CaRFG suffers from being a niche product with regulatory capture. It's even legislated that it can't be handled by the same supply chain as EPA RFG. (1)<p>CARB should recognize that its rules aren't that different than the national ones which came after their own standards were adopted, and that declining gas consumption (2) has reduced asset amortization and driven supplier pricing power. It's time to give up on CaRFG. Reductions in demand also decreased the relative impact of whatever vanishingly small merit the custom fuel might have offered.<p>Interestingly, the phase three specifications for both fuels are even closer to identical than phase 2, with the proposed EPA rules (3) actually being slightly tighter on sulfur than the proposed California rules (4). At this point the state is needlessly draining billions of dollars away from its people basically for the sole purpose of being different. And they've dragged Washington State and the rest of PADD 6 along for the ride.<p>(1) <a href="https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/must-refinery-produces-both-california-gasoline-and_.html" rel="nofollow">https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/fuels-registration-rep...</a><p>(2) <a href="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A103650061&f=M" rel="nofollow">https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A...</a><p>(3) <a href="https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-amendments-related-tier-3-motor-vehicle" rel="nofollow">https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engin...</a><p>(4) <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/rvp2005/ero.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/rvp2...</a>