Really appreciate you mentioning this tactic. I expect it won't be the last time we see it.
25.02.2026 07:21
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Really appreciate you mentioning this tactic. I expect it won't be the last time we see it.
I do love a good political economy study. Very interesting work!
I noticed that!
This is really nicely done, and is a nice example of how much the climate and housing advocacy communities have in common. Great work, Dave & co.
I guess I'm not convinced that SAF is the pathway there, but in any case, defunding core transportation revenue doesn't seem like the right way to fund worthy outcomes.
From a budget perspective, this isn't about spending available money; it's not collecting existing taxes.
Is it really a priority for California to enact another open-ended biofuels subsidy that will diminish the government's transportation funds in a tough budget year, and possibly also raise gas prices through LCFS market interactions?
Is that really what we're doing here?
Sustainable Aviation Fuel The Budget includes a tax credit against diesel excise tax liability to incentivize the in-state production of sustainable aviation fuel, a lower-carbon alternative to petroleum-based jet fuel. This investment advances California's climate and air quality goals by reducing emissions from the aviation sector, one of the most difficult sources to decarbonize, while supporting innovation and private investment in clean transportation fuels.
So while the Governor's stated purpose for the proposed tax credit is to promote in-state production of SAF, nothing about the details of the proposed tax credit would limit support to in-state producers.
ebudget.ca.gov/2026-27/pdf/...
2. SAF tax credits could induce existing SAF production to California, which suggests that the cost of the tax credit could end up being a lot bigger than expected. We also saw this with renewable diesel deliveries to California — a big enough subsidy is like a magnet for fuel exporters.
As both reports explain:
1. SAF uses feedstocks that compete with renewable diesel production, so there are complex interactions with both the LCFS and cap-and-invest programs. More SAF means less renewable diesel, which could impact both markets and raise gas prices.
and
UC Berkeley Professor Aaron Smith has an excellent summary of the potential effects of the tax credit, which he and his colleagues project could be much more more expensive — and less effective — than the Governor's budget proposal suggests. energyathaas.wordpress.com/2026/02/23/h...
Recommendation Reject Proposed Tax Credit. We recommend the Legislature reject the proposed budget trailer legislation establishing a credit against diesel excise tax revenue for sale of SAF in California. The proposal appears to be a relatively expensive approach to reducing GHGs and may not result in the full anticipated environmental benefits. Moreover, the implementation of the proposed tax credit could have negative implications for transportation funding—potentially even larger than those estimated by the administration—and would not be consistent with the spirit of voter‑approved restrictions on the use of diesel tax revenues.
Thankfully, it's just a proposal, and the Legislature can weigh in during budget talks.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office has a new report out today, which recommends rejecting the Governor's proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit.
lao.ca.gov/Publications...
Imagine: it is 2026 and you are the Governor of California, which faces a difficult budget year and is struggling to align its climate policies with statutory targets.
What should you do? And why on earth is it "propose a new tax credit for aviation biofuels?"
I've been thinking a lot about Jess' good work this week.
Well then perhaps I have done something useful after all!
Can you imagine being her TA many many years ago and realizing that this would forever be your own personal curse?
Asking for a friend
this is thin gruel, Dave
How does the mad rush for biofuel subsidies in California and at the federal level play out with fossil refineries — are the biofuel conversions helpful, neutral, or harmful? Why?
Jamie Raskin's 10-minute annihilation of Pam Bondi today is one for the history books. The profound, targeted ferocity is breathtaking.
what if — and hear me out — what if we didn't pretend that life cycle analysis was a simple, objective, and politically neutral technocratic exercise that merely reveals the truth of the world as it exists independent from stakeholder views?
I would add that it is extremely complicated to set up a bespoke emissions trading program based on life cycle analysis calculations. The administrative capacity needs are huge.
(I consulted for a client on this docket so can't say much, just flagging an issue that was part of the public process.)
Exactly. The writing is stellar, as is the thinking.
I would like to see outcomes like this be better recognized as a distinct and very worthy form of professional accomplishment.
We’ve got to get ready to support Springfield however we can
Josh and Emily aren't the only ones doing this kind of work, of course; there are many amazing social scientists using qualitative and/or mixed methods.
My point is that sometimes the biggest and newest ideas can only be expressed, at least at first, in words.
Re-upping this amazing piece to highlight an important aspect of its intellectual contribution.
This is a two-author policy forum with no figures or charts.
You want an example of why the humanities matter for clear thinking on technical topics? Here it is.
is it … "trust the market to anticipate and properly address all economically, socially, and environmentally relevant outcomes"?
goddamn son, you didn't even tell me this was in the works
I can't access the paper while abroad but I'm looking forward to reading when I'm back
New from @gruberte.bsky.social and I in @science.org: The energy transition is at risk, and energy models are missing the threat. Fossil energy networks from oil to coal to gas have minimum viable scales of operation, and those thresholds are closer than we think:
www.science.org/doi/epdf/10....
💡🔌
Hot as hell and it's a cold day, innit?
The only time this situation will de-escalate is when this federal occupying force ends its siege.
They are the escalating factor and, have been this entire time.
Until then, this office will communicate as transparently as possible regarding ongoing investigations.
"If we have to hunt you down, the way they hunted down Nazis for decades, we will find your identities. We will find you. We will achieve justice. And we will do so under the Constitution and laws of the United States."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ft1...
