On Oct. 25, California Governor Gavin Newsom encouraged the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to accelerate its study of E15, a gasoline-ethanol blend, as a way to potentially lower the cost of gasoline in California and “save Californians as much as $2.7 billion every year —with little to no impact on the environment.”
The idea that E15 could lower gas prices in California is, itself, controversial. Even more controversial, though, is the notion that expanding the use of biofuels comes with few consequences.
Policy changes in California, especially when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions or offsetting emissions through carbon credits, can have ripple effects throughout the U.S., and even around the globe; if California were a country, it would have the fifth-largest economy in the world. In the case of E15, California’s decision-making could impact land use in places like the Midwest, which produces most of the corn that goes into ethanol.
Ethanol is a renewable fuel that can be made from a variety of products. According to Silvia Secchi, a professor of geological and sustainability science at the University of Iowa, ethanol was originally sold as a “bridge fuel” that could one day primarily be made from cellulosic materials like wood shavings and other waste products.
Advertisement
Overwhelmingly, this has not happened. Corn still dominates ethanol production.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 45 percent of all corn produced in the U.S. is used for ethanol production. The USDA admits that increases in corn acreage are “a result of expanding ethanol production” and notes that while the acreage of farms growing other feed grains, such as barley and sorghum, has declined, the number of acres of corn has risen.
Increased intensity on the land in places like Iowa, which produces more corn than any other U.S. state and, as a result, uses a significant amount of fertilizer, has caused an environmental situation so dire that advocates are calling for federal intervention.
“I really wish that every time people put ethanol in their car, they would drink Iowa well water at home,” Secchi told Inside Climate News. “California is not going to be producing that ethanol. It’s going to be importing that ethanol from places like Iowa or Nebraska or Kansas or South Dakota, and the environmental impacts of that ethanol, in terms of land use change, in terms of water quality, all the degradation that ethanol brings with it, they’re going to stay with us.”
Nitrogen-based fertilizers, commonly applied to corn, can leak into aquifers and waterways in the U.S., causing nitrate contamination in drinking water that could take decades to reverse. The potential effects of nitrate-contaminated drinking water on people range from blue baby syndrome in infants to colon cancer in adults.In Des Moines, Iowa, the worlds’ largest nitrate-removal facility may need to get bigger to keep up with rising rates of contamination.
Advertisement
For Danny Cullenward, senior fellow at the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, the impacts of biofuels on the land are difficult to overstate.
“Huge industrial use of nitrogen-based fertilizers, destroying water quality throughout most of the country, that’s not actually good. And those are the consequences that come from this myopic and very narrow look at this carbon accounting lens through these flawed methods,” he said. “All of that is necessary to underpin the notion of, maybe this will be good for consumers.”
Experts Inside Climate News spoke with are calling for more environmental impacts of E15—a blend of 85 percent gasoline and 15 percent ethanol—to be taken into consideration, not just the potential wins for consumers at the gas pump.
A “Bridge Fuel”
Ethanol is a highly subsidized biofuel. Over the last 40 years, U.S. taxpayers have spent tens of billions of dollars supporting the ethanol industry through tax incentives, farm bill programs and the Renewable Fuel Standard, a 2005 program which mandated that U.S. transportation fuel contain a certain volume of renewable fuel. That same year, the U.S. became the world’s largest ethanol producer. In 2006, California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) was first authorized as a way for the state, home to the most registered vehicles in the nation, to decrease its reliance on petroleum.
The program provides incentives for fuel producers to purchase “credits” from lower-carbon fuel sellers, or lower the carbon intensity of their fuel. Ethanol, a biofuel, became a way for producers to lower their carbon intensity. As Cullenward wrote in a recent paper, the LCFS “plays an important and increasingly controversial role in California’s strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
Advertisement
In 2006, excitement was brewing that “innovation might be just around the corner,” Cullenward told ICN. Perhaps biofuels could be derived not from food products themselves—like corn and soybeans—but instead from waste products. Year after year, things did not change, and biofuels are still heavily subsidized.
“I think most transportation policy experts would tell you that the primary way we’re going to reduce emissions from the transportation sector for light duty vehicles is by electrifying them,” Cullenward said. “This is a really important part of the story, because the federal government has so heavily subsidized the production of ethanol, and because the California government sort of doubled down on this. There’s still a lot of financial support through policy mechanisms for crop-based ethanol production.”
Increased biofuel production has also resulted in the creation of carbon capture and storage projects at ethanol plants—the likes of which are already showing signs of inadequacy.
Soybeans, the second-most popular commodity crop in the U.S., are one of the main ingredients in biodiesel, which is used to fuel medium and heavy-duty vehicles like semi-trucks and buses. According to Cullenward, California accounts for almost all U.S. biodiesel consumption, most of which is shipped in from Singapore.
