Learning from California’s low-carbon fuel rules

By: Alan Bunting, Friday, May 08, 2009,

AutomotiveWorld.com

Since the EU, back in 2004, first set its target for increased biofuel use, on the basis of a direct percentage substitution for regular diesel or gasoline, misgivings have grown as to the validity of such an approach in reducing real life net carbon emissions. Quite apart from the questionable practicality of achieving the initial 10% ‘bio substitution’ target of all road transport fuels by 2020, doubts have arisen as to the true carbon-saving benefits, despite the EU assertion that a 10% substitution would cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from road vehicles by 20%.

Deforestation became a key issue in the carbon reduction debate, with some experts maintaining, for example, that nine times as much CO2 was absorbed by the trees of an existing forest than could be absorbed if the forest was cut down and replaced by biofuel yielding crops grown on the same land. A further related factor was that of biofuels competing with food production in land use. That was a two-fold issue. Using food crops directly to produce fuel was obviously contentious while many parts of the world were going hungry. Then it had to be recognised that fertile land made available for growing ‘biofuel specific’, i.e. non food, crops could be used instead for food production.

It remains a complex issue and one which has prompted the EU and governments elsewhere in the world to back pedal on their biofuel use targets and/or requirements. In the US, the state of California appears to have grasped the nettle in what can be seen as an important global initiative, by setting what it calls a ‘carbon intensity’ fuel standard. The move sensibly avoids quantified biofuel substitution targets, focussing instead on the real-life CO2 emission reductions which can reasonably be expected from different fuel strategies.

The amount of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and subsequent distribution, as well as the consumption in vehicles, of road transportation fuel, will have to be reduced by 10% by 2020 under a new regulation adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as part of its drive towards a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Some of that reduction, it should be noted, will necessarily flow from the improved fuel efficiency of new engines running on fossil fuels.

CARB says providers, refiners, importers and blenders involved in the supply of motor fuels will be required to ensure that those fuels meet ‘an average declining standard of carbon intensity’. It adds that the measure is expected to boost the market for alternative fuels (typically from sustainable sources) and for vehicles and engines compatible with such fuels. It is expected, adds CARB, ‘to drive the availability of plug-in hybrid, battery-electric and fuel-cell cars, while promoting investment in electric charging stations and hydrogen fuelling stations’.

A resulting reduction of 16 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 is forecast, playing a vital role, says CARB, in the implementation of Assembly Bill 32, part of California’s 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act.

The carbon intensity calculation includes what CARB refers to as ‘the indirect land use change (ILUC) effects’ which account for the release of additional greenhouse gas emissions through ‘the conversion of forest lands and other carbon-containing habitats’. According to CARB, the biofuels industry has generally opposed the indirect effects provisions in the Bill, fearing that they will assign higher carbon intensity to several ‘agricultural’ biofuels, including corn ethanol.

Newer low-carbon fuels will, in CARB’s declared expectations, be generated from such feedstocks as algae, wood, agricultural waste such as straw, common invasive weeds, notably switchgrass, and from municipal solid waste. Through its Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Technology Program, managed by the California Energy Commission, some US$120m a year of funding will be made available over seven years ‘to deploy the cleanest fuels and vehicles’.

If the pattern of road transport emission standards is any guide, where California leads, many other states – and often the federal US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – are likely to follow. It seems clear that EU authorities in Brussels, who appear to be still wavering in their biofuel promotion plans, must be studying the CARB requirements closely with a view to adopting somewhat similar rules for Europe.

The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Automotive World Ltd.

Published on Friday, May 08, 2009