By Alejandro Lazo, CalMatters
In a surprising twist, California’s controversial new fuel standard — a key part of its effort to replace fossil fuels — has been rejected by the state agency that reviews the legality of state regulations.
The fuel standard enacted by the Air Resources Board last year was the subject of a rancorous debate, largely because it will potentially increase the price of gasoline and diesel fuels by an unknown amount.
The rules were rejected by the state Office of Administrative Law, a state agency whose mandate is to ensure “regulations are clear, necessary, legally valid, and available to the public.” The law office informed the air board that the rule does not conform with a provision in state code that requires “clarity” in rulemaking “so that the meaning of regulations will be easily understood by those persons directly affected by them.”
The air board said it would review the order and then resubmit the rules, which would be required within 120 days. Any substantial changes, however, would require a delay, including a public comment period.
The low carbon fuels program, which offers financial incentives to companies to produce cleaner transportation fuels, aims to help transition the state away from fossil fuels that contribute to smog and other air pollution and greenhouse gases that warm the planet.
The program, which has existed since 2011, is a $2-billion credit trading system that requires fuels sold in California to become progressively cleaner, while giving companies financial incentives to produce less-polluting fuels, such as biofuels made from soybeans or cow manure.
In an initial assessment released in 2023, the air board projected that the new rules could potentially raise the price of diesel by 59 cents per gallon and gasoline by 47 cents. But air board officials later disavowed that estimate, saying that the analysis “should not be misconstrued as a prediction of the future credit price nor as a direct impact on prices at the pump.”
A report by the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy predicted that the fuel standard changes could increase the cost of gas by 85 cents a gallon through 2030.
Republican legislators, who protested the rule and introduced a bill to repeal it, applauded the law office’s decision to reject them.
“Families in this state are already grappling with soaring living costs, and a gas price hike of 65 cents or more will only deepen their financial strain,” Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, a Republican from Redlands, said in a statement. “It’s deeply frustrating that the governor’s administration ignored calls for reconsideration from the start.”
Supporters say the new rules are necessary to keep California on track for its ambitious climate goals, including net-zero emissions by 2045. But critics have warned that the new standards could push gas prices even higher in a state where drivers already pay some of the highest fuel costs in the nation.
The air board last month was forced to abandon other climate and air pollution rules that would have cleaned up truck and train emissions because the Trump administration would reject granting them waivers.
This article was originally published by CalMatters.
Also Read
- CHP Investigates Fatal Solo Crash on Figueroa Mountain Road
- Validation Ale Opens Seasonal Pop-Up at The Shop, Targets Santa Barbara Bowl Crowds
- SpaceX Prepares Falcon 9 Starlink Launch as Vandenberg’s Sonic Boom Discussions Continue
- Rare Tornado Whirls Through Northern California Near Vina, Lasts Just a Minute
- Historic Carlton Hotel Reopens After Major Renovations, Joins Marriott Tribute Portfolio
Moving backwards. Not a good result.
Fossil fuels should be taxed much more heavily to reflect their damaging effects.
There are 8 billion people on the planet, and extreme poverty has decreased by 90% since 1900. None of this would have been possible without fossil fuels. Humans live longer, healthier lives and have access to food from around the world. The percentage of people dying from starvation decreased throughout the 20th century due to improvements in agriculture and food distribution (which has increased political stability). Neither could have been accomplished without oil. The benefits of fossil fuels are often overlooked by anti-fossil fuel advocates.
Nuclear power is an excellent way to generate electricity with very low CO₂ emissions, and it is readily available, but California has no plans to build reactor.
Not that garbage again.
We’ve already spent too much time and money subsidizing Big Carbon and ignoring its deleterious effects.
Fission power is hideously expensive, takes forever to come on line, and produces wastes that are hazardous for millennia. We have no disposal methods.
Keep shoveling out that empty-headed propaganda!
The ARB may have been bought off by the orange and his crime organization. Gavin appears to be cracking and bowing to The Don because he wants those Fed dollars. We need the Fed dollars, but it is not worth it to go back to more dirty air, dirty fresh water, dirty ocean water, and dirty polluting oil. The State of California should subsidize home solar energy 100% (okay, maybe 75-85%). I’d rather California not have to rely on any Fed money at all so we can give ’em the one-fin%er salute! It would help though if our pols would stop spending on unnecessary/pet projects that rely heavily on Fed money. No doubt the high-speed train project in the Central Valley will have Fed funding removed.
An(other) increase in fuel costs will only make inflation in California worse. Everything arrives via a combustible engine of some sort. Diesel, gas, hybrid, jet fuel, etc. Diesel quite literally keeps food on everyone’s plate whether it is a semi hauling, a tractor plowing or harvesting, or a hybrid diesel electric train bringing it in from somewhere else. I really hope people understand what ‘eliminating’ fossil fuels entails…
GOLETA.OBSERVER – true, but no one is advocating for the instant elimination of fossil fuels. We still need them at this point, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be working (hard) to phase them out as much as possible. People (mostly the pro-oil folks) need to move away from this all or nothing thinking. Throwing up our hands and saying “well, renewables aren’t 100% green yet and aren’t 100% ready to completely replace fossil fuels today so let’s not do anything” will continue to destroy our home, this planet. We can’t wait until everything is “perfect,” we should be doing everything we can now to start the shift. Why do nothing when even a little bit helps?
More carbon FUD from the lackeys.
This sounds like the new Washington D.C, DOGE posse has gotten to the State of California. Boo!
Sanity begins to prevail.
Not in this federal administration. Completely the opposite.
But, we know you live in a bubble of falsehoods.