In 2023, the Science Advisory Board, a federal advisory committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, wrote to Administrator Michael Regan that “almost two decades after the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program’s creation, the efficacy of the program in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions remains highly uncertain from a scientific perspective, and many other environmental concerns regarding the RFS have been raised.”
Advertisement
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), an industry lobby group, responded to SAB’s letter by sending one of their own to Regan. “The overwhelming preponderance of scientific analyses and empirical data clearly show that corn starch ethanol significantly reduces GHG emissions relative to the gasoline it replaces,” they wrote.
A Shell gas station sign displays high prices in Los Angeles on Sept. 17, 2023. Credit: Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
RFA funded the study Newsom referenced in his press release, which concludes that gasoline prices will go down with the introduction and adoption of E15 gasoline in California.
“The Renewable Fuels Association is a lobbying group, so they’re going to be looking to push findings that potentially benefit them,” said Aaron Smith, professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California, Berkeley.
Most gasoline consumers are pumping into their cars contains 10 percent ethanol. E15 would increase the ethanol composition to 15 percent. Smith says policymakers would need to “jump through a lot of hoops” to believe that adding five percent more ethanol to the gasoline blend would lead to a dramatic decrease in gasoline prices. Not to mention, he told ICN, that just because E15 is legal does not mean fuel suppliers will provide it. Incorporating more ethanol into gasoline blends can require suppliers to upgrade storage tanks and take on added costs.
In response to Newsom’s announcement, the Renewable Fuels Association applauded the governor’s efforts.
“Not only does E15 reduce greenhouse gas emissions and harmful tailpipe pollution, but it also delivers significant savings at the pump. Allowing the sale of E15 would provide economic relief to California families, while at the same time providing important environmental benefits,” RFA President and CEO Geoff Cooper wrote in a press release.
Advertisement
“There’s no credible evidence that I’ve seen that this is really going to affect gas prices at all,” Smith countered.
A “Win-Win” for Californians
In the October press release, Newsom called introducing E15 a “win-win” for Californians. But even if, in a perfect world, E15 brought down gas prices in the state, increased ethanol production is not necessarily a “win-win” for the climate.
The California Air Resources Board did not respond to requests for comment on the criticism before publication time.
This story is funded by readers like you.
Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.
Donate Now
Advertisement
“When you clear land to grow corn, what you’re doing is you’re losing a whole bunch of carbon that’s in the forest or the grass or whatever is on those fields before you clear it to make corn,” Smith said.
For Secchi, California’s renewed interest in E15 is a “sign they’ve lost their way.”
“The scope of their policy is not including these effects beyond the state boundaries,” she said. “Maybe even more important, these policies that are just looking at carbon are often really stupid because they don’t consider other environmental effects. So, if we’re trading carbon for water or water for carbon, that’s not a good policy. That’s not a win-win.”
On Nov. 8, in the midst of national election coverage, the California Air Resources Board amended its Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which some experts, like Cullenward, warn might even increase gas prices, though there is truly no way to tell. The amendments included an increased obligation for fossil fuel sellers to cover their deficits by purchasing credits from low-carbon fuel sellers. But rising credit prices could lead to increased gas prices, with the added layer of benefitting biofuel companies, some of which are owned by oil companies.
Advertisement
According to Cullenward, because of California’s convoluted carbon credit program, there is a world where E15 gasoline could be a little bit cheaper, if approved for sale in California.
“You could conceivably say, ‘I am exploring a direction that will lower costs for consumers, but it really is primarily about consuming more biofuel products,’ which is terrible for the climate, and to the extent it’s cheaper, it’s because you’re subsidizing it at the same time you’re mandating it, which is just a really weird, weird system,” Cullenward said.
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Advertisement
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
Advertisement
Nina Elkadi
Contributor
Nina Elkadi is a freelance writer from Iowa who reports on agriculture, water, and the environment. Her work also explores the manipulation of science and how corporate negligence affects consumers and workers.
A California man was charged Tuesday after authorities say he brought an explosive device and other weapons through a security checkpoint at Sacramento International Airport.
Kimani Osayande Jones, who also uses the last name Jackson,attempted to bring an improvised explosive device, a knife and other bladed weapons, a torch lighter and zip ties through a TSA security checkpoint on May 30, according to court documents filed Tuesday in the Eastern District of California.
Officials believe Jones, 49, repeatedly called the FBI tip line to report he was being threatened and intimidated in the months leading up to the incident.
Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office bomb technicians safely removed the explosive device and tested its powder and fuse, both of which were determined to be “viable and energetic,”officials say.
Advertisement
Investigators said the device had the potential to damage an aircraft and cause a loss of cabin pressure.
