Key Takeaways

• cCarbon analyzed 31 public comments received by the Washington Department of Ecology during the third informal public comment period, which ended on 3rd October 2024, providing insights into stakeholder responses to the proposed amendments for the Clean Fuel Standard.
• There’s significant debate around third-party verification, balancing compliance measures and penalties in clean fuel programs to ensure integrity without discouraging innovation and low-carbon investments.
• The Washington’s push to expand fast-charging infrastructure for medium- and heavy-duty (MHD) vehicles has sparked varied stakeholder reactions, focusing on challenges around shared charging site definitions, eligibility limitations, and maintaining incentives for early adoption while ensuring inclusivity and practicality in achieving zero-emission vehicle goals.
• Additionally, stakeholders oppose proposed strict penalties, advocating for a balanced compliance system that encourages innovation while maintaining program integrity.

cCarbon has conducted an analysis of the 31 public comments received by the Washington Department of Ecology during the third informal public comment period, which ended on 3rd October 2024, for the preliminary draft rule language on the Clean Fuel Standard. This provides insights into the stakeholders’ response to the proposed amendments. The overview of the most prominent areas of stakeholders’ concerns is shared below.

Stakeholders Push for Policy Alignment and Standardization in Washington’s Clean Fuel Sector

Stakeholders, including Nel Hydrogen, Promus Energy, and the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, emphasized the importance of aligning Washington’s policies with federal standards and neighboring states’ programs to create a cohesive market and prevent fragmentation. EVgo and Rivian Automotive specifically advocated for alignment with California’s LCFS, calling for extended light-duty fast-charging credit opportunities and promoting regional consistency across the Pacific Northwest.

PineSpire suggested considering an earlier facility operational date, such as 2016, to better meet Renewable Energy Credit (REC) demand and align with Oregon, while 3Degrees Group, Inc. recommended maintaining the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) boundary for book-and-claim systems. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) cautioned against adopting certain aspects of California’s approach, particularly the pipeline capacity requirements for RNG developers.

Technical and methodological feedback included Beta Analytic Inc.’s advocacy for ASTM D6866 biogenic testing, which is used in other major programs, and Hammerschlag’s proposal for a CI true-up provision similar to California’s to enhance credit allocation accuracy and encourage innovation.

Clean Fuel Stakeholders Debate Third-Party Verification: Balancing Integrity with Practicality

CleanFuture, Inc. suggests postponing third-party verification for electricity and hydrogen transactions, while Smart Charging Technologies argues that the ~$10,000 cost for 3PV, even with the 6,000 credits threshold and two-year deferral, poses a significant financial burden that could deter electric fleet operators and participants from investing in the CFS program. Seattle City Light (SCL) highlights the challenge of accessing quality verifiers due to high demand and requests relief measures for responsible parties when these services are unavailable.

Climate Solutions and the Electric Vehicle Charging Association emphasize the need for standardized and efficient processes. Climate Solutions supports third-party verification requirements similar to those in Oregon and California, while the Electric Vehicle Charging Association advocates for robust compliance through a public registry of approved verification bodies and suggests removing site visit requirements for EV charging stations in favor of desktop reviews. EVgo echoes this sentiment, arguing that verification should rely on centrally managed electronic data checks.

The WSPA opposes exemptions for unmetered residential EV charging from third-party verification, stating that all credit generation should undergo stringent checks to maintain credit integrity. SRECTrade recommends a 1:1 credit-to-deficit ratio and using third-party verification to prevent errors and fraud.

These diverse views indicate that stakeholders recognize the need to maintain program integrity while urging a balanced and flexible approach to support industry growth without overwhelming costs or logistical barriers.

MHD Charging Infrastructure: Stakeholders Call for Flexible Policies and Inclusive Incentives

The Clean Fuel Standard Program’s push to expand fast-charging infrastructure for MHD vehicles has sparked diverse stakeholder feedback.

CALSTART and its members support capacity credit opportunities for MHD infrastructure, particularly shared charging models, which can aid smaller fleets facing external limitations like rental properties. However, they express concerns about the definition of “Shared MHD‐FCI charging site,” specifically regarding equipment training requirements.

Powering America’s Commercial Transportation (PACT) advocates for crediting sites accessible by multiple M/HD fleets and suggests raising the M/HD-FCI cap to 5% to align with 2030 ZEV goals. Conversely, PineSpire worries that mandating shared refueling stations may restrict eligibility and deter early adopters.

SCL opposes moving the FCI pathway application end date from 2029 to 2026, emphasizing the need for continued incentives for fast charging infrastructure and proposing to maintain the 2029 window for equity-criteria projects in collaboration with Ecology.

The Electric Vehicle Charging Association recommends refining new FCI pathways to incorporate light- and medium-duty applications while maintaining a 50kW minimum nameplate power rating. 3Degrees Group, Inc. suggests merging light- and medium-duty vehicle categories to prevent excluding heavier passenger vehicles from fast-charging credits, and Rivian Automotive proposes a dedicated light- and medium-duty FCI pathway to include medium-duty passenger vehicles.

Avista Corp. argues that the consideration of REC requirements for EV charging exceeds the CFS program’s scope, asserting that the primary goal is to replace higher-emitting fuels. Snohomish PUD warns that verification compliance costs could significantly exceed the value of earned credits, potentially discouraging participation in commercial EVSE credits.

These varied perspectives highlight the challenge of balancing incentives, inclusivity, and practicality in developing fast-charging infrastructure to facilitate the transition to ZEVs.

Clean Fuel Stakeholders Push Back on Strict Penalties, Advocate for Balanced Compliance Measures

RPMG Inc. does not support the suggested credit ratio penalties for reporting errors, asserting that Ecology’s existing enforcement framework suffices. They, along with other stakeholders like Clean Energy and the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, argue that the proposed penalties—ranging from 1:1 to 4:1 ratios—are excessively punitive and could deter low-carbon investments. Clean Energy warns that stringent penalties for carbon intensity changes could negatively impact project revenues, while the Coalition recommends that pathway holders repay excess credits instead of facing additional penalties unless malfeasance is proven.

Hammerschlag advocates for a more equitable penalty system, suggesting that penalties should be based on the offense count rather than variance to avoid stifling innovation, with a corrective approach for initial offenses. Similarly, POET calls for a less punitive, 1:1 clawback for self-reported errors and the inclusion of a force majeure clause for uncontrollable events affecting carbon intensity. Promus Energy emphasizes the importance of incentivizing new projects rather than penalizing existing ones.

Stakeholders emphasize the need for a balanced penalty system that supports compliance while not imposing excessively punitive measures that could hinder progress and participation.

Important Links:

​​Washington’s 2025 Fuel Forecast Insights: Renewable Fuels, Credit Balances, and the Path to Clean Energy Compliance

​​Exclusive Interview with Washington Department of Ecology: Proposed Amendments to WA CFS​ (Part 1)

​​Exclusive Interview with Washington Department of Ecology: Proposed Amendments to WA CFS​ (Part 2)

cCarbon Intelligence Hub