Latest news with #LCFS
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Automotive
- Newsweek
California Democrats Vote to Increase Gas Prices
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The California Senate on Wednesday rejected a measure that sought to stop gas prices rising by a projected 65 cents per gallon. Senate Bill 2 had aimed to halt proposed changes to California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) that were approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in November. Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, a Republican who authored the bill, forced a floor vote on the measure on Wednesday. Lawmakers rejected it in a 10-23 vote, with Democrats unanimous in their opposition. A Chevron sign at a gas station, showing California gas prices, in Walnut Creek, California, April 8, 2025. A Chevron sign at a gas station, showing California gas prices, in Walnut Creek, California, April 8, 2025. Getty Images Why It Matters A report by the University of Pennsylvania's Kleinman Center for Energy Policy predicted that the changes could increase the cost of gas by 65 cents a gallon in the near term and by 85 cents a gallon by 2030. Supporters say the new rules are necessary to keep California on track for its climate goals. But critics have warned that the new standards could raise gas prices even higher in a state where drivers already pay some of the highest fuel costs in the nation. What To Know Senate Bill 2 aimed to "void specified amendments to the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard regulations adopted by the state board on November 8, 2024, or as subsequently adopted, as specified." The proposed changes to the LCSF include updated targets to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in California in order to reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Jones, a Republican, accused Democrats of choosing "higher gas prices over hardworking Californians," pointing to the estimates that the updates to the LCSF will raise gas prices by as much as 65 cents per gallon. But David Clergen, a spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, has called the 65-cent figure "misinformation," saying that independent experts estimate gas prices may rise by just 5 to 8 cents per gallon. He also told the Sacramento Bee that the LCSF does not directly add to gas prices. What People Are Saying California Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones said in a statement on Wednesday: "I forced a Senate Floor vote to repeal Governor Newsom's 65-cent gas price hike. Senate Democrats unanimously opposed it. They had a chance to stand with California drivers, but instead, they chose to defend the highest gas prices in the nation." CARB spokesperson David Clergen told the Sacramento Bee: "Independent experts have projected LCFS pass-through costs could range from as low as 5 cents per gallon to as high as 8 cents per gallon, much lower than widely reported projections that are as high as a dollar or more." He added that any additional costs "would be from oil companies passing through the cost of complying with the regulation and they would decide how much, if any of that cost to pass through to consumers." What's Next The proposed updates to the LCFS were resubmitted to the Office of Administrative Law, which reviews the legality of state regulations, on May 16, after the agency rejected the proposed changes in February. The agency has until June 30 to make a final determination and if approved, the changes could go into effect on July 1. That could come on the same day that an increase in California's state gas tax is set to take effect, rising from 59.6 to 61.2 cents per gallon.
Politico
5 days ago
- Automotive
- Politico
The other climate rule Trump's attacks are boosting
Presented by the Stop the Oil Shakedown Coalition. With help from Camille von Kaenel, Marie J. French and Caitlin Oprysko THE OTHER CLEAN-CAR LAW: New York lawmakers reeling from Congress' vote to kill California's electric vehicle mandate are eyeballing another Golden State rule to pick up the slack: the low-carbon fuel standard. Fair warning to Democrats considering this route: Things could get bumpy. A yearslong push in Albany to establish New York's version of the controversial program that sets emissions limits for transportation fuels is regaining steam in the wake of Senate votes last month to revoke a trio of EPA waivers that let California — and a dozen states that follow its lead — enforce stricter vehicle emissions standards. We're still waiting for President Donald Trump to sign the resolutions and kick off a court battle that Attorney General Rob Bonta has promised to wage, but New York enviros are already using the moment to lobby for LCFS standards, as POLITICO's Marie J. French reports. 'New York has to lead,' said Julie Tighe, president of the New York League of Conservation Voters, at a press conference last week. 'We cannot let four years go by without taking real action to transition away from fossil fuels, and Washington, D.C., is not going to help.' New York lawmakers don't need to look particularly hard to find out what sort of headaches they could be in store for if a bill from state Sen. Kevin Parker that would establish the state's clean fuel standard crosses the finish line. (That proposal is awaiting a hearing in New York's Senate Finance Committee and still faces an uphill battle to reach Gov. Kathy Hochul's desk.) Case in point: the bare-knuckled sparring on Friday between moderate Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains, a Bakersfield Democrat and potential 2026 challenger to Republican Rep. David Valadao, and the California Air Resources Board, which approved amendments last year (still pending approval by the state's Office of Administrative Law) to tighten the stringency of the program — and potentially raise gas prices. Bains called on CARB Chair Liane Randolph to resign after she said at a hearing last week on transportation fuels that the agency doesn't extrapolate on how much consumers pay at the pump because 'in many instances, that would be speculative.' 'It is outrageous the director would pursue such policies without even trying to analyze the impact on prices,' Bains said. The incident is part of the continued fallout from last year's messy reauthorization of the nearly 15-year-old program. The heated debate largely centered on concerns about the rule's potential to raise gas prices, and CARB did itself no favors by initially estimating a 47-cent per gallon hike, before walking that figure back. The backlash against Bains was swift, as Gov. Gavin Newsom and environmental groups rushed to Randolph's defense. 