Comment Log Display

Here is the comment you selected to display.

Comment #109 for Public Workshop to Discuss Potential Changes to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
(lcfs-wkshp-jul22-ws) - 1st Workshop

First Name: Dr. Robert T.
Last Name: Do
Email Address: Rtdo@sgh2energy.com
Affiliation
SubjectCARB Workshop Comments SGH2 Energy
Comment
1. In reference to the slide below:
a. Methane GWP:  According to the UN IPCC latest report as well as the Methane Cap regulations endorsed by 197 countries including the US at COP27, Methane is considered to have a GWP of 86 X CO2 over the next 20 years.  Evaluating Methane global warming potential over the next 20 years is the ONLY way to accurately evaluate the impact of Methane considering the near term objective of the State of CA and of the US to lower CO2 emissions by 50% in 2030 .  Yet, the CARB uses a GWP of 25 X CO2 for Methane based on a 100 year impact.  This is contradictory to all current scientific notation because Methane dissipate over the twenty year timeframe and create its most harmful impact to the Global warming during the first 20 years, hence it is no universally considered to have a GWP of 85 X CO2.
 
We highly recommend that CARB adopt the same standards as the US Federal Govt and the UN IPCC in this regards to evaluate Methnae GWP over 20 years and not over 100 years.
 
b. Methane Avoidance credits:   There have been many applications to CARB to accept environmental attributes ( EAs ) from biomethane and use these EAs to convert fuels in the State into carbon negative H2 using EAs from biomethane created in dairy farms and landfills from other states.   This is highly unusual and have created unusually low carbon negative credits in the State of CA while these biomethane are located in other states, and crowding out opportunities for companies generating carbon negative Hydrogen and fuels in CA.
 
c. BECS:  BioEnergy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration was presented by CEC/CARB to be one of the major tool to reduce CO2 by using carbon neutral biomass energy with carbon capture and sequestration which will lead to Carbon Negative Hydroen and energy.  This should be incentivized with higher LCFS credits as additional costs must be incurred for the CCS on BioEnergy projects.
 
We recommend that Methane avoidance credits should only be allowed if the biomethane is created or avoided IN STATE inside California in order earn LCFS credits from CARB.  We Further recommend clear pathways for BECS and increased LCFS benefits.
 
 
2.  Book and Claim:  Book and claim has been approved for RECs to use for the production of hydrogen from electrolysis.  This allows hydrogen to be produced from non renewable power using grid power with book and claim.  To be consistent, similar book and claim for RECs should also be allowed for the production of Hydrogen from the thermal conversion of biogenic waste and biomass.
 
3. Carbon Capture and Sequestration: while CCS is a big component of CARB policy, there are tremendous obstacles for CCS to be implemented in CA due to the lack of certified Sequestration sites, nor logistics to facilitate the sequestration of CO2 in the State.
 
We recommend that CARB fast track several sites for CO2 sequestration in the STate and provide clear incentives for the infrastructure and logistics development to facilitate CCS in the State.

 

Dr.Robert T.Do

Chief Executive Officer

SGH2 Energy Global 

Attachment

Original File Name:

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2022-08-08 16:38:41


If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.

Board Comments Home