First Name | Laurie & Allan |
---|---|
Last Name | Williams/Zabel |
Email Address | williams.zabel@gmail.com |
Affiliation | Citizens Climate Lobby & as Individuals |
Subject | Comment Regarding Livestock Digester Protocol |
Comment | Livestock Protocol – Summary of Evidence AB 32 Offsets Challenge – Public Comments on October 18, 2011 Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, as individuals and as volunteers for Citizens Climate Lobby Summary of Evidence that Proposed Greenhouse Gas Offset Protocols and Regulations do not meet the AB 32 Integrity Criteria Standard in Protocol: The proposed Livestock Project Protocol would provide offset credits for projects that are above “common practice” in the relevant geographic region. This is contrary to the AB 32 Integrity Criteria described below. AB 32 Integrity Criteria: “(d) Any regulation adopted by the state board pursuant to this part or Part 5 (commencing with Section 38570) shall ensure all of the following: (1) The greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable by the state board. (2) For regulations pursuant to Part 5 (commencing with Section 38570), the reduction is in addition to any greenhouse gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that otherwise would occur. (See AB 32 at Section 38562(d).) Evidence of Failure to Meet Integrity Criteria: 1. Anaerobic Digesters are Already Being Used without Offset Payment Incentive: USDA News Release July 19, 2010: Release No. 0377.10: “The technology uses generators that are fueled by methane captured from farm animal manure. Currently, only about 2 percent of U.S. dairies that are candidates for a profitable digester are utilizing the technology.” (Att. 1 at page 1.) 2. Anaerobic Digesters are Often Cost-Effective: A. Collaboration by EPA, USDA and DOE, the Agstar Program: EPA Factsheet: Managing Manure with Biogas Recovery Systems: Improved Performance at Competitive Prices (2002): Presents the reasons that anaerobic digesters can be cost-effective, see e.g. “Anaerobic digestion is cost-competitive when compared to conventional waste management practices. For example, the cost of both a covered lagoon and heated digester (including an attached storage pond) ranges between $200 and $450 per AU [animal unit]. These systems can have financially attractive payback periods of 3 to 7 years when energy gas uses are employed.” (Att. 2 at page 8.) “Odor Control. The effluent odor from anaerobic digesters is significantly less than odors from conventional manure management systems. Odor reduction using anaerobic digestion can be very cost-effective when compared to other alternatives such as aeration.” (Att. 2 at p.6). Water quality protection. Anaerobic digestion provides several water quality benefits . . .especially heated digesters isolate and destroy disease-causing organisms that might otherwise enter surface waters and pose a risk to human and animal health.” (Att. 2 at p.7.) EPA Agstar Study: A Comparison of the Performance of Three Swine Waste Stabilization Systems. (March 20, 2002.) Environmental benefits are documented in use of an anaerobic digester system. Some cost information is also collected. (Att. 3 ) EPA Agstar: A Comparison of Dairy Cattle Manure Management with and without Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Recovery, by Eastern Research Group, Inc., 2004. Describes economic viability (Att. 4 at pp. 35-36). EPA Agstar Handbook (2005): Provides advice concerning how to evaluate whether and what type of system will be profitable. (Att. 5). EPA Agstar: An Evaluation of a Covered Anaerobic Lagoon for Flushed Dairy Cattle Manure Stabilization and Biogas Production, by Eastern Research Group, Inc., June 17, 2008. The results of this study confirm the environmental quality benefits realized by the anaerobic digestion of dairy cattle manure with biogas collection for the generation of electricity. These results also confirm that the economic value of the electricity generated can be adequate to recover the capital investment in a reasonable period and then generate a long-term income stream if there is a reasonable rate of compensation for surplus electricity delivered to the grid.” Study of “Castelanelli Brothers Dairy; a 550-acre operation located Lodi, California. The study began in January 2006 and ended in January 2007. Generally, the size of the Castelanelli milking herd is between 1,500 and 1,600 cows.” “Economic Impact: $108,000 per year after recovery of capital invested in 6.6 years). (Att.6, p. 8-9 of 46.) EPA Agstar/USDA: U.S. Anaerobic Digester Status Report. (October 2010.) “Biogas recovery systems are technically feasible at more than 8,000 U.S. dairy and swine operations. These systems offer a substantial business opportunity to increase