Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comments regarding the proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) amendments. Growth Energy is the world’s largest association of biofuel producers, representing 97 U.S. plants that each year produce more than 9.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel; 121 businesses associated with the production process; and tens of thousands of biofuel supporters around the country. Together, we are working to bring better and more affordable choices at the fuel pump to consumers, improve air quality, and protect the environment for future generations. We remain committed to helping our country diversify our energy portfolio in order to grow more green energy jobs, decarbonize our nation’s energy mix, sustain family farms, and drive down the costs of transportation fuels for consumers.

Growth Energy has previously submitted extensive comments demonstrating the vital role low carbon biofuels and higher biofuel blends can play in meeting California’s ambitious climate goals. As we have previously noted, biofuels have been among the largest contributors to the success of the LCFS program to date and are poised to continue to do so with appropriate updates to the program.

As our comments in response to the April workshop also noted, we continue to have serious concerns over the proposed amendments. Of particular concern are the details added to the sustainability certification requirements, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) neglecting to consider farm-level carbon reduction practices and technologies, the unilateral discretion given to the Executive Officer on new fuel pathway applications, and the authority given to the Executive Officer to modify land use change (LUC) penalty values in table 6 for the purposes of determining a fuel’s carbon intensity (CI).

Continued Concerns Over Proposed Sustainability Certification

In our comments on the April 10th workshop, we reiterated our concerns over the onerous and costly requirements on biofuels producers and farmers and how CARB’s Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) of the proposal does not discuss the sustainability certification requirement’s financial burden of implementation. In the recirculated EIA, this impact is still not sufficiently addressed. Rather, the EIA acknowledges potential direct and indirect land use change “is at least partially (and potentially fully) accounted for by the LUC scores added to crop-derived pathways.” This acknowledgement renders the need for a sustainability certification moot as potential LUC concerns for crop-based feedstocks are addressed in Table 6. Corn starch bioethanol is given an automatic 19.8 gCO2e/MJ penalty for indirect land use change (ILUC). Adding the sustainability certification requirement to the current ILUC score amounts to an unfair and unnecessary double penalty for corn starch bioethanol.

As we have previously commented, the concerns over LUC factors are unfounded relative to corn starch bioethanol. In fact, the United States is planting grain corn on roughly the same number of acres as was planted in 1900. At the same time, the per acre yield has increased more than 600%. As shown in the graph below, the number of acres harvested annually have consistently hewn to the average since 1900.

While the most recent proposal details the “best environmental management practices” required for biomass used in fuel pathways and those climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices result in the reduction of carbon emissions, CARB continues to disregard these and other practices when factoring CI scores. Some of these practices include precision application of fertilizer, use of low CI fertilizer, no or low-till farming practices, and the use of cover crops. The use of these practices for measured carbon reduction is not new. Other state agencies are using some of these same practices to reduce the release of soil carbon in the state’s natural and working lands.

CSA practices are an important component to bioethanol’s continued efforts to get to net-zero. We urge CARB to recognize these practices and their carbon-reduction potential and allow CSA practices to be considered when determining a pathway’s CI. Finally, with respect to the proposed sustainability audit, the proposal’s audit requirements address issues that, while important to environmental and social justice, fall outside the scope of the LCFS. According to the April 10 staff presentation, the proposed sustainability audit process would require auditors to conduct: “review of management systems”, “review of social practices”, and an assessment of the “economic sustainability of the applicant.” The proposed amendments require approved certification systems for the sustainability requirement to take “social and economic criteria” into account alongside environmental concerns. While important and laudable goals themselves, “social and economic criteria” have no bearing on GHG reduction. Additionally, many aspects of these audit provisions are addressed by federal programs. For instance, the Fair Labor Standards Act has clear employment guidelines specifically for the agriculture industry. Furthermore, if the proposal is adopted, crop-based biofuels would be the only feedstock for which these criteria would be audited.

Expanding Specified Source Feedstocks

We acknowledge CARB’s recognition of the use of a variety of “waste, residue, by-product or similar material in a fuel pathway”, particularly the inclusion of distiller’s corn oil, and its consideration as specified source feedstock. Biofuels producers are pushing innovations to use every part of the corn crop. While traditionally considered waste, corn stover and corn kernel fiber have increasingly been used as a feedstock for bioethanol production. As a byproduct of corn bioethanol production, we encourage CARB to recognize and include corn stover and corn kernel fiber in the list of specified source feedstocks.