Jones’ other luggage, which had already been through security and loaded onto an American Airlines flight to Charlotte, North Carolina, was hand-searched and examined by a canine unit upon arrival, and investigators said nothing “illegal or concerning” was found.
Jones has been chargedin federal courtwith unlawful possession of explosive material at an airport. He faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted.
His attorney, Meghan McLoughlin, told CNN in a statement: “There is often more to these cases than the government’s allegations, and that the criminal process will reveal Mr. Jones’ story as well.”
Multiple cell phones and repeated FBI tip line calls
The Sacramento resident went through security on May 30 wearing a face covering and blue latex gloves, court documents say.
Advertisement
When officers found the explosive device and other items in Jones’ carry-on bag, he told them he was unaware the items were in his possession and said “he would be okay with just discarding them.”When authorities informed him that explosive material could not simply be thrown away, he denied ownership of the backpack.
Jones also had five mobile phones in his possession. The cameras on each phone had been covered with painter’s tape, which authorities believe was intended to prevent his surroundings from being recorded.
One phone contained a 15-minute timer ready to start and another had a message from an unknown number on the screen stating, “we will be awaiting your call,” according to court documents.
An individual police believe to be Jones made approximately 13 calls to the FBI tip line leading up to the incident,beginning in March.
On May 24, the caller reported being followed to and from a doctor’s appointment and described what he said were threats and intimidation by another individual.
Advertisement
He said he was “being coerced in sleep to say certain phrases through digital media” and described “hearing sounds coming through walls, window panes, or even outside, attributing the outside sounds to drones,” court documents say. The call was ultimately terminated because of its “nonsensical nature.”
On the day of the incident, the same caller again contacted the FBI tip line, alleging that several individuals were threatening him throughout the past year through “cyber means.” He also referenced exercising his Second Amendment rights while denying any intention to harm others.
The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office also noted it had prior contact with Jones, “wherein he had a history of being paranoid.”
Hilton, Becerra lead California governor primary results
Vote counting continued after California’s primary election for governor with just over half of the results in.
Although results from California’s primary election began rolling in on Tuesday, June 2, it could take days or even weeks before the final counts are certified.
“This is normal … We have a process that by law ensures both voting rights and the integrity of elections, so I would call on all Californians to be patient,” Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber said in a June 2 news release.
Advertisement
The Golden State’s lengthy vote-counting process has “become a national narrative about California elections,” according to Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego.
“In California, it takes a long time to certify votes, to verify the signatures, to then count the ballots; all of that process takes a while,” Kousser said in an interview last week. “It may take a while for us to learn who the top candidates who emerge are.”
Here are some factors behind California’s lengthy vote-counting process.
Mail-in ballots come with added verification step
With each mail-in ballot cast, elections officials must compare the signature on a returned vote-by-mail envelope to the voter’s signature on their voter registration card. Various factors go into determining whether the signatures match, including the slant of the signature, whether it is printed or written in cursive, and the size, proportions, or scale.
Vote-by-mail ballots were Californians’ preferred voting method in both the 2024 primary and general elections, with drop-off locations — such as ballot drop boxes and voting centers — the most popular way to return mail-in ballots.
Advertisement
During California’s 2024 primary, more than 7.7 million votes were cast statewide, and 90 percent of those were mail-in ballots. This means election officials had to verify the signatures on more than 6.8 million ballots before they could be counted. For the November 2024 general election, 80% of cast ballots, or about 13 million, were vote-by-mail.
Reviewing conditional voter and provisional ballots
California also allows for same-day voter registration, also known as conditional voter registration. Voters who need to register, or re-register, within 14 days of an election can do so at their county elections office, polling place, or vote center. These ballots will be processed and counted after the county elections office has completed the voter registration process.
In addition to conditional voter ballots, there are provisional ballots that must be verified before they are counted. Voters cast provisional ballots for a wide array of reasons, including if their name does not appear at a polling place or if they’ve made a mistake on their ballot. After a voter casts a provisional ballot, it will not be counted until election officials have confirmed that the voter is registered to vote in that county and has not already voted in that election.
Vote-by-mail ballots can be sent on Election Day
Though state officials recommend voters mail their ballots sooner rather than later, state law allows vote-by-mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within a specified window afterward, thereby extending the tallying process.
Advertisement
For the primary, ballots needed to be postmarked on or before June 2 and received by county elections office no later than June 10.
California is, well, big
California is the most populous state in the nation. And, as of May 18, a record total of 23,155,447 Californians were registered to vote.
While not all registered voters are expected to have voted, county election officials estimate that more than 5 million ballots were cast statewide.
When to expect final results
Under state law, county elections officials are required to report the results for most ballots by June 15, or 13 days after the election, according to Weber. However, some ballots can take counties up to 30 days to count every ballot and then conduct a post-election audit.
