Comment Log Display

I'm a young tradesman, a cell tower climber, relying on my gas
truck to chase work across California. The LCFS keeps jacking up
fuel costs while barely denting carbon emissions, and these
amendments make it worse for folks like me. I urge CARB to rethink
this.

The Section 95482(h) change lets hydrogen with carbon capture dodge
the 2035 fossil phaseout and count as 80% renewable by 2030. More
hydrogen credits mean higher deficits for gas/diesel when there is
already $0.47/gallon extra on gas ($4.80 CA vs. $4.00 U.S., AAA
April 2025). Section 95483(c) dumps all base credits to utilities
and EV rewards, even motorcycles, cutting gas/diesel relief.
Sections 95486.3/95486.4 juice hydrogen station credits--bigger
derates, no caps--pushing ZEV buildout while I pay more to fill
up.

This hits hard for me at roughly $500/year extra for 25k miles,
assuming 12 MPG, when 85% of us drive gas/diesel (15M vehicles, DMV
2024). LCFS costs soared 47% since 2017 (CARB Dashboard), but
transportation emissions dropped just 7% (174MMT to 162MMT, CARB
2023). That's $17B for peanuts; 37MMT reduced since 2007 (CARB)
isn't worth it when credits favor EVs (70%, 2024 data) and leave
gas/diesel footing 70% of deficits on 30% of supply.

I work out-of-town jobs with high physical risk for my money. Why
should I subsidize hydrogen stations or EV rebates when emissions
barely budge? These changes deepen the squeeze without proof they
work. Pull back--focus credits on gas/diesel relief, not ZEV
handouts. Let workers breathe, not just green tech.