A week after taking aim at greenhouse gas emissions produced by chip makers, California has set its sights on a new target: climate change pollution generated by transportation fuels.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) released proposed regulations for a Low Carbon Fuel Standard last week to reduce transportation fuel emissions 10 percent by 2020. By requiring fuel providers to sell cleaner fuels, regulators expect about 20 percent of fuel used in the state will be supplanted with alternatives, such as biofuels, hydrogen and electricity.
The public has 45 days to comment on the proposal but the new rules are already facing stiff resistance from the corn ethanol industry, which is urging CARB to reject its staff's recommendations and arguing the new rules unfairly penalize ethanol using unproven science.
"This is academics gone wild," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark, now a co-chair of Growth Energy, a coalition of ethanol producers, during a conference call with reporters Friday. "This is not common sense."
At issue is the CARB staff's recommendations to include greenhouse gas emissions from indirect land use change in the calculation of biofuel carbon intensity, even though similar impacts aren't used in the intensity calculations of other fuels.
Intensity is based on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced during the fuel's production, transportation and consumption. For biofuels, intensity will include additional emissions from worldwide price-induced land changes that may arise from increased biofuel production. This is based on the premise that more demand for feedstocks, such as corn, drives up prices worldwide, leading to deforestation as farmers clear land and forests to plant potentially profitable biofuel crops.
Blake Simmons, a scientist at Sandia National Laboratories, applauded the state's leadership in addressing climate change but said there were big deficiencies in how emissions from indirect land use changes were being applied in the proposed regulations. Simmons and more than 100 scientists wrote a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week arguing the science is too limited for regulatory enforcement and should not be applied selectively when indirect land use change effects for all fuels are not completely understood.
The industry instead is calling for California to lead an international effort to study impacts from indirect land use changes in all fuels, and warned factoring in these emissions when calculating biofuel carbon intensity will have a chilling effect on investment in next generation biofuels.
Patricia Monahan, deputy director for clean vehicles with the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued the proposed rules would have the opposite effect and send a clear signal to investors.
"It's going to direct investment into truly clean biofuels in the future," she said.
There are no scientific studies showing other fuels generate significant indirect land use change impacts, she said, adding that these impacts may be unique to biofuels. She called the industry's argument a red herring.
"I think they're trying to dodge a significant source of emissions from biofuels by saying it's not fair," she said.
Corn ethanol interests have been treated remarkably well under the proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard, said Dan Sperling, a professor of civil engineering and environmental science and policy at the University of California at Davis and founding director of the Institute of Transportation Studies.
The proposed regulations, for instance, deal with corn ethanol in California more favorably than corn ethanol from outside the state because production here tends to be more energy efficient and less reliant on coal, Sperling said. Also, the baseline blend will increase from E5.7 to E10.
"This is crucial because it means that the corn ethanol production can greatly expand in California (from 5.7 percent to 10 percent of total gasoline) without worrying about meeting the Low Carbon Fuel Standard carbon intensity reductions," Sperling said via email.
The ethanol industry wants the federal government to raise the baseline for most gasoline blends in the nation from 10 percent to 15 percent. Growth Energy petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday to raise the blend baseline in order to increase demand and create jobs, although some are raising questions about the impact on vehicle, boat and equipment engines.
California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, along with new regulations targeting highly potent gases used in semiconductor operations, are part of a series of early action steps undertaken by CARB to meet the goals of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32. The legislation aims to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Browse
Engage
Research









You really think SUVs make that much difference
It is 50 years of investing in interstate highways instead of public transportation, 50 years of suburban sprawl, vacations to Disney, new ball parks, new shopping malls, new stuff in your house. Unless you literally live under a rock YOU have helped create the demand where it is today. The trouble is government directly or indirectly picks winners and losers based upon politics, not science, business acumen or efficiency.
4 Ethanol
Ethanol creates American Jobs.
Ethanol can displace oil 2 to 1 by energy content and volume.
Ethanol offers a reduction in emission and green house gases.
Ethanol in higher blends (E15) in non flex vehicles will not hurt the vehicle and on average will not reduce mileage, have studies to show this.
Ethanol does not displace the amount of corn as reported, the amount of protein that remains from the ethanol process is being feed to cattle, dairy and poultry. This amount is displacing over half the market value of corn heading to the ethanol plant verses the original feeding value.
Ethanol does not raise food prices like reported on the news. Less than 17% of corn goes directly to the food industry while speculators in Chicago drove up the commodities just like they did with oil and precious metals.
Ethanol can feed people, new plant designs can separate the protein from the starch prior to the fermentation and allow production of food grade protein. We always hear about diet issues here and abroad, we are a starch rich protein deficient world.
Ethanol does not use vast amounts of water unless you want to figure in the rain, most ethanol plants are zero water discharge with only the cooling towers giving off water vapor for cooling. Look at the water use for refining gasoline.
Ethanol is not responsible for rain forest destruction. There was a 4% reduction in acres of corn planted last year with another reduction forecasted this year. Reports are that vast amounts of rain forest are being harvested for the hard wood while we shut down our forest and subject them to fire.
Ethanol can displace most if not all the oil we import from the middle east. With the combination of corn based, cellulose & wood ethanol production. When we trade with ourselves we have both the product and the money. We need a fair and balanced approach.
Ethanol value can be raised to and above the value of gasoline if the future of ethanol gained its needed review. We can use ethanol more efficiently then current uses today but not when people hear and believe the false claims.
Ethanol can help other third world countries. America dumps our cheap commodities on the world market making it difficult for farmers in S America, Eastern Europe or Africa to be productive or make a living.
SUV drivers should foot the bill for military costs...
Why don't they just ban ethanol and get it over with?
Ethanol has been a boondoggle from the start. It's just another payout/subsidy for farmers - except their no longer producing food.
We should lower the national speed limit to 60 m.p.h. That would decrease our imports of oil by at least five percent and set oil prices crashing to the ground.
We should tax SUV's at $1,000 per vehicle per year. With approximately 53 million SUV's on the road right now, the added tax would help to pay off the cost of the Iraq war by those who should be bearing the cost.
Insane SUV drivers should be footing the bill for all our military costs to protect oil in the middle east.
Thank you.