Comment Log Display

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Office of the Governor
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA  95814

RE:  Comments on Proposed CA Low Carbon Fuel Standards 

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

Advanced Biofuels USA is concerned that all green house gases
(GHG) produced to power vehicles are fairly and appropriately
attributed to GHG inventories per the Clean Air Act.  These
calculations should reflect scientific facts and help us compare
technologies that mitigate climate change with those that do not.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the regulatory authority
to issue CO2 control regulations under the Clean Air Act, and
California took the lead in regulating ozone (smog) causing
pollutants in the 1950s, it is very important that any motor
vehicle CO2 controls by California or other states properly account
for all related CO2 production. This is especially important since
new vehicle technologies including plug-in hybrids and advanced
biofuels produced from low nutrient input non-food biomass will be
coming to market in the near future. Therefore, California should
strongly consider the following as they set low carbon fuel
standards.
 
1.  CO2 Emissions from Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles (PHEVs) and
Electric Vehicles

It is extremely important that CO2 produced in the course of
producing electricity to charge plug-in hybrid or electric only
vehicles be properly accounted for in Clean Air Act mandated
emission inventories. Even more important, they must be apportioned
to, and therefore controlled at, their actual place of use.  If
not, California could claim plug-in hybrids used in Los Angeles are
"emission-free" while the electricity and CO2  produced to charge
them comes from a new or expanded coal-fired power plant located
where they will not be included in a relevant inventory. This would
result in additional CO2 being emitted into the earth’s atmosphere
without any record of these emissions having occurred, subverting
the goal of controlling Green House Gas emissions. 

California Air Resources Board should ensure that any CO2
regulations include the following:

a.	All electricity and CO2 generated from coal or other
non-renewable fueled power plants used to charge plug-in hybrid or
electric only vehicles must be accounted for in Clean Air Act
mandated state emission inventories.
b.	Quantities of electricity and CO2 used for charging batteries
must include energy losses (and CO2 production) incurred in
electrical production, step-up/step-down transformers, and
long-range transmission, (totaling approximately 60%+ of total
electrical production, USNAS).
c.	Calculations must be consistent.
d.	Plug-in Hybrid battery charging electrical CO2 emissions must
be included, along with on-board combustion CO2 emissions, in
point-of-use state mobile source emission inventories no matter
where the electricity is produced. 
e.	Electric only vehicle charging electrical CO2 emissions must be
included in point-of-use mobile source state emission inventories
no matter where the electricity is produced.


2. Uniform Calculations for Advanced Biofuels CO2 Emissions
 
With the potential of CO2 emission or fuel economy waivers being
granted to California and the New England/Mid Atlantic States,
there is the possibility of at least three different standards and,
more important, three different methods of calculating Green House
Gas emissions. Therefore, it is important to have a single uniform
method (or formula) for making these calculations. In establishing
this formula, the following technical issues must be addressed.

a.	A uniform standard for the conversion of CO2 emissions from
plug-in, electric only (see above) and conventional hybrids to
miles per gallon (MPG) that is equal (not equivalent) to the MPG of
internal combustion equipped vehicles. (Without this, marketing
claims and false science will take over.)

b.	A uniform standard (or algorithm) for the calculation of CO2
emissions and MPG for biofuels, in addition to existing standards
for corn-ethanol or soybean oil biodiesel, that can account for: a)
increased energy content per gallon, b) decreased CO2 emissions
during fuel production, and c) increased MPG of new fuel mixtures.
(Without this, significant regulatory barriers to the use of new
biofuels, which would decrease CO2 emissions without affecting food
production and costs, would be created.)

3.  The theory of indirect land use is not backed by an adequate
level of scientific understanding to be used to regulate the impact
of greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels

This proposal also would base critical Green House Gas emission
regulations on an untested theory of indirect land use that
postulates a direct correlation between any US agricultural actions
and those taken anywhere else on the planet. Furthermore,
supporters of this theory claim it should be used to analyze
greenhouse gas emissions for the California Low Carbon Fuel
Standard because it is “our best estimate of carbon discharges”
despite that fact that no empirical evidence has been put forth
that supports this theory.
Advanced Biofuels USA does not think those ’best estimates’ meet
even the basic standards of scientific inquiry.  The indirect land
use rules being considered for inclusion in the CARB low-carbon
fuel regulations are far too uncertain and limited in effect to
meet regulatory standards and would result in selective
enforcement. 
Advanced Biofuels USA supports the use of empirically based system
analyses of all fuels that would be used to supply power for
transportation. It is important that a level playing field, based
on all energy inputs, environmental effects, and additional
economic costs, be created for regulatory purposes. Specific issues
that must be addressed include:

•	All energy lost (approximately 60%) in the generation and
transmission of electricity used to recharge electric and plug-in
hybrids must be accounted for. Since most of this is from
non-renewable fuels, significant GHG emissions must not be missed.

•	The energy and GHGs used to extract and concentrate uranium to
electrical production levels and the energy/GHGs and costs required
for the secured long-term storage of spent fuel must be accounted
for. In addition, the national security costs of relying on
imported sources of uranium must be included.

•	The environmental damage caused by petroleum extraction in
sensitive ecosystems, including the Arctic and tar sand basins, and
the energy and GHGs produced to remediate them must be accounted
for.    

•	The energy and GHGs used to produce batteries for hybrids and
electric cars (above that used to produce baseline gasoline
vehicles) must be accounted for. In addition, the energy and GHGs
required to dispose of batteries in an environmentally neutral
manner must be accounted for as well. 

•	The production conditions of the base case gasoline fuel must
included sources that would be used post 2012 in order to provide a
comparable case to advanced biofuels that would begin to reach the
market by that date. This would mean including the costs and GHG
effects of using tar sand, deep ocean, and Arctic petroleum.

•	The calculation of GHG effects of biofuels must include
provisions for future GHG reductions. These include; nutrient input
reductions, reductions in use of food crops, reductions in
non-renewable fuel use for farming and processing, innovations in
biomass sources and biomass conversion, recycling of CO2, and
increases in the energy content of the fuel. This is especially
important since the advanced biofuel industry is only in its
infancy, comparable to the petroleum industry in the early 20th
century, and many of the possible improvements have not even made
it into labs for testing.

California will be making a crucial decision when they consider
Low Carbon Fuel regulations.  The right approach will spur industry
and consumers to an innovative affordable low Green House Gas
future. A wrong decision will misdirect scarce funds to hyped
solutions such as plug-in hybrids that will not benefit the
citizens of California or the United States.

Advanced Biofuels USA urges CARB to reject current ILUC analysis
as part of the LCFS.

Respectfully,


Joanne Ivancic
Executive Director

cc:  Mary Nichols, Chairman, Air Resources Board