Biofuel Cap and Executive Officer Discretion on Fuel Pathways and LUC Values Betrays Technology Neutrality

CARB has made clear its intentions to increase the role and market for zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs) in the state. However, the revised amendments give the Executive Officer discretion to reject new fuel pathway applications for particular crop-based fuels solely based on achieving a threshold of 132,000 registered Class 3-8 ZEVs. It endows the Executive Officer with such an authority without a proper rulemaking. This, combined with a 20 percent cap on the use of specific biofuels for credit generation opportunities sets a dangerous precedent for the use of all GHG reducing feedstocks and technologies, violating the LCFS’ commitment to technology neutrality. The program already requires the use of a lifecycle model and assesses penalties for land use change, further limits make little to no sense. Using the full range of Class 3-8 trucks allows for the very real possibility this threshold can be met with smaller lighter vehicles (Class 3-4), thus leaving the larger, heavier vehicles (Class 7-8) reliant on liquid fuel that may only be available in fossil fuels if new biofuels pathways are not allowed. This could be especially true after an update to CA-GREET where legacy pathways are termed out. This situation would result in environmental backsliding and loss of GHG benefits.

Similarly, the proposed discretion of the Executive Officer to revise LUC values in Table 6 if such a value is deemed not “conservatively representative of a particular region/feedstock/fuel combination” also betrays the Standard’s technology neutrality. This proposed provision, much like the sustainability certification requirement, singles out crop-based feedstocks.

Not only are concerns over LUC values unwarranted for cornstarch bioethanol, but the proposal does not provide any opportunity for a LUC value to be revised down, even if the Executive Officer were presented with “the best available empirical data” indicating a lower value. For instance, data showing corn bioethanol with a LUC value less than the 19.8 gOC2/MJ would not be considered. To that end, we also believe the 19.8 gCO2e/MJ score is outdated and not based on the most up to date research. A review of more recent science indicates a decreasing trend in land use values with the newer data indicating values closer to 4 gCO2e/MJ.

Approval of E15

We acknowledge CARB’s consideration of the role E15 can play in reducing the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while also providing a cost-savings opportunity for California drivers. Consumers have embraced E15’s reputation as a more environmentally beneficial, more affordable fuel. Since the US EPA approved E15 in 2011, at which time there were zero retailers offering it, its availability rapidly expanded to now 3,400 retail sites in 33 states. Since then, drivers in America have relied on E15 to drive 100 billion miles.

In contrast, with Nevada, Oregon, the Phoenix metro area, and most recently Montana approving E15 for sale, California remains the only state to have not approved this cost-effective, environmentally beneficial fuel that can be used in nearly all the state’s 31 million gasoline-powered vehicles. If CARB not only approved E15, but replaced E10 with E15, this switch would be responsible for the GHG-reduction equivalent of removing more than 400,000 ICE vehicles from California’s roads without negatively impacting California drivers. Neither will it have a negative impact on land use change for bioethanol.

We urge CARB to complete the analysis of and approval process for E15 so that Californians can take advantage of this more affordable, cleaner burning fuel that can be used to power more than 96% of the light duty vehicles on the road today.

E85, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and CCUS

Additionally, we appreciate CARB’s August 2023 updates to the California Transportation Supply (CATS) Model that recognize the value of carbon capture utilization and sequestration (CCUS) in carbon reduction during bioethanol production. By accounting for CCUS, a process incentivized by the Inflation Reduction Act, the pathway carbon intensity (CI) for E85—approved for use in California—was updated such that it reduces the assumed CI score for bioethanol from 66 gCO2e/MJ to 35 gCO2e/MJ. We appreciate CARB’s recognition of the bioethanol industry’s efforts to further reduce carbon emissions via CCUS, a process which is incentivized by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. This is a welcome update to CATS and a recognition of the positive impact bioethanol has on California’s emissions reduction goals.

Additionally, California’s existing approval of E85 has resulted in significant growth of its use in flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs): more than 118 million gallons have been sold at 375 locations across the state in 2023 alone. The current size of California’s FFV fleet stands at more than 1.3 million vehicles. The use of E85 will promote even greater reductions in GHG emissions and reductions of air toxics. We would continue to encourage CARB to implement policies that strongly incentivize and as necessary, require the production and use of flex-fuel vehicles, as well as continued investment in infrastructure for expanded access to E85 in the state. In doing so, the Board will be achieving multiple goals: improving air quality and GHG emissions, reducing the state’s dependence on fossil fuels, and providing consumers with an affordable choice to power their vehicles. Again, this can be done without any negative land conversion impact.

