 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states would result in prohibitively high gasoline, diesel and home heating oil prices, and would likely be logistically impossible to meet under any of the compliance scenarios currently being considered. That’s the conclusion reached in a new analysis produced by Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) and submitted this week to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM).

“Our analysis shows that under each of the compliance scenarios contemplated by NESCAUM, the imposition of an LCFS on the Northeast will lead to substantially higher prices at the pump and restricted access to essential fuels such as gasoline, diesel and home heating oil – without doing a thing to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions,” said CEA vice president Michael Whatley, who participated in two public meetings hosted by NESCAUM in Newark, N.J. and Boston last month.

Created in the 1960s to advocate for the Clean Air Act, NESCAUM is currently working to develop a framework to encourage Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states to adopt model LCFS requirements, thus creating the nation’s first regional standard.  At its core, an LCFS seeks to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by restricting the use of conventional fuels such as gasoline and diesel, while increasing the use of alternatives.

In analyzing potential methods for designing an LCFS, CEA considered the consequences of two compliance scenarios reportedly under consideration by the group: 1) forcing fuel producers to meet LCFS mandates by injecting enormous amounts of corn-based ethanol into fuel stocks, or 2) forcing them to purchase carbon credits for the right to remain in business.

Under the ethanol compliance scenario, CEA found that in order to meet a 10 percent emissions reduction target, ethanol would need to comprise a full 50 percent of the region’s fuel supply. To handle this E-50 ethanol, every single car in the 11-state region would need to become a “flex-fuel” vehicle, a significant feat considering that today less than one percent of vehicles on the road meet that standard.

Logistics aside, the plan would also cost some serious money:

In order to handle gasoline with an ethanol blend over 10%, gasoline storage tanks and pumps … will need to be replaced with special tanks and equipment … currently projected to cost between $50,000 and $200,000 per location.

Under the credit purchase scenario, fuel retailers would need to purchase credits from alternative energy producers to comply with an LCFS. However, given the relative lack of commercially available technology in this space at present, it’s not entirely clear how compliance could be met under this scenario — a fact that NESCAUM admits in its report (page 21):

While the outlook of these technologies is promising, the volumes that would be required in order to meet a 10 percent LCFS by 2020 greatly exceed the volumes that have been produced to date.

In formal comments submitted to NESCAUM following its LCFS meetings, CEA also analyzed policy alternatives that could achieve emissions reductions in ways that are cheaper and more efficient than an LCFS. Comparing these alternatives to current LCFS proposals, CEA concludes that an LCFS will raise fuel costs substantially higher than would be the case under new CAFE requirements or the implementation of Renewable Fuels Standards – and will achieve significantly lower emissions reductions.

More from SecureOurFuels.org:

• Analysis: CEA comments to NESCAUM on draft LCFS plan
• Study: LCFS would do nothing to lower global GHG emissions; it may even increase them
• PowerPoint: Carmen Difiglio presentation on LCFS
• Interactive Map: See which states stand to lose the most under an LCFS
• Letter: GOP state rep from Tenn. asks Sen. Alexander to reconsider support for LCFS [WSJ]
• Column: Why Are We Conceding Canadian Oil to China?
• Issue Alert: Happy Birthday, China

Tags: CEA, Consumer Energy Alliance, consumers, LCFS, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, Secure Our Fuels
Posted in CEA News | No Comments »

High unemployment and low carbon fuel standards: Two not-so-great things that are even worse together

Friday, November 13th, 2009

What could possibly be worse than the 10.2% nationwide unemployment we recently highlighted? How about the jobless rates of 11% in Florida, 12.2% in California, and a staggering 15.3% in Michigan?

If you didn’t think Michigan had a big part in the debate over domestic fuel production, think again. The state, which has been bleeding jobs, faces even more economic devastation if a low carbon fuel standard is adopted.

As we’ve outlined previously on this blog, a low carbon fuel standard ostensibly designed to reduce emissions, would actually play out with many unintended consequences. They would favor many types of foreign oil over those located in the U.S. and the Canada – not because Saudi fuel is cleaner fuel, but because it takes less energy to get out of the ground. Factor in the cost of transporting all that light, sweet crude oil halfway around the world, and you have a low carbon fuel standard in name only.

Now, back to Michigan. One of the industries that hasn’t fled the state is an oil refinery in Detroit, which refines fuel from nearby Canada. Heavy fuel, that is, which would not pass muster under new low carbon fuel standards.

This recent editorial in the Detroit News outlined the problem:

“In Detroit, the Marathon refinery produces nearly 100,000 barrels of affordable, reliable fuel a day, and provides thousands of jobs that support families, pay pensions, and provide good-quality health care…. As complex and convoluted a plan as a low-carbon fuel system is, the negative impact it would have on our country’s economic and strategic well-being is simple to understand. The low-carbon fuel proposal is engineered to produce higher prices at the pump, higher unemployment … and expanded dependence on foreign, unstable regimes.”

