California’s proposed LCFS cap on soy, canola biofuels ‘far worse than anticipated’

California Air Resources Board published proposed amendments Aug. 12 to the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which, if implemented, would set stricter carbon-intensity (CI) targets, impose significant limitations on vegetable-oil feedstocks and add new sustainability requirements for soybean and canola oils. The agency is only providing a 15-day comment period. Comments are due Aug. 27.

Among the biggest changes affecting biofuels stakeholders in the proposed rulemaking, which can be read in its entirety here, are the step change in CI-reduction targets in one year and the 20 percent companywide cap on biofuels from virgin crop oils like soybeans and canola.

CARB is proposing to modify the near-term increase in stringency to a 9 percent CI reduction in 2025 from the 5 percent year-to-year increase included in the initial amendment proposal.

The agency is proposing this increase “in light of the continued growth in low-carbon fuels and in response to stakeholder feedback requesting an increase in stringency to bring deficits and credits into balance,” CARB stated. “The compliance targets between 2025 and 2030 are adjusted in the 15-day modifications package to smooth the curve between the more ambitious 2025 compliance target and the originally proposed 30 percent reduction in 2030,” which CARB proposes maintaining.

CARB stated that the proposed compliance target for 2025 will take effect for first-quarter 2025 reporting if the proposed amendments become effective prior to April 1, which marks the beginning of the first-quarter reporting period.

“Because the glut of renewable diesel has saturated their credit market, they’re going to bump the target by 9 percent in one year,” Dave Collings, group manager at Worley Consulting, told Biobased Diesel Daily®. “If promulgated, I’m expecting some pretty wild short-term changes in the market. It’s a significant development for the LCFS market that was otherwise facing a glut in credits that might have lasted through 2026. The excess credits may have caused high-cost producers of biodiesel and renewable diesel to go out of business, so it is likely viewed as a lifeline to that industry.”

Perhaps the most contentious amendment in the proposal, however, is the notion of capping biobased diesel from virgin soybean and canola oils at 20 percent on a companywide basis annually “to avoid sending a long-term signal for virgin soy or canola oil to serve California demand,” CARB wrote. “California expects that overall diesel demand will decline in the state over the coming decades due to the state’s portfolio of [zero-emission vehicles] and clean-fuel polices. This proposed addition allows for California to displace up to 100 percent of the state’s current fossil diesel demand with cleaner alternative diesel.”

CARB noted that, for companies that already have a certified fuel pathway prior to the effective date of the amendments, and for which the percentage of biobased diesel produced from virgin soybean oil or canola oil was greater than 20 percent of combined reported biodiesel and renewable diesel quantities for that company’s 2023 LCFS reporting, this provision would take effect Jan. 1, 2028, to provide time to adjust feedstock supply contracts as needed.

All other companies would be subject to this requirement upon the effective date of the amended regulation.

So far, associations such as Clean Fuels Alliance America, the American Soybean Association, the National Oilseed Processors Association and the U.S. Canola Association have been silent publicly about the CARB proposals, none of which has issued a press release or publicly available statement at the time of this article’s publication. Biobased Diesel Daily® reached out to each of these stakeholder organizations to get their feedback on these amendments, which stand to have a devastating effect on their constituents and others up and down the value chain.

“This proposal is far worse than anticipated,” Scott Gerlt, the chief economist for the American Soybean Association, told Biobased Diesel Daily®. “The idea of a cap had been floating around for a bit, but CARB staff seemed to shoot it down hard in their April workshop. CARB staff publicly acknowledged that capping agricultural feedstocks would increase petroleum consumption in the state. Instead, CARB staff were proposed feedstock traceability as an alternative, which was still problematic but didn’t outright remove soy from the LCFS program.”

Gerlt said the Aug. 12 proposal not only completely reverses CARB’s April decision, but the agency has also left the traceability requirements in place.

