Oil companies and other supporters of the fossil fuel status quo have been using a study by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) to attack California's landmark clean energy bill AB32, particularly the bill's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Oil companies have been particularly irate that the LCFS requires them to reduce carbon pollution from gasoline and diesel 10 percent by 2020. But when the BCG report was roundly criticized, the Big Oil tried to come to the rescue. Now, an independent panel of scientists and academics has determined that the BCG study, the ammo being used to attack California's clean energy efforts, is packed with erroneous findings.

Oil companies have been particularly irate that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires them to reduce carbon pollution from gasoline and diesel 10 percent by 2020.

The BCG study had been under enough criticism and scrutiny that industry groups contracted with the UC Davis Policy Institute to assemble an expert independent review panel. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA, which originally funded the BCG report), the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers requested the BCG report evaluation. Instead of supporting Big Oil, the reviewers found the study flawed on a number of fronts. For example, the BCG report missed "positive effects on the health and welfare of the citizens of California that could result from the implementation of AB32." The review panel also said the BCG study understated the benefits of AB32 on the economy; overstated the cost of industry compliance; and overstated harmful impact on California's oil refining industry. You can read a more detailed break-down on the situation over at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The California Air Resources Board created the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to comply with AB32. CARB wants to reduce the amount of carbon in transportation fuels as a way to reduce the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. The BCG study and the resulting fallout isn't the first time oil companies have attempted to block LCFS and AB32. They also attempted to pass the Proposition 23 ballot initiative, which failed win voter approval in November 2010.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 39 Comments
      Marcopolo
      • 1 Year Ago
      The debate on this thread, matches the debate between UC Davis Policy Institute and Boston Consulting Group. BCC published a pragmatic report, (if a little pessimistic) of the effect of LCFS on California's economy. UCDPI, responded with an optimistic report based on mostly, futuristic speculation. Both reports accept that oil refining and distribution industry, like all industries, needs to continually strive for better energy efficiency and pollution reduction. Where they differ is that UCDPI argues that LCFS will prove 'economically' positive to California's economy. Supporters of Assembly Bill 32, claim that the Bills title, says it all, "Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act ". California's legislation, (approved by the voters), sounds very laudable. But it requires measures that may not be possible, or practically achievable, without severe economic repercussions. . But does just passing a law in California, really achieve anything to " Solve Global Warming ?" It's supporters will say, " it's better than doing, nothing" ! But is that true? If just passing a law, always worked in the way it was intended by idealistic supporters, the Volstead act would still be in force ! Alternate energy is expensive, mostly inefficient and often more pollutant than the fuel it's touted to replace. If the good citizens of California want to spend money on impractical projects, that their business. The State of California is entitled to make whatever sacrifices to it's economy in the name of these projects as it wishes, (especially after a plebiscite) . However, California can't complain when other institutions, like the BCC express contrary views. There are no 'magic bullets', ! All alternate fuels come with heavy economic repercussions. California can't just vote into existence, solutions that don't exist, as if it was part of a Hollywood script ! California uses more fossil fuel energy produced by all the entire US alternate fuel industries combined potential. US Agriculturally based energy production, ethanol etc, just doesn't produce enough energy to be either practical or economic. Worse, large scale production involves environmental catastrophes ! Increased use of Natural Gas (especially for power generation) does reduce emission levels, and can be proven as economic in areas where there is abundant Natural Gas. Still, a fossil fuel, but a cleaner alternative, that can be efficiently produced and distributed on a mass scale. For road transport, EV technology is still relatively new, expensive, and limited in capacity. But it's technology is advancing, and displays potential to be increasingly produced on an increasingly industrial scale. The taxpayers investment in EV technology, shows potential to repay that investment by achieving the ambitions of Global Warming Solutions Act.,
        Electron
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Marcopolo
        That's our Marcopolo, the perennial voice of Big Oil on this forum. Tell me, do you get paid for this Big Oil advocacy thing or is it just that you can't help yourself?
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Electron
          @ Electron Here he is, Electron 1-16. Do you have anything else to say except impotent, and pointless hatred of oil companies ? You never actually say anything to refute any thing I write, except that you hate oil companies ! That's ok, everyone's allowed to hate something. But just hating something and wishing it wasn't so, won't change anything ! Your childish accusations are tiresome, either post some facts of your own telling me where I'm in error, or stop these silly personal comments.
