research plan - web viewyukon research centre. ... presentation document for cci panel discussion at...

Yukon Research Centre 1 / 19

Yukon Biomass Energy: A literature review (draft)

Presentation document for CCI panel discussion at the Yukon Biomass Forum, Kwanlin Dun Cultural Center, Whitehorse Yukon, March 16 2015

MICHEL DUTEAUYukon Research Centre, Yukon College, 500 College Drive, Whitehorse YT Y1A 5K4Phone: (867) 689-8490, Fax: (867) 456-8672, email: [email protected]

March 10, 2016

Michel Duteau, Cold Climate Innovation CentreYukon College | 500 College Drive, PO Box 2799, Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 5K4

Yukon Cold Climate Innovation Centre at Yukon College


TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................3

ENERGY CONTEXT IN YUKON 3

Energy demand 3

Biomass energy available in Yukon..........................................................................................6

SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT IN YUKON............................................................................................14

Yukon Biomass Energy Strategy.............................................................................................14

Forest Resources Act 15

Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Act...................................................17

REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................18

Amélie Janin, NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Mine Life Cycle

Yukon College | 500 College Drive, PO Box 2799, Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 5K4


INTRODUCTION

Energy context in YukonEnergy demand

Space Heating energy

In Yukon, the current heat energy demand is 2,385 TJ (Figure 1; ESC, 2012 in ESC, 2016). Biomass supplies approximately 18% of the demand, and imported fossil fuels supply together 75% of the demand (1,786 TJ). These statistics highlight the great dependency of the Territory on imported fossil fuels.

In Canada, on average, biomass supplies 4.5% of the heat energy demand (Bureau of Statistics: Yukon Energy Facts - 2007 in PBrand, 2009). In Yukon, biomass is a traditional heat energy source, and already supplies a higher proportion of heat energy than in the rest of the country. As the supplemental resource base is recognized substantial (Morrison Hershfield, 2011; Preto, 2011; PBrand, 2009), potential feedstock is not an obstacle to augmenting biomass contribution to heat energy production (ESC, 2016). The first part of this document is meant to substantiate the extent of the resource base – whenever possible, the quantity of the feedstock was compared to the current entire heat energy demand (2,385 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016).

Figure 1: Estimated total breakdown of energy use for heat in Yukon (adapted from ESC, 2012 in ESC, 2016)




Compared to the country average, heating costs are disproportionally high in all regions of Yukon, largely due to longer, cold winters and high transportation costs (PBrand, 2009). Nearly $60 million per year is spent for heat energy across the Territory (ESC, 2016). In Yukon, biomass heat energy is recognized as cheaper than fossil fuels heat energy (Figure 2). This is acutely felt in the fact that while accounting for 75% of total heat energy supply, fossil fuels account for 82% of Yukoner’s heat energy costs (ESC, 2016). This is a whooping $50 million, most of which is leaving the Territory (ESC, 2016). By contrast, the small scale forestry that supports biomass heat energy supply contributes significantly to local economies. Hence, it has largely been demonstrated that augmenting the proportion of heat energy that would come from biomass makes economical sense.

Figure 2: Relative net cost of heat options in Yukon - 2010 in $/GJ (adapted from ESC, 2014 in ESC, 2016)

In the light of generally rising and irregular fossil fuel price, and considering the effects of fossil fuel usage onto climate change, it also is recognized that offsetting part of fossil fuel heat energy by biomass heat energy will make even more economical sense in the future, and will diminish Yukoner’s environmental footprint (not-withstanding the possibility that we might be able to get money on this through carbon credits).

Non-heating electricity

Most of the electricity generated in the Yukon is used for operating non-heating electrical appliances. Assuming a yearly electricity production of 1,549 TJ/yr (Figure 3, Brandt, 2013) and a yearly electrical heating usage of 176 TJ/yr (Figure 1; ESC, 2016), this leaves approximately 1,373 TJ/yr for non-heating purposes1.

1 Note that during the 2012-2016 period, electricity generation and electricity usage patterns have evolved, leaving the latter non-heating yearly energy consumption (1,373 TJ/y) as a mere estimate. Elements that would have influenced this evolution include major end users (e.g. mine) entering or withdrawing from the Yukon market, and the two new hydro-power facilities that have been commissioned.