“All of this is to address land conversion, which is not happening in the United States and is already penalized in soy’s CI score based on very outdated data,” he said. “Furthermore, CARB is proposing the option to stop accepting new biodiesel pathways in 2031. This proposal phases soy biodiesel out in the next 10 years due to CI scores, caps soy use in the next few years—or immediately for some biofuel plants—while also requiring dedicated supply chains with traceability in a couple of years. The LCFS is supposed to be based on science, but the proposal doesn’t update the science while adding components that contradict it.”

Moreover, companywide cap is more restrictive than a program total cap, according to Gerlt.

“Not all biomass-based diesel producers use soybean or canola oil—or at least to the 20 percent level,” he said. “These producers will underutilize their portion of the cap. Unless CARB allows companies to trade credits towards the cap, those underutilized portions essentially create voids toward the total.”

As a result, Gerlt said the aggregate total will be less than 20 percent.

“Additionally, not all plants have the same feedstock options,” he added. “Biofuel plants in the Midwest will likely have a more difficult time complying than a facility located in California.”

Clean Fuels Alliance America told its members privately that it is “deeply disappointed” in the proposal.

“If adopted, these changes would impose caps on credits for soy- and canola-based biodiesel and renewable diesel, without sufficient scientific evidence to support such limitations,” the organization stated. “Such restrictions risk unfairly disadvantaging these low-carbon alternatives, which are proven to reduce emissions while supporting sustainable farming and rural economies.”

Clean Fuels went on to share how biodiesel and renewable diesel have significantly contributed to California’s emissions reductions.

“Currently, more than 3 billion pounds of soybean oil and 1.7 billion pounds of canola oil are used in the state, with biomass-based diesel comprising 73 percent of California’s diesel pool,” the organization stated. “Clean Fuels will submit comments strongly urging CARB to reconsider these legally problematic amendments that threaten to reverse progress in emissions reductions and jeopardize the economic viability of renewable fuels.”

NOPA President and CEO Kailee Tkacz Buller told Biobased Diesel Daily® that “NOPA has been clear in our communications to CARB that—based on CARB’s own analysis and market and scientific data—a vegetable-oil cap or limitation is unwarranted. NOPA members have made $6 billion in investments to expand U.S. crush capacity by 30 percent, but a cap of this kind would undercut these efforts and put future investments into lower-carbon feedstocks and advanced biofuels in doubt. NOPA will continue to engage with CARB to make clear the full impact such a limitation would have on both feedstocks and fuels.”

Except for companies that supply waste feedstock, which will benefit from the new amendments, sources agree that virtually every stakeholder up and down the value chain will suffer as a result of CARB’s new rulemaking if implemented as proposed.

As far as the market in general, Gerlt noted that it is already resulting in lower soybean-oil prices and stock-price movements based on the announcement.

“This announcement is significant, and if CARB follows through, it will have long-term impacts that ramp up [over] time,” he said.

Conventional biofuel producers who rely heavily on soy and canola will have limited opportunities in California.

“Not only will they face the cap, but they will also bear traceability costs under the proposal,” Gerlt said. “Limited access to a large market will naturally put these biofuels at a price disadvantage.”

To Tkacz Buller’s point, this announcement will also have “a chilling effect” on future crush-plant plans, Gerlt pointed out.

“The industry expansion has largely been to serve the biofuel market that has been growing from demand in California,” he said.

In addition, farmers are naturally going to be adversely affected too—and not just by lower prices.

Certainly, less demand for soy- and canola-based biofuels will lower the prices that soy and canola farmers receive, but according to Gerlt, those that are providing feedstock for California will eventually be required to have on-farm audits for sustainability verification.

Furthermore, fuel purchasers in California will have fewer options and face higher prices.

“It may take a few years for this to fully kick in,” Gerlt said. “California is hoping to electrify transportation quite quickly thereby avoiding this outcome.”

The adverse effects don’t just stop with LCFS program participants and farmers though.

“Nearly everyone is hurt,” Gerlt reiterated to Biobased Diesel Daily®. “CARB analysis showed that California residents will suffer higher GHG emissions, contrary to the program’s intentions. California fuel consumers will face higher costs, as will biofuel plants. And, oilseed-crush plants will have lower margins, along with farmers.”

Stakeholders are encouraged to submit comments to CARB by Aug. 27.