          Marco Polo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Electron
          @ Electron Your method of debate, is personal abuse. In the post you object to, I don't actually 'defend' oil companies, but criticize the UC Davis method of refuting the BCC study. I took five examples, from the UC Davis study and cited them. You could have replied, defending the UC Davis study. That's 'debating' the subject of the article ! Instead you continue to post these highly personal, but absurd, comment against me personally, because you have nothing relevant to say.
          Electron
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Electron
          Keep your pants on mate, nobody hates anybody here (well except for you obviously). Can't really debate you because you make all sorts of strong claims here but never back up anything with a link or something. We're all supposed to take your word for it but your posting history proves that's really not worth very much. Making all sorts of unsubstantiated claims about yourself may make you an authority in the eyes of the more gullible crowd here but like the man said: you can't fool all of the people all of the time. That's your problem right there. So, do you get paid or do you feel it's your civic duty to step up every time your beloved oil companies get even the slightest hint of criticism?
      Tysto
      • 1 Year Ago
      "overstated harmful impact on California's oil refining industry" How can the oil refining industry even enter into the equation? That's like complaining that reducing oil spills will hurt the bird cleaning industry. Good riddance.
      PeterScott
      • 1 Year Ago
      In this instance, I don't blame them for being irate about LCFS. How are they supposed to magically reduce the carbon intensity of gas/diesel. Before you say ethanol, consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BioethanolsCountryOfOrigin.jpg Corn Ethanol is actually worse than regular gas. Modern VW TDI diesels aren't certified for more than 5% Biodiesel even if it was better.
        raktmn
        • 1 Year Ago
        @PeterScott
        The LCFS actually takes into account the entire well-to-tank GHG impact of fuels. So one way oil companies can comply is to improve the amount of energy they use getting the fuel to your tank. Around 1/3 the carbon footprint of burning gas or diesel in your car happens before you even fill your tank. A 30% improvement in well-to-tank energy use would entirely satisfy this mandate, without any other fuels. Some of these things include Energy Star rated refineries. It isn't magic, it is science. As for ethanol, since this includes well-to-tank (field to tank) calculations, it actually encourages improvements like cellulosic ethanol over corn ethanol. It also encourages things like ethanol plants installing solar and wind to power their plants (something that is already happening in many locations). Cellulosic ethanol is less than 1/3 the carbon intensity as gas and diesel. So it will be one of the largest bangs for the buck to blend it in. Changing the E10 they already sell from being sourced from corn ethanol to cellulosic ethanol would satisfy about 70% of this target alone.
          raktmn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          Peter - Your link pretty much 100% validates California's approach. Your link points out that BP did not back out because of technical reasons, or because it couldn't make money, but because the found they could make more profit off of their investment if they spent that money elsewhere. In case you missed it, that is the sound of the free market failing to address the issue of externalities. What the LCFS does is put a value on the entire carbon chain, creating an incentive for BP and other oil companies to continue with projects like the one in your link. The LCFS provides the exact kind of market certainty that helps companies like BP decided to start $350 million dollar project, because they will now know that there will be a demand for their product. With market certainty and stability that a pure free market could never supply, more plants should be able to start.
          Vlad
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          This is a misleading way to frame the question. We could ask in a similar manner "If Toyota can't bring a fully electric car to the market, can anyone?" Only in this case we do know that EVs have been brought to the market, and the best one is made by an upstart without much history or resources.
          PeterScott
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          I really wonder if Cellulosic Ethanol lives up to the hype in practical reality. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506666/bp-plant-cancellation-darkens-cellulosic-ethanols-future/ "When BP backed out of building a $350 million, 36-million-gallon-per-year plant in Highlands County, Florida, last week, the cellulosic biofuels industry, which tries to make fuel from grass and wood chips, lost one of its most promising projects. The cancellation raises the question, if BP can’t bring cellulosic ethanol to market, can anyone?"
          PeterScott
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          It would be more like if Toyota gave up on the Prius before the first model ever left Japan. If you don't like the way they framed the question, ignore it and focus on what actually happened. This was supposed to be the first commercial scale Celulosic plant and it was abandoned, that doesn't bode well for commercial viability. There is more to viable liquid fuel than low GHG footprint alone.