Expand Access to Low-CI Power Sourcing for Biofuels Producers

With respect to Low-CI power sourcing, the proposal fails to recognize its carbon-reduction potential in biofuels production. The proposal currently only allows this mechanism for hydrogen as a transportation fuel, Direct Air Capture projects, and electricity as a transportation fuel. Firstly, this fails the LCFS’ fundamental policy goal of carbon intensity reduction in transportation fuels used in California. Allowing bioethanol producers to source new contracted low-CI power that is not included in a utility resource plan via a power purchase agreement does not impact electricity demand.

Secondly, biofuels production occurs largely in electricity markets outside of California. This renders the argument against expanding low-CI power sourcing due to purported resource shuffling moot. Additionally, by not expanding this provision to biofuels, it denies the state the opportunity to lead other jurisdictions towards increasing their low-CI power generation capability.

Finally, similar to other proposed provisions in the amendments, limiting the approved use of indirect accounting for Low-CI power sourcing to a handful of fuels and processes violates the LCFS’ commitment to technology neutrality.

Accelerate the Use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)

As producers of one of the most scalable feedstocks for SAF production, we encourage CARB to continue to work with SAF producers, biofuel feedstock producers, and airlines to continue to seek ways to accelerate use of these important fuels to help decarbonize the aviation sector.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the recent proposed amendments. The LCFS Program is a critical tool to addressing climate change, and we look forward to working with CARB to ensure the role of biofuels in making California’s fuel mix more sustainable and help the state achieve its progressive climate goals through the expanded use of bioethanol.

The post Growth Energy Submits Comments on California’s Proposed LCFS Amendments appeared first on Growth Energy.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comments in response to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Clean Transportation Fuel Standard’s (CTFS) Advisory Committee and its technical report. Growth Energy is the world’s largest association of biofuel producers, representing 97 U.S. plants that each year produce more than 9.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel; 119 businesses associated with the production process; and tens of thousands of biofuel supporters around the country. Together, we are working to bring better and more affordable choices at the fuel pump to consumers, improve air quality, and protect the environment for future generations. We remain committed to helping our country diversify our energy portfolio in order to grow more green energy jobs, decarbonize our nation’s energy mix, sustain family farms, and drive down the costs of transportation fuels for consumers.

We applaud New Mexico’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions through the CTFS. Growth Energy has previously provided extensive comments on similar programs in California, Washington, and Oregon, ensuring those states recognize the carbon reduction value of
increased bioethanol use. In California, biofuels have been among the largest contributors to the success of the LCFS program to date and are poised to continue to do so with appropriate updates to the program. Additionally, as mentioned in the June 28 Advisory Committee meeting, bioethanol has been a significant credit generator in the Oregon and Washington programs. Like those states, we believe the CTFS has the opportunity to utilize biofuels as a means of immediate greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction in the current light-duty vehicle fleet as future technologies are further developed.

Environmental and Economic Value of Bioethanol

According to recent data from Environmental Health and Engineering, today’s bioethanol reduces GHG by nearly 50 percent compared to gasoline and can provide even further GHG reductions with additional readily available technologies.

The potential for fuels with higher blends of ethanol to reduce GHGs are further illustrated in a national analysis showing more than 146,000 tons in GHG reduction in New Mexico alone if E10 gasoline was replaced with E15. This is the GHG reduction equivalent of removing 32,000 vehicles from New Mexico’s fleet just by using a higher ethanol-blend fuel.

Bioethanol’s other environmental benefits are also noteworthy. As has been researched by the University of California, Riverside and the University of Illinois at Chicago, the use of more bioethanol and bioethanol-blended fuel reduces harmful particulates and air toxics such as carbon monoxide, and benzene.

Use of GREET for Life Cycle Analysis Modeling

We believe the Argonne National Laboratory’s GREET model is the most accurate tool to examine the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of all fuels and considers a wide range of carbon reduction processes and technologies that bioethanol production can utilize. It is the gold standard for measuring the emissions-reducing power of farm-based feedstocks and biofuels. It incorporates up-to-date science that more accurately scores lifecycle carbon intensity (CI) for corn ethanol and other renewable fuels.

