Richer residents receive twice as much benefit as poorer ones do under California’s low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) regulation, according to an analysis of California data by the Washington Policy Center (WPC).
Advocates attempting to implement a similar measure in the state of Washington would be raising taxes on businesses and taxpayers to only minimally impact air quality in primarily wealthier communities, opponents argue.
Gov. John Inslee has made passing a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) a top priority of his administration. He has proposed that the Department of Ecology establish a rule that requires a statewide Clean Fuel Program to limit greenhouse gas emissions (per unit of transportation fuel energy) to 10 percent below 2017 levels by 2028, and 20 percent below 2017 levels by 2035.
The governor maintains, “The Clean Fuel Standard is the cleanest and best opportunity we have, bar none, to reduce carbon pollution from transportation in this state.”
Proponents also claim that an LCFS will reduce carbon dioxide emissions and particulate matter (PM 2.5) in the air and improve overall air quality in urban areas.
“Despite justifying the LCFS as a tool to fight the ‘climate crisis,’ advocates have realized they need additional justifications,” Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment at the WPC, says. “They have turned to the claim it reduces particulate matter for low-income groups in the hopes it will help justify an otherwise wasteful and ineffective policy.”
The WPC, Farm Bureau leaders, building trades unions, construction companies, oil marketers and the Washington Aggregates and Concrete Association have all opposed the plan.
Converting to store and sell biofuels would result in prohibitive costs for gas stations, which Dave Ducharme, who represents the Washington Oil Marketers Association, says could force station owners to sell their lands rather than comply.
The cost of an LCFS is high compared to the amount of CO2 reduction it is intended to achieve, Myers adds.
“The LCFS can reduce CO2 in several ways,” Myers said. “Switching a fleet of trucks from gasoline to natural gas is one way an organization could get ‘credits’ in the system. For each metric ton of CO2 that is reduced, one credit is generated. Those credits can be sold to petroleum manufacturers to help meet CO2 reduction targets. So, a food distribution company in Othello could switch their fleet, generate credits, and sell them to BP to meet the requirements.”
The proposal also allows credits to be generated by promoting the use of electric vehicles.
In each of these scenarios, however, “there is zero particulate matter reduction in the ‘I-5 corridor’ near Seattle or SeaTac,” Myers says. “There is no guarantee that any of the projects to generate credits under the LCFS would occur in the areas of concern for air pollution.”
According to legislation proposed by Democratic state Sen. Rebecca Saldaña (and 13 cosponsors) the rules, “may not discriminate against fuels on the basis of having originated in another state or jurisdiction.”
Even if the credits are generated in California, Myers notes, they can count for Washington state, but still do not reduce air pollution.
The WPC analyzed the number of electric car charging stations, hydrogen and natural gas filling stations that generate LCFS credits in California using data provided on the state’s LCFS information page, and compared it to the median household income data from the U.S. Census, sorted by census tract.
Electric and natural gas vehicles are the primary source of PM 2.5 reduction in the LCFS system, but as California data illustrates, the majority of EVs are not found in low-income communities.
According to U.S. Census data, the wealthiest 10 percent of census tracts have the most EV charging stations and natural gas filling stations in California. Forty-three percent of the charging stations are in tracts with the top 30 percent of income earners.
The census tracts with the poorest 30 percent of earners have 22 percent of EV stations. The WPC argues that the richest communities will receive twice the benefits as those in poorer communities.
“Despite the rhetoric from some LCFS advocates, the health benefits are for the rich, not the poor,” Myers adds.
According to an independent analysis by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, “The additional reductions from the proposed CFS (Scenario A) are small in comparison to the anticipated reductions from federal vehicle standards. As the main goal of the CFS is to reduce GHG emissions, the reductions in PM2.5 are considered a co-benefit.”