The vast majority of electricity produced in the Yukon and distributed on the Yukon grid comes from hydro power, which is deemed renewable (Figure 3). Fossil fuel generators are installed as back-up and peaking capacity, and are used especially when the instant electrical needs cannot be met by hydro-electricity, for instance in the dead of winter when heating demand is at a peak. Wind energy can also contribute to the renewable electricity production (0.8 MW installed capacity).

Figure 3: Power usage in Yukon -2012 (adapted from Brandt, 2013).

On North American standards, distribution of electricity in the Yukon (Figure 4) is peculiar in two important ways: 1) the territorial grid is isolated from that of any neighbors2, and 2) a significant part of its residents and communities are outright off-the-grid. Wherever the electrical grid does not reach the consumer, fossil fuel electrical generators are used. Such communities as Watson Lake, Old Crow, Beaver Creek, Burwash Landing, and Destruction Bay are completely dependent on fossil fuel generators for electricity production.

2 It is estimated that connecting the Yukon grid to the North America transmission system would cost $1+ billion (GE website, 2016).




Figure 4: Yukon electrical grid (adapted from Yukon Energy Corporation, 2016)

Thus, an opportunity for biomass certainly exists in the alleviation of the pressure on hydro-power generation and the offset fossil fuel electricity generation in the dead of winter, but the largest opportunities lie in offsetting fossil-fuel generated non-heating electricity in off-the-grid home and communities – who do not have access to hydro-generated (renewable) electricity.

Transport

Transport accounts for 37% of all energy consumed in Yukon and is entirely supplied by fossil fuels (Sta-tistics Canada, Cat. No. 57-003 in Kishchuk, 2007). In a recent past, biomass has been very important to supply transport energy for the paddlewheel boats running the Yukon river system (ref). However, this transport mode has fallen into disuse, and little opportunity currently exists in Yukon for biomass energy to offset any of the fossil fuel transport energy.

Biomass energy available in Yukon

In Yukon, biomass can be obtained from a number of different feedstocks, which have inherent opportunities and challenges, including the pricetag. Potential feedstocks include by-products of industrial activities, such as sawmill residues. Vegetation management activities can also offer raw material for biomass, such as roadside clearings, powersmarting residues, and firestmarting residues. Forest health restoration efforts can offer beetle kills and fire kills as potential biomass feedstocks. Imported biomass is important to consider too. In Yukon, dedicated biomass crops such as intensively managed forest, short rotation coppice, and energy crops have not received much attention, but are recognized as potential biomass feedstocks in other subarctic locales. Last, green wood is seen as a major potential raw material for biomass in Yukon, although recognized as the most expensive potential feedstock, and the one that educe the highest sustainability concerns.




Sawmill residues

Sawmills continually produce residues that could be used as energy biomass. These include scrap lumber, shavings, green sawdust, and hog fuel (hog fuel is a combination of white wood, bark, and shavings processed to four inch minus sizing).

Quantities of sawmill residues produced locally currently are limited, given the small size of the milling industry in the Territory. For instance, the Haines Junction mill produces less than 5,000 metric ton of sawmill residues per year (Clunies-Ross, 2011 in Morrison Hershfield, 2011). Assuming an energy content of 12 GJ/metric ton (PBrand, 2009), this could supply a maximum of 60 TJ/yr, which is equivalent to 2.5% of the current heat energy demand (2,385 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016).

Moreover, most of this potential biomass feedstock already is allocated. For instance, Dawson City’s sawmill operation residues (woodchips) are used as a feedstock at the local biomass heating plant (ref).

Nevertheless, sawmill residues are the least expensive form of biomass raw material in the Yukon, when available (PBrand, 2009).

Incidental Harvesting

‘’Incidental harvesting is the cutting and/or removal of vegetation subsidiary to another land use activity. Examples include clearing trees to build of maintain a non-forest resources road, maintaining power lines and other right of ways, developing a gravel quarry or subdivision, and carrying out fuel abatement and FireSmart treatments’’ (YG website)

…

Driftwood

Driftwood has also been reported as a potential biomass feedstock. For instance, more than half the biomass supply for Tanana (AK)’s wood heating systems is driftwood collected as it floats down the Yukon River (Lowell, 2015). Available quantities as well as profitability yet have to be documented for Yukon conditions, and would likely need to be focused on specific river systems.