'What's outrageous is the Assemblymember's stunt as she gears up to run for Congress,' Newsom spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor said in a statement. Equally important, though, is who was missing from the defense. Business groups that oppose LCFS over affordability concerns, and environmental justice advocates who argue the state should focus on electrification rather than alternative fuels, were nowhere to be found. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas — who established an oversight committee last month, headed by Assembly Transportation Chair Lori Wilson and Assemblymember David Alvarez, to study the LCFS' impact on prices — also stayed out of the squabble, and his spokespeople didn't respond to requests for comment. Those political dynamics are already shaping up in New York, where the state Senate passed an LCFS bill in 2022 that couldn't clear the Assembly. EJ groups came out against the bill last week, writing in a letter that New York can't 'invest in half-measures and failed solutions that burden environmental justice communities.' But New York businesses are backing Parker's bill. The Business Council of New York State, an Albany-based chamber of commerce with over 3,000 members, announced its support in April, arguing that an LCFS rule would allow the state to 'keep open all fuel and technology options' as it attempts to slash greenhouse gas emissions 85 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. — AN Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! SPEAKING OF GAS PRICES: Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton unveiled a plan Monday to lower energy and fuel prices based on dismantling California's climate programs. Hilton, a GOP television personality, released his energy platform the day before he's hosting a forum on fuel prices with former Democratic Majority Leader Gloria Romero, who registered as a Republican last year over issues like gas stove bans. Hilton's to-do list includes his party's top asks: ending the state's 2045 net-zero emissions goal, repealing LCFS and lowering the state gas tax. He's also advocating for nixing the cap-and-trade program Newsom and lawmakers are currently negotiating an extension of. — AN WATER TRUCE: San Diego and Los Angeles are ending 15 years of courtroom fights over the cost of water transfers, citing the need for greater flexibility and collaboration to handle unpredictable supplies caused by climate change. Under a settlement agreement announced Monday, the San Diego County Water Authority will pay the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California a fixed price for water transfers instead of a fluctuating one, which San Diego had repeatedly sued over. The settlement ends an acrimonious chapter in Southern California's water wars that had cost the two agencies tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and driven political battles across regional water boards. It also frees the San Diego County Water Authority — which is currently facing an existential threat because of lower-than-expected water sales — to cut deals with other water agencies to offload some of its unneeded water. San Diego has spent heavily in the past two decades on both importing and desalinating water. Other Southern California communities don't have that same luxury of abundant supplies, with both the Sierra Nevada snowpack and the Colorado River under strain. MWD Board chair Adán Ortega said at a press conference Monday that the settlement agreement would usher in 'a new era of regionalism' that the entire Southwest should recognize. — CvK EAST COAST FOIL: Florida's longtime cautionary tale on property insurance is changing — maybe. After years of massive losses, Florida insurers made a $207 million profit in 2024, Thomas Frank of POLITICO's E&E News reports. Private Florida-based insurers are returning, and the state-run insurer of last-resort, Citizens Property Insurance Corp., is shrinking. The AM Best credit ratings firm credits the turn-around to rate hikes that doubled the average premium between 2021 and 2023 and legal reforms that limited lawsuits by policyholders. California, meanwhile, still hasn't shrunk its own insurer of last-resort or brought back private insurers in any big way, despite setting the stage for increased rate hikes. A STEP TOO FAR: Senate Majority Leader John Thune sidestepped Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough to revoke California's vehicle emissions waivers, but he's not willing to do the same for Republicans' budget 'megabill.' 'We're not going there,' Thune said Monday when asked by reporters if overruling MacDonough is under consideration as the Senate crafts its own budget proposal. MacDonough will play the crucial role of deciding what polices can stay in the bill. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer predicted that House GOP proposals, like a plan to place limits on the ability of federal judges to enforce contempt citations, will be booted. The parliamentarian question is going to follow Thune, who gave the thumbs-up for the unprecedented move to ignore MacDonough's opinion that Congress can't overturn EPA's waivers empowering California to enforce nation-leading emissions standards. — AN ON HIS OWN: Former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt is launching his own firm, he told POLITICO's Caitlin Oprysko. Bernhardt was also a longtime Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck lobbyist, including for Westlands Water District. The new Bernhardt Group will primarily provide strategic advice, but may do some lobbying work on an as-needed basis. Bernhardt declined to name any of the new firm's clients. But he said its work won't be limited to natural resources policy and could encompass a number of issues the firm's staff have been involved in, from telecom and privacy to financial services and appropriations. Read more from the interview as well as the full list of people joining him in POLITICO Influence. — The Trump administration is reversing course and keeping eight of the nine USDA field offices it planned to close in California open instead. — Analytics firm First Street forecasts Sacramento will experience some of the country's largest out-migration because of climate risks. — California Democrats want the Trump administration to restaff National Weather Service offices in Sacramento and Hanford that lost the ability to operate 24 hours a day.
