Comment Log Display

I'm a college student in California, juggling tuition, rent, and
gas for my beat-up sedan--already stretched thin by this state's
insane cost of living. The LCFS keeps driving up fuel prices, and
these amendments pile on more pain for students like me, with
little proof it's cutting carbon enough to matter. Please
reconsider this burden.

Section 95482(h) lets hydrogen with carbon capture count as 80%
renewable by 2030 and skips the 2035 fossil phaseout. More hydrogen
credits mean higher gas prices--already $0.47/gallon extra (CARB
2024 Dashboard), pushing California's $4.80/gallon (AAA April 2025)
way past the $4.00 U.S. average. Section 95483(c) shifts all base
credits to utilities and EV rewards, even motorcycles--nothing for
gas users like me. Sections 95486.3 and 95486.4 boost hydrogen
station credits with bigger derates and no caps, favoring ZEVs
while I pay more to commute to class.

Gas is 15% of my $20k/year budget--$300 extra yearly when driving
roughly 10k miles a year. Rent's $1,400/month, tuition's $7k (CSU
2024)--I'm drowning, and 85% of us drive gas/diesel (15M vehicles,
DMV 2024). LCFS costs jumped 47% since 2017 (CARB), but emissions
only fell 7% (174MMT to 162MMT, CARB 2023)--$17B for 37MMT since
2007 isn't worth it when EVs hog 70% of credits (2024 data) and gas
covers 70% of deficits.

I'm studying, working part-time--not slacking. Why should I fund
hydrogen or EV rebates when carbon emissions barely budges? These
changes squeeze students harder. Shift credits to ease gas costs
for those of us who are already doing the most we can.