ENVS 196: Siting and Permitting Renewable Energy Facilities

 Scalable  Synergies with fossil fuels  Synergies with wind and solar  Synergies with sustainable development  Perhaps better to ask “How?”

 Overview of Bioenergy  California Permitting/Siting  U.S. Permitting/Siting  International Issues

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

 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?

(Fargione et al., Science, 2008)

(Searchinger et al., Science, 2008)

(Campbell et al., Science, 2009)

(Tilman, Science, 2008)

(National Academies, 2008)

 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)

 Transport distance vs. Economy of scale  Seasonal supply (for some feedstocks) requires storage or conversion plant downtime  Many forest feedstocks too remote  Preference for mile distance  Densification needs more work  Current CA model is import of corn

 Campbell, J. E., et al. (2009), Greater Transportation Energy and GHG Offsets from Bioelectricity Than Ethanol, Science, 324(5930),  Fargione, J., et al. (2008), Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, Science, 219(1235),  Fox, J. F., and J. E. Campbell (2010), Terrestrial carbon disturbance from mountaintop mining increases lifecycle emissions for clean coal, Environmental Science & Technology(doi: /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),  Searchinger, T. D., et al. (2009), Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error, Science, 326(5952),  Tilman, D., et al. (2006), Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high- diversity grassland biomass, Science, 314(5805),

 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

 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

 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.

 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)

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

 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

 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?

Assumptions:  Excess of feedstock  Mixed feedstocks  Capacity 100 MGY  ≤ 100 mile transport Feedstocks:  Forest – USFS  Ag Residue – USDA  MSW – EPA  Crops – Campbell Criteria:  Refinery-gate cost of biomass  Capital cost of refinery

Much of the forest material is in small pockets so could not justify the establishment of ethanol refineries

 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)

 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

 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

 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)

 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

(Endres, EBI, 2011)

 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)

(McKinsey, 2007)

(Casillas and Kammen, Science, 2010)