Environmentalists say a flagship California climate policy actually does harm

A coalition of environmental groups has sued the state’s air pollution regulator over its recent, contentious changes to a core climate program — the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard — that they say is exacerbating climate change. Just a month earlier, California Republicans had attacked the same policy, saying it would cause higher gas prices.

The groups, which include San Joaquin Valley residents, filed two lawsuits on Wednesday in Fresno County Superior Court. One lawsuit seeks to force the California Air Resources Board to cut pollution from large farms that make biogas from manure, which the fuel standard program encourages. It’s led by the environmental justice group Defensores del Valle Central para el Aire y Agua Limpio.

The other lawsuit, by the national environmental law firm Earthjustice, seeks more environmental review of biofuels, which are made from soy and corn and have been linked to deforestation in South America and Asia. Biofuels companies also receive incentives through the fuel standard.

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is one of California’s flagship environmental policies. It’s a complicated cap-and-trade program that aims to make car, truck and plane fuels less damaging to the climate. The program sets limits on the climate-warming content in transportation fuels, which increase over time. Meanwhile, it fines fossil fuel refineries and incentivizes companies that do comply, such as large dairy farms, biofuels producers and clean-energy developers. Its impact is hard to measure, but experts say it has probably helped replace much of the diesel fuel sold in California.

Tyler Lobdell, an attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based Food and Water Watch, which focuses on government accountability on climate issues, said the air resources board had ignored environmentalists’ concerns — including when the board adopted controversial amendments last month.

Those changes tightened the Fuel Standard, prompting concerns about rising gas prices. But Lobdell said they also “dramatically” encourage the production of biogas, about which scientists and economists have raised concerns.

The state board “has left us no option but to take this to court,” Lobdell said.

Dave Clegern, a spokesperson for the air resources board, declined to comment on the pending litigation but said in an email that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard “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 approved a plan to strengthen limits on the planet-warming emissions from gasoline and diesel fuels. That’s expected to raise gas prices, which prompted outrage from California Republicans. But it will also bring public health benefits and pump $100 billion of private investment into clean energy infrastructure over the next two decades, the board said.

The 16-member board is dominated by appointees of Gov. Gavin Newsom. It oversees state climate and air policies, including the Fuel Standard. The program sets increasingly strict limits on the climate-warming content in transportation fuels. At the same time, it penalizes fossil fuel refineries and diverts funds to companies that comply with incentives, such as large dairy farms and biofuels producers, as well as clean energy developers.

Even though the board toughened those limits last month, the lawsuits say the program encourages pollution by funding biogas and biofuels projects.

Farms produce biogas, also called renewable natural gas, from animal waste through an industrial process called anaerobic digestion. That captures methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that otherwise would have been emitted into the atmosphere. The Fuel Standard funnels incentives to farms that do so. According to Food and Water Watch, the standard has been the primary driver of biogas development in California and other states.

However, Lobdell said the air resources board hasn’t seriously studied whether this process actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions. He said the policy rewards “factory farms” for polluting.

“Get bigger, pollute as much as possible, as we will reward you handsomely,” he said. “That is backward policy.”

Danny Cullenward, a climate economist at the University of Pennsylvania, concluded as much in an October report. Biogas produced through the program accounted for only 1% of California’s transportation fuels for most of 2023, he said. At the same time, the standard potentially encouraged “larger herd sizes” on farms, “specifically to produce additional methane emissions to capture for profit.”

Dylan Chase, a spokesperson for the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, an industry trade association, declined to comment on the lawsuit but praised the recent amendments to the Fuel Standard.

“California’s recent update to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard continues the state’s decades-long leadership in clean energy innovation and stewardship,” he said.

The other lawsuit takes aim at biofuels, such as renewable diesel produced from soy and vegetable oils. The Fuel Standard has largely funded renewable diesel projects so far and helped replace diesel fuels for trucks and heavy vehicles.

But Earthjustice says biofuels “can be just as polluting as fossil fuels, and in some cases can be even worse.” Scientists have raised concerns that renewable diesel is often made from palm oil and soybean oil produced abroad in deforested areas, and that refineries pollute local neighborhoods.

The lawsuit contends that the board violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing “to meaningfully incorporate scientific evidence of environmental and health harms in its amendments to the program,” the legal organization said in a news release.

Lobdell said attorneys for the air resources board will respond to the petitions, kicking off the procedures for the lawsuits.

Originally Published: December 19, 2024 at 4:59 PM PST