Politico
16-05-2025
- Business
- Politico
David Alvarez needs convincing
Presented by With help from Camille von Kaenel and Eric He LEERY OF LCFS: Assemblymember David Alvarez is stepping into one of California's trickiest climate policy arenas. The San Diego Democrat is co-chairing a new Assembly committee devoted to studying the low-carbon fuel standard, the hot-button trading program for transportation emissions that the California Air Resources Board amended last year amid a flurry of debate over how much it would raise gasoline prices. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas convened the committee last month as part of his push to address 'the biggest cost drivers for Californians.' The LCFS made the list, alongside child care, nutrition and housing. Alvarez spoke with POLITICO about his plans for the committee, the economic challenges of phasing out fossil fuels and the need to focus on disadvantaged communities. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Why are you focusing on LCFS now, when it was last year's fight? It's generally an approach by the speaker, who has a focus on looking at everything we do in California and trying to be responsive to the cost of living, and we haven't really done that with LCFS. It was created under [Gov. Arnold] Schwarzenegger, and then has been interpreted by CARB on their own without any legislative direction. It's grown into a multi-billion-dollar-a-year program, of which the state sees no revenue, as an exchange between private parties, but there's a cost associated with that. This is costing Californians in many ways, and so we have to determine what is the point that's worth the return on that investment, that is worth it from California's consumer standpoint. What will this committee produce? I think for sure, at minimum, a report. We should at least be considering whether there is any legislative authority that should be inserted into this program that has been 100 percent driven by regulators. How concerned are you about the Energy Commission considering a profit cap on refiners and requiring them to keep more supplies on hand if they go down for maintenance? I was pretty vocal during the special session last year and continue to be that this cannot come at the expense of consumers. That's the directive they received from the Legislature, and it's the expectation that I would have going forward. The Valero refinery in Benicia is likely going to close. Should the Legislature respond? I think everybody should be rethinking the policies that we implement when they lead to closures, and, ultimately, what it leads to in terms of cost to consumers, absolutely. As far as more directly saying, 'No more closures,' I don't see that. How do you legislate no more closures? It's a private industry, and they do respond to their shareholders. I think we just should be very mindful that there are repercussions to all the actions we take. Going forward, whatever comes before us, I think there will be a new lens through which we see legislation, and that's going to be, 'Is this going to cause potential closures, loss of supply that then leads to increasing costs?' And if so, it's going to be a much more difficult lift for a legislator who's trying to do that. Is there an interest in rolling back Energy Commission rules if they prove to be a cost burden or cause refinery closures? I know it's top of mind to the Energy Commission and Vice Chair [Siva] Gunda. I'm expecting to have a more at length conversation with him on this topic. I think it'd be fair to say they're not underestimating the concern of Valero, and what is otherwise happening. I think they have expressed themselves in a way that this is not being taken lightly; it's being taken seriously. Thirty-five House Democrats, including a couple in California, joined Republicans last week in voting to roll back CARB's vehicle electrification rules last week. What do you think of them? Who has access to these vehicles? I think you may be seeing some waning of interest, because for the average middle class family, certainly the lower income family, the realities of an electric vehicle serving their needs when of those families are commuting many, many miles for employment because it's become unaffordable to live in the urban core centers of communities, that's an issue. Then you have communities like mine which are urban, but they are older, more middle class and lower income, where, again, access to electrification is just unrealistic. We need to analyze the reality of where we can get to, and aim for that. Whatever percentage it is, by whichever year, that is realistically accomplishable. Something that I'd like to hear from CARB is, 'We can do this, and these are the strategies on how we're going to get there and that are measurable,' and have outcomes that are more accountable on a more regular basis, not when there's a scoping plan every five years. — AN Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! SORRY SCHOOLS: Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing a proposal to fund programs designed to reduce electricity use during grid emergencies with money earmarked for school heating and air conditioning upgrades. A budget bill released by the Department of Finance this week would redirect any unused funds in the CalSHAPE school facilities program to programs that incentivize residents to reduce their power during emergencies, POLITICO's Eric He reports. School advocates are not happy. Mitch Steiger, a legislative representative for the California Federation of Teachers, slammed the bill during a climate budget hearing Thursday. 