State law requires county elections officials to report final official results to state officials July 3. State officials then have until July 10 to certify the results of the election.
California’s crowded, protracted gubernatorial primary is going to take a little more time to settle.
The race remained too early to call Wednesday morning with 50% of the expected vote counted, according to NBC News’ Decision Desk. Three main candidates — former Fox News host Steve Hilton, a Republican, and two Democrats, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and billionaire activist Tom Steyer — are competing for two spots in the general election, with the candidate in fourth place, Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, running well behind.
Hilton had 27% support in the all-party primary with about half of votes still left to count, while Becerra had 26% and Steyer had 20%. Bianco was the only other candidate in double digits, at 11%.
In California, all candidates run on the same primary ballot in the primary and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, move on to the general election.
It’s difficult to say when it will be clear which two candidates advance to the November general election, however, due to the state’s protracted vote counting.
And with millions of ballots left to count, other key races in California remain uncalled as well, including the second runoff spot to face Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass one on one in November, several House races that could help determine the majority next year, and more.
Advertisement
In the governor’s race, all three candidates rallied supporters around the state as the evening drew on.
“We’re not there yet, but it’s looking good,” Hilton told allies. “It looks very much as if Californians really will have the chance to vote for change in November and take our state in a new direction, a fresh start for our state, which is long overdue.”
But while Hilton was narrowly in first place when he spoke, Democratic candidates were capturing the majority of the votes.
Becerra looked back at his own “underdog story,” from his immigrant relatives to his bid for governor, which took some time to catch fire.
“Almost immediately, he’s counted out, an afterthought, overlooked by many, outspent by a ton, even called along the way to drop out and save us the trouble,” Becerra recounted to his supporters. “Well, guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight. Like my parents, I never gave up.”
Steyer struck a hopeful note in his election night speech despite a deficit in the vote count.
Advertisement
“It might take some time to figure out where this is going, we’re going to wait till every ballot is counted, we’re going to give democracy a time to work, and we know we finished really strong,” Steyer said.
Major battleground districts
GOP Rep. David Valadao’s district has been one of Democrats’ top targets for years, but two Democrats are locked in a close race for the second spot in the November general election against the incumbent.
School board member Randy Villegas, who won support from national progressives, has a slight lead over state legislator Jasmeet Bains, 30% to 26%, with less than half of the expected vote tallied in the 22nd District. Valadao is comfortably in first place.
And in Northern California’s 6th District, Rep. Kevin Kiley — who was elected as a Republican and switched to become an independent this election cycle, as he runs in another newly redrawn district — is bunched up in a tight race that includes Democrat Richard Pan, a former state legislator, and Republican Michael Stansfield. Currently, Stansfield is running ahead of Pan; they spent much of Tuesday night and Wednesday morning trading the lead, which could have significant general election implications.
Meanwhile, outside California, Democrats think they might be able to challenge for one of Montana’s red-tinted congressional districts this fall, after Rep. Ryan Zinke decided to retire. But less than 2 percentage points separate Democrats Sam Forstag and Ryan Busse with more than 85% of the expected vote tallied in their primary in Montana’s 1st District.
Advertisement
Read more about Tuesday’s House primaries here.
A safe seat battle to watch
Plenty of other House districts in California — and a few elsewhere — still have unsettled primaries, but one attracted particular attention due to how nasty the campaign got.
In Southern California, where two Republican incumbents are facing off in one district due to redistricting, Rep. Ken Calvert has advanced to the general election, but Rep. Young Kim is still battling for the second spot. She leads Democrat Esther Kim-Varet in the race for second, 22% to 16%, with about half of the vote in.
Who will face Bass in Los Angeles?
While Bass is projected to advance to a November runoff in Los Angeles, it’s not yet clear whether she’ll face Republican Spencer Pratt or Democrat Nithya Raman.
Bass has about 37% of the vote to 29% for Pratt and 21% for Raman so far, with approximately half of the expected vote tallied.
Advertisement
Speaking to supporters on election night, Raman, a member of the Los Angeles City Council, said that “tonight may not give us a final answer on this race.”
“Many thousands of votes will be counted in the days ahead, and we may not get an answer we like, but regardless of what happens next, nobody, nobody can take away what all of us have built together,” she continued.
Pratt, meanwhile, was looking ahead to a potential matchup with Bass when he spoke to reporters.
“Now I have five months to get deep into every community that hasn’t heard my message to make them safe,” said Pratt, a former reality TV star. “So I’m actually very excited, because I felt very rushed. It’s a big city, and I was not able to talk to as many people as I look forward to talking to.”
Bass also projected optimism, telling her backers, “We got a lot more to go, but so far it’s looking good.”