Salvage from wildfires

Wood salvaged from wildfires is an important potential feedstock for energy biomass. Although wildfire occurrence is highly variable, it can still be said that -on average over a long time period-, the area that is burnt in Yukon Territory amounts to 112,000 ha per year (ESC, 2016). This is nearly 200 times more wood than is currently harvested as fuelwood in the territory (ESC, 2016). Combustion rarely consumes more than 10-15% of the biomass (Preto, 2011), leaving the rest as salvageable wood biomass. Moreover, the recoverable heat of combustion increases for the first few years as a result of decreasing wood moisture content, after which it decreases as a result of checking and decay (Figure 5; Preto, 2011).




Figure 5: Standing dead tree energy content (adapted form Preto, 2011).

Difficulties with access to the resource and distance to the end user can have a drastic impact on profitability. Therefore, calculating the future annual potential of wildfire-salvaged wood as biomass energy feedstock is a delicate and hazardous exercise, and any estimation is highly speculative and uncertain. Nevertheless, assuming a conservative 10% access (PBrand, 2009), a 85 m 3/ha wood availability in mature forest (Preto, 2011), a 15% consumption by fire (Preto, 2011), a 11% loss due to handling of brittle wood (Preto, 2011), an energy content of 18 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2011), and a volumetric mass of 2.2 m3/metric ton (Preto, 2011), the average yearly burn area (112,000 ha) could supply 5,893 TJ/yr, which is 2.5 times the entire current heat energy demand (2385 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016).

Currently, two major relatively recent burns exist within a 250 km radius of Whitehorse: the Fox Lake Burn (1998) and the Minto Burn (1995) (Figure 6). Total harvestable biomass volume available from Fox Lake Burn and Minto Burn have been estimated by Morrison Hershfield (2011) at 1,075,360 m3 and 3,322,352 m3, respectively, harvestable over a 20 years period.

Assuming an energy content of 18 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2011) and a volumetric mass of 2.2 m 3/metric ton (Preto, 2011), biomass potentially salvageable for supplemental energy biomass from Fox Lake Burn and Minto Burn (total of 4,397,712 m3) would provide (35 981 TJ), enough energy to meet the entire current heat energy demand of Yukon (2,385 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016) for 15 years. However, this potential biomass feedstock is not entire supplemental, as part of the biomass energy feedstock comes from those burns… ‘’Other smaller burn areas within the 250 km were identified but have not yet been evalu -ated… (Morrison, 2011)’’




It should be noted that annual allowable cuts (AAC, see below) or annual limits set by the Forest re -source act (FRA) do not apply in burn areas (i.e. there is no yearly restriction on the quantity that can be salvaged).

Morrison Hershfield (2011) established that delivered cost of wildfire salvage from Fox Lake Burn and Minto Burn to a Whitehorse end user is $52.67/m3 and $75.13/m3, respectively.

Figure 6: Burn areas and beetle kills within a 250 km radius from Whitehorse (adapted from Morrison Hershfield, 2011).

Salvage from beetle kills

Spruce bark beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) is a natural disturbance agent of boreal North American spruce (Picea spp.) forests (YG, 2008). Infestations can ‘’contribute to a potential fire hazard for communities, increase the risk of catastrophic loss of property, affect visual landscapes, reduce the




value of the forest for timber, recreation and tourism and impact ecosystems’’ (Preto, 2011). Sanitation logging can be recommended to control an endemic infestation or when attempting to stop an outbreak in its early stages (YG, 2008).

Currently, the beetle infestation that began in 1990 in Southwest Yukon (Haines Junction area/Champagne and Aishihik Traditional Territory; Figure 6) is endemic. Total salvageable biomass volume set by AAC for this infestation is 1,000,000 m3, harvestable over a minimum 10 year period beginning in 2006 (YG, 2011 in Morrison Hershfield, 2011).

The AAC that currently applies to the Haines Junction area is 100,000 m3/year - higher AACs are estab-lished in beetle kills than in green timber areas, in an attempt to encourage salvage of beetle-killed tim -ber. However, part of the 100,000 m3 / year would realistically already be allocated to other users such as sawmill operations and current biomass energy feedstock. Considering this, Morrison Hershfield (2011) estimated that the AAC would allow to harvest 70,000 m3/year over a ten years period (700,000 m3 total) as supplemental biomass energy feedstock. Morrison Hershfield (2011) also estimated that an additional 40% biomass volume associated with small diameter trees could be harvested over and above the AAC limits, bringing the grand total of realistically salvageable supplemental biomass energy feed -stock to 980,000 m3. -It is important to note that AACs only apply onto trees of a merchantable size (greater than 16 cm DBH), and that beetle-killed trees smaller than merchantable size can be harvested over and above the AAC limits.