'The bill is actually just going to eliminate the CalSHAPE program that funds badly-needed HVAC and plumbing upgrades in public schools,' Steiger told lawmakers. 'It will give kids cancer and will force kids to learn in classrooms that are over 90 degrees,' he added. — EH, AN AT THE SHORE: Rivas on Friday shook up the Coastal Commission, the high-stakes agency overseeing coastal development, appointing Monterey County Supervisor Chris Lopez. Lopez replaces the board's current chair, Santa Cruz County Supervisor Justin Cummings. Rivas and Lopez, longtime allies whose districts overlap, cast the move as giving rural, inland farmworker communities more of a voice in coastal issues. The change comes at a crucial time for the Coastal Commission, which has come under close political scrutiny in recent months by both President Donald Trump and Newsom over its decision to reject SpaceX's plan for increased rocket launches off the coast and its role overseeing coastal building in the wake of the Los Angeles fires. — CvK STUCK IN NEUTRAL: California's electric vehicle sales are stalled, and that's complicating matters for officials backing the state's EV mandate. Battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles accounted for 23 percent of all new car sales between January and March, according to data released Friday by the California Energy Commission, a nearly 1 percent decrease compared to the same period last year. Tesla's sharp decline — sales dropped by more than 21 percent — is the main culprit for the overall sales slump. Registrations of EV models by other makers jumped by 14 percent, and automakers like BMW and Honda are gaining on Elon Musk's high-profile company, which failed to account for at least half of the state's EV sales for the first time since the commission started collecting data. Automakers, car dealers and the oil industry are pushing to delay or nix California's mandate, which phases out sales of new gas and hybrid models by 2035, saying the leveling off of EV sales require the course change. State officials also acknowledge that EV sales have slowed, but argue the market is still on track. 'California's clean vehicle market continues to show strong sales, and we are undeterred by this period of limited growth, which is a normal, anticipated part of the technology adoption cycle,' said Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board. — AN THE DELTA IN THE DELTA: Environmental groups have a new message for the California state agencies they're leaning on to deliver stronger protections for endangered species in the sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta: You can't trust the feds. In a letter to the State Water Resources Control Board on Friday, a collection of eight groups detailed a series of examples from the past few months of federal water managers choosing to pump more water out of the Delta than their state counterparts, which the groups said harmed endangered species of fish. In one example, the federal government failed to match the state, which reduced its pumping last month in line with a deal brokered with water agencies three years ago to reduce water use and pay for habitat conservation. (For the true water wonks out there, those are called the 'voluntary agreements.') The environmental groups argue that the fed's inaction is sufficient grounds for the board to reject the 'voluntary agreements.' The board is considering adopting them this year as it updates its water quality rules in the Delta region. The Bureau of Reclamation 'cannot be allowed to exploit seeming ambiguities' in the 'voluntary agreements,' they wrote. 'Clear, understandable, and enforceable rules must be established.' The board, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Water Resources did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday afternoon. — CvK — An Arizona swing district that supplies power to California could be a roadblock for the GOP megabill. — We need to be cautious about overestimating the risks of nuclear power, but not ignore them entirely, warns the author of a book on how nuclear energy became a hot climate change topic. — You may want to act fast if you're planning to use federal tax credits to help install solar panels.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Calumet Renewables Expansion Is Unlocking Value: Analyst
