Comment Log Display

October 8, 2009




Mary Nichols, Chairman
Board Members
California Air Resources Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95812

RE: Comments on Low-Carbon-Fuel-Standard Regulation

Dear Chairman Nichols and Board Members,

In response to the 2nd 15-day Notice of Modified Text for the
LCFS, please consider the following issues:

1)	By “averaging” fuel pathways and GHG emissions from different
processes used to develop, process and transport the same type of
fuel (e.g. “Corn Ethanol Midwest; Wet Mill, 100% NG”), a fuel
provider whose emissions are greater than the average will benefit
from the assumptions.  A producer of corn ethanol could benefit
from the averaging of emissions and processes having no cause to
challenge the assumption in their favor. Whereas fuel providers
with less emissions than the average can challenge the assumptions
under the 2B option and the net effect is worse than average.  A
provider of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol could use mechanized
harvesting and benefit from that fuel pathway’s assumptions, but in
actuality only use mechanized harvesting for 10% of the crop and
escape verification and enforcement protocols due to California’s
lack of international jurisdiction.  Moreover, the claimed
emissions reductions would not be “real” as legally required.  

2)	By modifying the definition of “material change” to an approved
physical pathway to only include changes in the basic mode of
transportation for the fuel, ARB may miss significant changes in
GHG emissions from other changed processes, such as biorefineries
switching from coal to other energy sources such as biomass
incineration that may release ~50% more CO2 emissions than coal
(see the attached report by the Massachusetts Environmental Energy
Alliance.)  Changes in other production processes and technology,
updated science, etc., warrants a broader definition of “material
change” to include all changes that will result in an increase of
GHG emissions in order for emissions reductions to be real,
enforceable, quantifiable, and permanent as legally required. 
Because biomass incineration can emit ~50% more CO2 emissions than
coal, ARB should not develop a fuel pathway nor encourage forest
biomass as an energy source as alluded to in the LCFS Update
released on October 6, 2009.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Naomi Melver