Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Low Carbon Fuel Standard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances low‑carbon transportation fuel bill after hours of technical testimony
Summary
Assembly Bill A3645, proposing a DEP‑administered low‑carbon transportation fuel standard, was amended and released by the Assembly Environment Committee after substantial testimony from industry, advocacy groups, labor and environmental justice organizations.
Assembly Bill A3645, which would direct the Department of Environmental Protection to establish a low‑carbon transportation fuel standard (LCFS) program, was amended and released from the Assembly Environment, Natural Resources and Solid Waste Committee after a lengthy hearing that drew industry representatives, environmental advocates and community groups.
The committee substitute and proposed amendments revised findings and definitions, delayed the DEP implementation timeline to 18 months after enactment, added a mechanism for generation of credits tied to lifecycle greenhouse‑gas calculations, and removed or revised several provisions that previously addressed credit allocation and voluntary opt‑in pathways.
Sponsor Assemblywoman Teneal McCoy opened with policy goals: reducing transportation emissions (which she said account for nearly 40% of state greenhouse‑gas emissions), stimulating employment in clean‑fuel industries and improving public health in overburdened communities. “A low carbon transportation fuel standard is essential to drive down those emissions while fostering innovation,” McCoy said.
Industry witnesses and proponents said the bill would create market incentives for cleaner fuels and investment in hard‑to‑electrify sectors. Christina Cornejo of Neste, which produces renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel, testified in strong support and called the program technology‑neutral, allowing multiple fuel pathways to compete. Tim Zank of Earth Finance and Anthony Willingham of Electrify America said LCFS credit revenues have helped finance electric fast‑charging infrastructure in other jurisdictions and that comparable programs have driven reductions in petroleum use and supported investments in hydrogen and EV charging.
Opponents and skeptical witnesses raised concerns about cost, climate integrity and environmental justice. Empower New Jersey, Food & Water Watch, New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, Earthjustice and other environmental and community groups said the bill could channel credits to combustion biofuels and fail to prioritize zero‑emission technologies and co‑pollutant reductions in overburdened neighborhoods. Earthjustice’s Colin Parchs argued that California’s program has, in practice, favored combustion biofuels and hydrogen made from fossil fuels and that CARB’s own advisory committee reported harms in some overburdened communities.
Industry and business groups raised economic concerns. The New Jersey Business & Industry Association and gasoline/convenience and trucking interests urged attention to potential pump‑price impacts and competitive distortions if neighboring states do not adopt similar measures. The New Jersey Gasoline Convenience Store Association said CARB estimates added roughly 12¢ a gallon to gasoline and 14¢ to diesel in 2024; other witnesses offered differing estimates.
Several witnesses urged changes to ensure the program benefits overburdened communities, tighten lifecycle modeling (including additional GREET scenarios from Argonne National Laboratory) and include cost‑containment or market‑stability mechanisms. The committee accepted a set of amendments and then voted to release the bill to the next legislative step. Committee members were divided in remarks: some said the bill was essential to reach decarbonization targets and protect public health in polluted corridors; others said unanswered technical and cost questions meant the bill required more work before final passage.
Committee discussion included requests that sponsors meet with environmental‑justice organizations, business groups and additional technical stakeholders to refine lifecycle accounting, co‑pollutant protections and consumer cost protections. Several testifiers said they had not received final text of the amendments before the hearing and asked for additional opportunity to review changes.
The committee vote released the amended bill from committee; members indicated the bill will be second‑referenced for further committee review and drafting work before floor consideration.
