What Was the House Thinking?

How did you get to work, to school, or to the grocery store today? If you're like most Americans, you took some form of transportation powered by gasoline or diesel fuel. In the United States, where personal mobility is critically important, fuels refined from oil are a necessity. They power cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, trains, and are integral to the American way of life.

So, why did the U.S. House of Representatives pass a bill that could force the United States to depend on other countries for transportation fuels?

A study conducted by EnSys Energy and commissioned by API shows the House-passed Waxman-Markey climate bill could double the amount of refined products imported into the United States, reducing this nation's energy security and sending refinery jobs overseas.

If the Waxman-Markey bill is enacted, U.S. refiners would be held responsible for 44 percent of carbon emissions--the emissions from their own operations plus all of the carbon resulting from transportation sources. But the bill would give U.S. refiners only 2.25 percent of the carbon allowances, which means they'd have to purchase carbon credits. That not only raises their cost of doing business, but also it puts them at a competitive disadvantage to foreign refiners who don't have to buy carbon credits.

According to EnSys Energy, U.S. refining throughput could plummet by as much as nearly 25 percent (4.4 million barrels a day), U.S. refinery capacity could fall sharply, and investment in U.S. refineries could fall by as much $90 billion, a decline of 88 percent, by 2030. Furthermore, since foreign refineries often don't have to adhere to U.S. stringent pollution standards, the lower emissions from U.S. refineries would be offset by emission increases in other countries.

At least one U.S. refinery already has gone on the record saying it would have to shut down if the bill were passed.

What were members of Congress thinking? They passed a bill that could make it harder for refiners to stay in business, reduce refining capacity, reduce U.S. energy security, and ship jobs and pollution overseas. Let's hope the Senate rejects this bill and crafts a climate bill that does not place an unfair burden on the producers and consumers of transportation fuels.

Comments

Related

Blog Posts

Still Waiting for Cellulosic Biofuels – EPA Continues...

To pretty much no one’s surprise, EPA announced Friday that it is denying a petition that it reconsider its 2011 advanced cellulosi...

Blog Posts

On Disclosure Rule, SEC Should Heed White House

Common sense should be applied to a federal transparency proposal – the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s pending Section 1...

Blog Posts

Higher Supply = Higher Prices or NRDC Flunks Econ 101

Who could have imagined the day would come when the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) crafted a report focused on relieving...

Blog Posts

Apples, Oranges, and the Oil Sands

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) added to the pile of conflicting well-to-wheels analyses with its report released this wee...

Blog Posts

Stop-Gap Energy vs. Stable Energy

Scroll down a bit in this wrap-up of last weekend’s G8 Summit from The Hill newspaper, and you’ll see that the president and other...

Blog Posts

Made in America: Increase Access for Secure Energy Futu...

American-made energy. With the Energy Information Administration projecting that the United States will need more than 16 percent a...

Blog Posts

In an Election Year, Time to Talk Energy

Just a thought, but how great would it be if one of this fall’s presidential debates focused solely on energy issues? Past presid...

Blog Posts

Watch Live: Energy in an Election Year

.blog #main .post-body .video-wrapper { width:500px; height:418px; padding:0; overflow:visible; margin:0 auto 18px; } ....

Blog Posts

Job Creation To-Do List? Here’s Ours

Here’s the president talking about job creation Tuesday in Albany, N.Y.: “Now, we know the true engine of job creation in this...

Blog Posts

To the President’s Ear: Build the Keystone XL

In an interview with Fox Business Channel this week, billionaire Warren Buffett voiced support for construction of the Keystone XL...

Blog Posts

Facts, Not Excuses, Should Guide Decision on Re-Routed...

It’s good to hear that TransCanada has submitted its new application for a presidential permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline. T...

Blog Posts

All For Efficiency

A recent post on the White House Blog updates the administration’s effort to see federal agencies make at least $2 billion in energ...

Blog Posts

Hey, Jay Carney, You Forgot Something!

POLITICO Pro Energy reports that while talking to reporters about crucifixion comments by EPA’s Region 6 administrator, White House...

Blog Posts

‘If I Wanted America to Fail …’

Here’s an abbreviated version of a video by Free Market America on administration policies that the group says are undermining dome...

Blog Posts

EPA Regulation and Crucifixion

Fox News reports that EPA’s Region 6 administrator has apologized for comparing his agency’s enforcement strategy to Roman crucifix...

Blog Posts

The Right and Wrong Side of the Energy Divide

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar talked about a divide in America between the “real energy world and the imagined energy world” durin...

Blog Posts

No More Excuses on Keystone XL

In response to a question about the Keystone XL pipeline back in January, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters: “[...

Blog Posts

Mr. President, Approve This Pipeline

No more political posturing, no more pretending the only thing holding up the Keystone XL pipeline is that it needs more study, Mr....

Blog Posts

Administration’s Energy Proposals: Less Than Meets th...

With a nod to H.L. Mencken, who made art out of presidential punditry nearly a century ago, the current president’s election-year e...

Blog Posts

The President’s Actions, and Rising Prices

Is President Obama the “anti-energy” president, as former Gov. Pete Du Pont argues in an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal (s...

Stay Connected