And further south, residents in Tennessee are also concerned, not just by what a low-carbon fuel standard will mean for their local economy, but by the seemingly arbitrary standards by which fuels would be in or out.

“Fuels are assigned a carbon energy ‘score,’ based on the energy required to bring them to market,” explains this editorial. “The U.S. would be forced to rely on lighter crude from the Middle East.”

“A low carbon fuel standard will also result in volatile gas and commodity prices, the loss of U.S. refinery and pipeline jobs, and an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.”

That’s right. As we’ve also pointed out here, emissions know no borders. Nor does a balanced energy policy. We’re working on behalf not just of the oil rich states but of the country as a whole, and we’re happy to see that our message resonates widely.

Tags: CEA, Consumer Energy Alliance, fuel, LCFS, low carbon, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, unemployment
Posted in CEABlog | No Comments »

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

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

CEA radio, TV ads appear across the state, remind residents that under a nationwide LCFS, South Dakota’s Hyperion refinery is toast

WASHINGTON, D.C. - August 31, 2009   Today, as part of a multi-state campaign to educate American energy consumers on the economic and national security impacts associated with a national Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), a nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition comprised of 120 affiliates and more than 180,000 grassroots supporters, launched a major television and radio advertisement buy in South Dakota.

The ads (click HERE and HERE to view and listen), which will run over the next two weeks, highlight that if an LCFS is enacted into law, American jobs would threatened, prices at the pump would increase, and U.S. dependence on energy imports from unstable foreign regimes would expand.

An LCFS would be especially devastating for South Dakota in light of DENR’s recent decision to grant a critical air quality permit to the Hyperion refining project in Elk Point – a facility that, when complete, will receive and process 400,000 barrels of Canadian oil a day. Under an LCFS, those shipments of Canadian crude would be prevented from crossing the border – and no permit in the world will be able to save the project from elimination.

“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 their 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 – South Dakota among the most important – 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.

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 and expand our dependence on foreign, unstable regions of the world to fuel our economy.

Tags: CEA, Consumer Energy Alliance, LCFS, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, South Dakota
Posted in CEA News | No Comments »

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

Thursday, September 3rd, 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. - August 31, 2009   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.

Tags: CEA, Consumer Energy Alliance, LCFS, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, Secure Our Fuels
Posted in CEA News | 1 Comment »

CEA: LCFS a Road Map to Higher Fuel Costs, Expanded Foreign Energy Dependence, Loss of U.S. Jobs

Friday, August 14th, 2009

Consumer Energy Alliance responds to ethanol coalition’s support for a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard

WASHINGTON - August 14, 2009   Earlier this week at an energy forum in Nevada, a national coalition representing ethanol producers unveiled a “road map for a greener America” founded on the adoption of a policy known as the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS).

In response to that effort, and with an eye on separating fact from fiction on the economic and strategic consequences that such a proposal would create, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) vice president Michael Whatley released the following statement:

“A LCFS would have serious consequences on America’s economic and strategic position in the world. An LCFS isn’t about making our environment any better, but it would make fuels from existing and future sources — sources we need — so expensive and scarce that Americans will be forced to look elsewhere for the energy they need to drive their cars, heat their homes and live their lives.”

Added Whatley: “Worse than that, an LCFS would prevent America’s fuel producers from accepting oil supplies from our closest, most important allies in the hemisphere – especially Canadian oil, of which we import more than 2.5 million barrels a day. In fact, under an LCFS, even some of America’s own homegrown reserves of crude oil would be targeted for elimination – creating a dangerous vacuum that some of the most unstable regimes in the world will be happy to fill.

“That’s not an effort that American energy consumers can support – especially when all the facts are laid out on the table. And while CEA members continue to fight for an ‘all of the above’ approach to leveraging America’s homegrown energy potential, which includes finding ways to expand our use of advanced sources of biofuels, a nationwide LCFS falls squarely outside that mandate.”

NOTE: At its core, an LCFS is a mandate on our nation’s refiners to reduce the “lifecycle” carbon emissions of the fuels they produce. But since the actual carbon content of most fuels is constant, the only options available for refiners under an LCFS is to either stop accepting shipments of “heavy” crude from Canada, Mexico, and much of the American Intermountain West, or buy up government-issued credits for the right to remain in business.

Either way, American jobs will be put in danger, the price we pay for gasoline will go up, and the amount of oil we import from unstable regimes abroad will increase substantially.

Tags: Consumer Energy Alliance, ethanol, LCFS, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard
Posted in CEA News | 1 Comment »