Assuming an energy content of 18 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2011) and a volumetric mass of 2.2 m 3/metric ton (Preto, 2011), biomass potentially salvageable for supplemental energy biomass from Southwest Yukon beetle kill (980,000 m3) would provide 8,018 TJ, enough energy to meet the entire current heat energy demand of Yukon (2,385 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016) for 3.4 years.

Morrison Hershfield (2011) established that delivered cost of Haines Junction salvaged beetle kill to a Whitehorse end user is $64.56/m3.

Imported biomass

Imported biomass will continue to be a viable option for the near term, pending on the development of a local energy biomass industry. Recognizing that local biomass would be much better, imported biomass still is cheaper than imported fossil fuels, has a lower net overall environmental footprint than imported fossil fuels, and is simple to implement (PBrand, 2009).

However, given the very important shipping costs associated with the transport distance to the Yukon, biomass imported from Southern Canada (e.g. Northern B.C., minimum 1,200 km) would definitely not be competitive with a local biomass source (Morrison Hershfield, 2011).

Short rotation coppice (agroforestry)

Short rotation coppice can be defined as fast growing trees or shrubs that are harvested on a regular basis (typically 2-5 years cycles) for a number of years (typically 20-25 years) before it must be replanted. Short rotation coppice can be ascribed to agroforestry. Considering that short rotation




coppice can sequester carbon below ground, it is generally recognized that (e.g. Byrd, 2013) ‘’a carbon neutral biomass system might be possible if the harvesting can be conducted close to the boiler, and require little transportation’’.

Willow (Salix spp.), alders (Alnus spp.), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera L.) and quacking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) also are relatively fast-growing trees and shrubs present in the Yukon that could potentially be used as short rotation coppice. Poplars and willows have the double advantage of being able to be cultivated from cuttings taken from one tree, and of being able to re-sprout after harvest (coppicing) (Byrd, 2013). While not as easy to establish, alders have the advantage of being nitrogen fixers, enhancing the soil as they grow.

Short rotation coppice is used with success as a biomass fuel source in southern Canada (Allard, 2009; Labrecque, 2008) and similar temperate agro-climatic contexts (e.g. Sweden and New York; Nordh, 2005; Volk, et al., 2006.). In Alaska, research is currently being conducted on different aspects of poplar and willow as potential short rotation coppice for energy biomass feedstock, including profitability (e.g. Byrd, 2013). In Yukon, the Territorial government committed in its Biomass Energy Policy (2016) to ‘’supporting pilot studies and demonstration projects to investigate the potential of using willow as a biomass fuel source’’.

In SouthCentral Alaska, a pioneering study (Byrd, 2013) indicated that the annual biomass production of balsam poplar (P. balsamifera) stand under a two-year rotation in the local conditions was 5,530 kg/ha/yr on a oven-dry basis after two years (Byrd, 2013). For the comparison, New York and Sweden experiments estimated an annual harvest varying in the order of 9,000-10,000 kg/ha/yr on an oven-dry basis (Byrd, 2013). With an energy content of 19,684 kJ/kg, 5,530 kg/ha/yr is a total energy yield of 108,852 MJ/ha/yr. With this tentative productivity in mind, the current entire yearly heat energy demand of the Yukon (409 TJ) could be supplied by 3,757 ha of short rotation balsam poplar coppice.

Also, very preliminary results from an experiment conducted at University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Experi-ment Farm (Garber-Slaght, 2009) indicated that the average annual biomass production of feltleaf wil -low (S. alaxensis) was 10,000 kg/ha/yr on an oven-dry basis. Assuming a same energy content as willows in Byrd (2013)’s study (19,684 kJ/kg), 10,000 kg/ha/yr is a total energy yield of 196,840 MJ/ha/yr. With this tentative productivity in mind, the current entire yearly heat energy demand of the Yukon (409 TJ) could be supplied by 2,078 ha of short rotation willow coppice.

