Energy Exchange

Major polluters funding skewed analysis of the costs and benefits of environmental regulations is a long-standing tradition in regulatory circles. In a recent version of this phenomenon, CARE (Californians for Affordable and Reliable Energy), an industry funded front group aimed at attacking clean energy and clean fuel policies in California, hired Navigant Consulting to do just that.

Last week, EDF economists pulled back the curtain on the recently released CARE report and found more of the same scare tactics: one-sided costs estimates yielding unfounded results and cherry-picked outcomes.

Unsurprisingly, our economists found that the CARE study “focused exclusively on the costs of California’s complementary clean energy and clean fuels policies while avoiding comparative assessment of the benefits.” Additionally, the study was found to “rely on sources that have not been peer reviewed, and misinterpret analyses and energy market trends.”

Due to the noted inaccuracies of the study, the memo makes the point that “policy makers should treat the Navigant study with extreme caution; it likely overstates costs while considering neither the benefits to be enjoyed nor the cost-minimizing aspects of policies carefully designed to deliver environmental benefits as efficiently and quickly as practicable.”

A CARE funded analysis that results in a one-sided finding shouldn’t come as a shock. The group is funded by some of the largest polluters and fossil fuels producers in California – those that have the most obligations to change under the state’s comprehensive clean energy and climate change laws. CARE members include the Western States Petroleum Association, the California Manufacturers & Technology Association and the California Chamber of Commerce, as reported on its website.

As California transitions to cleaner, more diversified sources of energy, many businesses will be faced with the stark choice of participating in the modernization of our energy and transportation system or fighting against progress and innovation. Whichever way those businesses trend, the recent CARE report prepared by Navigant shows that misinformation will continue to be a part of the portfolio approach used by polluters to undermine California’s progress.

For other analysis of industry reports that have overblown costs and underestimated benefits of California’s clean energy and clean fuels policies, read here, and here.

By Tim O’Connor and Larissa Koehler

Last week, we saw a big win for California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) – a regulation to diversify the state’s fuel mix with lower carbon sources of energy. After almost a year of deliberation, the United States 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals filed a decision in the case Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, et al. v. Corey, in favor of California.

In its 79-page decision, the Court addressed two major constitutional issues: 1) whether the LCFS was invalid because it directly regulated wholly out-of-state ethanol producers (extraterritoriality); and 2) whether the LCFS was invalid because it impermissibly discriminated against out-of-state producers based solely on origin, thereby violating the Commerce Clause. The court overturned a District Court ruling on both grounds, finding that the state can move forward with the LCFS unimpeded. Of course, the ruling is only a temporary win for California, as additional legal process at the District court — and possibly U.S. Supreme Court — is forthcoming.

Although not required to do so, the Court of Appeals went to great lengths to recognize the importance of California’s leadership in developing and implementing environmental policy. The Court said it did not wish to “block California from developing this innovative, nondiscriminatory regulation to impede global warming… [as] it will help ease California’s climate risks and inform other states as they attempt to confront similar challenges.”

These words of support for the LCFS and California’s leadership are supported by tremendous growth in alternative fuels industries like California biodiesel, and also by analysis that shows fuel diversification can yield long-term price reductions at the pump. The 9^th Circuit’s decision which allows these trends to continue is not just a win for the state in a long legal battle, but also a win for California’s consumers and environment.

Some hope is on the horizon as more evidence shows the 12 biggest refineries in California are exploring and undertaking large energy efficiency improvements.

A recently released ARB report points out that these investments will save money, decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and reduce air pollution. Of course, many of them come with a hefty price tag – even by oil industry standards – but they are also yielding outsized benefits.

In the report, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified 401 energy efficiency opportunities that are completed, ongoing, scheduled or under consideration at the state’s biggest polluters. Most of these investments have been undertaken since 2009 – the first year following the adoption of California’s AB 32 Scoping Plan, a blueprint for reducing emissions throughout the economy.

In total, these projects would reduce GHG emissions from these 12 facilities by 2.78MMT CO₂e annually, about 9% of their statewide total for climate change pollution. In addition, these improvements would create individual net savings of up to $25 million annually. What’s more, these savings estimates do not include the benefit these companies get from having to secure fewer allowances in the state’s landmark cap-and-trade market – worth another $50 million a year at a forecasted carbon price of $18 a ton.

As we wrote earlier, annual data released by CARB shows that many of these 12 refineries’ emissions have been decreasing every year from 2008-2011, and the 401 energy efficiency projects are likely part of the reason. To support this, data on individual firms shows that almost all of the state’s facilities have either taken part in the efficiency improvement process or are in the stages of doing it soon.

Out of the 401 opportunities, nearly 80% of the emissions reductions have been completed or will be in the next few years. Another 7% are scheduled and 15% are under consideration. The majority of improvements are from equipment upgrades, adapting new technologies, and from changing processes such as reducing steam usage, improving boiler function, and changing equipment duty cycles.

Valero’s Benicia refinery, one of the 12, has identified 43 projects that are completed or currently underway, with a 7% annual GHG emission reduction. These improvements are mostly through new steam boilers or other new electric equipment. These upgrades also have a less than two year payback period, with an annual cost savings of $16 million.

Figure 1.

These findings confirm a 2010-2012 DOE Industrial Assessment Centers audit, which found that large industrial facilities had an average of 16% electricity cost savings available from energy efficiency upgrades, a 3% increase from the 2006 audit’s findings. This demonstrates that innovation and technology are constantly improving and savings opportunities continue to emerge.

Of course, refineries aren’t just giving themselves a chance save money from reduced energy or carbon credit purchases when they invest in efficiency. They’re helping reduce the poorest air quality and highest asthma rates — in communities located right next door to them.

As CARB’s report shows, improvements to cut GHGs at refineries have the double benefit of cutting the release rates of hazardous chemicals and pollutants that make people sick – since refining oil is a process that inherently causes harmful pollutants to be released.

Altogether, this new data proves AB 32 is working, not just for the health of the planet by fighting climate change, but for the public health of California.

California’s 5^th District Court of Appeals issued a tentative ruling yesterday in favor of California’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) moving forward. The case is POET, LLC v. California Air Resources Board (CARB) and POET, a South Dakota ethanol producer, had alleged that CARB violated the California Environmental Quality Act in adopting the LCFS and should be barred from further implementation.

Recognizing the grave implications of discontinuing the LCFS, including derailing the state’s progress to cut greenhouse gas pollution and produce innovative alternative fuels, EDF took part in an amicus, or “friend of the court,” letter brief in support of CARB that was submitted to the Court.

In their tentative ruling, and at oral arguments in Fresno on May 30^th, the court stated that CARB would have to remedy certain procedural issues, but that the LCFS should be able to move forward. While Plaintiffs technically won, this ruling means they were thwarted in their underlying objective of slowing momentum towards a lower carbon and more sustainable transportation fuel system.

This case also showed that the LCFS continues to have wide and broadening support. Organizations as diverse as PG&E, the Sierra Club, EDF, and the National Biodiesel Board have all submitted amicus letters to the court affirming that the LCFS is an important tool for spurring innovation and improving human health and the environment.

As we have written about here, here and here, there is still another case pending in the 9^th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals that challenges the LCFS under the US Constitution. But the future looks bright as once again; state environmental policies have successfully weathered a challenge by out-of-state challengers who would rather litigate than innovate. Hopefully now that delays are off the table, POET and similar companies will become part of the solution by moving their profits and human talent away from litigation and towards technological advancements that scale up production of low-carbon fuels, cutting climate pollution, reducing smog, and growing their business.