        Dave
        • 1 Year Ago
        @PeterScott
        "In this instance, I don't blame them for being irate about LCFS. How are they supposed to magically reduce the carbon intensity of gas/diesel. " I had the same reaction. Users need to curb consumption. This is beyond the control of the oil companies.
        raktmn
        • 1 Year Ago
        @PeterScott
        Peter - That graph is actually a very poor graph. The numbers are based upon 2 of the biggest errors made when comparing biofuels to oil. 1) The oil numbers are only for burning the fuel once it has gotten to your tank. It does not include well-to-tank numbers, where the biofuel numbers are all well-to-wheel/field-to-wheel. 2) The biofuel numbers to not take into account the amount of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere by growing the crops. It just adds up all the inputs. This is exactly why LCFS is a good idea. Because it forces oil companies to account for the well-to-tank CO2 numbers that tables like this ignore.
          PeterScott
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          Now I am starting to question your honesty. Those numbers do not include transportation, nor do they include anything for burning it. You can find a more detailed breakdown of the numbers here(page 5): http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs_att_b_mod.pdf California Ethanol is better than typical midwest Ethanol. But only BEST CASE California ethanol is actually better than regular gasoline. Typical California ethanol is just about identical to gas. Those numbers in the previous graph and those I mentioned above, are both USA typical Ethanol values. They do not include transportation, they do not include burning the ethanol which gets a full credit. They DO INCLUDE land use, which puts typical US ethanol worse than gasoline.
          raktmn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          To sum up your own second source: Well-to-wheel for Corn ethanol made in the state it is burned: 50 grams of CO2 Well-to-wheel for gas/diesel: 95 grams of CO2 Well-to-wheel for Corn ethanol + the CO2 lost when the land was cleared to make them into fields 100 years ago: 80 grams of CO2
          PeterScott
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          Incorrect again: There is another bit of detail in the link above. Midwest ethanol Carbon 75.10 - (Mainly made from corn. Includes some of the plant's power coming from coal.) This is exactly the expected value of Corn Ethanol that includes some coal fired plant power. This is right around the 75% number I indicated. If it included ethanol emissions from burning fuel it would be at least 50% higher than this, so it is clear there is ZERO added for burning. This is what puts it over the top. Not burning with is what Including Land use: 105.10
          raktmn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          No Peter, it is you that has blown it again. And the other link you mentioned only further proves my original post. First off, both the 75.10 and 105.10 numbers come from California's LCFS numbers, so they include the carbon burned transporting midwest ethanol to California. They are NOT the raw numbers for ethanol. If you look at the chart, you will see that without transportation from the midwest to California, ethanol made in California has a CO2 rating exactly where I said it should be, in between 46 and 64. They nail it at 50 grams of CO2, and 80 with land use: California ethanol 50.70 grams CO2 80.70 grams CO2 with land use. -16% less than gas or diesel. The five ethanol manufactures in California that use California grown corn (California grows 625,000 acres of corn) have very little transportation CO2 to California consumers, compared to midwest corn ethanol, so these numbers are much more in line with the actual CO2 numbers for ethanol. Additionally, you can see that your second link shows gas and diesel at 95 grams CO2, compared with your first link that showed them at 85 grams CO2. This is because like I said, your first link did not include well-to-tank CO2 emissions. Thanks for proving me correct again. Your first link under-counted CO2 on diesel/gas exactly as I said, and overcounted on ethanol exactly like I said.
          raktmn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          One last bit in response to your last post (some of our responses have gotten out of order) The California LCFS numbers all include all CO2, including transportation. That is the very definition of the LCFS numbers. They include all CO2 emissions. That is why there is a 10 gram difference in these two numbers (again, from your own source): California; Dry Mill; Dry DGS, NG: -- 58.90 grams CO2 Midwest; Dry Mill; Dry DGS, NG: -- 68.40 grams CO2 The 10 grams is the difference in transportation to California. There are 2 more examples of this exact same 10 gram difference for other ways of making ethanol. And if you look at the CNG section, you can see where they also break out transportation there also, giving different numbers for: California NG via pipeline; compressed in California vs. North American NG delivered via pipeline; compressed in California You are wrong when you claim delivery is not counted by LCFS numbers. That is the whole point of LCFS, is to count everything. There is no special exception for CO2 released transporting ethanol from the mid-west to California. You are becoming increasingly irrational.