Dedicated agricultural crops

Dedicated agricultural energy crops are high-yielding herbaceous plants that can be grown at low cost and low maintenance to produce biomass from which energy can be extracted. Typically, the plant material can be combusted – but it can also be fermented to produce second generation bioethanol. Many herbaceous energy crops are perennial grasses (Graminaceae). Much like short rotation coppice, herbaceous energy crops can sequester carbon in the soil – especially perennial grasses. When compared to short rotation coppice, herbaceous crops have the advantage of having lower operational costs, requiring very little specialized machinery as they can be grown, harvested and handled much like conventional dry hay.




In southern Canada and similar temperate agro-climatic conditions, dedicated agricultural energy biomass production has proven cost-effective and is on the rise (e.g. Delaquis, 2013; Samson, 2008). Perennial crops currently cultivated as dedicated agricultural biomass in southern Canada include smooth bromegrass, switchgrass, reed canary grass, cordgrass (spartina), agropyron (quackgrass), lappland reedgrass (calamagrostis lapponica), and big blue stem; annual crops include pearled millet, sweet sorghum, sudan grass, industrial hemp, triticale and rye.

In Alaska, screening trials have been conducted to evaluate the potential of native and non-native cool season perennial grasses such as bromegrass, hairgrass, reed canarygrass, bluejoint reedgrass (calamagrostis canadensis), wheatgrass and wildrye, as well as other herbaceous species such as tall fireweed (Byrd, 2014). This work has shown that some grasses can yield as high as 11,000 kg/ha/yr, but typical yields are 3,000-4,000 kg/ha/yr on an oven-dry basis (Byrd, 2014). Although somewhat tenuous, this preliminary information shows that farming biomass for power generation in Yukon may be feasible, but investigation is needed to assert the real potential and profitability.

Round wood

The type of potential biomass feedstock that is most available in Yukon is round (green) wood; PBrand, 2009). Yukon’s productive forest base is 28.1 million ha (YG, 2015). The most productive forests are situ-ated in the southeast corner of the territory, and productivity gradually decreases moving west and north of this region (YG website, 2016).

Forests play an important role in the social, spiritual, and economic well-being of Yukoners (Preto, 2011). Yukon forest boasts many values, including ecosystem services, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural and historical resources, outdoor recreation opportunities, natural beauty, as well as timber and other forest products (YG, 2015). Currently, Yukon timber is harvested for fuelwood (24,000 cords/year; ESC, 2016) and sawmill raw material (number + ref); no pulp and paper industry exists in the Yukon.

Sustainability of Yukon forest management is warranted by the Forest Resources Act through the Forest Management and Planning Process, which is carried out by Yukon Government and Yukon First Nations (see below).

Through the Forest Management and Planning Process, an annual allowable cut (ACC) is determined for a specific land base in consideration of the evidential forest capacity, as well as economic, environmen-tal and social factors (YG, 2015). As of 2016, AACs have been determined for Haines Junction area (1 mil -lion m3 over a minimum 10 year period beginning in 2006) and Teslin area (25,000 m3/ year) (YG Forest website, 2016). Wherever an AAC has not yet been developed, harvest levels are capped by an annual limit (YG, 2015). Annual limits are determined arbitrarily, and are purposefully more conservative than an AAC would be. TableTable 1 shows the current annual limits in Yukon. For all regions of the Territory, current harvest level is below the AACs and annual limits. Any increase in harvest intensity has to fit within the Forest Management and Planning Process, which grants sustainability of Yukon forest.

Beaver Creek/Burwash Landing/Destruction Bay 5,000 m3/year coniferous trees2,000 m3/year deciduous trees




Carmacks 5,000 m3/year coniferous trees2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Dawson 5,000 m3/year coniferous trees2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Mayo 5,000 m3/year coniferous trees2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Old Crow/Peel 2,000 m3/year coniferous trees1,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Pelly Crossing 5,000 m3/year coniferous trees2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Ross River/Faro 5,000 m3/year coniferous trees2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Watson Lake 128,000 m3/year coniferous trees2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Whitehorse 10,000 m3/year coniferous trees2,000 m3/year deciduous trees

Table 1: Current annual limits set in Yukon (YG website, 2016)

Excluding the AAC for Haines Junction area –which was accounted for in the ‘’Salvage from beetle kills’’ section-, the total sum of AACs and current annual limits is 212,000 m 3/year for Yukon Territory. Of these, 24,000 cords/year are already harvested for fuelwood (ESC, 2016). Assuming 2.27 m 3/cord, this is 54,480 m3, leaving a potential of 157,520 m3/yr for supplemental energy biomass.

