SACRAMENTO, April 23, 2009
Calif. Adopts Low-Carbon Fuel Rule
First-In-The-Nation Regulation Mandates 10 Percent Cut In Carbon By 2020
-
Joshua Berry, 10, of Oakland, right, joins his mother, Ladasha Berry, left, to protest the use of biofuels as state air regulators consider new low-carbon fuel rules in Sacramento, Calif., April 23, 2009. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
-
Section Living Green Global warming is giving nuclear power a new claim to clean.
-
Photo Essay Earth Day 2009 Around the world, people celebrate the planet and the environment.
The standards approved by the California Air Resources Board are expected to create a new market for alternative fuels and set the stage for a national debate on the future of the country's transportation system.
"I think we're creating the framework for a new way of looking at automotive fuels where no longer will gasoline derived by petroleum be the only game in town," board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said.
The action comes as Congress is debating a national climate bill that features a low-carbon fuel standard modeled after California's. President Barack Obama also has supported the idea.
California's standard calls for cutting the carbon content of the fuels sold in California by 10 percent by 2020. It does so using a groundbreaking approach, by counting all the emissions required to deliver gasoline and diesel to California consumers - from drilling a new oil well or planting corn to transporting it to gas stations.
Environmentalists, public health representatives and supporters of alternative fuels supported the rules as critical to helping California meet its goals to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They also hoped the standards would promote the further development of electric cars.
The air board voted 9-1 to adopt the rules, with member Ronald Loveridge absent.
Some representatives of the ethanol industry, which had expected to profit from the low-carbon mandate, argued that California's new rules would leave them out. They said regulators overstated the negative environmental effects of making corn-based ethanol.
They were especially critical of the air board's decision to tie global deforestation and other land conversions to biofuel production in the United States.
For example, air board scientists said Brazil has converted rainforest into soybean plantations as a direct result of the growth in corn-based ethanol in the U.S. As farmers here plant more corn and fewer soybean fields, other countries must find a way to make up the difference.
The destruction of forests and grasslands elsewhere to do that would count against ethanol producers in the U.S. under the formula adopted by the Air Resources Board.
The new rule calls for cutting the carbon content of the fuels sold in California by 10 percent by 2020. It uses a groundbreaking approach, by counting all the emissions required to deliver gasoline and diesel to California consumers
"Rainforest deforestation in Brazil has been cut in half despite the fact ethanol production has been increased by a factor of four or five," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark, co-chairman of Growth Energy, a coalition of ethanol companies.
Ethanol producers also complained about unfairness, saying the air board had failed to hold oil and gas companies accountable for similar consequences tied to their operations.
Meanwhile, a coalition of activists representing the Amazon urged the board to ban all fuel made from crops, saying trees are being cleared to make room for sugar cane, a main source of biofuel in Brazil.
Some in the petroleum industry warned that California was moving too quickly without any assurances that the alternative fuels they will be required to sell will be available for a mass market. Representatives asked the board to delay a decision until next year.
"It's frankly unclear to us how we will comply with this regulation," said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, chief operating officer of the Western States Petroleum Association.
Representatives for BP PLC and Chevron Corp. said their companies supported the new standards, with the caveat that the board periodically review the standards. In response, the air board agreed to ensure that the most up-to-date science is incorporated into the rule and that the alternative fuels have become available as expected.
"I think we sometimes make assumptions that certain things are going to happen and they just don't happen," said board member Barbara Riordan.
Under the low-carbon fuel standard, petroleum refiners, companies that blend fuel and distributors must gradually increase the cleanliness of the fuels they sell in California beginning in 2011.
The regulation would not mandate what alternative they must use. Rather, it would assign a so-called carbon-intensity score to various fuels.
Transportation has long been a target of California air regulators because it accounts for 40 percent of the state's greenhouse gas emissions. Two years ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger directed air regulators to develop a rule that would boost the amount of renewable fuels sold in the state.
Schwarzenegger said Thursday the rule would "reward innovation, expand consumer choice and encourage the private investment we need to transform our energy infrastructure."
Nichols said the low-carbon mandate will reduce California's dependence on petroleum by 20 percent and account for one-tenth of the state's goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
It also builds upon California's previous effort to force auto manufacturers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles. That regulation was blocked last year by the federal government, but the Obama administration is reconsidering that decision.