          raktmn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          Again, from your own source: Corn Ethanol: 21% Mean GHG emission reduction over gas.
          raktmn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          Peter, You have proven my point with your own math. Yes, for every 100 units of energy in ethanol requires 75 unit of energy from natural gas, electricity, and gas/diesel. According to your graph, natural gas is 62 grams, diesel/gas is 85-6 grams. Each unit of natural gas energy burned to make corn ethanol creates 1.3 energy units of ethanol. The same 62 grams is burned up, but the process creates more energy from those same 62 grams. So to calculate how much CO2 is used to create ethanol, multiply 62 grams times .75% = 46.5 grams per unit of energy in ethanol. The same math for gas and diesel. 86 grams worth of CO2 burned from diesel in creating ethanol creates 1.3 energy units of ethanol. So that is 86 grams X .75% = 64.5 grams per unit of energy in ethanol. So you produce between 46.5 and 64.5 grams of CO2 to create 1 unit of energy in ethanol. Yet the graph you provided puts Corn ethanol at 103 grams. That isn't possible without adding in the CO2 produced by burning the ethanol, without deducting the CO2 consumed to make the ethanol. You can say everyone gives "100% credit for each gram of CO2 emitted", but this one doesn't. If it did, the number on the chart would be somewhere between 46.5 and 64.5 grams.
          PeterScott
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          @raktmn I dispute your claim. There are 75 units of fossil fuel energy used to produce every 100 units of US Corn ethanol. So even if ethanol was a total zero emission fuel it would essentially have carbon intensity about 75% of that of fossil fuels. Next there are the actual carbon emissions from burning the ethanol, this is where ethanol gets it's discount. There are still significant carbon emissions. But every source I looked at counts this as ZERO, not because there are zero emission, but because they were taken out of the atmosphere in the first place. This is so common, I can't even find the real number for comparison. But you are wrong to say it isn't taken into account. It is 100% taken into account, in that everyone counts all actual ethanol carbon burning emissions as zero. 100% credit for each gram emitted. So we still sit at about 75% of fossil fuel until the actual disputed part, the land use changes. Pro ethanol lobbies say this number should be small to non-existent. but the numbers I see are what California is using for LCFS and that places Corn Ethanol as higher than regular gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbon_fuel_standard
        Marcopolo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @PeterScott
        @ PeterScott Thank you for the link. Very interesting chart. The contrast between the different sugar cane ethanol producers, was very thought ptovoking.. It's a bit sad when, only coal equals US corn based ethanol for the highest CO2 emissions !
        Giza Plateau
        • 1 Year Ago
        @PeterScott
        They are supposed to die and go to hell, Peter.
      Spec
      • 1 Year Ago
      I went for a run yesterday. On my 5 mile run I saw 4 Tesla cars (3 Model S and 1 Roadster). Oh, and Tesla is up another 8% with a market cap approaching $10Billion. Crazy.
      Allch Chcar
      • 1 Year Ago
      Good grief this gets confusing sometimes. Basically an independent study funded by "Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA, which originally funded the BCG report), the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers" found the BCG study erroneous. An independent study funded by the same people as the original BCG study. Sounds like a case of biting the hand the feeds you. I don't usually agree with California Air Resource Board's hard line stance on emissions but it looks like they hit the mark this time.
      2 wheeled menace
      • 1 Year Ago
      Low carbon fuels? that's going to require processing, which means that California is going to shift it's emissions to somewhere else so it can say 'not in my backyard'. Of course it is going to cost the driver more $. Just more incentive to go renewable i guess. But i'd say that since we are still in an economic downturn, this is bad timing for people who are already struggling to pay the bills.
        raktmn
        • 1 Year Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        I think you have a massive misunderstanding of what the term low carbon fuel means. You seem to think refiners can process or refine carbon out of gasoline or diesel. That is impossible. LCFS cannot require more processing to create low carbon fuels. And California cannot shift its LCFS production to outside of California, because LCFS rules are all about making refiners account for all of the upstream CO2 released from well-to-pump. Moving production further away would actually Increase the carbon rating of the fuel they were selling, because it would increase the amount of carbon released transporting that fuel. And all the upsteam CO2 must be counted no matter what state it was released in. I think you are suffering from the same misconception about low carbon fuels that others show on this blog. A fuel becomes a lower carbon fuel in 2 different ways. 1) The upstream CO2 emissions calculated from well-to-tank (such as pumping, refining and transport) is reduced. 2) Alternative fuels that release less carbon when burned, AND use less carbon getting to your gas tank are blended into the fuel. There is no such thing as "processing" gas or diesel more to reduce how much carbon is released when it is burned.
