ARB researchers evaluate in-use heavy-duty NOx aftertreatment systems, find elevated levels during certain lower-temperature operations
455 hp 2014 Corvette Stingray to deliver EPA-estimated 29 mpg highway

Oregon State Senate rejects measure removing sunset of state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard; shutdown in 2015

The Oregon State Senate has rejected SB 488, a measure that would have repealed the sunset on provisions of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in the state in 2015. The sunset will shut down the LCFS program.

The low carbon fuel standard (Clean Fuels Program, HB 2186) was adopted in 2009 (earlier post), with a sunset provision in 2015. Like the LCFS in California, the Oregon LCFS targets a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of vehicle fuels by 2025.

The sunset provision was inserted to provide legislative oversight over the LCFS and provide a way to halt the program if development of the LCFS was deemed infeasible.

The Oregon LCFS is currently being implemented in two phases. Phase one—the administrative portion of the clean fuels program—is being implemented now with existing resources in the Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ’s) budget. The second phase—which would have begun if the sunset provisions had been removed—is the carbon reduction phase.

Had the sunset been removed, before beginning implementation, DEQ would have to first develop a new economic analysis, evaluate data from phase one and conduct a stakeholder process. Once that information was available, the Environmental Quality Commission would then have decided what processes and resources would be needed to implement phase two of the low carbon fuel standards.

DEQ will still continue to implement the program until 2015. Environmental advocacy group Clean Fuels Now said that it is committed to having the sunset lifted in the 2014 legislative session if the vote on SB 488 is not reversed this session.

Opponents of the Oregon LCFS approved of the Senate’s action.



Either I'm really tired or this is really poorly written article or more likely... really poor legislation...but I still can't decide what the hell is good or bad here.


Thank you, I thought it was only me whom had no idea what they were talking about.


If they can not make it work, then they can not, it is as simple as that. It depends on how the law was written.

In California, the amount of credits in the early years pays for the later years, but change has to happen. If the oil industry and refiners oppose it and there is no money for alternatives, then oil wins again.


It is delightful that the CAGW insanity is slowly being repealed.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)