Reject Caps and Sustainability “Guardrails” on Biofuels

As several members of the CTFS Advisory Committee noted in presentations and we reiterated above, biofuels have been a major driver of GHG reductions in existing fuel standard programs. They have been able to be so despite onerous, and we believe unnecessary, land use change (LUC) penalties for cornstarch bioethanol of varying values, including 19.8 gCO2e/MJ in California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This penalty was designed to mitigate alleged land use change with respect to cornstarch ethanol’s production. We believe these scores to be outdated and not based on the most up to date research. A review of more recent science indicates a decreasing trend in land use values with the newer data indicating values closer to 4 gCO2e/MJ.

Concerns over land use change for cornstarch ethanol are unfounded. The United States is planting grain corn on roughly the same number of acres as it was in 1900. At the same time, the per acre yield has increased more than 600%. Capping the use of bioethanol in the CTFS or adopting a sustainability framework similar to what has been proposed by the California Air Resources Board would create an unfair double penalty on cornstarch ethanol in addition to violating the New Mexico legislature’s directive for technology neutrality in the program.

Expanding E15 and Higher Blends

Emissions reductions through the use of E15 also come with meaningful consumer cost-savings. During the summer of 2023, E15 was sold at 15 cents less per gallon where available on average nationwide. In some locations, we saw E15 selling consistently for as much as 60 cents less per gallon than E10.

Consumers have embraced E15’s reputation as a more environmentally beneficial, more affordable fuel. Since the US EPA approved E15 in 2011, at which time there were zero retailers offering it, its availability rapidly expanded to what is now more than 3,400 retail sites in 32 states. Since then, drivers in America have relied on E15 to drive 100 billion miles.

Recognizing Carbon Capture and Other CI Reduction Methods

Bioethanol producers constantly make improvements to their production process, increasing economic efficiency and more importantly, reducing CI. Among the newest tools bioethanol producers are utilizing to reducing CI is carbon capture utilization and sequestration (CCUS). Recently, California adjusted their modeling to account for CCUS, recognizing its importance in carbon reduction. By accounting for CCUS, the pathway CI for E85—approved for use in California—was updated such that it reduces the assumed CI score for ethanol from 66 gCO2e/MJ to 35 gCO2e/MJ. We urge NMED to also recognize the CI reductions CCUS provides to biofuels pathways.

Additionally, we have recently advocated for expanded crediting for low-CI power sourcing in California’s LCFS, Currently, the ability to credit low-CI power in a pathway is limited to specific fuel pathways. While CARB is considering expanding crediting ability to hydrogen-as-fuel pathways, we believe the ability to credit new low-CI power sourcing—power not included in a utility’s preexisting capacity—through power purchase agreements should be available to all feedstocks and pathways. With bioethanol production occurring entirely outside of New Mexico, the state has an opportunity to become a national leader by encouraging, via the CTFS, the adoption of low-CI power for bioethanol producers in other jurisdictions. We encourage NMED to consider the ability of all fuel pathways to credit low-CI power sourcing in their CI score.

On-farm carbon reduction practices, commonly called climate-smart agriculture (CSA), should also be credited in the CTFS. With the use of the GREET model, including the model’s Feedstock Carbon Intensity Calculator, along with the USDA’s database of CSA practices, the carbon reduction values can easily be quantified and verified. Among these practices are the use of cover crops, low or no-till farming, precision fertilizer application, and the use of enhanced efficiency fertilizer.

Bioethanol producers have a wide variety of tools at our disposal to reduce our product’s carbon intensity. We strongly urge NMED to consider maximizing the opportunities for bioethanol producers to lower the CI for bioethanol pathways.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)

As producers of one of the most scalable feedstocks for SAF production, we appreciate NMED’s attention to development of this key market. We encourage NMED to work with SAF producers, biofuel feedstock producers, and airlines to seek ways to accelerate use of these important fuels to help decarbonize the aviation sector.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the CTFS Advisory Committee’s technical report. The CTFS will be a critical tool in New Mexico’s decarbonization efforts, and we look forward to working with NMED to ensure the role of biofuels in making New Mexico’s fuel mix more sustainable and help the state achieve its progressive climate goals through the expanded use of bioethanol. Additionally, we are happy to make ourselves available for any questions NMED may have.

The post Growth Energy Submits Comments on New Mexico’s Clean Transportation Fuel Standard appeared first on Growth Energy.