Chamber Slams State’s Energy Goal

The California Chamber of Commerce on Thursday blasted a state agency’s goal of sharply reducing petroleum consumption as an arbitrary policy that would cost motorists $8 billion a year and eliminate 90,000 jobs.

In a study funded by the chamber, economist Michael Keeley laid out an economic critique of the California Energy Commission’s 2005 energy policy report.

The costs and job losses would be steep, he said, because energy commissioners “want to cap petroleum fuel use at 15% below the 2003 levels” by 2020.

That was news to the energy panel. In fact, the goal cited by Keeley was part of a 2-year-old document and is not in the 2005 energy policy report that was released late last year.

The current report is “silent on the subject of a percentage reduction in the demand for petroleum,” said James Boyd, vice chairman of the Energy Commission.

“Instead, it emphasizes the need to expand the fuel pool by bringing in alternative fuels,” Boyd said.

Keeley, who has consulted for oil companies, also rejected as too costly a commission recommendation to mandate the use of alternative fuels. Although the energy agency doesn’t suggest a mandate, it does propose a state goal of increasing alternative fuel use to 20% of consumption by 2020 and to 30% by 2030.

The chamber and Keeley also presented a fuel policy blueprint for the state.

The chamber recommended that California remove cumbersome permitting to help expand the fuel infrastructure, fund research into fuel-efficiency and related technologies, educate the public about saving fuel and buy fuel-efficient and alternative-fuel vehicles for its fleets.

Those items are either already underway or recommended by the commission, Boyd said.

Those steps, along with a heavy reliance on “market forces, subject to environmental concerns,” represent the best path to reliable and affordable fuel, chamber President Allan Zaremberg told reporters Thursday.