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          Oh yes, i totally agree that externalities should be paid whenever possible. The cost at the pump should reflect all costs. Subsidies for oil should go too. Energy star rated refineries, wow! I didn't know such things existed. Thanks. This has been very educational. :)
          raktmn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          2WM -- For research, try looking up Energy Star rated oil refineries. Those multi-foot tall flames can be used to co-generate electricity to light the plant. Refineries can even install solar or wind generation to reduce their carbon footprint. Same with oil pump stations drawing crude oil out of the ground. It does definitely discourage shipping oil by tankers burning bunker oil from the other side of the world, and relying more on closer sources instead. I don't deny that will have a cost to consumers. I'm saying that those externalities and pollution SHOULD be paid for by consumers!
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @raktmn
          Hey, thanks for the education. I did make an assumption, as this is how ultra low sulfur diesel fuel works - they process it heavily to reduce the sulfur. This increases the cost quite a bit, and lowers the energy content. So here are two problems with the methods of getting lower carbon content fuel into California which you mentioned. 1) If the upstream emissions from well to tank must be reduced, then California is going to have to purchase fuel that could very well be more expensive ( for example, from sweet / light crude, which is very hard to find here and usually must be imported ), and other states would be ultimately purchasing and burning lower quality stuff ( like fuel from tar sands, etc ). This is good for California as the states surrounding it are not very populous, therefore the emissions from Nevada, Oregon, etc. would not be blowing into California, but it is bad for other states as they will likely end up only burning the nastier stuff, though at a lower cost. Unless there is some way to magically reduce the carbon footprint of refining. I live next to 4 refineries which usually have multi foot tall flames coming off them 24 hours a day though. I gotta say i am doubtful that the process can get "greener". 2) Alternative fuels eh? I guess that could work if you could find one compatible with 200+ million running cars all designed around combusting gasoline. What's the carbon cost of piping ethanol from the midwest corn belt though... it can't be pretty. What could California produce? they already buy a lot of water from out of state, so it would be difficult for them to produce their own biofuels there. Ah, good luck to them on this endeavor anyway,
      Charlie Peters
      • 1 Year Ago
      Will Mary Nichols, John Wallauch, Kamala Harris, and Governor Brown support the UN, Bill Clinton, Gary Condit, Al Gore, Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, Dianne Feinstein Barbara Boxer and the World Bank (GMO fuel) waiver? Can CO2, ozone and pm (asthma) be reduced with a GMO fuel waiver?
      raktmn
      • 1 Year Ago
      Another post to clear up misconceptions. Even the Boston Consulting Group has admitted that their original 2012 report was faulty. On March 28nd of 2013 BCG's Houston Texas team started a draft revision process to correct their mistakes. They have not yet completed their draft revision process to fix their errors where even they agreed they had been proven wrong.
