Slide 1It’s Your Oregon
OEC: Who We Are
For more than 40 years we’ve been a champion for solutions to protect the health of every Oregonian and the health of the place we call home.
Our program work: Protect kids’ health from toxic pollution; Improve stewardship of Oregon’s rivers; Slow global warming; Create a sustainable food & farm system; Build a sustainable economy
We help individuals live green; We partner with professionals—businesses, farmers and health providers—to help them thrive with sustainable practices; We work with elected officials to create practical policy.
It’s Your Oregon
Oregon Clean Fuels Program
Legislatively authorized in 2009 (HB 2186)
Purpose: reduce the average carbon intensity of fuels 10% over a ten year period
Accelerate innovation
Requires consumer cost safety nets
It’s Your Oregon
Why it matters
Transportation responsible for largest share of state GHG emissions: need clean cars, clean fuels, reduce miles traveled
Lost state incentives for EVs
Need economic programs to drive investment and jobs in Oregon
Conventional oil is running out, need smart transition to better fuels
It’s Your Oregon
Similar to RPS
Sets a target, many technologies help meet demand, credits created when clean energy is generated, benefits entire business supply chain
25%
Clean Fuels Program
Sets a target, many technologies help meet demand, credits generated when clean fuel is used, benefits entire business supply chain
10% CI reduction
Two fuel pools: gasoline and diesel, carbon baseline for each
Fuels (sustainable biofuels, electricity, CNG, hydrogen) earn credits for being lower carbon than the baseline
Automatically regulated parties: petroleum-based fuels, biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel part of baseline fuel pool)
Opt-in participants: other low-carbon fuel producers
*
* Without indirect effects
15.54
Limits geographic bias for EV deployment
However, transportation-only electricity suppliers can apply for a separate carbon intensity
E.g., solar powered charging station would have lower carbon value, could potentially earn more credits
Inherent efficiency of electric drive train factored in
*
Proposal:
In CA, value of credits returned to driver.
Potential pilot project during
D: EVs, NG, Cellulosic w/ ILUC, In-state
E: Single standard for both gas and diesel
F: C above, with higher oil prices
G: C above, but lower oil
H: Cellulosic biofuels w/ ILUC, Out-of-state
*
Changes in Employment
Scenario D performs better overall because EV and NG infrastructure comes on line sooner.
Peak is due to biorefinery construction, which comes online right before demand
*
Full program implementation (2015)
It’s Your Oregon
How you can help
Contact your legislator: remove the sunset, provide DEQ with resources
Write LTE
25
Results  
 
VISION  to  REMI  
While the VISION model is a valuable tool for measuring the impacts of changes to vehicle fleets and fuels, it does not produce macroeconomic impacts that show how such changes might reverberate through the broader economy. Significant increases in the consumption of biofuels, particularly of biofuels produced in-state, can be expected to impact farming and agricultural sectors of the economy. Significant shifts away from petroleum-based fuels (gasoline and diesel) can be expected to have impacts on businesses involved in oil production, refining and transportation. Significant new utilization of natural gas or electricity produced in-state would also affect related industries. Macroeconomic models seek to estimate these broader impacts.
-­$1.8
-­$1.5
-­$1.2
-­$0.9
-­$0.6
-­$0.3
$0.0
$0.3
$0.6
$B ill io ns  (2
00 8$
25
Results VISION analyses produce extensive results regarding a wide variety of impacts in each scenario, such as the volumes of various fuels consum ed, the projected expenditure on those fuels , the blends of various fuels and the costs of any alternative vehicles required. An extensive collection of results is presented in Appendix A of this report. One representative result, the projected spending change on fuel under each of the eight scenarios, is depicted in the chart below:
VISION to REMI
While the VISION model is a valuable tool for measuring the impacts of changes to vehicle
fleets and fuels, it does not produce macroeconomic impacts that show how such changes might
reverberate through the broader economy. Significant increases in the consumption of biofuels,
particularly of biofuels produced in-state, can be expected to impact farming and agricultural
sectors of the economy. Significant shifts away from petroleum-based fuels (gasoline and diesel)
can be expected to have impacts on businesses involved in oil production, refining and
transportation. Significant new utilization of natural ga s or electricity produced in-state would
also affect related industries. Macroeconom ic models seek to estimate these broader impacts.
-$1.8
-$1.5
-$1.2
-$0.9
-$0.6
-$0.3
$0.0
$0.3
$0.6
$
30
Scenario H, which envisions reliance on biofuels provided entirely from out-of-state agriculture and out-of-state refining, produces the lowest impact on GSP. The flat line in the graph represents this scenario. With little investment change in the state, and little change in overall fuel spending, this scenario produces very small changes from the business-as-usual projection.
The graphic below shows the overall volume of GSP change from the baseline in each scenario for the entire 10-year period in which the LCFS would ramp up to full implementation:
Overall, the six scenarios involving in-state production of biofuels (A through C and E through G) have fairly similar GSP impacts, ranging from approximately $900 million to about $1.25 billion in additional economic activity. Differences in the projected prices of fuels and the types and volumes of fuels needed are responsible for the variation among these six scenarios. Scenario D, which produces higher GSP impact projections every year, has a similarly higher cumulative effect. Scenario H, which never has a large impact in any single year, has a small cumulative effect.
Gross  State  Product  Components  
economy. Levels of consumer spending, private sector investment, inventories, imports and exports, and govern GSP.
The analysis of the LCFS scenarios identified three GSP components consistently expected to show significant impacts. Those components are Personal Consumption Expenditures, Private
$0  
$500  
$1,000  
$1,500  
$2,000  
$2,500  
$M ill io ns
37
Changes in Employment under Eight LCFS Compliance Scenarios
Employment in the above graphic is measured as jobs. The scenarios reflect a correlation between the intensity of investment, which tracks with the timing of refinery construction, and increases in employment. Plants, once built, directly employ relatively small numbers of people (below 100 per plant). During the construction phase, by contrast, the spending involved works through the economy to create employment for thousands of people.
Scenarios D and H stand out much in the way they do in the GSP projections. In scenario D, the investment in fueling capacity and charger station installation drives employment even in the earlier years. This scenario results in approximately 2,000 additional jobs every year throughout the ten-year period even without the construction of any biofuels refining capacity. This employment is tied to other infrastructure creation. Scenario H again has no significant impact.
0  
1,000  
2,000  
3,000  
4,000  
5,000  
6,000  
7,000  
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Scenario  A Scenario  B
Scenario  C Scenario  D
Scenario  E Scenario  F
Scenario  G Scenario  H
se lin e