Assuming a same energy content for both coniferous and deciduous trees at 18 GJ/metric ton (Preto, 2011) and a volumetric mass of 2.2 m3/metric ton (Preto, 2011), biomass potentially available from round wood for biomass energy (157,520 m3/yr) would provide1,289 TJ, which is equivalent to 54% of the entire current heat energy demand of Yukon (2,385 TJ/yr; ESC, 2016) – considering the fact that 18% heat energy demand is already supplied by biomass, this would bring the total contribution of biomass at 72%. This rough estimate can only augment with the refinement of arbitrary conservative annual lim-its into science-based sustainable AACs.

Delivering round wood to a Yukon end user is substantially pricier than in Southern Canada conditions, partly due to higher road and transportation costs. For the comparison, raw material was delivered to BC mills for $20-$40 per metric ton, while it was delivered to Yukon end users for $80-$100 per metric ton (PBrand, 2009); assuming a volumetric weight of 2.27 m3/metric ton, this delivered cost to a Yukon end user was $36.36-$45.45/m3. PBrand (2009) established that a realistic estimate for total delivered cost of round wood to a Yukon end user for biomass energy purpose could be $48.99/m3.




Socio-political context in YukonYukon Biomass Energy Strategy

In February of 2016, Yukon Government (YG) released its Biomass Energy Strategy (ESC, 2016), following a review process that included public consultations (ESC, 2016b) over a draft strategy (ESC, 2015). ‘’The intent of this policy is to reduce Yukon’s dependence on imported fossil fuels by optimizing the use of Yukon-harvested wood to meet the territory’s heating 3 needs using modern biomass energy systems. […] While YG does support the (eventual) use of biomass for electricity production, the primary focus of this strategy is to optimize the use of wood for heat, using modern systems that are clean, efficient and economical’’ (ESC, 2016).The Yukon Biomass Energy Strategy (2016) identifies six key action areas:

- Commit to using biomass energy in government infrastructure.- Develop regulations, policies and programs for biomass energy industry, as required.- Manage biomass facility emissions to protect public/environmental health and safety.- Facilitate private sector development in biomass energy.- Manage and regulate Yukon forests sustainably. Which includes: Include bioenergy in annual al -

lowable cut determinations, once forest resource management plans are approved;- Ensure biomass fuel security and quality.

Ties with Yukon Energy Policy and Climate Change Plan

The Biomass Energy Strategy builds onto the 2009 Yukon Energy Strategy (YG, 2009), for which progress reports have been released in 2010 (YG, 2010) and 2012 (YG, 2012). The Yukon Energy strategy (2009) supports ‘’replacing fossil fuels with cleaner renewable energy sources wherever possible’’.

The Yukon Energy Strategy (2009) includes commitments to:- Increasing renewable energy supply in Yukon by 20% by 2020;- Investing in research and development of renewable energy technology;- Demonstrating leadership in developing renewable energy infrastructure;- Developing a wood-based bioenergy industry in Yukon by building a local market for wood en-

ergy technologies and wood fuel products;- Encouraging cost-effective, small-scale renewable energy production to foster innovation and di-

versity in Yukon’s electrical supply.

In particular, the Yukon Energy Strategy (2009) identifies priority actions relating to renewable energies:- Support and demonstrate renewable energy projects in communities off the electrical grid to re-

duce diesel use.e.g. ‘’support the development of a wood project in a diesel powered community’’

- Conduct pilot studies to assess the feasibility of renewable energy initiatives.e.g. ‘’wood fuelled heating systems for institutional buildings’’

3 underscores added by the author




- Promote renewable energy sources for heating.e.g. ’’provide financial incentives for renewable energy initiatives’’e.g. ‘’provide training and technical assistance to build local skills for renewable energy produc-tion’’

The Biomass Energy Strategy (2016) is also consistent with YG’s 2009 Climate Change Action Plan (YG, 2009b), for which progress reports have been released in 2012 (YG, 2012) and 2015 (YG, 2015). YG’s Cli -mate Change Action Plan recognizes that ‘’burning wood efficiently for heat produces less GHG emis-sions than burning oil (ESC, 2016).’’

