This short bill amends section 13(5) of British Columbia’s Low Carbon Fuels Act to remove the percentage reduction that would otherwise reduce the target carbon intensity (TCI) for fuels in the jet category. The change fixes the reduction for jet fuel at zero percent so that the jet-fuel TCI equals the base carbon intensity set in the Act.
Why it matters: the amendment effectively removes a built-in regulatory incentive within the provincial low‑carbon fuels framework for lowering the carbon intensity of jet fuel. That shifts the policy pressure away from producers and suppliers of aviation fuel, with downstream implications for demand for sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), compliance strategies, and the province’s transportation‑sector emissions trajectory.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces section 13(5) so that the target carbon intensity formula (TCI = BCI × (1 – R)) applies with R set to zero for the jet fuel category. Other fuel categories remain subject to reductions as prescribed by regulation.
Who It Affects
Directly affects jet‑fuel suppliers, refiners and distributors operating in B.C., airlines and airport fuel purchasers, and SAF producers whose market incentives may change. It also affects regulators who administer compliance and crediting under the Act.
Why It Matters
By removing the reduction percentage for jet fuel, the bill narrows the Low Carbon Fuels Act’s built‑in mechanism for driving carbon‑intensity improvements in aviation fuel—potentially slowing SAF uptake and altering credit flows in provincial compliance markets.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Low Carbon Fuels Act sets numerical targets for the carbon intensity of different fuel categories by applying a simple formula: the target carbon intensity (TCI) equals a statutory base carbon intensity (BCI) multiplied by one minus a reduction percentage (R). This amendment changes only how R is treated for the jet fuel category: it sets R at zero percent.
In practice that makes the jet‑fuel target identical to the statutory base carbon intensity specified elsewhere in the Act.
Operationally, nothing in this bill alters the formula itself, the base carbon intensity figures in section 19(a), or the prescribed reductions that apply to other fuel categories. What changes is the regulatory pressure on jet‑fuel suppliers: where they previously would have had to meet a TCI lower than the base value (the base reduced by R), they now face a target equal to the base value.
That reduces the immediate compliance incentive to blend lower‑carbon inputs or to acquire credits specifically for jet fuel under the provincial regime.The bill is narrowly drafted: it amends a single subsection and brings the change into force on Royal Assent. It does not add transitional rules, carveouts for particular customers, or new compliance pathways for aviation.
The net effect will depend on how regulation and enforcement under the Act treat jet‑fuel supply obligations, and how market actors—airlines, refiners, SAF producers—respond to a lower regulatory incentive to lower jet‑fuel carbon intensity.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals and replaces section 13(5) of the Low Carbon Fuels Act so the target carbon intensity formula reads TCI = BCI × (1 – R) with R expressly set to zero percent for the jet fuel category.
With R = 0, the jet‑fuel target carbon intensity equals the base carbon intensity listed in section 19(a); in short, no statutory reduction is applied to jet fuel targets.
The amendment applies only to the jet fuel category; prescribed reductions for gasoline, diesel and other categories remain unchanged and continue to be set by regulation.
The bill contains no transitional provisions or new compliance mechanisms—existing enforcement, crediting, and reporting rules in the Act remain applicable unless separately changed by regulation.
The Act comes into force on the date of Royal Assent, so regulated parties should expect the change to take effect immediately once the bill is enacted.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Remove the reduction percentage for jet fuel in the TCI formula
The clause replaces the existing subsection with a version that keeps the TCI formula intact but explicitly defines R as zero percent for fuels in the jet category. Practically, this is a mathematical nullification: TCI for jet fuel becomes equal to the statutory base carbon intensity (BCI) rather than a lower value. From a regulatory mechanics perspective, this is a narrow textual change with outsized policy effect because it removes the Act’s internal incentive for lowering jet‑fuel carbon intensity without touching other parts of the compliance framework.
Links jet targets to the statutory base value
The amendment ties the jet‑fuel target directly to the number already written into the statute as the base carbon intensity. That means any adjustment to jet‑fuel ambition will require changing the base value in section 19(a) or prescribing a non‑zero R for jets in future regulations. Regulators cannot rely on the amended subsection alone to make jet targets more stringent—additional rule‑making or statutory amendment would be necessary.
A narrow textual change that leaves the rest of the Act intact
The bill does not modify definitions, compliance pathways, credit generation, or enforcement provisions elsewhere in the Act. Obligations tied to reporting, record‑keeping, and credit transactions continue to apply to jet‑fuel suppliers as before, but their numerical target under section 13 is now the unadjusted base. Because the bill is silent on transitional rules, administrators will apply the existing compliance regime against the revised target immediately upon commencement.
Immediate effect on Royal Assent
The bill states it comes into force on Royal Assent. That timing matters operationally: fuel suppliers and airports should not assume a phased implementation. Any regulatory guidance or administrative updates needed to reflect the new target will need to be produced quickly by the ministry or regulator responsible for administering the Low Carbon Fuels Act.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Airlines and air carriers — They face a lower regulatory requirement to reduce the carbon intensity of the jet fuel they purchase, which reduces immediate compliance costs and preserves flexibility in fuel sourcing and blends.
- Jet‑fuel refiners and distributors — Suppliers avoid the need to blend higher proportions of low‑carbon feedstocks or to procure offsets/credits specifically to meet a lower jet‑fuel TCI, improving near‑term margins and simplifying compliance planning.
- Major airports and fuel storage operators — Reduced pressure on supply chains lowers operational disruption risk and short‑term capital needs to accommodate new fuel types or storage segregations.
- Fuel purchasers with fixed contracts — Organizations locked into long‑term jet‑fuel contracts avoid contract renegotiations driven by tighter statutory targets and potential price pass‑throughs.
Who Bears the Cost
- Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) producers — Removing the statutory reduction removes a clear provincial demand driver for SAF, which may slow buyers’ willingness to pay price premiums needed to scale SAF production.
- Provincial climate objectives and agencies — The policy makes it harder to meet sectoral emissions reductions inside the fuel‑target framework, shifting pressure to other measures or sectors to achieve provincial targets.
- Environmental NGOs and communities seeking aviation emissions reductions — The change reduces a statutory lever for cutting aviation emissions in B.C., delaying emissions abatement tied to fuel‑switching.
- Market‑based compliance mechanisms (credit market participants) — The alteration will change credit supply/demand dynamics for aviation‑related credits, potentially depressing prices for credits tied to jet‑fuel reductions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting aviation industry competitiveness and preserving a statutory lever to drive fuel‑based emissions reductions: the bill eases regulatory burdens on airlines and suppliers today but reduces a clear mechanism for lowering aviation fuel carbon intensity, leaving policymakers to choose between immediate economic relief and longer‑term emissions outcomes.
Two implementation questions matter but are unresolved by the text. First, the amendment removes a numerical incentive from the statute but does not change compliance rules; regulators will have discretion in guidance and in how they credit or audit fuel reductions.
That means administrative practice could blunt or amplify the bill’s effect depending on how conservatively regulators interpret existing obligations for jet‑fuel suppliers.
Second, the change may create investor uncertainty. SAF projects and other low‑carbon aviation investments rely on stable demand signals.
By taking away a statutory reduction, the bill narrows provincial demand-side policy for SAF without offering compensating measures. Unless federal programs or private offtake commitments fill the gap, this could slow SAF deployment in the province.
Finally, the bill increases the risk of policy misalignment between provincial low‑carbon fuels rules and federal aviation decarbonization initiatives, complicating compliance strategies for firms operating across jurisdictions.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.