© MMIX The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From SciTech
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
BIO FUELS exceed the mandated. The short story: A plant captures carbon to create chlorophyll and grow the bio mass needed for bio fuels. only a portion of this carbon is released when the bio fuel is used.
The people of California are only second in stupidity to the Texans when it comes to their choice of governors and congressman and the wacky state laws they support.
Even if CA reduced it's "carbon footprint" to 0, there would be no effect on global climate becaue it's NATURAL! The whole AWG scam has the carbon fingerprints of the wacked out hippies from the 60's and 70's all over it. What they forget is climate changes all the time, hell, 18,000 years ago may of the places people and animals now live were either under 1,000 of feet of glaciers, or areas that are currently under 330 feet of water. What cause the glaciers to melt? Caveman fires? No! Natural processes. Some melting had seas rising 20+ feet in 100 years. Ecosystems moved and changed and adapted, sure some animals went extinct, but it?s probably better that the North American Lion, the Short-faced Bear, and the Saber-tooth Cat are no longer in this country?.But PEOPLE had nothing to do with the climate change then, and we don?t now.
The oil companies and car companies (and every other manufacturer for that matter) should tell California to shove it. Create your own Utopian, socialist companies and make your own products. You think prices are high in CA now? Wait until all their legislation gets into full swing. Oh, that's right. they won't let any real industry in anymore.
Anybody remember why there were rolling black-outs? Because they didn't want to build any more of their own power plants (in the name of saving the environment) and chose to buy electricity from neighboring states. When those states jacked the rates up, CA screamed "FOUL". Maybe they should quit polluting everyone else's back yard and think things through a bit.
holder133487: Ethanol yields LESS energy than it takes to produce it. THAT'S why nobody will produce it without subsidies. It's basic chemistry. You can't get more energy out of something than what it possesses. Oil has many times the energy stored in it. Food or no food, it's a bad idea.
Posted by despido
Death to OPEC
Posted by rf35
two very level-headed comments.
A LARGE EARTHQUAKE IS ABOUT TO HIT LOS ANGELAS WITHIN 24 HOURS
Posted by mrkjessup1
what are you? a seismograph? what makes you so sure of this? as far as i know, we have no ability to predict earthquakes yet. we can warn of volcanic eruptions but not earthquakes.
Help! The nuts are running the asylum! The US will be bankrupt and hungry when these global warming idiots get done with us.
Posted by sandycat4
global warming is real. you cant deny it. the unclear part is what exactly is causing it. people should wake up and realize we have only 1 planet to live on, no back up. no other place we can hop on a spaceship and go to. if we f*ck up this planet, we are screwed. the least we could do is respect it. if the government has to force this upon people, then so be it.
Ethanol is not the future, Using the world's food supply as a fuel has already been shown to have a negative impact on places that have to import corn
Posted by tbbaot
i think we need to improve the ways we produce ethanol. there is a way to make ethanol from switchgrass but its a much slower process. if we can find a way to use switchgrass, then ethanol would have a bright future because switchgrass grows everywhere.
You aren't expected to. Petrol is out, electric is in. Fuel cells need to be developed to max potential and a hydrogen infrastructure built. Minimal production emissions, zero useage emissions. Nothing to plug in means no coal burning.
Death to OPEC
I pay
1) State income taxes
2) 9% sales tax
3) 1+% property tax
and were are still broke and don't have enough money for schools.
Now the EPA nazis are starting their insane "save the world".
I pay for this (taxes) so I have a right to complain.
Posted by wtlibs
Hi wtlibs - One of my sons lives in San Francisco. He could lower his cost of living by 60% if he moved to Atlanta, Ga. He won't!
The worst part is in the end - even GM eventually lobbied the CARB organization AGAINST ITS OWN PRODUCT - yes, GM asked the California Air Resources Board to vote against its own car. And the above mentioned vote is only meant to benefit big oil, which says it can already meet the standard - they can now charge more for "cleaner" gas. If you thought ExxonMobil has its hands deep in your pockets now, just wait and see what will happen in the future.
sate
- by bumpedoff1 April 23, 2009 11:24 PM EDT
- No new taxes my @ss this will this raise grocery hope you can eat air
- Reply to this comment
See all 19 Comments