Check this out:
The California Energy Commission's Vice Chair and Presiding Member, James Boyd, in charge of the outcome of spending of the funds for CA's AB 118 and involved with ARB's use of ILUC in establishing LCFS, is MARRIED TO THE COO AND CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION (WSPA), Catherine Reheis-Boyd - employed there 20 years. Their family income includes compensation from WSPA, gained from the Big Oil companies!
THE WSPA IS:
"the oldest petroleum trade association in the United
States and represents oil companies that account for the bulk of petroleum
marketing in California. See,
www.wspa.org/what-is-wspa.aspx. The
WSPA advocates for petroleum marketers before the legislature and
regulators in California. It works closely with other oil industry trade
associations such as the American Petroleum Institute and the Petroleum
Marketers Association of America, including PMAA national member
California Independent Oil Marketers Association. Its members include
Chevron, BP, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil, Shell, Tesoro, and Valero,
among others."
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/CECLetter2-9-09.pdf http://www.wspa.org/offices-staff.aspx http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2009/03/17/DC85128 http://www.energy.ca.gov/proceedings/2008-ALT-1/index.html This last link is a run-down of communications from WSPA to J. Boyd (couldn't they just have had his wife tell him?!). At least it is public record...
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009_energypolicy/documents/2009-02-10_workshop/comments/WSPA_Joe_Sparano_Comments_TN-50222.pdf "We are working with CARB, the Energy Commission, the Governor’s office and others to see
that AB 32 and the Governor’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard are implemented in a manner that
does not lead to reduced transportation fuel supplies. We believe it is important to recall the
fundamental purpose of the IEPR – “to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect
the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state's economy, and protect public health
and safety.”
"WSPA and its member companies are committed to working cooperatively with state agencies to
develop a workable and effective LCFS program. Due to the risks associated with negatively
impacting California’s transportation energy fuel supplies, implementing an LCFS will not be an
easy task.
It is essential that the LCFS be designed and implemented in ways that will not discourage
further investment in California’s petroleum-based fuels infrastructure. CEC projections over the
next several years show a large and growing gap between gasoline and diesel demand and the
ability of the state’s refineries to supply those fuels.
Several real constraints impact the ability of transportation fuel suppliers to supply their
California customers, including the availability of large volumes of low-carbon fuels and
conventional fuels to meet the transportation fuel requirements of the large and diverse
California markets.
We have urged creation of a stepwise implementation process where the CEC and ARB review
and evaluate progress. Together, the CEC and CARB should first jointly make a determination
that adequate LCFS fuel supplies and infrastructure are in place to allow implementation of the
next steps of the LCFS in an orderly manner and with minimal disruption to the state’s
transportation fuel market.
Additionally, the LCFS program should have firm, well-defined and scheduled milestones at
which the CEC and ARB review and evaluate progress, and jointly make findings and
determinations. Policy makers can then be alerted to the potential for disruptions in
transportation fuel supplies and associated market volatility, using complete, transparent reports
to the Governor and Legislature.
We previously submitted copies of WSPA letters on this subject: One of them written April 2, 2007
to Brian Prusnek of the Governor’s office; the other written May 7, 2007 to Catherine Witherspoon,
Executive Officer of CARB. We are attaching those letters to this testimony because they contain
important comments, recommendations, and concerns about the LCFS. We request they be
incorporated into the record of these proceedings.
As mentioned in the May 7th letter, WSPA strongly urges ARB and the CEC to formally
establish a technical collaborative process, such as described in Attachment 1. We believe this is
essential to help develop two important and credible technical tools necessary to implement
successfully a scientifically and technically sound and cost-effective LCFS and to assure that the
ARB and the CEC rely on the best available economic and scientific information:
A widely accepted and accurate full fuel cycle analysis method will be needed. It is noteworthy
that the May 1, 2007, UC draft, A low-carbon Fuel Standard for California, says there is no
widely agreed on full-cycle analysis method, none has undergone rigorous review, and the
products of the existing fuel cycle analysis are “in many cases highly uncertain.” It confirms that
further review and development of a widely accepted, credible full cycle analysis tool are
necessary."
"WSPA also recommends that CEC use a California-specific dynamic simulation transportation
energy model to evaluate and compare various LCFS scenarios for their economic impact. Such
a model would enhance the ability of CEC and ARB to evaluate the economy-wide and sectorspecific
impacts of LCFS measures to help assure the rules are cost-effective and equitable
within the requirements of AB 32.
The question of biofuels, especially in the context of the LCFS, is another area that should be
addressed in the 2007 IEPR. Biofuels are in increasingly higher demand and might not be
available in sufficient quantities to supply California. The President has suggested around a fivefold
nation-wide increase in the federal renewable fuel mandate.
Fleets are using increasing volumes of biofuels, and several states have or are considering
biofuels mandates. California will be competing for these supplies, and the state still produces
precious little in-state volumes.
The early-year goals of the LCFS may be achieved by low-level blends of first-generation
biofuels in conventional gasoline and diesel. However, meeting the LCFS’s 10 percent reduction
in carbon intensity will likely require significant volumes of second generation, low-carbon
intensity biofuels. The technology for cost-competitive, commercial-scale production of these
fuels does not yet exist, despite decades of work.
Even with meaningful technology breakthroughs, it may be difficult in the contemplated
timeframes to obtain the approvals, community support and funding necessary to build a large
alternative fuels industry in California. This is a real vulnerability, given the significant land use,
water use, equipment and energy requirements of a cellulosic or other biomass-based industry.
The most energy efficient use of biomass is for power generation rather than as a raw material for
the production of biofuels. So, a more sensible state strategy may be to encourage biomass use for
electrical generation. In any case, future biofuels may be competing with electrical generation for
limited biomass resources."
What a tangled web!
No doubt, if the income and spousal relationship are a concern for J. Boyd, it could lead to pushing for an AB 118 and LCFS that would minimize the use of ethanol and pour tax money into efforts toward other technologies that are not likely to succeed in the near term (ensuring continued use of high priced gasoline and continued record oil company profits).
Independence Day