California fuels rule sparks controversy

Text Size

Print

E-mail

Reprints

By Juliet Eilperin,
Just as it pioneered curbs on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks a decade
ago, California is championing standards that could transform the fuel that goes into their
tanks.
But its new rule, which requires lowering the amount of carbon in fuel sold in the state, has
become embroiled in a fierce public battle and has been barred from being enforced. In light
of tight state budgets, litigation over Californias program and a strong lobbying campaign
against them, the question is whether the ambitious climate policy will get off the ground.
27
Comments

Weigh In

Corrections?

To us, its the most credible and powerful mechanism we can put in place, said Dan
Sperling, a member of Californias Air Resources Board and director of the Institute of
Transportation Studies at University of California-Davis. Its an incentive to invest in other
things besides oil.
Many oil industry officials in the United States and overseas say the standards are too
complex, will drive up gas prices and cannot be met given the current supply of petroleum
alternatives.
Charles T. Drevna, president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, said the
policy sounds really good at the 30,000-foot level but added, When you get down to terra
firma, its a giant energy tax and a fuel rationing scheme.
The premise of Californias rule as well as its European counterpart, the E.U. Fuel
Quality Directive is that goals for cutting greenhouse gases can only be met if the
transportation sector begins to move away from fossil fuels.

The new standards assign carbon intensity values to roughly 250 types of crude (higher
carbon) along with other fuels including ethanol, electricity and hydrogen, all lower
carbon that power cars and trucks.
They call for reducing the overall carbon content of fuel sold in the state 10 percent by 2020.
Refiners will either have to mix low-carbon fuels into what they sell over time in order to
make the required cuts or buy credits to offset the amount by which the fuel they sell exceeds
the standards.
The state projects that the standard would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 23 million
tons in 2020, according to Simon Mui, a scientist at the advocacy group Natural Resources
Defense Council.
Lawmakers in at least 18 other states, as well as in Washington, started looking at adopting
similar clean-air standards over the past few years as a way of cutting greenhouse gas
emissions both regionally and nationwide. But now several have either dropped or suspended
their plans. Pennsylvania and New Jersey have opted out of a program developed by
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. Maine announced late last month it
will withdraw, and New Hampshires legislature is considering legislation that would bar the
state from spending money on the initiative. Low-carbon fuel standards in Washington state
and Oregon are also on hold.
The Midwestern Governors Association abandoned its proposal after its membership flipped
last year from seven Democrats and three Republicans to three Democrats and seven
Republicans.