The Yukon Energy Strategy (2009) recognizes that ‘’If future federal policies set a price for carbon emis -sions or a target for reducing emissions, renewable energy options will become even more attractive.’’ The same would presumably be true if other stakeholders (e.g. federal government, YG, Yukon commu -nities, private companies, and individuals) set a tax on carbon emissions or participated in a carbon mar -ket.

Yukon First Nation Final Agreements

Each Yukon First Nation Final Agreement contains the text of the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA), which was reached in 1988 and enacted in 1993.

Chapter 17 of the UFA commits Yukon First Nations and Yukon Government to ‘’working together to manage the territory’s forest resources sustainably’’ (ESC, 2016). Chapter 17 also recognizes that each Yukon First Nation is responsible for ‘’management, allocation, and protection of forest resources on its Settlement Land (UFA, 1993).’’ Chapter 17 provides guidance on the development of regional Forest Re -source Management Plans (see below; ESC, 2016).

Chapter 22 commits Yukon Government to ‘’creating economic development opportunities for Yukon First Nations (ESC, 2016).’’ Also, Chapter 17 provides guidance on ‘’protecting the economic develop-ment opportunities of Yukon First Nations where forest resources are concerned (ESC, 2016).’’

Forest Resources Act

Along with Chapter 17 of the UFA, Yukon Government’s Forest Resource Act (FRA) sets the Yukon forest management regime. FRA was enacted in 2011, and replaces the Timber Regulation inherited by Yukon through devolution in 2003. The act was developed collaboratively by Yukon First Nations and the Yukon government. FRA is currently under review – Yukon Forest Management branch is seeking input and will receive comments until April 30, 2016 (YG website, 2016). Morrison (2011) observed that there cur -rently is no legislation or policy relating specifically to timber harvesting for feeding a biomass energy plant.

The aim of FRA is to warrant the responsible and sustainable management of Yukon forest: providing opportunities for current and future generations of Yukoners to benefit from Yukon’s forest resources,




while managing the forest for long term health, and maintenance of important timber and non-timber forest values (YG website, 2016).

TableTableau 2 shows the three levels of the Yukon forest management regime. Ultimately, FRA re-quires the establishment of an Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) for a specific land base, in consideration of the evidential forest capacity, as well as economic, environmental, and social factors (YG, 2015); wher-ever an AAC has not yet been developed, harvest levels are capped by an annual limit (YG, 2015). Annual limits are determined arbitrarily, and are purposefully more conservative than an AAC would be. Note that FRA requires appropriate post-harvest forest regeneration, ensuring carbon neutrality of timber harvest (ESC, 2016).

Type of Plan Purpose Geographic Scope TermForest Resources Management Plan (FRMP)

- Strategic level of planning that identifies broad forest resource management zones.- Provides strategic direction for the planning area. These plans identify where forest harvesting may occur. It can also provide forest management recommendations relating to habitat, trails, access management, timber and non-timber values and development impacts.

First Nation traditional territories

Long-term - up to 20 years

Timber Harvest Plan (THP)

- A mid-level plan that identifies access and harvesting for watersheds and landscape units.- Outlines locations of roads and harvest blocks consistent with strategic direction for the THP planning area as prescribed in the FRMP.

Watershed or landscape (500 to 50,000 hectares)

Ends when activities are completed.

Site Plan - Operational plans that contain site-specific actions for roads and harvesting activities consistent with the FRMP and THP.

Harvest block level (5 to 500 hectares)

Linked to a cutting permit.

Tableau 2: Levels of the Yukon forest management regime (adapted from YG website, 2016)

In a nutshell:

‘’ A Forest Resources Management Plan (FRMP) provides certainty on how forest management and development will occur in the planning area. FRMPs provide guidance to other forest planning processes such as Timber Harvest Plans (THP), which prescribe how forest harvesting activities will occur at the watershed or landscape level. FRMPs also help provide guidance to more detailed operational level Site Plans which identify site specific conditions for forestry activities (YG website, 2016).’’

