envs 196: siting and permitting renewable energy facilities

Elliott CampbellAssistant Professor UC Merced

Land, land everywhere but not an acre to plant

ENVS 196: Siting and Permitting Renewable Energy Facilities

Why Bioenergy?

ScalableSynergies with fossil fuelsSynergies with wind and solarSynergies with sustainable

developmentPerhaps better to ask “How?”

Roadmap

Overview of BioenergyCalifornia Permitting/SitingU.S. Permitting/Siting International Issues

1) Overview of Bioenergy

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)

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?

GHG Emissions from Direct Landuse

(Fargione et al., Science, 2008)

GHG Emissions from Indirect Landuse

(Searchinger et al., Science, 2008)

GHG Emissions Relative to End Use

(Campbell et al., Science, 2009)

Water Quality

(Tilman, Science, 2008)

Water Quantity

(National Academies, 2008)

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?

2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065

Year

Future

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Yiel

d A

nom

aly

(%)

Year

Historical

(Campbell, Sloan, Snyder, et al., In Prep)

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 remotePreference for 50-100 mile distanceDensification needs more workCurrent CA model is import of corn

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.

2) California Policy

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

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

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.

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)

3) U.S. Policy

EPA: RPS SitingEPA: Title V GHGUSDA: The Biomass Crop Assistance

Program (BCAP)

Feedstock Restricitons

Only private (non-federal)Land cleared prior to EISA

(December 2007)Planted crops and planted treesForest slashAg and forest residuesSeparated food and yard wasteBiomass from areas near structures

at risk

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?

EPA Siting Tool

Assumptions:Excess of

feedstockMixed

feedstocksCapacity 100

MGY ≤ 100 mile

transport

Feedstocks:Forest – USFSAg Residue –

USDAMSW – EPACrops –

Campbell

Criteria:Refinery-gate cost of biomassCapital cost of refinery

Results

Refinery Types and Locations

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

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)

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

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

The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP)

Establishment/ annual paymentsSources

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)

DOE Cost-Sharing

FeedstocksAny purpose grown feedstockNOT MSW, landfill gas, or paper that

could otherwise be recyclednon‐merchantable forest materialNEPA Review Required: Water

consumption, Water/Air emissions, Waste disposal

(Endres, EBI, 2011)

4) International Issues

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)

Assessing Rural Development

Marginal Abatement Cost

(McKinsey, 2007)

Carbon Cost Abatement in Developing Counties

(Casillas and Kammen, Science, 2010)

5) Summary

Discussion

Discussion

Discussion

Discussion

Discussion

Discussion