The California Air Resources Board has approved a 20% limit on credits for renewable diesel produced from soybean, canola and sunflower oils, despite industry complaints that the cap was unnecessary and would increase the state's reliance on foreign feedstocks for biofuels.
Along with the new 20% credit limit for the state's low carbon fuel standard (LCFS), other amendments the board approved late Friday would allow CARB's executive officer to stop accepting new biodiesel and renewable diesel pathways in 2031 if medium and heavy duty zero emissions vehicle targets are met.
Ahead of the board's vote Republican lawmakers called for transparency around how the amended policy would raise gas prices in California. More than 100 people arrived in person to deliver public comments, in addition to those on Zoom.
Proponents see the LCFS amendments as a step toward California's transportation decarbonization efforts and goals for zero emission vehicle deployment, arguing the board couldn't delay a vote any longer in light of Donald Trump's election this week.
Former LCFS Branch Chief James Duffy spoke during public comment, wanted the board to go even farther in limiting the use of vegetable oils.
He specifically requested the board assign the fossil fuel diesel carbon intensity to renewable diesel volumes exceeding the 20% threshold as opposed to the carbon intensity benchmark. The board relies on the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) and indirect land use change (ILUC) models to analyze the global land use impacts of biofuels.
“This simple change, which is sufficiently related to the proposed amendments, will put some real teeth into that provision,” Duffy said, adding that CARB’s modeling shows that the diversion of crops for biofuel production directly results in tropical deforestation and food insecurity.
“The fact that California is making the choice, and I repeat, is making the choice, to mitigate the climate problem by reducing the amount of food consumed by the poorest people in the world very much troubled me as a CARB employee, and continues to keep me awake at night,” he said.
Board member Cliff Rechtschaffen indicated support for that approach. But John Eisenhut, the board’s agricultural member, said any domestic feedstock products are going to “be more congruent with [the] scoping plan and our goals at sustainable agriculture,” than imported feedstock.
Don Gilstrap, a fuels regulation manager at Chevron, called the cap on certain feedstocks “unnecessary” and said he worries the traceability and certifications requirements will reduce California’s reliable fuel supply due to non-complying suppliers.
“These new requirements require biofuel producers to start mapping tens of thousands of farms in the U.S. and Canada to document their feedstock sources to no real benefit,” Gilstrap said, adding that farms and suppliers would then also be subject to sustainability audits.
He also noted that the federal Renewable Fuel Standard already monitors land use for feedstocks, which would make CARB’s additional restraints redundant – especially on top of the Gov. Gavin Newsom’s direction to accelerate the adoption of E15. CARB is considering the E15 issue separately from the LCFS amendments voted on Friday.
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here.
Gordon Russell, the head of grains and oilseeds for biofuel producer Louis Dreyfus Co. said that while the company doesn't oppose the concept of a cap on vegetable oils, he thinks the 20% limit is a mistake.
He argued that CARB’s estimate of vegetable oil inclusion ignores the share of canola oil used for renewable diesel in 2023. Russell raised concerns that limiting the use of domestic vegetable oil will result in imports of tallow and used cooking oil from Latin America, China and Southeast Asia, with traceability requirements consequentially making U.S. farmers less competitive to foreign feedstocks.
“In summary, a board member vote for a 20% cap under the proposed amendment is a vote for deforestation and a vote for higher fuel prices in California,” said Russell.
His colleague Rita Nagle requested the removal of field level traceability requirements on domestic feedstocks, or at least a three-year delay in their implementation.
Allison Willis of Ag Processing Inc., agreed with points made by Russell regarding foreign competition and also requested a delay in implementation to allow suppliers time to inform farmers about new sustainability guardrails ahead of the 2025 planting season.
She also asked the board to implement up-to-date scientific data for feedstocks when updating its land use model in the coming year, noting the current model is a decade old and “applies land use scores that are about 60% higher than the most current updates."
“We are concerned there will be significant challenges replacing 10% of current feed socks in just three years, while also building on the existing 72% displacement of fossil fuel demand,” Willis said.
Jeremy Martin from the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group, said the amendments don't go far enough. He said while he appreciates that CARB recognizes that “food for fuel is a problem,” he’s worried that these fuels are exceeding sustainable levels. He said the guardrails are “too little too late” and warns they will contribute to global food price shocks, ag expansion and deforestation.
