The first hearing for the proposed low-carbon fuel mandate was last week. HB 1091 requires a reduction in the reduction of the carbon intensity of transport fuels, mainly by mixing biofuels with petrol and diesel. This policy follows in the footsteps of California and Oregon, where the program was more expensive than projected.
We will provide a thorough analysis of the legislation, but there are two demands of yesterday’s trial that deserve immediate fact-checking.
Claim: An LCFS will help canola and dairy farmers
Bill sponsor Fitzgibbon argued during the hearing that the LCFS would create opportunities for farmers to make a profit, saying: ‘Washington is the center of the market for clean fuel. We have plenty of farms that provide the nutrients we need to produce these fuels. Farms such as dairy farms, canola farms. ”
Research by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and the state of California shows that no canola farmers or dairy farms are likely to benefit from an LCFS.
In 2019, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) commissioned an analysis of their proposed LCFS and specifically addressed the question of feed materials. According to the study, a low-carbon policy is likely to result in more canola oil consumption than a biodiesel foodstuff. ‘According to the LCFS program in California, canola accounts for only 2 percent of the biodiesel raw material.
The same study by PSCAA notes that the potential for ‘milk cow dung’ is small, less than 1 million liters of gas equivalent, the lowest of any alternative fuel source identified by the authors. In this regard, Washington residents used 245 million gallons of gasoline in October 2020 alone.
An LCFS would do virtually nothing for canola or dairy farmers in Washington state.
Demand: An LCFS will boost the biofuel industry and create jobs in Washington
Supporters of the mandate claim that it will create jobs and expand the biofuel industry in Washington state. Similar demands were made when Washington lawmakers accepted the ethanol mandate. It did not have the promised effect, and the LCFS probably will not.
The claim that the coercion of people in a particular state to buy a product, therefore, will increase production in that state makes little sense. If Oregon requires everyone to buy a 20 oz coffee every day, claiming it will make Oregon a leader in coffee, people will realize the obvious logical fallacy and Starbucks will laugh all the way to the bank. But it will not move its headquarters to Portland.
This is what happened to the LCFS in California. Instead of making California a leader in biofuel production, the California Air Resources Board reports that the state imports 88 percent of the liquid biofuels needed to meet the requirements. California alone has the capacity to produce 60 million gallons of ethanol annually. Oregon has only 43 million gallons. By comparison, both Nebraska and South Dakota can produce more than 1 billion gallons each.
Implementing the LCFS mandate to Washington residents will mean we pay more, but the benefits will apply elsewhere, as in Oregon and California.
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency’s analysis of an LCFS for the Seattle area confirmed this analysis. In the 2019 analysis, it was noted that the introduction of the LCFS rule is unlikely to generate investment in new production of renewable natural gas. According to the report, the introduction of a low-carbon fuel standard in the study area is unlikely to result in investments in these projects than currently planned. ‘
Every environmental regulation is sold with the promise of job creation, but the experience of the states where there is already an LCFS and the analysis of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency show that these are probably false promises.