BofA Securities analyst Conor Fitzpatrick initiated coverage on Calumet, Inc (NASDAQ:CLMT) with a Buy rating and a price forecast of $15. The analyst noted that Calumet's Montana Renewables unit is advancing its MaxSAF project to boost sustainable aviation fuel output from ~40 million to over 250 million gallons annually, aiming to tap into stronger pricing and subsidy benefits over renewable diesel and petroleum. According to Fitzpatrick, the expansion is expected to nearly double EBITDA from 2025 to 2027 and is supported by interest-free DOE loans, reducing execution plans to monetize the asset to cut debt, which could bring parent leverage below 2.5x through deconsolidation and repayment. The analyst pointed out that Calumet underperformed during the ramp-up of its biofuels unit, Montana Renewables, due to margin pressure, but recent developments may shift momentum. Reports suggest that the Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to increase demand for Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs, beginning in 2026, following lobbying from oil and agricultural interests. Meanwhile, California is in the process of re-approving measures to boost demand for Low Carbon Fuel Standard, or LCFS credits. Prices for RINs have approximately doubled since December 2024, and the analyst expects them to remain within a favorable range, with some upside potential as regulatory developments advance. A recovery in demand for LCFS credits is also anticipated, which would support higher margins. For the investment thesis to materialize, the analyst notes that the company must demonstrate margin recovery in financial performance, achieve meaningful volume growth at MRL, and make tangible progress toward monetizing MRL and reducing overall leverage. Price Action: CLMT shares are trading higher by 5.84% to $13.89 at the last check on Tuesday. Image by Phongphan via Shutterstock Date Firm Action From To Feb 2022 HC Wainwright & Co. Maintains Buy Nov 2021 Wolfe Research Upgrades Peer Perform Outperform Nov 2021 Cowen & Co. Upgrades Market Perform Outperform View More Analyst Ratings for CLMT View the Latest Analyst Ratings Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? CALUMET (CLMT): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Calumet Renewables Expansion Is Unlocking Value: Analyst originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Earnings Beat: Tidewater Renewables Ltd. Just Beat Analyst Forecasts, And Analysts Have Been Updating Their Models
It's been a mediocre week for Tidewater Renewables Ltd. (TSE:LCFS) shareholders, with the stock dropping 15% to CA$2.60 in the week since its latest quarterly results. Revenues of CA$58m missed analyst estimates by a little bit, but statutory earnings beat expectations by an impressive , coming in at CA$0.14 per share. Following the result, the analysts have updated their earnings model, and it would be good to know whether they think there's been a strong change in the company's prospects, or if it's business as usual. We thought readers would find it interesting to see the analysts latest (statutory) post-earnings forecasts for next year. This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. Taking into account the latest results, the dual analysts covering Tidewater Renewables provided consensus estimates of CA$270.7m revenue in 2025, which would reflect a disturbing 27% decline over the past 12 months. Losses are predicted to fall substantially, shrinking 97% to CA$0.31. Before this latest report, the consensus had been expecting revenues of CA$278.1m and CA$0.10 per share in losses. While this year's revenue estimates dropped there was also a very substantial increase in loss per share expectations, suggesting the consensus has a bit of a mixed view on the stock. Check out our latest analysis for Tidewater Renewables There was no major change to the consensus price target of CA$3.90, signalling that the business is performing roughly in line with expectations, despite lower earnings per share forecasts. One way to get more context on these forecasts is to look at how they compare to both past performance, and how other companies in the same industry are performing. We would highlight that revenue is expected to reverse, with a forecast 35% annualised decline to the end of 2025. That is a notable change from historical growth of 97% over the last year. Compare this with our data, which suggests that other companies in the same industry are, in aggregate, expected to see their revenue grow 1.5% per year. So although its revenues are forecast to shrink, this cloud does not come with a silver lining - Tidewater Renewables is expected to lag the wider industry. The most important thing to note is the forecast of increased losses next year, suggesting all may not be well at Tidewater Renewables. Unfortunately, they also downgraded their revenue estimates, and our data indicates underperformance compared to the wider industry. Even so, earnings per share are more important to the intrinsic value of the business. The consensus price target held steady at CA$3.90, with the latest estimates not enough to have an impact on their price targets. Keeping that in mind, we still think that the longer term trajectory of the business is much more important for investors to consider. We have analyst estimates for Tidewater Renewables going out as far as 2027, and you can see them free on our platform here. You still need to take note of risks, for example - Tidewater Renewables has 3 warning signs (and 2 which are potentially serious) we think you should know about. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
