Comment Log Display

We, from Climate Action California, recommend that the Board not
approve the Proposed Amendments to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
(LCFS). 

My comments cover five points. First, your Environmental Justice
Advisory Committee's proposal to cap biomass-based diesel credits
at 1.2 billion gallons per year should be adopted instead of the
proposed guardrails for crop-based biomass-based diesel that are
inadequate and flawed. Second, the just-announced, reckless
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Partnership should not be adopted. Third,
the transition to electric passenger vehicles needs to be
accelerated, as recommended by the United Nations Environment
Program's recent 2024 Emissions Gap Report, by incorporating
popular EV programs, inactive because of budget cuts, into the LCFS
and changing the Advanced Clean Cars II date for selling only new
light-duty electric vehicles in California to 2030. Fourth, caps on
ethanol need to be introduced. Fifth, the link between rising food
prices and increasing credits for crop-based biofuels should be
acknowledged and measured.

1) Adopt the EJAC's proposal to cap biomass-based diesel credits at
1.2 billion gallons (DGE) per year instead of the proposed
guardrails for crop-based biomass-based diesel 
In general, the proposal's estimated reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions hinge on the accuracy of the estimated carbon
intensity(CI) values for alternative fuels. We find all the
estimates for alternative combustion fuels to be underestimated,
some so much so that they should not be entitled to any credits.
Indirect land use change (ILUC) estimates have not been
re-evaluated since 2015. Satellite data since then has shown that
tropical forest destruction rates due to conversion to agriculture
have accelerated. This increase in deforestation rates has been
linked to increases in biofuel usage. A University of Maryland land
use model, based on its Carbon Tracker satellite data, estimates
the carbon intensity of all vegetable oil-based diesels to be
greater than fossil diesel's CI. European Union(EU) models reach
the same conclusion. To stem deforestation, the EU capped credits
for all lipid-based diesels used for road transport at 2020
consumption levels. ARB's delay in updating its ILUC values has
allowed renewable diesel consumption in California to reach
unsustainable levels. This needs to be checked and reversed.

The proposed guardrails for crop-based biomass-based diesel are
insufficient and would encourage fraud and deforestation. It is
easy to mislabel vegetable oil as used cooking oil and difficult to
detect. Guard rails for biomass-based diesel only work if they
apply to all lipid feedstocks. 

2) Do not adopt the reckless Sustainable Aviation Fuel Partnership
with Airlines for America
The proposed Sustainable Aviation Fuel Partnership with Airlines
for America is shockingly irresponsible. Currently, there are no
actually sustainable aviation fuels available, except possibly used
cooking oil and animal fat, but the supply of these is fixed and
already receiving credits in the US and EU.  In 2023, the EU
introduced mandates for sustainable aviation fuel for intra-EU
flights. It disallowed crop-based fuels from receiving any credits,
but it did not cap used cooking oil or animal fat for SAF
crediting. As a result UCO imports increased dramatically. Recent
investigations discovered that most of the imports were actually
palm oil. This is what California can expect, if it bothers to look
closely enough. This is an irresponsible partnership that will
destroy tropical forests, boreal forests and the few remaining
natural grasslands in this country. It makes a mockery of the US
pledge, along with 136 other countries, at COP 26 to end
deforestation by 2030. This agreement alone is reason enough to
vote against the proposed amendments.  If CARB wants to give SAF
credits, it should limit them to domestic supplies of animal fats
and used cooking oils and discontinue eligibility of those residues
for biomass-based diesel credits. In any case, credits for
lipid-based SAF should be included in the 1.2 billion gallon cap
proposed by the EJAC.

3) The transition to electric passenger vehicles needs to be
accelerated, as recommended by the United Nations Environment
Program's 2024 Emissions Gap Report, by incorporating popular EV
programs, inactive because of budget cuts, into the LCFS and
changing the Advanced Clean Cars II date for selling only new 
light duty electric vehicles in California to 2030

The United Nations Environment Program just released its 2024
Emissions Gap Report, recommending that countries concentrate on
accelerating programs with agreed-upon, cost-effective
technological solutions in order to keep 2030 and 2035 climate
goals in sight. The programs recommended for acceleration were
renewable electricity, passenger electric vehicles and halting
deforestation. This is what California should be doing to meet its
2030 and 2035 emissions reductions goals. California's EV market
share of new vehicle sales failed to increase this year. Popular
rebate programs such as the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project(CVRP) and
Clean Cars 4 All were not funded in last year's budget, nor this
year's or next year's estimated budget. Similarly, the major
utilities stopped issuing rebates under their California Clean Fuel
Reward program in 2022.  We strongly recommend that the CVRP and
Clean Cars 4 All programs be incorporated into the LCFS program so
they will be consistently funded. This would ensure an adequate
supply of credits for fossil fuel producers to purchase as
biomass-based credits are reduced.

Norway has shown that people will purchase EVs if financial
incentives are large enough to make them substantially cheaper than
internal combustion energy (ICE) vehicles. Starting in January,
Norway will sell only electric passenger vehicles, 10 years ahead
of California's schedule. Other European countries will stop
selling new ICE vehicles beginning in 2030. Instead of eliminating
rebates for EVs when California's adoption of passenger EVs seemed
to be ahead of schedule, ARB should have moved the date for ceasing
new ICE vehicle sales up to 2030. This in conjunction with more
credits for the transition to electric vehicles, including trucks,
would ensure that greenhouse gas emission reductions exceed those
of the current proposal. While fossil fuel sales might increase
initially, by 2030 and beyond they would be much lower. California
must focus on known solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
not on combustion fuels for which scientist's don't agree whether
they actually reduce emissions or not. 

4) Caps on ethanol need to be introduced

The latest research on ethanol consumption in the US from 2008-2016
concluded that the rapid adoption of ethanol during this period
failed to reduce greenhouse emissions. It estimated the carbon
intensity of corn ethanol to be greater than that of the gasoline
it replaced. This supports phasing out corn ethanol credits, not
allowing them to increase in the future as many airlines and
ethanol producers are planning on. 

5) The link between increasing crop-based alternative fuels and
rising food prices must be acknowledged and measured 

Governor Newsom has focused on the link between the LCFS and rising
gas prices, but has failed to recognize the stronger link between
the LCFS and rising food prices. Numerous studies have commented on
this link which presents a compelling reason for phasing out
crop-based fuels before 2030. 

The LCFS's tragic preference for combustion fuels is uncientific,
outdated and harmful to all of us. Scientific experts have
identified acceleration of the transitions to clean electricity and
to electric cars and trucks as our best option for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and 2035 sufficiently to keep
Paris Agreement goals alive. ARB should listen more to these
experts and less to the renewable fuel providers that are profiting
financially from the LCFS.