analysis—one that is commensurate with the charge of the Advisory Panel: technically sound, but not comprehensive or exhaustive. To that end, staff plans to recommend that the Economic Subgroup convene as soon as can be arranged to have such a discussion. Furthermore, staff has been working with the California Energy Commission (CEC) as they conduct an economic analysis on their illustrative scenarios. Therefore, further input from will be valuable. Finally, staff is considering using a CEC’s contractor to conduct a more comprehensive economic analysis of the LCFS. Such an analysis would not be completed until sometime in 2012 or early 2013. Meanwhile, staff has posed questions in this draft chapter to solicit input from the Panel on proceeding with the economic analysis of the LCFS. goal is to complete an Staff’s economic analysis for inclusion in the report to the Board in December, giving panelists time for review and comment. As specified in section 95489 of the LCFS regulation, the economic impacts analysis should consider the following areas: scope of each review shall include, at a minimum, consideration of the following “The areas: (8) The LCFS impact on state revenues, consumers, and economic growth; program’s (12) Significant economic issues… B. Background 1. 2009 Approach As part of the original Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) covering the LCFS, staff estimated the cost difference between producing the baseline transportation diesel, and CNG—and producing the lower-carbon-intensity (CI) transportation fuels that could be used to meet the requirements of the LCFS. The analysis that estimated the economic impacts of the LCFS was based on engineering production cost studies and, necessarily, assumptions about economic and market conditions. Staff calculated the economic impacts for the gasoline baseline and diesel baseline scenarios separately and individually. a. Assumptions Staff assumed that the price of crude oil for 2010 2020 would be $66 - $88/bbl. This – assumption came from the 2007 California Energy Commission (CEC) Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) and was also the assumption used for the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Staff assumed that the refineries in the State would continue to operate at normal throughput levels and would become net exporters of CARBOB if in-state consumption declined. The importers and in-state producers of fuel blendstocks and finished fuels
analysis—one that is commensurate with the charge of the Advisory Panel: technically sound, but not comprehensive or exhaustive. To that end, staff plans to recommend that the Economic Subgroup convene as soon as can be arranged to have such a discussion. Furthermore, staff has been working with the California Energy Commission (CEC) as they conduct an economic analysis on their illustrative scenarios. Therefore, further input from CEC’s will be valuable. Finally, staff is considering using a contractor to conduct a more comprehensive economic analysis of the LCFS. Such an analysis would not be completed until sometime in 2012 or early 2013. Meanwhile, staff has posed questions in this draft chapter to solicit input from the Panel on proceeding with the economic analysis of the LCFS. Staff’s goal is to complete an economic analysis for inclusion in the report to the Board in December, giving panelists time for review and comment. As specified in section 95489 of the LCFS regulation, the economic impacts analysis should consider the following areas: “The scope of each review shall include, at a minimum, consideration of the following areas: (8) The LCFS program’s impact on state revenues, consumers, and economic growth; (12) Significant economic issues… B. Background 1. 2009 Approach As part of the original Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) covering the LCFS, staff estimated the cost difference between producing the baseline transportation diesel, and CNG—and producing the lower-carbon-intensity (CI) transportation fuels that could be used to meet the requirements of the LCFS. The analysis that estimated the economic impacts of the LCFS was based on engineering production cost studies and, necessarily, assumptions about economic and market conditions. Staff calculated the economic impacts for the gasoline baseline and diesel baseline scenarios separately and individually. a. Assumptions Staff assumed that the price of crude oil for 2010 – 2020 would be $66 - $88/bbl. This assumption came from the 2007 California Energy Commission (CEC) Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) and was also the assumption used for the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Staff assumed that the refineries in the State would continue to operate at normal throughput levels and would become net exporters of CARBOB if in-state consumption declined. The importers and in-state producers of fuel blendstocks and finished fuels
82-20111025workingdraftreport.e2edits.docx