California Air Resources Board on April 4 released a third set of proposed changes to the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard. More than 80 public comments were filed ahead of an April 21 deadline, including those filed by representatives of the ethanol, biobased diesel and biogas industries.&nbsp;CARB on Nov. 8, 2024,&nbsp;<a href="https://biomassmagazine.com/articles/carb-votes-to-adopt-lcfs-updates">approved updates</a>&nbsp;to its LCFS that aim to reduce the carbon intensity of the state’s transportation fuel by 30% by 2030 and by 90% by 2045. The updates also include a variety of technical changes to the LCFS program, including those requiring fuel producers to track crop-based and forestry-based feedstocks to their point of origin; requiring independent feedstock certification to ensure biomass-based diesel and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) feedstocks are not undermining natural carbon stocks; changes prohibiting palm-derived fuels from receiving credits; a cap on the use of soybean oil, canola oil and sunflower oil in the production of LCFS-compliant biodiesel diesel fuels; and updates that phase out avoided methane crediting associated with the use of biomethane as a combustion fuel but extend the use of biomethane for renewable hydrogen.CARB submitted its final regulatory package on the approved LCFS amendments to the California Office of Administrative Law on Jan. 3. OAL on Feb. 18 notified CARB of its intention to disapprove the LCFS amendments citing “clarity” issues, effectively pausing implementation of the changes.CARB on Feb. 25 <a href="https://ethanolproducer.com/articles/carb-releases-additional-details-on-paused-lcfs-amendments">received a Decision of Disapproval of Regulatory Action from OAL</a>, which details the reasons for the disapproval.&nbsp;That document indicates that OAL has identified 26 proposed regulatory provisions where additional modifications may be necessary to ensure the regulatory provisions can be “easily understood by those persons directly affected by them.”&nbsp;Under California state law, CARB has 120 days to rewrite and resubmit the amendments, with any substantive modifications subject to a new public comment period.&nbsp;CARB on April 4 announced the availability of modified text for the proposed LCFS amendments and opened a 15-day public comment period on the changes. According to information posted to CARB’s website, 81 public comments were filed, including those filed by the Renewable Fuels Association, Growth Energy, Clean Fuels Alliance America, the RNG Coalition and the American Biogas Council.&nbsp;The RFA is criticizing CARB’s decision to maintain “unnecessary and unworkable” feedstock sustainability criteria. “With its latest proposed modifications to the LCFS program, CARB had an opportunity to substantially revise or remove its needless sustainability requirements for U.S.-origin ethanol feedstocks,” RFA said in a statement. “Instead, CARB made only a few slight tweaks to other provisions and the agency appears poised to move ahead with its costly and burdensome sustainability criteria.”According to the RFA, CARB alleges that its proposed feedstock sustainability requirements for grain-based ethanol are need to provide “guard rails” against “rapid expansion of biofuel production and biofuel feedstock demand…that could result in adverse and use changes.” In its comments, RFA stresses that empirical data clearly undermine this rationale, proving that the number of corn acres needed to meet California ethanol demand has actually fallen by 700,000 acres, or 20%, since the LCFS program began in 2011.&nbsp;Growth Energy said CARB’s proposal continues to undermine the role of crop-based fuels in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. “Biofuels like ethanol have long been the backbone of the California LCFS and have contributed to the success of the program,” said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. “Despite OAL’s rejection of the proposed amendments for their lack of clarity, CARB’s revisions fall short by failing to add any meaningful details to the amendments’ sustainability provisions. CARB’s proposal still undermines the important role that crop-based renewable fuels must play in decarbonizing the transportation sector in California. Not only do these amendments run counter to the state’s own environmental agenda, they undercut California’s leadership in spurring renewable energy production across the U.S. and giving consumers access to more affordable fueling options. We urge CARB to embrace renewable fuels, rather than keeping them on the sidelines to the detriment of both American farmers and California consumers.”&nbsp;Clean Fuels Alliance America also criticized CARB’s treatment of crop-based biofuels, specifically the feedstock cap that is to be implemented for soybean, canola and sunflower oils. In addition, Clean Fuels is speaking out against a newly proposed change to the proposed regulations that would eliminate the possibility of new fuel pathways for biomass-based diesel from being approved after Jan. 1, 2031, if a certain number of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) or near zero emissions vehicles (NZEVs) are on the road.&nbsp;The RNG Coalition addressed the market impact of regulatory delays in its comments. “Given the LCFS credit surpluses, a significant stepdown in the Annual Carbon Intensity (CI) Benchmarks cannot be delayed any further,” the group wrote. “At this stage, the top priority should be the expeditious finalization and 2025 Q1 implementation of the target step down.”“All parties received adequate notice throughout this extended rulemaking process and are prepared for implementation of the new rule, effective at the start of the 2025,” the RNG Coalition continued in its comments. “Few, if any, parties could have anticipated changes requested by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). Clean fuel credit generators—such as RNG producers—should not be punished with any further administrative delays to the rule. Obligated parties (deficit generators) are all well informed about the rule changes and further delays are not necessary.”The American Biogas Council also addressed the negative impacts of regulatory delays in its comments. “The recent administrative disapproval of the program’s amendments from the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has unfortunately delayed the implementation of these vital amendments,” the ABC said in its comments. “The ABC would like to underscore the importance of concluding this rulemaking as soon as possible. Any further delay to the rulemaking diminishes the necessary signal the market needs to facilitate and encourage the continued investments in clean fuels. Without a strong policy signal, the state risks missing opportunities to further reduce GHG emissions from transportation fuels. Thus, the ABC strongly encourages CARB to swiftly address the concerns laid out in the disapproval, resubmit the package to OAL, and begin implementation of the new amendments promptly.”Additional information is available on the CARB <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2024/lcfs2024">website</a>.&nbsp;

2025-04-23 - Biofuel, biogas groups comment on new updates to proposed California LCFS amendments (4 publications)

2013/12/LCFS_13881667619709_largethumb.JPG

2013/12/LCFS_13881667619709_thumb.JPG

2013/12/LCFS_13881667619709.JPG

CARB on April 4 released a third set of proposed changes to the state’s LCFS. More than 80 public comments were filed ahead of an April 21 deadline, including those filed by representatives of the ethanol, biobased diesel and biogas industries. 

Biofuel, biogas groups comment on new updates to proposed California LCFS amendments

Related Stories

DOE seeks comments on process to determine 45Z provisional emissions rates

Trade agreements with Japan, Indonesia to boost ethanol, distillers grains and SAF exports

Par Pacific, Mitsubishi, and ENEOS to establish joint venture for renewable fuels in Hawaii

ABFA: EPA’s proposed biofuel targets could stall industry growth, drive up prices

Flood, Carter reintroduce SAF Information Act

Upcoming Events

North American SAF Conference & Expo

2026 International Biomass Conference & Expo

Biofuel, biogas groups comment on new updates to proposed California LCFS amendments.css-7jxktu{position:absolute;bottom:0px;left:0px;right:0px;height:3px;border-radius:3px;background-color:var(--chakra-colors-brandBlack);}