FRA makes provision for planning and decision making that considers all forest users, including requirements for First Nations consultations and opportunities for public input (YG website, 2016). As of 2016, less than a quarter of the forest land base of Yukon has been subject to regional management




planning. FRMPs have been completed for the Teslin (Teslin Tlingit Traditional Territory), Haines Junction (Champagne and Aishihik Traditional Territory) and Dawson regions. A FRMP is currently being developed for the Whitehorse and Southern Lakes region (majority of the Traditional Territories of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation, the Carcross Tagish First Nation, and the Ta'an Kwäch'än Council). FRMPs ‘’can be and are developed in every region in the territory.’’ (ESC, 2016)

Licenses

The FRA order that forest resources can be made available through the following licence and permitting scheme:

1) Timber resource license2) Fuel Wood license3) Cutting Permit4) Forest Resources Permit5) Woodlot license

Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Act

Typically, all harvesting projects that are greater than 1,000 m3 have to be evaluated by the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Board (YESAB) (YG, 2015). This process ‘’further ensures that harvesting is done on a sustainable basis (ESC, 2016).’’ Within the assessment process, ‘’the public, First Nations and non-government organizations are given an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations (YG, 2015).’’




REFERENCES

Allard, F., 2009. Les cultures intensives sur courtes rotations pour la production d’énergie. in: AgroÉnergie, ed

Brandt, M., 2013. Changing fuel means changing minds Views and News - going beyond the headlinesByrd, A., 2014. Research on Bio-fuel crops in Alaska: Can you really grow biomass feedstock in the subarctic? in: Research on Bio-fuel crops in Alaska R.o.B.-f.c.i.A., ed. Fairbanks, AlaskaByrd, A.G., 2013. Evaluating short rotation poplar biomass on an experimental land-fill cap near Anchorage, Alaska. University of Alaska Fairbanks.Delaquis, E., Seguin, P., Samson, R., Mustafa, A., Martel, H., MacInnis, G., 2013. Development of improved switchgrass selections in a northern environment. Switchgrass II 2013 conference. Madison Wisconsin

Energy Solutions Centre, 2016. Yukon Biomass Energy Strategy - Implementing the Energy Strategy for Yukon.

Garber-Slaght, R., Sparrow, S.D., Holdmann, G., 2009. Woody Biomass Fuel Crops in Interior Alaska. University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Kishchuk, P., 2007. Yukon Energy Strategy Technical Workshop. Energy Sector ScopingKishchuk, P., 2003. Yukon Energy Sector Assessment - 2003. in: Research V., ed

Labrecque, M., 2008. Developing a willow biomass crop enterprise for bioenergy and bioproducts in Canada. in: Végétale I.d.R.e.B., ed. UC System-Wide Technology Transfer Forum on Clean Technology

Lowell, E.C., Parrent, D.J., Deering, R.C., Bihn, D., Becker, D.R., 2015. Community biomass handbook. Volume 2: Alaska, where woody biomass can work.

Morrison Hershfield, 2011. Preliminary Yukon Biomass Energy Evaluation. Whitehorse, Yukon.Nordh, N.-E., 2005. Long term changes in stand structure and biomass production in short rotation willow coppice.Smart, L., Volk, T., Lin, J., Kopp, R., Phillips, I., Cameron, K., White, E., Abrahmson, L., 2005. Amélioration génétique des cultures de saules arbustifs (Salix spp.) pour la production de bioénergie et la protection de l'environnement aux Etas-Unis. Unasylva (FAO)

PBrand Consulting, 2009. An Economic Evaluation of a Bioenergy Opportunity in Yukon.Preto, F., 2011. Biomass Energy Background Paper (Yukon Energy Planning Charrette).

Samson, R., 2008. Switchgrass for bioheat in Canada. 57.Samson, R., 2007. Switchgrass production in Ontario: A management guide. Resource Efficient Agricultural Production (REAP)-Canada.Volk, T., Abrahamson, L., Nowak, C., Smart, L., Tharakan, P., White, E., 2006. The development of short-rotation willow in the northeastern United States for bioenergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and




phytoremediation. Biomass and Bioenergy. 30 (8), 715-727.

Yukon Gov., 2009. Energy Strategy for Yukon. 25.Yukon Gov., 2008. Spruce Beetle in the Yukon. Energy M.a.R., Forest Department



research plan - web viewyukon research centre. ... presentation document for cci panel discussion at...

Documents