Low-carbon pact will only lead to higher energy prices Commentary Thomas Corcoran

EARLY IN 2009, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell announced that – although he might be among the most vocal supporters of green jobs programs in the United States – he was “not quite ready to let go of jobs (in) the traditional … oil industry,” and an article in the Wall Street Journal highlighted his efforts to keep refining jobs in the region.

It seems that a lot has changed over the course of the last year. And even more has changed in just the past few months, especially in the direction in which Gov. Rendell is leading the state on issues related to energy affordability and security.

Days before Pennsylvanians rang in the new year, with very little fanfare and no public input, Gov. Rendell signed an agreement that paves the way for one of the most radical and expensive changes to the state’s energy policy in history.

The agreement allows for the eventual implementation of a policy known as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Drafted by the Boston-based advocacy group the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, the memorandum signed by Pennsylvania obligates it and 10 other neighboring states to reduce the carbon intensity of all transportation and home-heating fuels sold in their states.

At first blush, it sounds like a reasonable policy. Who would be against reducing the level of carbon in our fuels? But as they say, if it sounds too be good to be true, it probably is.

Hatched by academics in California, the aim of an LCFS is to artificially drive up demand for natural gas vehicles and electric vehicles by restricting consumers’ access to conventional fuel types such as gasoline, diesel and home-heating oil.

How is this achieved? Fuels are scored by government bureaucrats on a life cycle greenhouse gas emissions scale that takes into account both the direct carbon emissions from its use and how much energy it takes to produce, transport, refine and ultimately deliver the product to market. Under an LCFS scheme, fuels that are more energy-intensive to produce and deliver to consumers receive worse scores than fuels that require less energy to produce. Backers promise “green jobs” and a “green economy.”

What LCFS proponents won’t tell you is that the true aim of the LCFS program is to discriminate against fuels that are derived from North American energy reserves. For example, nearly 20 percent of the fuels that keep America’s economy moving each day come from Canada, our closest and most strategic trading partner. Those fuels – primarily derived from oil sands – would be effectively banned from reaching consumers who rely on them in the form of affordable and secure energy supplies.

And with what would we replace the fuels derived from Canadian oil sands? Until natural gas or electric vehicles are ready to replace gasoline-powered vehicles, we would need to fill that vacuum with lighter crudes that are produced in some of the most unstable and unfriendly regions of the world.

It’s ironic that LCFS advocates cite the imperative of combating greenhouse gases and curbing energy costs as reasons to support such a program. Not only are both assertions untrue, but they represent the direct inverse of what the program will actually achieve. Independent studies have determined that gas and diesel prices would increase, as would overall global greenhouse gas emissions because nations like China – our chief competitor in the global economy – are already working to secure Canadian supplies in the event that we block imports to the United States.

Pennsylvanians cannot afford higher energy prices. With gas prices steadily climbing toward $3 a gallon and home-heating costs on the rise, Gov. Rendell and leaders in Harrisburg should be working day and night to develop policies that will reduce energy prices rather than supporting an LCFS that will prohibit imports of abundant and secure North American energy resources, drive fuel prices even higher and increase worldwide carbon emissions.

Thomas Corcoran is the executive director of the Center for North American Energy Security, in Washington, D.C., and a former U.S. congressman from Illinois.

Clear 31°

Local Commentary

Place Quick Ads