IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsdav/qt080390x8.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multijurisdictional Status Review of Low Carbon Fuel Standards, 2010–2020 Q2: California, Oregon, and British Columbia

Author

Listed:
  • Mazzone, Daniel
  • Witcover, Julie
  • Murphy, Colin W

Abstract

California and British Columbia transportation fuel carbon intensity (CI) standards have been in effect since 2011, and Oregon’s since 2016. Total transport energy consumption under the programs was over 23 billion gasoline gallon equivalents (gge) in 2019. By 2019, the transport energy share from lower-carbon alternative fuels rose under each program to about 11%, 8%, and 7% in California, Oregon, and British Columbia, respectively. Each program met its CI targets and accumulated a bank of credits, which represent greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings beyond the annual target. Credits cover program deficits assessed for emissions above target levels and can be applied towards future compliance. California and British Columbia drew down their credit banks each year since 2017; Oregon’s credit bank grew since the 2016 program start. Program credit prices in 2020 averaged $200/metric ton (MT), $132/MT, and $192/MT (all $USD) in California, Oregon, and British Columbia, respectively. In California, growth of cost-effective diesel substitutes led to over-compliance with the diesel pool standard (a 25% CI reduction for California in 2020), more than offsetting under-compliance in the gasoline pool (a 3% CI reduction there). The same is true in Oregon and British Columbia to a lesser extent. Renewable diesel (RD) generated a notable share of compliance credits in each jurisdiction, despite zero or near-zero volumes when the programs began. In 2019, RD accounted for more than 16% by volume of the liquid diesel pool in California and approximately 30% of alternative fuel energy and credits in British Columbia. RD was first credited in Oregon in 2019. Biomass-based diesel from used cooking oil grew rapidly; 2019 consumption increased by at least 70% over previous year in all three programs. Low-CI rated electricity (i.e., below the state grid average) accounted for approximately 4% of all credits in California beginning in 2019, after indirect accounting mechanisms that avoid the need for physical traceability became available. Oregon expanded its low-CI value electricity options in 2021 in a similar fashion to California. California’s is the only program to track and penalize increasing CI of petroleum fuels. Additional deficits accrued in 2020, totaling 192,000 – 2.6% of the total – through Q2. All three programs continue to adopt amendments, including extending targets and program durations (20% CI reduction by 2030 for all); opt-in credits for alternative jet fuel (California and Oregon); use of advanced crediting for electric vehicle (EV) charging (California and Oregon); an EV rebate program funded by residential charging credit revenue (California); infrastructure capacity crediting for zero emission vehicle (ZEV) fueling (California); third-party verification (California and Oregon), and carbon capture and sequestration protocol (California).o Washington state passed legislation adopting a Clean Fuel Standard to take effect in 2023. An online visualization tool and data repository, available athttps://asmith.ucdavis.edu/data/LCFS, includes much of the data used in this report.

