Each fuel source is assigned a carbon intensity score based on its GHG emissions. Fuels are measured against an annual carbon intensity target: Fuels with carbon intensity scores below the target (lower emissions) receive credits; fuels with carbon intensity scores above the target (higher emissions) generate deficits. Over time, the carbon intensity targets are tightened until decarbonization goals are met. Surplus credits can be traded or saved for the future. Fuel makers can either produce or purchase eligible fuels with attached credits or buy credits directly from parties with a surplus. Rather than a “command-and-control” regulatory mechanism, this system allows for flexibility by empowering regulated entities to decide how best to attain compliance.

Each fuel source is assigned a carbon intensity score based on its GHG emissions. Compliance is measured against an annual carbon intensity target: Fuels with carbon intensity scores below the target receive credits; fuels with carbon intensity scores above the target generate deficits. Surplus credits can be traded or saved for future compliance. Fuel makers can either produce or acquire eligible fuels with attached credits or buy credits directly from parties with a surplus. Rather than a “command-and-control” regulatory mechanism, this system allows for flexibility by empowering regulated entities to decide how best to attain compliance.

Yes, and while the RFS has been a success requiring that U.S. transportation fuels contain a minimum annual volume of biofuels (measured in gallons) derived from renewable biomass set by a statutory schedule, that schedule expired in 2022. As a result the EPA now has the power to determine the blending levels with certain limitations. The timing is right to have a conversation about a new national fuels policy.

A CFS is different from the RFS because a CFS is technology-neutral, allowing market forces to harness an assortment of innovative fuel sources and technologies – including electric vehicles and fuel cells along with biofuels. Additionally, the CFS does not dictate how much of a specific fuel must be used, but instead aims to decarbonize all vehicles, regardless of the fuel or energy source used to move people and goods.

A handful of states have successfully established their own CFS programs that demonstrate the effectiveness of this policy. For example, California’s version of a CFS led to $2.8 billion in investments into clean fuels production between 2011 and 2018, while lowering fuel prices. Oregon and Washington have demonstrated similar results. Other states in the Midwest and Northeast are considering their own CFS laws, and Canada recently adopted its own. A national CFS would complement state CFS programs and Canada’s, and provide even greater overall benefits than the current approach.

Oregon and California’s programs have avoided 55 million tons of carbon pollution from their roadways, while also saving $100 million in health-related costs annually from reduced air pollution. Oregon has seen a 13.3% reduction in premature excess deaths from reduced vehicle pollution.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has underscored the inextricable link between energy independence and national security. Climate-related instability, conflict, and humanitarian disasters also continue to pose a threat to America’s interests around the globe.

As climate-driven hazards and crises strain military and government responses worldwide, the imperative to reduce our carbon emissions, improve our energy independence, and cement America’s climate leadership on the world stage has never been clearer.

Harnessing the full potential of our domestic energy resources through a national Clean Fuel Standard will not only safeguard American consumers from conflict-driven price shocks - it will limit the potential for foreign interests to weaponize our reliance on non-domestic energy sources.

A national CFS would provide the scale and certainty to enable large-scale, long-term investments that will drive new American manufacturing and innovation, as well as maximize job creation and sustainable development in every state and region across multiple sectors. It additionally would maintain hundreds of thousands of jobs currently held by vehicle mechanics, fuel providers and others.

A variety of transportation fuels used in passenger cars, light trucks, utility vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, farm engines, construction equipment, and other off-road vehicles. These include: ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, clean jet fuels, hydrogen fuel cells, electric vehicle charging ports, and other clean fuels using carbon capture to reduce emissions. Energy efficiency is also rewarded across the value chain.

A CFS increases competition in the fuels marketplace, which is currently dominated by fossil-based oil. By incentivizing clean, low-carbon fuels and electric vehicles over today’s gasoline and diesel models, a CFS can help break our addiction to foreign oil and insulate American consumers and businesses from oil price shocks, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the actions of oil cartels, inflation, and profiteering by oil and gas companies. It’s time for America to support American-grown fuels and vehicle technologies, which will reduce costs in the long run. California’s CFS program has not had discernible negative price impacts – especially when compared to recent gasoline price changes.

A CFS sets the stage for market forces to decide the best manner for meeting carbon-intensity targets. Federal research shows that low-carbon liquid fuels will play an important role while EVs overcome barriers to deployment. Liquid fuels for planes, ships, and hard to electrify heavy duty vehicles and equipment are anticipated to continue helping decarbonize the transportation sector in the years to come.