The proposal for what’s known as a low-carbon fuel standard has become one of Democrats’ key plans for reducing carbon emissions in Minnesota’s transportation sector, the state’s largest source of climate pollution. 

The policy would require fuel suppliers to make their product cleaner over time, and — unlike other major climate change plans backed by DFLers — has drawn interest from some Republicans and agriculture industry groups.

But, as prices have risen at the pump, so too has GOP opposition. Republicans have argued the proposal would cause gas prices to rise, though by just how much and when is a topic of debate.

“Once again Gov. Walz is trying to bring California-style regulations to Minnesota and drive up costs for families at a time when they’re already struggling with inflation at 40-year highs, $4/gallon gas, and soaring home energy prices,” said Waseca Rep. John Petersburg, who is the top Republican on the House’s Transportation Committee, in a statement.

What the low-carbon fuel standard does

The latest version of the proposal in Minnesota, sponsored in the House by Rep. Todd Lippert, DFL-Northfield, requires the “carbon intensity” of fuel supplied to Minnesota to be at least 25 percent below a 2018 baseline by 2030, 75 percent below baseline by 2040 and 100 percent below that baseline by 2050.

The intensity measure is a score assigned to each supplier that takes into account the “lifecycle” greenhouse gas emissions of producing, transporting and using the fuel. In addition to accounting for fuel emissions coming out of a tailpipe, for instance, it also counts coal or natural gas used to generate electricity for electric vehicles, as well as the energy used to produce crops for biofuels.

Article continues after advertisement

Under the policy, the state would set up a complex system of credits and deficits for fuel suppliers to trade. A supplier would earn credits when they meet state pollution benchmarks, but those who fail to reduce their carbon intensity enough would need to buy credits to make up their deficit. The money could then pay for efforts to advance cleaner

Published on  | Carbon in medias | Online source

Leave a Reply