Suggested Citation

  • Mazzone, Daniel & Witcover, Julie & Murphy, Colin W, 2021. "Multijurisdictional Status Review of Low Carbon Fuel Standards, 2010–2020 Q2: California, Oregon, and British Columbia," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt080390x8, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt080390x8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/080390x8.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yeh, Sonia & Witcover, Julie & Lade, Gabriel E. & Sperling, Daniel, 2016. "A review of low carbon fuel policies: Principles, program status and future directions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 220-234.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hoyle, Aaron & Peters, Jotham & Jaccard, Mark & Rhodes, Ekaterina, 2024. "Additional or accidental? Simulating interactions between a low-carbon fuel standard and other climate policy instruments in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    2. Axsen, Jonn & Wolinetz, Michael, 2023. "What does a low-carbon fuel standard contribute to a policy mix? An interdisciplinary review of evidence and research gaps," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 54-63.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Spatari, S. & Larnaudie, V. & Mannoh, I. & Wheeler, M.C. & Macken, N.A. & Mullen, C.A. & Boateng, A.A., 2020. "Environmental, exergetic and economic tradeoffs of catalytic- and fast pyrolysis-to-renewable diesel," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 371-380.
    2. Faissal Jelti & Amine Allouhi & Kheira Anissa Tabet Aoul, 2023. "Transition Paths towards a Sustainable Transportation System: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-25, October.
    3. Witcover, Julie, 2018. "Status Review of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, 2011–2018 Q1 September 2018 Issue," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt445815cd, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    4. Hoyle, Aaron & Peters, Jotham & Jaccard, Mark & Rhodes, Ekaterina, 2024. "Additional or accidental? Simulating interactions between a low-carbon fuel standard and other climate policy instruments in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    5. Shen, Neng & Deng, Rumeng & Liao, Haolan & Shevchuk, Oleksandr, 2020. "Mapping renewable energy subsidy policy research published from 1997 to 2018: A scientometric review," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    6. Mark Purdon & Julie Witcover & Colin Murphy & Sonya Ziaja & Mark Winfield & Genevieve Giuliano & Charles Séguin & Colleen Kaiser & Jacques Papy & Lewis Fulton, 2021. "Climate and transportation policy sequencing in California and Quebec," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 596-630, September.
    7. Mandegari, Mohsen & Ebadian, Mahmood & Saddler, Jack (John), 2023. "The need for effective life cycle assessment (LCA) to enhance the effectiveness of policies such as low carbon fuel standards (LCFS's)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    8. Gabriel E. Lade & James Bushnell, 2019. "Fuel Subsidy Pass-Through and Market Structure: Evidence from the Renewable Fuel Standard," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(3), pages 563-592.
    9. Axsen, Jonn & Wolinetz, Michael, 2023. "What does a low-carbon fuel standard contribute to a policy mix? An interdisciplinary review of evidence and research gaps," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 54-63.
    10. Gabriel E. Lade & James Bushnell, 2016. "Fuel Subsidy Pass-Through and Market Structure: Evidence from the Renewable Fuel Standard," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 16-wp570, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    11. Yeh, Sonia & Burtraw, Dallas & Sterner, Thomas & Greene, David, 2021. "Tradable performance standards in the transportation sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    12. Rhodes, Ekaterina & Scott, William A. & Jaccard, Mark, 2021. "Designing flexible regulations to mitigate climate change: A cross-country comparative policy analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    13. Shayegh, Soheil & Sanchez, Daniel L., 2021. "Impact of market design on cost-effectiveness of renewable portfolio standards," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    14. Ma, Xuejiao & Wang, Yong & Wang, Chen, 2017. "Low-carbon development of China's thermal power industry based on an international comparison: Review, analysis and forecast," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 942-970.
    15. Zhao, Qiankun & Cai, Ximing & Mischo, William & Ma, Liyuan, 2020. "How do the research and public communities view biofuel development?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    16. Hu, Kejia & Chen, Yuche, 2019. "Equilibrium fuel supply and carbon credit pricing under market competition and environmental regulations: A California case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 815-824.
    17. Sokołowski, Maciej M. & Heffron, Raphael J., 2022. "Defining and conceptualising energy policy failure: The when, where, why, and how," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    18. Cao, Liang & Su, Jianping & Saddler, Jack & Cao, Yankai & Wang, Yixiu & Lee, Gary & Siang, Lim C. & Pinchuk, Robert & Li, Jin & Gopaluni, R. Bhushan, 2024. "Real-time tracking of renewable carbon content with AI-aided approaches during co-processing of biofeedstocks," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 360(C).
    19. Witcover, Julie, 2021. "What Happened and Will Happen with Biofuels? Review and Prospects for Non-Conventional Biofuels in California and the U.S.: Supply, Cost, and Potential GHG Reductions," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt7624q040, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    20. Esteban Lopez-Arboleda & Alfonso T. Sarmiento & Laura M. Cardenas, 2021. "Systemic approach for integration of sustainability in evaluation of public policies for adoption of electric vehicles," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 399-417, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Engineering; Social and Behavioral Sciences; fuel policy; transportation; carbon intensity standard; Low Carbon Fuel Standard; greenhouse gas emissions; California; Oregon; British Columbia;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt080390x8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucdus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.