Policy Options for Deep Decarbonization and Wood Utilization in California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard

Abstract

California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is one of the most important policies to develop and deploy low-carbon and carbon-negative fuels. Yet, because the LCFS is designed to deliver the lowest-cost carbon intensity (CI) reductions possible in the transportation fuel system, it may fail to deliver technologies that would be poised to offer deeper decarbonization or other ancillary benefits to California's people and environment. We contemplate administrative changes to the LCFS to further stimulate the commercialization of promising low-carbon and carbon-negative fuels. To do so, we examine promising technical pathways, their barriers to commercialization, and recent administrative actions by the CA Air Resources Board (ARB) under the LCFS to promote novel lower-carbon fuels. We propose three actions that ARB could undertake to promote commercialization within existing authorities. To commercialize low-carbon and carbon negative fuel, including those derived from forest residue feedstocks, ARB could: (1) embrace the most up-to-date science regarding lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, (2) create additional, targeted incentives for very low-carbon or carbon-negative fuels through a volumetric technology carve-out or credit multiplier, and (3) ensure that the LCFS stimulates the best-performing fuels across a variety of sustainability parameters.

Techno‐economic and policy analysis of hydrogen and gasoline production from forest biomass, agricultural residues and municipal solid waste in California

“…The CI score of MSW benefits from avoided direct emissions when calculating the CI. A similar full life cycle assessment to properly account for the GHG benefits provided by fuels derived from forest resides, as discussed in Sanchez et al ., could improve the carbon intensity of these fuels 39 . In this study, the avoided methane credit played a major role in delivering the low CI scores that provided a significant share of revenue for MSW pathways under the LCFS.…”

“…A similar full life cycle assessment to properly account for the GHG benefits provided by fuels derived from forest resides, as discussed in Sanchez et al, could improve the carbon intensity of these fuels. 39 In this study, the avoided methane credit played a major role in delivering the low CI scores that provided a significant share of revenue for MSW pathways under the LCFS. Avoided methane credits depend on the elimination of fugitive methane being additional to the status quo.…”

Managing nature-based solutions in fire-prone ecosystems: Competing management objectives in California forests evaluated at a landscape scale

“…Better incorporating woody products could better align forest and carbon management outcomes (Cabiyo et al, 2021). An example of this could be using woody residue from fuel treatments for biofuel production, offsetting use of fossil fuels in transportation and expanding a market for nontimber wood products (Sanchez et al, 2021). Further research could explore the implications of different changes in carbon accounting and whether such changes would be compatible with current carbon offset protocols.…”

Emissions Gap Report 2023: Broken Record – Temperatures hit new highs, yet world fails to cut emissions (again)

“…Co-benefits are not limited to land-based CDR. In fact, scientists are studying how forest biomass with carbon capture and storage can reduce the risk of wildfires when paired with forest thinning projects (Sanchez et al 2021;Elias et al 2023). Social cobenefits for industrial CDR with carbon capture and storage could include jobs or economic revenue in areas and fields affected by the energy transition (Romig 2021).…”