Comment Log Display

I'd like to thank CARB staff and the Board for their work on this.

There is a fundamental tension in the LCFS that echoes the debate
around AB 52 (global warming act) and AB 617 (community air
protection program).  The stakeholders that are endorsing this well
spoken individuals paid to work in this area, who are likely to
directly profit from this 'green' transition.  This is a huge
program and it has large ramifications for business, consumers, and
many other residents of California.

Unfortunately, this LCFS is not supported by the communities that
are disproportionately impacted by existing facilities where these
fuels will be produced or used. We don't stand to make any money
from this, other than maybe some air monitoring to quantify how
disproportionately impacted communities are affected.  We just get
the negative externalities - refineries, water quality impacts, and
increased truck traffic that goes up 60% during a time when
population growth is projected to be flat.     

I urge the Board to get the buy-in of communities that live next to
these facilities in addition to those of the business stakeholders.
 It is not enough to just please the business community.  EJAC and
EJ communities should not be sidelined when developing policies of
this magnitude, but that is what this proposal has done.  Some of
the business stakeholders need to be made sad, it can't just be on
the backs of our most vulnerable and marginalized communities.  

Thank you for your attention to this matter.