Comment Log Display

Dear Chair Randolph and CARB Board Members,
I am writing on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors to
express our serious concerns with
the proposed "Second 15-Day Changes" to the Low Carbon Fuel
Standard (LCFS) regulations.
Specifically, we are perplexed by the seemingly arbitrary
requirements to limit LCFS crediting to
hydrogen that is at least 80% renewable starting in 2030 and the
prohibition of blue hydrogen from
generating credits beginning in 2035. The proposed changes outlined
in Section 95482(h) will add
unnecessary complexity and limit cost-e􀆯ective
decarbonization options for the state. Furthermore,
the changes are likely to create market uncertainty for hydrogen
suppliers and discourage investment
in future projects that are critical to Kern's economic development
strategy.
Kern has been integral in helping the state achieve its current
levels of renewable energy generation.
We have sited and permitted over 21,000 MW of renewable wind and
solar and over 17,000 MWh of
lithium battery storage. The County has also invested in Department
of Energy LEAP grants in an e􀆯ort
to diversify our economy and advance the state's ambitious climate
goals. Last week, our Board
approved California's first ever carbon capture and storage (CCS)
project which included a final
environmental impact report containing hundreds of conditions and
mitigation measures to ensure
the safety of our community. These projects highlight Kern's
strategic initiative and forward thinking
aimed at attracting clean energy industries to our county,
including hydrogen.
The proposed change to prohibit credits for blue hydrogen by 2035
completely ignores the time it
takes to construct projects in California due to CEQA. As it stands
today, this type of project would
not be operational until 2027 at the earliest, leaving only eight
years for a project to make use of the
credits. Such a short timeframe essentially makes these types of
projects uneconomical. Current
projections suggest that hydrogen fuel for heavy trucks is not
expected to achieve 80-100% of market
share until at least 2050, with no assurances that even those
target goals can be achieved. Green
hydrogen is operationally unproven and requires accessory solar
installations that make siting these
projects a challenge.
In addition, limitations on electricity connections and the use of
solar owned by large-scale
commercial producers need to be addressed by the California Energy
Commission, California
Independent System Operator, and California Public Utilities
Commission to make green hydrogen a
viable option. These regulatory agencies must engage in rulemaking
on these critical issues if green
hydrogen is to play a role in the state's energy transition plan.
A more appropriate approach to the hydrogen dilemma would be to
scale up the period for blue
hydrogen crediting to at least 2045 to better align with the
state's renewable energy production goals.
With review under CEQA and full mitigation of criteria pollutants
down to "no net increase" through
capture and permanent storage of CO2, these projects could make
tangible impacts right now while
the issues hampering green hydrogen are ironed out. The 2035 sunset
is a departure from a
technology-neutral, market-based approach and sends a clear message
to investors that California's
regulatory agencies may arbitrarily change rules and negatively
impact the investment landscape.
Investors need certainty. This change will inevitably and
unnecessarily strand existing assets and
deter future investments. The LCFS should continue to preserve
consumer choice by providing a level
playing field for all technologies, embracing fuel- and
technology-neutral principles that focus on the
meaningful and timely reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Here at home, Kern is doing its part to keep the lights on for
Californians and find solutions that will
help the state achieve its long-term climate goals. The impending
loss of close to $80 million per year
that the local oil and gas industry contributes directly and
indirectly to our bottom line cannot be
ignored. These revenues provide essential services and contribute
to the overall quality of life our
residents expect and deserve. We're looking for common sense
policies from our state government
and regulatory agencies that promote economic diversification and
prosperity, not prevent it before
it even begins. Your Board has an opportunity to make sure that
happens.
For these reasons, the Kern County Board of Supervisors
respectfully opposes the proposed changes
outlined in Section 95482(h) and asks CARB to delay this vote to
allow your sta􀆯, interested
stakeholders, and the public more time to analyze the long-term
economic impacts these policies
will have on California. There simply needs to be more time and
opportunity to properly vet these
critical issues.
Sincerely,
David Couch, Chairman
Kern County Board of Supervisors
cc: The Honorable Gavin Newsom, Governor of California
Honorable Members, Kern legislative delegation
California State Association of Counties
Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department
Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange