Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45) ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • No. 49	                                                November 27, 2015	295
    49
    Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45)                                                            358
    November 27,   Or
    2015
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
    STATE OF OREGON
    Nik BLOSSER,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    Ellen F. ROSENBLUM,
    Attorney General, State of Oregon,
    Respondent.
    (S063527 (Control))
    Paul R. ROMAIN,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    Ellen F. ROSENBLUM,
    Attorney General, State of Oregon,
    Respondent.
    (S063531)
    En Banc
    On petition to review ballot title filed September 3, 2015;
    considered and under advisement November 3, 2015.
    Steven C. Berman, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter,
    PC, Portland, filed the petition and reply for petitioner
    Blosser.
    Paul R. Romain, The Romain Group, LLC, Portland, filed
    the petition and reply for petitioner Romain.
    Matthew J. Lysne, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
    filed the answering memorandum for respondent. With him
    on the memorandum were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney
    General, and Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General.
    BALDWIN, J.
    The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for
    modification.
    Case Summary: Petitioners sought review of the Attorney General’s cer-
    tified ballot title for Initiative Petition 45 (2016), which, if enacted, would
    amend several aspects of a bill that the legislature enacted during the 2015
    296	                          Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45)
    legislative session relating to the authority of the Oregon Environmental Quality
    Commission to adopt standards and requirements to reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions. Petitioners argued that the caption, the “yes” and “no” result state-
    ments, and the summary do not substantially comply with requirements set out
    in ORS 250.035(2). Held: The certified caption and “yes” result statement do not
    substantially comply with statutory requirements.
    The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General for modification.
    Cite as 
    358 Or 295
     (2015)	297
    BALDWIN, J.
    In these consolidated cases, petitioners seek review
    of the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative
    Petition 45 (2016) (IP 45), contending that the caption, the
    “yes” and “no” result statements, and the summary do not
    comply with requirements set out in ORS 250.035(2). We
    review the certified ballot title to determine whether it
    substantially complies with those requirements. See ORS
    250.085(5) (setting out that standard). For the reasons
    explained below, we refer the ballot title to the Attorney
    General for modification of the caption and the “yes” result
    statement.
    IP 45, which is appended to this opinion, is a pro-
    posed statute that would amend aspects of a bill that the
    legislature enacted during the 2015 legislative session,
    Senate Bill (SB) 324 (2015), Or Laws 2015, ch 4. SB 324
    made changes to a 2009 state law that permitted the Oregon
    Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to adopt stan-
    dards and requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emis-
    sions, and to adopt low carbon fuel standards for gasoline,
    diesel, and alternative fuels, as well as a schedule to reduce
    by 2020 the average amount of greenhouse gas emissions
    by 10 percent below 2010 levels. Or Laws 2009, ch 754,
    §§ 3(2), 6(2)(a), 6(2)(b). SB 324 changed the EQC’s general
    permissive authority to adopt low carbon fuel standards to
    a directive, but left in place the EQC’s permissive author-
    ity to adopt a schedule for reducing greenhouse gas emis-
    sions, newly extended to 2025. Or Laws 2015, ch 4, § 3(2)(a),
    3(2)(b)(A). SB 324 further directed the EQC to adopt rules
    to manage and contain the cost of compliance with the
    standards, expressly permitting alternative compliance by
    obtaining and trading credits for fuels used as substitutes
    for gasoline or diesel. Id. § 3(2)(d).
    IP 45 would change parts of the original 2009 law
    and SB 324. First, IP 45 would limit application of the state’s
    low carbon fuel standards to blended liquid fuels. IP 45,
    § 1(1)(b). IP 45 further bases its definition of “low carbon fuel
    standards” on the blending of liquid fuel “available in com-
    mercial quantities” in Oregon and provides that its “carbon
    intensity” reduction adjustments can occur only if the EQC
    298	                   Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45)
    determines that “sufficient” low carbon intensity fuels are
    “available in commercial quantities.” Id. § 1(1)(d), 1(2)(b)(A),
    1(4).
    Second, IP 45 would eliminate the EQC’s permissive
    authority to adopt a schedule to reduce greenhouse gas emis-
    sions by 10 percent by 2025, replacing that provision with a
    directive to adopt a schedule to phase in a five-percent car-
    bon intensity reduction for gasoline and diesel. Id. § 1(1)(b),
    1(2)(b)(A). That schedule reduction under IP 45, as well
    as the development of low carbon fuel standards, would
    require the EQC to assess whether alternative liquid fuels
    are “available in commercial quantities.” Id. § 1(1)(b), 1(4).
    That assessment, in turn, relies on a particularly described
    analysis, including whether low carbon intensity fuels are
    “cost competitive;” that is, whether such fuels are available
    at a cost less than or equal to “base petroleum products”
    (gasoline and diesel). Id. § 1(4)(b). The EQC’s “available in
    commercial quantities” analysis also would incorporate the
    following determinations: (1) whether low carbon intensity
    fuel facilities inside and outside Oregon are capable of pro-
    viding such fuels in commercial quantities, depending on
    consideration of multiple factors, id. § 1(4)(a); (2) whether
    the infrastructure to distribute low carbon intensity fuels
    is sufficient, id. § 1(4)(c); and (3) whether sufficient com-
    mercially produced vehicles exist to utilize such fuels, id.
    § 1(4)(d).
    Third, “[a]s a means for containing the costs of com-
    pliance with the standards,” IP 45 would require the EQC to
    adopt rules for blending liquid fuels. Those rules would be
    subject to a restriction on the amount of ethanol or biodiesel
    that may be used in creating blended fuels and also to a
    prohibition against requiring the blending of any low carbon
    intensity fuel that is not available at an average retail cost
    equal to or less than gasoline or diesel. Id. § 1(2)(c).
    Finally, IP 45 would eliminate the cost-containment
    provision of SB 324, which, in addition to expressly requir-
    ing the EQC to adopt cost-containment rules, also permits
    alternative compliance with the standards by obtaining and
    trading fuel credits. Id. § 1(2) (eliminating paragraph (d)
    from SB 324, Or Laws 2015, ch 4, § 3(2)(d)).
    Cite as 
    358 Or 295
     (2015)	299
    The Attorney General drafted a ballot title for IP 45,
    ORS 250.065(3), and the Secretary of State circulated that
    title for public comment, ORS 250.067(1). After receiving
    comments, the Attorney General modified its draft ballot
    title, ORS 250.067(2)(a), and certified the following ballot
    title to the Secretary of State:
    “Restricts low carbon fuel standards to
    requiring blending gasoline/diesel with
    other fuels; other limits
    “Result of ‘Yes’ Vote:  ‘Yes’ vote limits low carbon fuel
    standards’ carbon reduction requirements; restricts stan-
    dards to requiring gasoline/diesel blends with commer-
    cially available fuels; eliminates fuel credit system.
    “Result of ‘No’ Vote:  ‘No’ vote retains low carbon fuel
    standards for liquid, non-liquid transportation fuels; stan-
    dards allow obtaining fuel credits to satisfy standards,
    require rules to control costs.
    “Summary:  Currently, Environmental Quality Commis-
    sion sets low carbon fuel standards for gasoline, diesel,
    other fuels; may reduce average greenhouse gas emis-
    sions per unit of energy by 10% below 2010 levels by 2025.
    Commission must adopt rules to control costs, must allow
    compliance by obtaining credits from lower carbon fuel
    providers. Measure restricts low carbon fuel standards to
    requiring blending of gasoline or diesel with other liquid
    fuels; standards inapplicable to non-liquid fuels; eliminates
    credit system. Measure further provides that adopted stan-
    dards cannot require carbon reductions greater than 5%
    from 2010 levels; cannot require any reductions unless low
    carbon fuel needed for blending requirements is ‘available
    in commercial quantities’ (defined), costs no more than the
    gasoline or diesel into which it is blended. Other provisions.”
    Petitioners are electors who timely submitted com-
    ments about the Attorney General’s draft ballot title and
    who now are dissatisfied with the certified ballot title, ORS
    250.085(2). Petitioner Blosser challenges aspects of the
    “yes” result statement and the summary added after the
    comment period ended. See ORS 250.085(6) (permitting
    Supreme Court consideration of such arguments). Petitioner
    Romain challenges all aspects of the ballot title, consistently
    with his earlier comments and adding challenges to aspects
    of the ballot title made after the comment period ended.
    300	                         Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45)
    We begin with petitioner Romain’s challenge to the
    caption. He argues that the caption is misleading because
    it addresses only the liquid fuels restriction in IP 45 and
    otherwise groups all the other significant changes into
    a single category, “other limits.” In his view, the caption
    instead should separately highlight the elimination of fuel
    credits and the new requirement that alternative fuels be
    available in commercial quantities. The Attorney General
    responds that the subject matter of IP 45 is the “fundamen-
    tal legal change in the scope and breadth of the low carbon
    fuel standards”—that is, the new limited application of the
    standards to blended liquid fuels only—and that the other
    components that petitioner Romain notes are part of that
    broader change that need not be included in the caption.
    Under ORS 250.035(2)(a), the caption is limited to
    15 words and must “reasonably identif[y] the subject mat-
    ter” of IP 45—that is, its “actual major effect” or, if more
    than one major effect, all effects that can be described within
    the available word limit. Lavey v. Kroger, 
    350 Or 559
    , 563,
    258 P3d 1194 (2011). We agree with petitioner Romain that
    the elimination of the fuel credits provision, which SB 324
    enacted as a new, alternative means of complying with state
    low carbon fuel standards, is an actual major effect of IP 45
    that should be noted in the caption. The elimination of that
    provision would eliminate both the ability of the EQC to cre-
    ate a state fuel credits program and the ability of regulated
    persons to alternatively comply with the EQC’s standards
    by obtaining and trading fuel credits. The Attorney General
    therefore must modify the caption to refer to the elimination
    of fuel credits.1
    Petitioner Romain further argues that the caption
    should specifically note the requirement that, before the
    low carbon fuel standards can apply, alternative fuels must
    be “available in commercial quantities.” IP 45, § 1(2)(b)(A).
    Petitioner Blosser, however, asserts in his argument chal-
    lenging the “yes” result statement that the short-hand
    1
    By way of example, although the Attorney General potentially could draft
    the caption in many ways to comply with ORS 250.035(2)(a), one possible way
    would be: “Limits low carbon fuel standards to gasoline/diesel liquid blends;
    eliminates fuel credits; other limits.”
    Cite as 
    358 Or 295
     (2015)	301
    phrase “commercially available,” as used in the “yes” result
    statement is misleading standing alone and that additional
    words are needed to accurately convey the intended mean-
    ing of the phrase “available in commercial quantities,”
    IP 45, § 1(2)(b)(A). For the reasons explained below address-
    ing petitioner Blosser’s challenge to the “yes” result state-
    ment, we disagree with petitioner Romain that the 15-word
    caption must separately describe the “available in commer-
    cial quantities” limitation in IP 45. Instead, we agree with
    the Attorney General that the caption’s more general ref-
    erence to “other limits” substantially complies with ORS
    250.035(2)(a).
    We turn to petitioner Blosser’s challenge to the
    “yes” result statement, which focuses on the words “commer-
    cially available.” As described earlier, IP 45 provides that its
    “carbon intensity” reduction adjustments can occur only if
    the EQC determines that “sufficient” low carbon intensity
    fuels to be blended with gasoline or diesel are “available in
    commercial quantities,” and IP 45 similarly limits applica-
    tion of other provisions by use of the defined term “avail-
    able in commercial quantities.” IP 45, § 1(1)(d), 1(2)(b)(A),
    1(4). The “yes” result statement describes those provisions
    using the phrase “restricts standards to requiring gasoline/
    diesel blends with commercially available fuels” (empha-
    sis added). Petitioner Blosser contends that the shorthand
    reference “commercially available” is misleading: Electors
    would understand those words to describe low carbon inten-
    sity fuels that can be obtained for money in an open, legal
    marketplace, but IP 45 specifically defines “available in com-
    mercial quantities” to mean only such fuels available under
    certain cost and other restrictions, and thus would exclude
    fuels that otherwise, in more common parlance, would be
    considered to be commercially available.2 The Attorney
    2
    As noted, IP 45 ties the concept of low carbon intensity fuels “available in
    commercial quantities” to the cost of those fuels; only those fuels available at a
    cost that is equal to or less than the cost of base petroleum products qualify for
    blending with gasoline or diesel. IP 45, § 1(4)(b). Additionally, if infrastructure
    is insufficient to distribute low carbon fuels as described in IP 45, or if insufficient
    commercially produced vehicles are in existence that utilize such fuels, then those
    fuels “will not be considered available in commercial quantities.” Id. § 1(4)(c),
    1(d). And, as part of determining availability in commercial quantities, IP 45
    requires the EQC to apply a multi-factored analysis to determine the capability of
    low carbon intensity fuel facilities. See IP 45 § 1(4)(a)(A)-(J) (setting out factors).
    302	                          Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45)
    General responds that the words “commercially available”
    in the “yes” result statement, when read in context with the
    rest of the accompanying phrase, accurately and broadly
    identify IP 45’s “most predominant legal restriction” regard-
    ing the potential blending of alternative fuels if IP 45 is
    approved—that is, its requirement that the alternative fuels
    be available in sufficient quantities.
    Under ORS 250.035(2)(b), the “yes” result state-
    ment must set out “[a] simple and understandable state-
    ment of not more than 25 words that describes the result” if
    the measure is approved. We agree with petitioner Blosser
    that the “yes” result statement does not substantially com-
    ply with that requirement. As petitioner Blosser notes,
    IP 45 defines the term “available in commercial quantities”
    as subject to several restrictions—most significantly, an
    express cost limitation, such that only low carbon intensity
    fuels that are available at a cost equal to or less than the
    cost of those base petroleum products may be blended with
    gasoline or diesel. Without reference to that qualification,
    the words “commercially available” inaccurately—and thus,
    impermissibly—convey to voters that the updated standards
    under IP 45 would apply as long as the alternative fuels as
    described are available for purchase in the marketplace. See
    Tauman v. Myers, 
    343 Or 299
    , 302-04, 170 P3d 556 (2007)
    (demonstrating that term taken directly from proposed
    measure can impermissibly confuse voters if used in ballot
    title, when measure defines term differently from commonly
    understood meaning); Sager v. Myers, 
    328 Or 528
    , 531-33,
    982 P2d 1104 (1999) (same).3
    Petitioner Romain raises a different challenge to
    the “yes” result statement, arguing that the phrase “lim-
    its low carbon fuel standards’ carbon reduction require-
    ments” is inaccurate because, in operation, the 2009 law as
    3
    The Attorney General argues that Tauman is inapposite because the pro-
    posed measure in that case defined a commonly understood term in a uniquely
    broad manner, whereas IP 45 defines “available in commercial quantities” in a
    uniquely limited manner. See 343 Or at 302-03 (explaining broad definition of
    “charity” in proposed measure at issue, in context of addressing challenge to cap-
    tion). Tauman, however, expressly focused on the “false impression” conveyed to
    voters about the scope of a term in the measure. Id. The Attorney General’s “yes”
    result statement for IP 45 suffers from that same deficiency.
    Cite as 
    358 Or 295
     (2015)	303
    amended by SB 324 will not actually result in reduced car-
    bon production, whereas IP 45 will result in some reduction.
    Whatever the merits of that argument as to the respective
    likely consequences of competing versions of the law, the text
    of IP 45 expressly changes various provisions of the 2009
    law, as amended by SB 324, to limit the scope of current
    low carbon fuel standards in several respects. The identi-
    fied phrase in the Attorney General’s “yes” result statement
    accurately describes that text and therefore substantially
    complies with ORS 250.035(2)(b). Petitioner Romain’s argu-
    ments are more properly directed toward ultimate efforts to
    persuade voters whether to enact IP 45. See generally Rogers
    v. Roberts, 
    300 Or 687
    , 692, 717 P2d 620 (1986) (ballot title
    should not include speculation as to result or consequence of
    proposed measures).
    Turning to the “no” result statement, petitioner
    Romain contends that the phrase “require rules to con-
    trol costs” is misleading. He first argues that that phrase
    incorrectly implies that IP 45 will eliminate current rules
    to control costs, when IP 45 actually retains a 2009 provi-
    sion requiring the EQC to evaluate cost-effectiveness and
    to minimize the cost of compliance when adopting rules, Or
    Laws 2009, ch 754 § 6(3), and IP 45 otherwise requires the
    EQC to determine the cost and availability of alternative
    fuels as a condition precedent to reduced carbon intensity.
    He additionally argues that the phrase “require rules to con-
    trol costs” misleadingly implies that the EQC rules adopted
    under the 2009 law (as amended by SB 324) will actually
    control costs; by contrast, in operation, IP 45—not current
    law—will control costs.
    In response to petitioner Romain’s first argument,
    the Attorney General correctly points out that, although
    IP 45 would retain the original 2009 provision about the
    EQC’s evaluation of several factors in adopting rules, Or Laws
    2009, ch 754 § 6(3), it nonetheless would eliminate an express
    provision from the 2009 law (as amended by SB 324), which
    requires the EQC to “adopt by rule provisions for managing
    and containing the costs of compliance with the [low car-
    bon fuel intensity] standards,” Or Laws 2015, ch 4, § 3(2)(d);
    compare IP 45, § 1(2)(c) (more limited provision, requir-
    ing adoption of rules about blending fuels that would serve
    304	                  Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45)
    “[a]s a means for containing the costs of compliance with the
    standards”). Incorporating the phrase “require rules to con-
    trol costs” in the “no” result statement accurately captures
    that statement of current law. See ORS 250.035(2)(c) (“no”
    result statement must describe, within 25 words, result if
    proposed measure is rejected). As to petitioner Roman’s
    second argument, the Attorney General responds—and we
    agree—that that argument is more appropriately made to
    the voters.
    Both petitioners raise various challenges to the sum-
    mary. We have considered those challenges and conclude,
    without further discussion, that the summary substantially
    complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(d) (sum-
    mary must contain concise and impartial statement not
    exceeding 125 words that summarizes measure and major
    effect).
    We refer the ballot title for IP 45 to the Attorney
    General for modification of the caption and the “yes” result
    statement, as described in this opinion.
    The ballot title is referred to the Attorney General
    for modification.
    Cite as 
    358 Or 295
     (2015)	305
    APPENDIX
    Relating to transportation fuel cost containment.
    Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
    Section 1.  Section 6, chapter 754, Oregon Laws
    2009, as amended by Section 3, chapter 4, Oregon Laws
    2015, is amended to read:
    Sec. 6.  (1)  As used in this section:
    (a)  “Greenhouse gas” has the meaning given that
    term in ORS 468A.210.
    (b)  “Low carbon fuel standards” means standards
    for the reduction of greenhouse gas emission [on average, per
    unit of fuel energy] by the blending of liquid fuel avail-
    able in commercial quantities in this state.
    (c)  “Motor vehicle” has the meaning given that
    term in ORS 801.360.
    (d) “Available in commercial quantities”
    means that the liquid fuel must actually be avail-
    able in the State of Oregon in sufficient quantities as
    determined pursuant to Section 4 of this section for
    all persons who import gasoline or diesel to comply
    with the standards.
    (2)(a)  The Environmental Quality Commission
    shall adopt by rule low carbon fuel standards for gasoline,
    diesel and liquid fuels used as substitutes for gasoline and
    diesel.
    (b)  The commission shall [may] adopt the follow-
    ing related to the standards. [, including but not limited
    to:]
    (A)  A schedule to phase in a 5% carbon inten-
    sity reduction for gasoline and diesel on average.
    [implementation of the standards in a manner that reduces
    the average amount of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of
    fuel energy of the fuels by 10 percent below 2010 levels by the
    year 2025 or by a later date if the commission determines that
    an extension is appropriate to implement the standards]; The
    schedule shall provide that, beginning January 1,
    306	                  Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45)
    2016, the first reduction in carbon intensity (“C.I.”) of
    gasoline and diesel will be 0.25% from a baseline of
    clear gasoline and diesel sold in Oregon during 2010.
    Further reductions in C.I. of Oregon liquid fuels will
    be implemented over time. The subsequent reduc-
    tions, by percent, will be 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.5%, 3.5%,
    and 5%. These reductions shall be the average fuel
    reduction for all subject fuels sold in Oregon. The
    commission’s rules shall provide that a C.I. reduc-
    tion adjustment will be made no less than one year
    from the last reduction adjustment implemented. The
    commission’s rules shall provide that a scheduled C.I.
    reduction adjustment shall not be made unless the
    commission conducts an analysis pursuant to section
    4 of these sections and makes a determination that
    sufficient low C.I. biofuel blend stocks are available
    in commercial quantities.
    (B) Standards for greenhouse gas emissions
    attributable to the fuels throughout their lifecycles, includ-
    ing b[ut] not limited to emissions from the production, stor-
    age, transportation and combustion of the fuels and from
    changes in land use associated with the fuels.[;]
    (C)  Provisions allowing the use of all types of
    liquid low carbon fuels to meet the low carbon fuel stan-
    dards [,including but not limited to biofuels, biogas, natural
    gas, liquefied petroleum gas, gasoline, diesel, hydrogen and
    electricity];
    (D)  Standards for the issuance of deferrals, estab-
    lished with adequate lead time, as necessary to ensure ade-
    quate fuel supplies.[;]
    (E)  Exemptions for fuels that are used in volumes
    below thresholds established by the commission.[;]
    (F) Standards, specifications, testing require-
    ments and other measures as needed to ensure the qual-
    ity of fuels produced in accordance with the low carbon fuel
    standards, including but not limited to the requirements of
    ORS 646.910 to 646.923 and administrative rules adopted
    by the State Department of Agriculture for motor fuel qual-
    ity. [and]
    Cite as 
    358 Or 295
     (2015)	307
    [(G)  Adjustments to the amounts of greenhouse gas
    emissions per unit of fuel energy assigned to fuels for combus-
    tion and drive train efficiency.]
    [(c)  Before adopting standards under this section,
    the commission shall consider the low carbon fuels standards
    of other states, including but not limited to Washington, for
    the purpose of determining schedules and goals for the reduc-
    tion of the average amount of greenhouse gas emissions per
    unit of fuel energy and the default values for these reductions
    for applicable fuels.]
    (c)  As a means for containing the costs of
    compliance with the standards, the commission
    shall adopt by rule provisions for blending liquid
    fuels available in commercial quantities in this state.
    Provisions adopted under this subparagraph may
    not:
    (A)  Require that any person who imports
    gasoline or diesel fuel blend into that fuel more etha-
    nol or biodiesel than 10 percent ethanol (E-10) and 5
    percent biodiesel (B-5); or
    (B)  Provide for or require that any person
    who imports gasoline or diesel fuel blend into that
    fuel any low C.I. fuel that is not available at average
    market retail costs equal to or less than the base gas-
    oline or diesel.
    [(d)  The commission shall adopt by rule provisions
    for managing and containing the costs of compliance with the
    standards, including but not limited to provisions to facili-
    tate compliance with the standards by ensuring that persons
    may obtain credits for fuels used as substitutes for gasoline
    or diesel and by creating opportunities for persons to trade
    credits.]
    [(e)](d)  The commission shall exempt from the
    standards any person who imports in a calendar year less
    than 500,000 gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel, in total. Any
    fuel imported by persons that are related or share common
    ownership or control shall be aggregated together to deter-
    mine whether a person is exempt under this paragraph.
    308	                   Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45)
    [(f)](e)(A)  The commission by rule shall prohibit
    fuels that contain biodiesel from being considered an alter-
    native fuel under these standards unless the fuel meets the
    following standards:
    (I)  Fuel that consists entirely of biodiesel, desig-
    nated by B100, shall comply with ASTM D 6751 and shall
    have an oxidation stability induction period of not less than
    eight hours as determined by the test method described in
    European standard EN 15751; and
    (ii)  Fuel that consists of a blend of diesel fuel and
    between 6 and 20 volume percent biodiesel, and designated
    as biodiesel blends B6 to B20, shall comply with ASTM D
    7467 and shall have an oxidation stability induction period
    of not less than 20 hours as determined by the test method
    described in European standard EN 15751.
    (B)  The commission may adopt rules different from
    those required under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph if
    an ASTM or EN standard applicable to biodiesel is approved
    or amended after March 12, 2015, or if the commission finds
    that different rules are necessary due to changes in technol-
    ogy or fuel testing or production methods.
    (C)  As used in this subsection, “biodiesel” means
    a motor vehicle fuel consisting of mono-alkyl esters of long
    chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils, animal fats or
    other nonpetroleum resources, not including palm oil.
    (f)  The commission may not differentiate
    among crude oils in determining the life cycle carbon
    intensity value for gasoline and diesel.
    (3)  In adopting rules under this section, the
    Environmental Quality Commission shall evaluate:
    (a)  Safety, feasibility, net reduction of greenhouse
    gas emissions and cost-effectiveness;
    (b)  Potential adverse impacts to public health and
    the environment, including but not limited to air quality,
    water quality and the generation and disposal of waste in
    this state;
    (c)  Flexible implementation approaches to mini-
    mize compliance costs; and
    Cite as 
    358 Or 295
     (2015)	309
    (d)  Technical and economic studies of comparable
    greenhouse gas emission reduction measures implemented
    in other states and any other studies as determined by the
    commission.
    (4)  The commission shall determine that
    there is a sufficient volume of low C.I. fuels available
    in commercial quantities in order to approve the next
    scheduled reduction adjustment. This determination
    shall be based upon the following consideration.
    (a)  The commission will conduct an analysis
    to assess the capability of the low C.I. fuel facilities
    within and without the State of Oregon to provide
    low C.I. fuels available in commercial quantities. This
    analysis shall consider:
    (A)  Design capacity in gallons per day.
    (B)  Date of construction and completion.
    (C)  Date that feedstock was first introduced
    to the process.
    (D) Date that commercial quantities of
    on-specification product was first produced. Planned
    or advertised dates will not be considered.
    (E)  Highest utilization demonstrated in a
    consecutive three-month period (utilization is defined
    as production rate divided by design capacity, inclu-
    sive of downtime).
    (F)  Percent of product that was produced
    on-specification, without reprocessing or blending
    during the period in Section 4(a)(E) of this section.
    (G)  Duration, in days, of longest continuous
    period of plant operation.
    (H)  Utilization during the last calendar year
    (production rate divided by design capacity, inclusive
    of downtime).
    (I)  Percent of product that was produced
    on-specification without reprocessing or blending
    during the period in Section 4(a)(H) of this section.
    310	                 Blosser/Romain v. Rosenblum (IP 45)
    (J)  Annual Production forecast for the next
    one to three years (high, medium, and low estimates)
    based on historic production and any technical
    issues to date. The commission shall include varia-
    tions based on projected feedstock availability and
    any changes to feedstock being used in the process.
    b.  The commission shall analyze whether
    available low C.I. fuels are cost competitive. If the
    fuels are not available at average market retail costs
    equal to or less than the base petroleum products, the
    low C.I. fuels will not be considered available in com-
    mercial quantities.
    c.  The Commission shall conduct an analysis
    to determine the capability of the distribution system
    infrastructure (including retail sites) to handle the
    projected volumes and types of fuels. If insufficient to
    handle projected volumes and types of low C.I. fuels,
    the volume of fuels that would exceed the distribu-
    tion system capacity will not be considered available
    in commercial quantities.
    d.  The commission shall determine whether
    there are sufficient commercially produced vehicles
    able to utilize the low C.I. fuels following the sched-
    uled reduction adjustment. If an insufficient number
    of such vehicles are able to utilize the low C.I. [f]uels
    following the scheduled reduction adjustment, the
    low C.I. fuels will not be considered available in com-
    mercial quantities.
    [(4)](5)(a)  The provisions of this section do not
    apply to fuel that is demonstrated to have been used in any
    of the following:
    (A)  Motor vehicle registered as farm vehicle under
    the provisions of ORS 805.300.
    (B)  Farm tractors, as defined in ORS 801.265.
    (C)  Implements of husbandry, as defined in ORS
    801.310.
    (D)  Motor trucks, as defined in ORS 801.355, used
    primarily to transport logs.
    Cite as 
    358 Or 295
     (2015)	311
    (E)  Motor vehicles that are not designed primar-
    ily to transport persons or property, that are operated on
    highways only incidentally, and that are used primarily for
    construction work.
    (F) Watercraft.
    (G)  Railroad locomotives.
    (b)  The Environmental Quality Commission shall
    adopt by rule standards for persons to qualify for the exemp-
    tions provided in this subsection.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: S063527 (Control); S063531

Judges: Baldwin

Filed Date: 11/27/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024