Listen: Senator Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh
Here is the letter signed by 25 GOP legislators sent to the California Air Resources Board
October 15, 2024
The Honorable Liane Randolph Chair, California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Chair Randolph, California motorists are already paying $1.50 more per gallon for gasoline than the national average price of the other 47 continental states. It is with this in mind that we write you again with serious concerns about the proposed amendments to the Low-Carbon Fuels Standard (LCFS) program that will drive up fuel prices.
We regret that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) refuses to release any analysis of how its proposed LCFS amendments will affect gas prices in California.
As Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton wrote over the weekend: “A year ago the air board (CARB) estimated that the new regulation could raise gas prices by 47 cents a gallon because of refinery costs passed on the consumers. A separate study placed the pump cost much higher – 65 cents a gallon. Now the air board has backed off its 47-cent price hike estimate. And it refuses to offer a revised forecast . . .
So an unelected bunch of regulators can arbitrarily adopt new rules without weighing the costs to consumers? Doesn’t seem right. Seems a bit irresponsible and arrogant.” We concur with Skelton’s assessment that CARB is being irresponsible at the expense of everyday Californians struggling with the affordability of basic needs. If CARB wants the public, through their elected representatives, to be supportive of new initiatives to protect the environment, CARB should be forthcoming with all information – so the public can consider the costs and benefits
. In an effort to prompt those disclosures, we requested in a May 14, 2024, letter that CARB provide answers to specific questions about the proposed amendments to the LCFS program. We have updated those here:
1. What are the anticipated costs of LCFS, and what should consumers anticipate paying per gallon if enacted?
2. When will CARB perform a combined analysis of the pass-through of LCFS credit prices?
3. Will the proposed amendments to LCFS in fact cost consumers up to 47-cents per gallon in 2025 and 52-cents in 2026, or is the Cullenward study mentioned in the Skelton column more accurate in predicting that gas prices will increase by 65- to 85-cents? What direct or indirect impacts does the LCFS program have on the price of gas for consumers?
The September 23 letter we received in response did not address these issues. Instead, it continued to advance the narrative that the LCFS program has minimal impact on gas prices. It is absurd that CARB takes such a position when its own Initial Statement of Reasons Assessment predicted an increase in costs to consumers.
We urge CARB to delay and reschedule its November hearings and its vote on the amendments to the LCFS program. Without specific information from CARB, it is reasonable to assume that its adoption of these amended regulations will directly increase gas prices by up to $0.65 in the near term, up to $0.85 per gallon by 2030, and up to $1.50 per gallon by 2035, as outlined in the Cullenward report. For years, in policy committee hearings, budget hearings, and Senate confirmation hearings, CARB has repeatedly stated to the Legislature that it values transparency and is committed to providing full and complete information on its proposals to the public, media, and the Legislature.
Additionally, many CARB members have indicated they understand, and will consider, how the effects of CARB’s actions will disproportionally affect disadvantaged, low-income, and struggling communities in California. The right thing for CARB to do is to postpone the LCFS hearing on the proposed amendments and immediately disclose the actual benefits and true costs to Californians, and facilitate public participation in these important policy decisions. We appreciate your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
In a meeting with reporters on Oct. 25, CARB's Steven Cliff reportedly telling the group that the California legislature is behind the proposed changes... referencing Assembly Bill 1279 which, he says, directs the board to reach carbon neutrality. He concludes by saying the board is trying to ensure the state has both clean energy and costs that are affordable for all Californians