Elliott Campbell Assistant Professor UC Merced

1. Land, land everywhere but not an acre to plant ENVS 196: Siting and Permitting Renewable Energy Facilities Elliott CampbellAssistant Professor UC Merced

5. Why Bioenergy? • Scalable • Synergies with fossil fuels • Synergies with wind and solar • Synergies with sustainable development • Perhaps better to ask “How?”

6. Roadmap • Overview of Bioenergy • California Permitting/Siting • U.S. Permitting/Siting • International Issues

7. 1) Overview of Bioenergy

8. Conventional Permitting/Siting • Air Pollution (Boiler, Fermenter, Storage, etc.) • Wastewater (Distillation/Dehydration, Air Pollution Control, Cooling Tower) • Solid Waste (Unreacted solids, Ash, etc.) (National Academies, 2008)

9. Upstream Permitting/Siting • Siting of feedstock production related to GHG regulations… Possibly others. • Siting of bioenergy factory related to siting of feedstocks… Energy density. • Relationship to Fossil Fuels? • Relationship to Wind and Solar?

10. GHG Emissions from Direct Landuse (Fargione et al., Science, 2008)

11. GHG Emissions from Indirect Landuse (Searchinger et al., Science, 2008)

12. GHG Emissions Relative to End Use (Campbell et al., Science, 2009)

13. Water Quality (Tilman, Science, 2008)

14. Water Quantity (National Academies, 2008)

15. Feedstock Variablity • Investors want stable supply and markets • Mill residues vary based on wood product markets • Smaller scale, distributed, or portable facilities? • Competition from emerging markets • Climate impacts? (Campbell, Sloan, Snyder, et al., In Prep)

16. Feedstock Collection and Transportation • Transport distance vs. Economy of scale • Seasonal supply (for some feedstocks) requires storage or conversion plant downtime • Many forest feedstocks too remote • Preference for 50-100 mile distance • Densification needs more work • Current CA model is import of corn

17. References • Campbell, J. E., et al. (2009), Greater Transportation Energy and GHG Offsets from Bioelectricity Than Ethanol, Science, 324(5930), 1055-1057. • Fargione, J., et al. (2008), Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, Science, 219(1235), 1235 - 1238. • Fox, J. F., and J. E. Campbell (2010), Terrestrial carbon disturbance from mountaintop mining increases lifecycle emissions for clean coal, Environmental Science & Technology(doi:10.1021/es903301j). • NRC (2007), Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States, 86 pp, Committee on Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States, National Research Council, Washington DC. • Searchinger, T., et al. (2008), Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change, Science, 319(5867), 1238-1240. • Searchinger, T. D., et al. (2009), Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error, Science, 326(5952), 527-528. • Tilman, D., et al. (2006), Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass, Science, 314(5805), 1598-1600.

18. 2) California Policy

20. California • Executive Order S-06-06: • Bioelectricity: Biomass and biogas for 20 percent of the established state goals for renewable electricity in 2010 and 2020 (ARB/RPS) • Liquid Biofuels: 20 percent of biofuels for transportation within California by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050 (ARB/LCFS) • But losing ground from 2006 to present

21. Air Quality Permitting • Many California air districts are nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter • California law and federal Clean Air Act require • Best Available Control Technology (BACT) • Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) • Emission reduction credits (ERCs) • New biomass feedstocks require new emissions testing

22. California permitting and siting challenges • The cost of meeting air quality standards for small projects. • The lack of policy and regulatory coordination among local and state agencies. • Biogas quality standards and pipeline interconnection. • Utility interconnection rules and net metering contracts that show preference for solar and wind technologies. • Proposed U.S. EPA Maximum Available Control Technology requirements. • U.S. EPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.

23. Recommended Actions • Web-Based Portal for Permitting Guidance and Information • Address Interconnection Challenges for Bioenergy-Based Distributed Generation (CPUC) • Funding for New Fuel Source Testing (ARB) • AB 1318 – Wildfire Emissions Offset Credits for PM (ARB) • Revisit Restrictions on the Injection of Biomethane Derived from Landfill Gas (CEC)

24. 3) U.S. Policy

25. EPA: RPS Siting • EPA: Title V GHG • USDA: The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP)

27. Feedstock Restricitons • Only private (non-federal) • Land cleared prior to EISA (December 2007) • Planted crops and planted trees • Forest slash • Ag and forest residues • Separated food and yard waste • Biomass from areas near structures at risk

28. Life-Cycle Restrictions • Cellulosic biofuel mandate of 16 billion gallons by 2022 • Future ethanol refinery siting driven by location of cost-effective feedstocks • Applications of EPA siting analysis?

29. EPA Siting Tool Assumptions: • Excess of feedstock • Mixed feedstocks • Capacity 100 MGY • ≤ 100 mile transport Criteria: • Refinery-gatecost of biomass • Capital cost of refinery Feedstocks: • Forest – USFS • Ag Residue – USDA • MSW – EPA • Crops – Campbell

30. Results

32. Refinery Types and Locations Much of the forest material is in small pockets so could not justify the establishment of ethanol refineries

34. Forest Biomass • Residues:Logging, Primary mill residue, Timberland thinnings and other removals • Southeast, the far Northeast and the Northwest • Caveat: double counting the logging residue and timberland thinnings • EISA excludes national forests and unused mill residue • Based on current forestry industry which is small (insufficient demand and low prices)

35. Other Factors Not Considered • Location next to existing facilities for shared resources (e.g. heat/electricity) • Water constraints • Environmental justice • Permit availability • Sufficient personnel • State-level incentives (demand and supply!) • Volatility of feedstock supply relative to long-term contracts • Volatility of state regulations • Siting relative to intermittent renwables • Siting with fossil fuels

36. Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule / Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) • Original rule treats biomass the same as fossil fuels • But, put 3 year deferral on biomass for further study • Massachusetts • Commissions Manomet report… NYT headlines “Biomass worse than coal” • Proposed rule to eliminate most current bioelectricty in state

37. The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) • Establishment/ annual payments • Sources • Federal land: preventative/restorative material, no higher value products • Non-federal: No Title I crops, algae, animal waste, food/yard waste, MSW • First BCAP announced May 2011 • Missouri and Kansas • Mixed native grassses • For power and heat generation (e.g. pellets)

38. DOE Cost-Sharing • Feedstocks • Any purpose grown feedstock • NOT MSW, landfill gas, or paper that could otherwise be recycled • non‐merchantable forest material • NEPA Review Required: Water consumption, Water/Air emissions, Waste disposal

39. (Endres, EBI, 2011)

40. 4) International Issues

41. Sugarcane residue export… export to the US or use it in Brazil? • Converting Brazilian residue to electricity has greater GHG benefits than conversion to ethanol • Residue-based ethanol has small impact on US energy security but electricity would have massive impact on Brazilian energy security (Campbell & Block, ES&T, 2010)

42. Assessing Rural Development

43. Marginal Abatement Cost (McKinsey, 2007)

44. Carbon Cost Abatement in Developing Counties (Casillas and Kammen, Science, 2010)

45. 5) Summary

47. Discussion

48. Discussion

49. Discussion

50. Discussion