California's low-carbon fuel standard has oil companies anxious

Apr 28, 2009 By Dale Kasler

In car-crazy California, a new fuel standard ordered by state officials to curb greenhouse gases could dramatically change how vehicles run. It also could have a huge effect on cost.

The petroleum industry and some economists say the new standard adopted by the state Air Resources Board on Thursday will cost motorists billions, because blending gasoline will become considerably more complicated.

But state officials and environmentalists say the "low-carbon fuel standard" will actually save Californians money by reducing oil consumption and ushering in a competitive new era of biofuels and .

The stakes are enormous. The price of fuel can have a significant impact on the state's economic health. When gas hit $4.50 last summer, it severely hurt tourism and caused delivery companies to impose fuel surcharges.

Gasoline now sells for a relatively affordable $2.35 a gallon on average, but the state's already strict fuel formulas create a delicate balance between supply and demand. Even minor supply glitches have caused big price spikes because only a small number of refiners make gas to California's specifications.

Business advocates say significant price increases during a recession could be disastrous. They are casting a wary eye at the fuel standard.

"Reformulating the fuel supply -- we shouldn't undergo that without a certain amount of trepidation," said Dorothy Rothrock, senior vice president of the California Manufacturers & Technology Association.

Every time California has instituted stricter clean-air standards for motor fuel, "they all have had a cost associated with it," said Cathy Reheis-Boyd, chief operating officer at the Western States Petroleum Association. "I know there's going to be a cost associated with this."

A big problem, she said, is that the air board's standards will limit the use of corn-based in gasoline -- leaving refiners with a major hurdle.

Yet the Air Resources Board, in approving the low carbon standard Thursday, dismissed forecasts of higher costs. The board's staff contends that when the standard is fully operational, in 2020, Californians will save about $11 billion a year.

"It's the reduction in the use of petroleum," said board spokesman Dimitri Stanich.

The first-in-the-nation carbon standard is a key element in California's goal of reducing overall volume of greenhouse gases 25 percent by 2020, as required by a 2006 state law. The air board's standard dictates that the "carbon intensity" of fuels be reduced starting in 2011, ramping up to a 10 percent cut by 2020.

The board believes the standard will encourage the development of hydrogen, electricity and biofuels to power vehicles. But there's much controversy about how the standard treats what is currently the leading , ethanol made from corn.

Corn ethanol is now a staple of the transportation scene. It makes up 6 percent of the gas sold in California, and that's going to grow to 10 percent next year.

But the air board decided that corn ethanol is not so great for limiting greenhouse gases. The argument goes like this: Eager to cash in on ethanol demand, farmers around the world plow up grasslands and chop down trees to make way for corn, a process that releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The air board's ruling infuriated the corn ethanol industry, which is in severe financial distress already. Companies like Sacramento's Pacific Ethanol Inc. are on the verge of bankruptcy.

It also angered the petroleum refiners, who argued that they have few viable options for meeting the 10 percent carbon reduction if they don't get much credit for using corn ethanol. The alternatives, for the most part, consist of fuel technologies that are still expensive or are in the early stages of commercialization.

"We have no way to know how we're supposed to comply with this," Reheis-Boyd said.

She said the only real solution is to blend in ethanol made from sugar cane -- which gets a better "carbon score" from the air board. But that means importing it from Brazil and paying costly U.S. import tariffs, she said.

All told, her association believes fuel costs in California could rise $3 billion a year.

Air board officials and environmentalists said the refiners are crying wolf. The standard will phase in slowly in the early years. Refiners and entrepreneurs will have plenty of time -- and economic incentive -- to make inexpensive biofuels, hydrogen-based fuels, even ethanol from such "cellulosic" materials as switchgrass.

"The program starts off on a rather gentle slope," said Roland Hwang, vehicle policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco. There are even ways of making ethanol out of corn that can reduce its "total carbon score," he said.

But Severin Borenstein, director of the Energy Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, said there's no certainty that these emerging technologies will be ready to meet the demand.

The air board "is betting that with the phase-in, those (alternative) fuels are going to get a lot cheaper," Borenstein said. "They might, but there certainly is not any guarantee at all."

The impact on the economy wouldn't be "devastating," but the new standard is an inefficient way of attacking , he said.

___

(c) 2009, The Sacramento Bee (Sacramento, Calif.).
Visit The Sacramento Bee online at www.sacbee.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Explore further: Ambitious EU targets for renewable energies make economic sense

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Calif. approves nation's 1st low-carbon fuel rule

Apr 24, 2009

(AP) -- California air regulators on Thursday adopted a first-in-the-nation mandate requiring low-carbon fuels, part of the state's wider effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Ethanol's agricultural impact is mixed

Oct 19, 2005

Purdue University economists say converting more corn into ethanol might profit many interests, but not all in the agriculture industry would benefit.

Fuel ethanol cannot alleviate US dependence on petroleum

Jul 01, 2005

A new study of the carbon dioxide emissions, cropland area requirements, and other environmental consequences of growing corn and sugarcane to produce fuel ethanol indicates that the "direct and indirect environmental impacts ...

The future of biofuels is not in corn

Jul 18, 2007

The future of biofuels is not in corn, says a new report released today by Food & Water Watch, the Network for New Energy Choices, and the Vermont Law School Institute for Energy and the Environment. The corn ethanol refinery ...

Economist: 'Blending wall' stands in way of ethanol growth

Dec 22, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Ethanol production opened the door to the renewable fuels industry. The industry now must get past an imposing wall of federal regulations and market conditions if it hopes to grow, said a Purdue University ...

Ethanol production said increasing erosion

Jul 06, 2005

Large-scale farming of sugar cane and corn for ethanol fuel is increasing erosion and reducing biodiversity, Washington State University researchers say.

Recommended for you

Should the Japanese give nuclear power another chance?

23 hours ago

On September 9, 2014, the Japan Times reported an increasing number of suicides coming from the survivors of the March 2011 disaster. In Minami Soma Hospital, which is located 23 km away from the power plant, ...

UK wind power share shows record rise

Oct 24, 2014

The United Kingdom wind power production has been enjoying an upward trajectory, and on Tuesday wind power achieved a significant energy production milestone, reported Brooks Hays for UPI. High winds from Hurricane Gonzalo were the force behind wind turbines outproducing nuclear power ...

Global boom in hydropower expected this decade

Oct 24, 2014

An unprecedented boom in hydropower dam construction is underway, primarily in developing countries and emerging economies. While this is expected to double the global electricity production from hydropower, it could reduce ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

GrayMouser
5 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2009
The board's staff contends that when the standard is fully operational, in 2020, Californians will save about $11 billion a year.

Of course they are saying this. And they will have a study (written in-house or by a picked consultant) that confirms this position. Whether they or right or not remains to be determined.
ryuuguu
1 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2009
For once I agree with the body of GrayMouser's statement, I just disagree with choice of subject(they) and quote.

I feel the subject(they) is " Western States Petroleum Association". From past experiance with Tabacco companies, public health offcials and lung cancer, who do you think "will have a study (written in-house or by a picked consultant) that confirms this position."