        Marco Polo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @raktmn
        @ raktmn Far from 'clearing up' misconceptions, you seem to be creating distortions. BCG Response to UC Davis Policy Institute on Energy, Environment and the Economy. May 8, 2013 "We appreciate the work the US Davis Institute for Energy, Environment and the Economy put into its review of the Boston Consulting Group analysis of the cumulative impacts of AB 32 policies on California refiners. The report issued Monday reflects the seriousness of this issue and the urgent need to address the economic implications of current policies. We accept there are other assumptions that could be used in an analysis of this type and that different assumptions will lead to different conclusions. BCG was selected to conduct this analysis because of our broad and deep understanding of global refining economics. While there may be other plausible assumptions or scenarios, as the Institute report noted, we selected what we believe are the most plausible assumptions to make. We remain confident those assumptions best represent the decision-making process of California refiners. We agree the BCG report did not look at potential impacts of AB 32 policies on other sectors of the California economy. As noted in the Institute’s report, that was not the purpose of the study. However, that does not change the fact that AB 32 policies, including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), will result in profound disruptions to the state’s transportation fuel supply market. The UC Davis report notes that changes in the availability of low-carbon biofuels like sugar cane ethanol from Brazil or cellulosic ethanol, as well as increased adoption of alternative transport technologies like electric vehicles, will significantly change the LCFS compliance options for refiners. While we agree with those findings, they fail to recognize or acknowledge that these changes will not and cannot occur with sufficient speed or magnitude to avert the disastrous consequences of these policies in the next 2-3 years (see attached supporting analysis). California fuel refiners and fuel consumers will begin to see and feel the disruptions identified by BCG in the next two to three years. Changes in the transportation fuel and technologies portfolios considered in the Institute’s review will occur over the next 10 to 20 years – too late to prevent major and permanent damage to fuel supplies and markets in California. While the UC Davis report noted on several occasions the very real potential for serious problems associated with the AB 32 policies, it declined to offer any practical or feasible solutions to the issues raised in the BCG analysis. This is unfortunate because the BCG report identifies several outcomes that will be quite harmful to consumers, refiners and the environment. It is unfortunate that the UC Davis report continued to rely on data and information that is clearly incorrect even after those errors and inaccuracies were brought to the panel’s attention. (Continued ..)
          Marco Polo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Marco Polo
          ( Continued.....) "The UC Davis report suggests that a different set of assumptions about job multipliers will change the likely impacts of AB 32 policies on refinery closures and job losses in California. However, given California’s current economic slowdown, any additional job losses should be avoided if possible. We are encouraged by recent changes that ARB has made to ease the cost of compliance with AB 32. While this will help all interested parties the biggest beneficiary will be consumers as they will eventually bear most of the cost of compliance. We support the suggestion to develop leading indicators that policy makers can use to track compliance with AB 32. We also take this opportunity to strongly encourage policy makers to develop practical, viable and cost effective alternatives to the current legislation. The time to take action is now because without significant changes the market disruptions forecasted in the BCG report will begin to manifest themselves in the next 2-3 years at which point it will be too late to take corrective action." (End of Response). Note the date, May 8 2013. Hardly an admission of an erroneous report ! All studies of this sort will contain material which becomes available or changes during the period of the reports preparation. That's why such studies, (like legislation) need constant review. BCG, is simply expanding it's report to include wider issues not included in the original brief. LCFS do not require the oil industry, to invest in new technology, only to lower the carbon intensity of fuels sold in California. In practise this means blending biofuels ! BCG report states sufficient quantities of those low carbon bio-fuels can't be produced in time comply with the LCFS. If that occurs, refiners must reduce the quantity of gasoline sold in California in compliance LCFS. UC Davis and the supporters of LCFS, argue that "new technology" , or imported "Brazilian Sugar fuels" or some other magic solution yet to be discovered, will solve the problem. Well, it might, but BCG, says this is a very unlikely scenario, and until a reason solution is proposed, . the legislation is flawed.
      raktmn
      • 1 Year Ago
      A quick post to correct some misconceptions. The LCFS was enacted by Republican Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger through Executive Order S-1-07 with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2007. This is not a left-right issue. The impact is not limited to just California. In the US, all states have the right to adopt California emissions and pollution standards, and 14 states have chosen to go with California standards. This includes New York and other high population states, making up roughly 40% of all US population. So this legislation really does matter. Especially since similar legislation is also being enacted in other nations around the world. This law tracks all carbon from well-to-wheel. This is where the improvements in lower CO2 will be found. Finally there will be a link between the externalities behind getting fuel to your tank, and the gas you buy at the pump. Freeloaders who don't want to pay for their externalities might have a problem with that, but all true green car enthusiasts know exactly how important it is for there to be a direct link between what you buy at the pump, and the externalities behind that fuel.
