IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsdav/qt445815cd.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Status Review of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, 2011–2018 Q1 September 2018 Issue

Author

Listed:
  • Witcover, Julie

Abstract

From 2011–2017, the share of alternative fuels in California’s transportation energy grew from 6.1 percent to 8.5 percent. Of alternative fuel energy, the portion coming from non-liquid fuels increased from 7.6 percent to 13.5 percent over the period. Through 2018 Q1, total emissions reduction requirements under the regulation were 28.9 million tons (MMT) CO2e. Actual reported emissions reductions were 38.3 MMT CO2e, representing overcompliance of 9.3 MMT CO2e, creating a system-wide credit “bank” that can be used to meet future targets. In 2017 and 2018 Q1, program deficits exceeded credits for the first time, by 0.1 MMT CO2e and 0.4 MMT CO2e, respectively, drawing down the credit “bank.” Increases in alternative fuel use and declines in carbon intensity (CI) rating came primarily from the diesel pool. Biomass-based diesel—biodiesel and renewable diesel—accounted for 0.4 percent of liquid diesel fuel by volume in 2011 and 15.6 percent in 2018 Q1. Natural gas in transportation grew 111 percent from 2011–2017 to 178.1 gasoline gallon equivalent (gge). Of this natural gas, biogas use was close to nil in 2011 but approximately two-thirds in 2017. Among gasoline substitutes, electricity use grew from less than 0.5 percent of alternative energy in 2011 to 4.5 percent in 2018 Q1. Use of ethanol, the largest renewable fuel by volume, remained close to a “blendwall” of 10 percent blended with gasoline. Prices of LCFS compliance credits (each representing 1 MMT CO2e) fluctuated. Average per- credit price increased from $20 to $80 in 2013, ranged between $20 and $30 in 2014 and 2015 under a frozen standard of 1%, rose above $100 in 2016 when the freeze was lifted, and exceeded $160 in summer 2018 as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) was in the process of adopting more stringent targets for 2030. LCFS amendments to be voted on at the September 26-27, 2018, CARB board meeting to take effect in 2019, include: a 2030 target of 20 percent CI reduction below 2010 levels; independent verification and monitoring of fuel pathway CI rating inputs; allowing alternative aviation fuel to generate program credits; a protocol for carbon capture and sequestration credits; credits for low- or zero-carbon intensity electricity use; requiring use of a portion of residential electricity credits to fund a statewide point-of-sale incentive program to electric vehicle (EV) buyers if such a program is approved by the California Public Utilities Commission; and introducing capacity credits for EV fast chargers and hydrogen fuel stations. The “capacity credit” provision would permit credit generation untied to current emissions reductions and favor particular fuels (those used in zero emission vehicles, which have no tailpipe emissions) for the first time. LCFS-like programs are in development in Canada (a Clean Fuel Standard to cover transportation, industry, and building sectors) and Brazil (the RenovaBio program focused on renewable liquid fuels and biogas). Neither plans to account for indirect land use change emissions in carbon intensity lifecycle analysis at program outset. Implementation of the Oregon and British Columbia LCFS programs is proceeding. Click here to see all the California LCFS status reviews

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt445815cd
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/445815cd.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. Jun Wong & Jonathan Santoso & Marjorie Went & Daniel Sanchez, 2021. "Market Potential for CO$_2$ Removal and Sequestration from Renewable Natural Gas Production in California," Papers 2105.01644, arXiv.org.

    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. 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. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Yeh, Sonia & Burtraw, Dallas & Sterner, Thomas & Greene, David, 2021. "Tradable performance standards in the transportation sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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).
    10. Vahid Mohamad Taghvaee & Abbas Assari Arani & Susanne Soretz & Lotfali Agheli, 2023. "Diesel demand elasticities and sustainable development pillars of economy, environment and social (health): comparing two strategies of subsidy removal and energy efficiency," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 2285-2315, March.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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).
    15. 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).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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).
    19. 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.
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Engineering;

    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:qt445815cd. 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.