Low-carbon fuel standard
[1] Several bills have been proposed in the United States for similar low-carbon fuel regulation at a national level but with less stringent standards than California.
[9][15] The standard is also aimed to reduce the state's dependence on petroleum, create a market for clean transportation technology, and stimulate the production and use of alternative, low-carbon fuels in California.
[15] As mandated by the Executive Order, a University of California team, led by Daniel Sperling of UC Davis and the late Alexander E. Farrell (UC Berkeley), developed two reports that established the technical feasibility of an LCFS, proposed the methodology to calculate the full life cycle GHG emissions from all fuels sold in the state, identified technical and policy issues, and provided a number of specific recommendations, thus providing an initial framework for the development of CARB's LCFS.
[24] Among relevant and controversial comments submitted to CARB as public letters, on June 24, 2008, a group of 27 scientists and researchers from a number of universities and national laboratories, expressed their concerns arguing that there "is not enough hard empirical data to base any sound policy regulation in regards to the indirect impacts of renewable biofuels production.
The field is relative new, especially when compared to the vast knowledge base present in fossil fuel production, and the limited analyses are driven by assumptions that sometimes lack robust empirical validation.
"[25] With a similar opposing position, on October 23, 2008, a letter submitted to CARB by the New Fuels Alliance, representing more than two-dozen advanced biofuel companies, researchers and investors, questioned the Board intention to include indirect land use change (ILUC).
They argued that "...there are uncertainties inherent in estimating the magnitude of indirect land use emissions from biofuels, but assigning a value of zero is clearly not supported by the science.
[30] The regulation is based on an average declining standard of carbon intensity that is expected to achieve 16 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2020.
[3][5][33][34][35][36] The initial reference value set for 2011 for LCFS means that Mid-west corn ethanol will not meet the California standard unless current carbon intensity is reduced.
A fuel provider meets its compliance obligation by ensuring that amount of credits it earns (or otherwise acquires from another party) is equal to, or greater than, the deficits it has incurred.
The supporting documents and information added to the rule making record include new pathways for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from several sources, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) from dairy digester biogas, biodiesel produced in California from used cooking oil, renewable diesel produced in California from tallow (U.S. sourced), and two additional new pathways for Brazilian sugarcane ethanol which reflect best practices already implemented in some regions of the country.
The assumptions or values for the baseline pathway published in February 2009 are the same, including the estimates of indirect land use change for all Brazilian sugarcane scenarios.
"[50] Additional lawsuits against the California regulation were filed by refiners and truckers including Rocky Mountain Farmers Union; Redwood County Minnesota Corn and Soybean Growers; Penny Newman Grain, Inc.; Red Nederend; Fresno County Farm Bureau; Nisei Farmers League; California Dairy Campaign; National Petrochemical and Refiners Association; American Trucking Associations; Center for North American Energy Security; and the Consumer Energy Alliance.
[53] In 2011, a provision was added to the LCFS that allows refiners to receive credits for the deployment of innovative crude production technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration or solar steam generation.
Located in the North Midway Sunset oil field in Taft, Kern County, California, this facility met the threshold of 0.10gCO2/ MJ carbon intensity (CI) reduction.
[61] In November 2017, GlassPoint announced a partnership with Aera Energy to bring its enclosed trough technology to the South Belridge Oil Field, near Bakersfield, California.
Senators Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and future President Barack Obama introduced in 2007 competing bills with varying versions of California's LCFS.
[64] In March 2009, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill was introduced in the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and it has been praised by top Obama Administration officials.
[68][69] The bill requires a slightly higher targets for reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases than those proposed by President Barack Obama.
"[11][12][72] On May 5, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its notice of proposed rulemaking for implementation of the 2007 modification of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).
EPA's proposed regulations also included the carbon footprint from indirect land-use changes, which, as CARB's ruling, caused controversy among ethanol producers.
[74][79][80][81] An amendment was introduced in the House Appropriations Committee during the discussion of the fiscal 2010 Interior and Environment spending bill, aimed to prohibit EPA to consider indirect land-use changes in the RFS2 ruling for five years.
[83] The Climate Bill was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives with a vote of 219 to 212, and included a mandate for EPA to exclude any estimation of international indirect land use changes due to biofuels for a five-year period for the purposes of the RFS2.
[13] EISA grandfathered existing U.S. corn ethanol plants, and only requires the 20% reduction in life cycle GHG emissions for any renewable fuel produced at new facilities that commenced construction after December 19, 2007.
[11][12][72] EPA also determined that ethanol produced from sugarcane, both in Brazil and Caribbean Basin Initiative countries, complies with the applicable 50% GHG reduction threshold for the advanced fuel category.
[92] The U.S. Renewable Fuels Association also welcomed the ruling, as ethanol producers "require stable federal policy that provides them the market assurances they need to commercialize new technologies."
However, they complained that "EPA continues to rely on oft-challenged and unproven theories such as international indirect land use change to penalize U.S. biofuels to the advantage of imported ethanol and petroleum.
[16] The states developing a regional LCFS are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The Oregon Clean Fuels Standard (CFS) explicitly draws on life-cycle greenhouse gas intensity calculations created or approved by the California Air Resources Board for the LCFS.
[1][105] On January 31, 2007, the European Commission (EC) proposed new standards for transport fuels to reduce full life cycle emissions by up to 10 percent between 2011 and 2020[106] This was three weeks after the California LCFS Directive was announced.
