A coalition of environmental teams has sued the state’s air air pollution regulator over its current, contentious adjustments to a core local weather program — the state’s Low Carbon Gasoline Customary — that they are saying is exacerbating local weather change. Only a month earlier, California Republicans had attacked the identical coverage, saying it will trigger increased gasoline costs.
The teams, which embrace San Joaquin Valley residents, filed two lawsuits on Wednesday in Fresno County Superior Court docket. One lawsuit seeks to power the California Air Sources Board to chop air pollution from massive farms that make biogas from manure, which the gasoline commonplace program encourages. It’s led by the environmental justice group Defensores del Valle Central para el Aire y Agua Limpio.
The opposite lawsuit, by the nationwide environmental regulation agency Earthjustice, seeks extra environmental assessment of biofuels, that are made out of soy and corn and have been linked to deforestation in South America and Asia. Biofuels corporations additionally obtain incentives by way of the gasoline commonplace.
The Low Carbon Gasoline Customary is certainly one of California’s flagship environmental insurance policies. It’s a sophisticated cap-and-trade program that goals to make automobile, truck and aircraft fuels much less damaging to the local weather. This system units limits on the climate-warming content material in transportation fuels, which improve over time. In the meantime, it fines fossil gasoline refineries and incentivizes corporations that do comply, reminiscent of massive dairy farms, biofuels producers and clean-energy builders. Its influence is difficult to measure, however consultants say it has in all probability helped change a lot of the diesel gasoline offered in California.
Tyler Lobdell, an lawyer with the Washington, D.C.-based Meals and Water Watch, which focuses on authorities accountability on local weather points, stated the air sources board had ignored environmentalists’ considerations — together with when the board adopted controversial amendments final month.
These adjustments tightened the Gasoline Customary, prompting considerations about rising gasoline costs. However Lobdell stated in addition they “dramatically” encourage the manufacturing of biogas, about which scientists and economists have raised considerations.
The state board “has left us no option but to take this to court,” Lobdell stated.
Dave Clegern, a spokesperson for the air sources board, declined to touch upon the pending litigation however stated in an e-mail that the Low Carbon Gasoline Customary “reduces carbon emissions from transportation fuels used in California. It is a successful policy tool among California’s portfolio of innovative measures to address climate pollution and improve air quality.”
In November, the board permitted a plan to strengthen limits on the planet-warming emissions from gasoline and diesel fuels. That’s anticipated to lift gasoline costs, which prompted outrage from California Republicans. However it would additionally carry public well being advantages and pump $100 billion of personal funding into clear vitality infrastructure over the subsequent 20 years, the board stated.
The 16-member board is dominated by appointees of Gov. Gavin Newsom. It oversees state local weather and air insurance policies, together with the Gasoline Customary. This system units more and more strict limits on the climate-warming content material in transportation fuels. On the identical time, it penalizes fossil gasoline refineries and diverts funds to corporations that adjust to incentives, reminiscent of massive dairy farms and biofuels producers, in addition to clear vitality builders.
Regardless that the board toughened these limits final month, the lawsuits say this system encourages air pollution by funding biogas and biofuels tasks.
Farms produce biogas, additionally referred to as renewable pure gasoline, from animal waste by way of an industrial course of referred to as anaerobic digestion. That captures methane, a strong greenhouse gasoline that in any other case would have been emitted into the ambiance. The Gasoline Customary funnels incentives to farms that accomplish that. In line with Meals and Water Watch, the usual has been the first driver of biogas growth in California and different states.
Nevertheless, Lobdell stated the air sources board hasn’t significantly studied whether or not this course of truly reduces greenhouse gasoline emissions. He stated the coverage rewards “factory farms” for polluting.
“Get bigger, pollute as much as possible, as we will reward you handsomely,” he stated. “That is backward policy.”
Danny Cullenward, a local weather economist on the College of Pennsylvania, concluded as a lot in an October report. Biogas produced by way of this system accounted for only one% of California’s transportation fuels for many of 2023, he stated. On the identical time, the usual probably inspired “larger herd sizes” on farms, “specifically to produce additional methane emissions to capture for profit.”
Dylan Chase, a spokesperson for the Coalition for Renewable Pure Fuel, an business commerce affiliation, declined to touch upon the lawsuit however praised the current amendments to the Gasoline Customary.
“California’s recent update to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard continues the state’s decades-long leadership in clean energy innovation and stewardship,” he stated.
The opposite lawsuit takes intention at biofuels, reminiscent of renewable diesel produced from soy and vegetable oils. The Gasoline Customary has largely funded renewable diesel tasks to this point and helped change diesel fuels for vehicles and heavy automobiles.
However Earthjustice says biofuels “can be just as polluting as fossil fuels, and in some cases can be even worse.” Scientists have raised considerations that renewable diesel is commonly made out of palm oil and soybean oil produced overseas in deforested areas, and that refineries pollute native neighborhoods.
The lawsuit contends that the board violated the California Environmental High quality Act by failing “to meaningfully incorporate scientific evidence of environmental and health harms in its amendments to the program,” the authorized group stated in a information launch.
Lobdell stated attorneys for the air sources board will reply to the petitions, kicking off the procedures for the lawsuits.
Initially Printed:
