CARB Targets ‘Carbon Intensity’ of Fuels Used for Transportation

This story appears in the March 16 print edition of Transport Topics.

In its continued attack on greenhouse gas emissions, the California Air Resources Board recently proposed a rule cutting the “carbon intensity” of transportation fuels.

CARB said its proposal would require “providers, refiners, importers and blenders to ensure that the fuels they provide for the California market meet an average declining standard of ‘carbon intensity.’ ”

The proposal seeks to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels by 10% by 2020 and more in following years. Trucking industry experts said they were studying the CARB proposal to determine the effect on freight transportation fuel.

“Any state’s specific fuel standard gives us cause for concern and we will be evaluating California’s proposal,” said Richard Moskowitz, vice president and regulatory affairs counsel for American Trucking Associations.

“They’re talking about changing the composition of diesel fuel,” Moskowitz said.

“If you’re an oil company in California and you’re selling gasoline or diesel . . . you have to reduce the carbon level . . . by 10%,” said Mike Tunnell, director of environmental affairs for ATA.

Biodiesel is a possible solution, depending on availability, Tunnell said.

“Today, there isn’t enough biodiesel produced in California to reach the levels they are talking about,” Tunnell added.

California’s Air Resources Board proposed the regulation March 5. It will take up the regulation at an April 23 hearing.

The low-carbon fuel standard is part of an effort by California to reduce the climate-change effect of greenhouse gas emissions.

The state’s overall assault on emissions is laid out in a 2006 law known as AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, which contains a series of “early actions,” one of which is the creation of a low-carbon fuel standard.

“The real strength of this standard is that it takes a comprehensive ‘cradle-to-grave’ approach that accounts for greenhouse gas emissions from production, transport and tailpipe emissions,” CARB chairwoman Mary Nichols said in a prepared statement.

The regulation “is designed to increase the use of alternative fuels, replacing 20% of the fuel used . . . in California with clean alternative fuels by 2020, including electricity, biofuels, hydrogen and other options,” CARB said.

ATA’s Tunnel said, “I would assume the cost will get passed on to the consumer, so, I guess, it’s a question of how much more will consumers have to pay for fuel.”

California is not the only state trying to cut greenhouse emissions or spur the production of biodiesel fuels.

Four years ago, Minnesota began requiring that 2% of diesel be biodiesel. In May, the requirement reaches 5%. Washington and Oregon are among the other states with similar requirements.

On another front, California officials pressed their attack against emissions.

At a March 5 hearing with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state officials asked that California be allowed to set strict limits on auto greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2007, EPA denied California’s request for a waiver that would have allowed the state to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Obama administration, however, agreed to review that decision. In addition to California, 13 states and the District of Columbia have sought to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The American auto industry opposes a waiver for California, arguing that emission standards should be national and that the industry would be harmed if it had to make design changes in the middle of the recession.

ATA did not testify at the waiver hearing but is “watching very closely to see how it plays out,” said Glen Kedzie, vice president and environmental affairs counsel.

California’s waiver battle is about auto emissions, not about emissions from medium- and heavy-duty trucks, Kedzie said.

However, legal precedents are part of the drama, he said, because, historically, California always has won its waivers. That precedent could have implications on future issues involving trucking, Kedzie said.