CARB votes 9-1 for California Low Carbon Fuel Standard; moves up indirect land use review to Jan 2011 in response to outcry on ILUC
The California Air Resources Board voted 9-1 yesterday in favor of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
In California, the state Air Resource Board approved the Low Carbon Fuel Standard by a vote of 9-1, ushering in a new era of fuel regulation and emission control, including the approval of a controversial penalty on indirect land use change for biofuels. The regulations will take effect in 2011.
The board made only one substantive change to the staff proposal, moving up the expected date of a expert working group report on indirect land use change from January 2012 to January 2011. The board expressed the wish that the accelerated review date would give the working group time to more thoroughly investigate the specific penalty for indirect land use change and correct it if possible.
The low carbon fuel standard sets a baseline of 96 grams of carbon per megajoule of energy and gradually reduces that number towards a 10 percent drop by 2020.
Corn ethanol has been initially assessed at 77-99 grams of carbon per megajoule by adding a 30 gram penalty for indirect land use change to its tailpipe emissions. The ethanol industry was up in arms over what it called hastily-assembled science used to determine the size of the penalty. Biofuels supporters in general were critical of the fact that other fuels were not thoroughly investigated for indirect impacts, calling the process unfair.
The CARB staff said that they would be reporting back to the Board on indirect impacts of other fuel pathways before the commencement of the standard in 2011. Numerous states and the federal government are investigating a low carbon fuel standard for their own jurisdictions, which is less prescriptive than the Renewable Fuel Standard and sets a clear carbon target, which the CARB staff said would, in their view, lead to more innovation. The federal Markey-Waxman Bill, which would establish a national low carbon fuel standard, is expected to emerge from the House Energy and Commerce Committee by Memorial Day.
The lone dissenter in the vote, Dr. John Telles, said that he had “hard time accepting the fact that we’re going to ignore the comments of 125 scientists”, pointing to a letter submitted by Blake Simmons of Sandia National Laboratories on behalf of a 125-scientist group questioning the indirect land use change penalty. “They said the model was not good enough,” to use at this time as a component part of such an historic new standard. of the state’s goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
Roland Hwang, Transportation Program Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement: “Business as usual is not going to work for the ethanol industry, and we hope that they will meet this challenge with the same spirit of innovation that makes California the center of clean technology. The ethanol industry needs to become a bridge, not a roadblock to America’s clean energy future.”
Grist published an editorial in support of the LCFS just prior to the Board’s vote yesterday evening, opining that “Corn ethanol would be, for lack of a better word, banned from the Golden State. Amplifying the significance of the ruling is the expectation that a large group of Northeastern states will adopt California’s standard.”
Free Subscription to the Daily Biofuels Digest e-newsletter
Subscribe FREE to the world's most-widely read biofuels daily. Enter your email in the box below,
Related Stories
Hot Topics
The Hottest 50 Companies in Bioenergy
Latest algae-to-energy news
Latest jatropha news
Latest Waste-to-energy news
Entry Information
Filed Under: Featured • Top Story
Comments: 1 | Post a Comment | Trackback URL
Post a Comment | Trackback URL
You must be logged in to post a comment.
millercs | Sep 23, 2009 | Reply
RE: Roland Hwang, Transportation Program Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said… “The ethanol industry needs to become a bridge, not a roadblock to America’s clean energy future.”
This is one of the most obtuse statements I have ever read.
The ethanol industry, including corn, IS rapidly developing as a bridge to America’s clean energy future. Unfortunately, it is the NRDC and other NGOs that idealize what technology should be able to do that are the true “roadblocks” to that future. Biomass is regional and for the Midwest – whose ethanol industry helped us stem the gasoline price spike while providing over a billion gallons of biogenic oxygenic alternative to toxic, fossil MTBEs – the most sustainable feedstock is corn. In the S.E. the feedstock will be ag and wood residues. In B.C. it will be beetle-kill timber. In cities it will be MSW – IF, and only IF, Luddite NGOs stop roadblocking the development of new technologies by crippling the ones that work. We can NOT get anywhere near to the many near perfect solutions we will need to tackle GHG without first deploying many good, locally sustainable solutions based on indigenous resources. Put a reasonable limit on emissions – that’s understandable. But to put a highly speculative iLUC handicap on some feedstocks is as obstructive as insisting on a zero emissions standard. Who will ever invest in such a scenario? No wonder California is heading for bankruptcy. More important for the NGOs – how can we address our serious GHG and climate change issues if we hinder and delay private industry’s RD&D of solutions? Meanwhile the clock is ticking.