        Marcopolo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @raktmn
        @ raktmn You are correct that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program pursuant to the California Assembly Bill AB 32 and the Governor Schwarzenegger 's Executive Order S-01-07. Not only did the act pass successfully, but was later endorsed by plebiscite. But that only makes it the law. It may be a very good law, delivering all the benefits it's supporters claim. But is still doesn't make the law, or the theories behind it, sacred or written in tablets of stone ! All government policies should be subject to scrutiny, criticism, re-appraisal, and review. Supporters like you, are certainly quite right to defend government programmes,when they are called into question with the appropriate evidence. The BCC report raises genuine doubts about the effectiveness of the economic consequences and implementation of these laws, and raises doubts about the value of such programmes. BCC may be right, or wrong, but their concerns should be considered, and not dismissed without proper investigation. A great many environmental laws and industries were created in the enthusiasm of 2006-10. Some have proved beneficial, others only supported vested interests and the mistakes of the past. It's important that these programmes are constantly re-assessed, (even though that may upset the programs supporters, and vested interests). It's hard to reform or abolish laws once they become institutions ! [quote] tracks all carbon from well-to-wheel. This is where the improvements in lower CO2 will be found. Finally there will be a link between the externalities behind getting fuel to your tank, and the gas you buy at the pump. Freeloaders who don't want to pay for their externalities might have a problem with that, but all true green car enthusiasts know exactly how important it is for there to be a direct link between what you buy at the pump, and the externalities behind that fuel.[ /quote] But, BCC maintains that the devil is in the detail ! BCC questions the objectivity and authenticity of how these 'well-to the wheel' conclusions are derived. Those doubts have not been adequately refuted by the UC Davis Policy Institute.
      lad
      • 1 Year Ago
      Why would you want to spend money on meeting the AB32 requirements when you can confuse the issues and slow down clean technology with fake studies, bamboozle folks with PR lies and keep on buying corrupt politicians to do your bidding. That's worked for at least a hundred years. " It's money by God, not people's health that's important here." Wars Fought Over Energy are a good form of birth control. Read the responses. No one talks about the intent of the law being to better the health of the Planet and it's people. Get a clue here and quite taking the bate to argue the symptoms(economics) when the problem is "How to clean up an environmental disaster caused by years of burning fossil fuels."
      Marcopolo
      • 1 Year Ago
      Jon LeSage's article is copied from, "Switchboard", the staff blog of a leftist, environmental advocacy group, "Natural Resources Defense Council ". The Boston Consulting Group is highly respected, with more than 75 offices globally and access to some of the best scientific brains in the world. It's clients are mostly big corporations, governments etc, The UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, Environment and the Economy , is also highly regarded, but more environmentally concious. It's fair to describe the UC Davis Policy Institute, as a leading advocate for Climate Change and Greenhouse gas reductions. US Davis criticism of BCC, is pretty vague and speculative ! I include just five examples: 1 ) " The (BCC report) failed to mention the possibility of more economy activity being created because Clean tech oriented firms may be attracted to move to California because their products might be more highly valued due to Low Carbon Fuel Standards " ! 2 ) “A number of other low-cost pathways have started to emerge that were not originally anticipated… Including new low-carbon liquid biofuels that do not require dedicated infrastructure or advanced technology vehicles have emerged.” 3) " California refiners will diversify upstream into biofuels production, contract for newly developed lower cost domestic crude oils, or engage in other strategic activities to maintain profitability and avoid shutting down and laying off refinery workers.” 4) "The BBC report failed to include the evidence from one major oil company , which proves that while no one producer or type of low-carbon fuel will be able to replace traditional petroleum transportation fuels in the near term, we believe its efforts, along with others like it, can contribute to the continued success of the LCFS.” ( UC Davis reviewers went on to note that the Neste Oil renewable diesel project alone satisfies roughly half the LCFS requirements for the "entire industry" in 2013 and 2014.) ! 5) "The BBC report “narrowly focused on the economic impacts of AB32 on the state’s oil refining industry and does not, in the opinion of the reviewers, include a full accounting of the economic impacts, or the health and welfare impacts of the legislation on the broader population and economy of the state." Could any fair-minded, objective reader accept such wishful thinking, and vague generalities as a proper rebuttal of the BCC report ? 1-3, is just wishful fantasy, ( or speculative conjecture.) 4) Total misrepresentation ! . The "major" Oil Company, is Neste Oil, from Finland. Neste does have the world's largest bio-diesel refinery In Singapore, (using environmentally criticised Palm Oil). The refinery produces 800,000 tons annually, California uses that much in a few hours ! 5) Nice sentiment, but hard to quantify. Both the BCC and the UC Davis report raise interesting questions, but Jon LeSage's " "knocked down" headline, only displays his bias and desire for sensationalism !
    • Load More Comments