farm income by offsetting energy purchases or through the sale of produced energy back onto the electricity grid.” EPA estimates that 157 digester projects were operating on commercial scale livestock facilities nationwide as of this report. The report also provides updated information on federal grant and loan programs. (Att. 7 p. 4 of 12.) EPA Agstar Study – Protocol for Quantifying and Reporting the Performance of Anaerobic Digestion Systems for Livestock Manure, March 2011 by Eastern Research Group, Inc., cites numerous benefits of such digesters, including reduced methane emissions (and associated climate impacts), reduced noxious odors, reduced water pollution potential, renewable energy production and revenue. (Att. 8 at p.7 of 48.) B. USDA Factsheet: Funding Programs for Developing Anaerobic Digestion Systems. April 2011. USDA describes a variety of grant and loan programs that are already in place to encourage adoption of livestock waste digesters. (Att. 9.) 3. Anaerobic Digesters Help Farmers Avoid Liability: As noted above, anaerobic digesters can help control odor and run-off of contaminants. Farmers have an incentive to adopt anaerobic digesters to obtain these benefits in order to avoid the legal liability from nuisance lawsuits by neighbors and regulators. A. Nuisance Liability Manure Related Nuisance Lawsuits by Eldon McAfee (2005) notes that “producers must take all reasonable steps available to them to try to minimize the impact of their operations on neighbors and minimize the risk of a nuisance lawsuit . . . [I]n a 1999 case the Georgia Supreme Court agreed with the district court’s order halting the construction of a 22,800-head swine operation with anaerobic and aerobic lagoons. Neighbors objecting to the proposed hog operation claimed that the operation ‘would result in groundwater and aquifer contamination as well as impairment of air quality.’” (Att. 10 at p.1.) Pig Odor Lawsuit: Farm Must Pay Neighbor for Smell by Stephanie Rabiner (findlaw.com blog June 7, 2011.) A pig odor lawsuit was filed against Synergy, which owns the hogs, and Kenoma, which raises them, reports the Associated Press. Their Barton County farm raises about 200,000 hogs per year, which equates to a lot of stank. And waste. A jury verdict decided the hog farmers must now pay its neighbors $1.95 million. (Att. 11 p.1.) Missouri Plaintiffs Awarded $11 million in hog odor lawsuit by Agweek.com, March 5, 2010. A jury awarded more than $11 million to 15 plaintiffs in a lawsuit over the odors from a Premium Standard Farms hog operation in northern Missouri. The company argued the smells are a normal part of life in an agricultural area. (Att. 12 p.1). B. Regulatory Liability US EPA Chino Dairies Press Release: U.S. EPA Orders 13 Chino Dairies to Control Manure Runoff; Joint effort with local Water Board to protect Santa Ana River Release date: 09/26/2011 EPA announced that “Among the violations discovered at the dairies subject to EPA’s orders were . . . failure to construct or maintain controls necessary to prevent manure and other contaminants from discharging into waterways . [EPA will] be evaluating whether monetary penalties are appropriate, pursuant to our authority under the federal Clean Water Act.” (Att. 13 at p.1.) Iowa Attorney General Press Release: Feb. 3, 2010. State files lawsuit to enforce manure management plan rules. "Manure management plans are required in order to show that operations have adequate land for application of manure produced by the animals," said Attorney General Tom Miller. "The plans are an important tool to protect the environment.” (Att. 14.) 4. The Price of Carbon Offsets is Too Low and Too Uncertain to Be Reliably Claimed as “the” reason for Implementation of an Anaerobic Digester System: USDA Economic Research Service, Carbon Prices and the Adoption of Methane Digesters on Dairy and Hog Farms: While additional profit is always an incentive, this report makes it clear that, while a steady known carbon offset price could encourage additional adoption of digesters, market price of carbon offsets has been volatile. “The additional revenues that could be earned from carbon offsets could have a large effect on digester profitability and adoption if offset price is sufficiently high. However, future carbon prices are uncertain.” The report documents prices in various markets that have varied by 100% or more. Finally, the report notes that other factors are also important, to whether it is profitable for farmers to adoption digesters, including the size of the operation, electrical usage, price to sell surplus electricity, initial levels of methane, among other factors. (Att.15 at pages 6 -8.) Attachments: Livestock Att. 1 - USDA News Release No. 0377.10, July 19, 2010. Livestock Att. 2 - EPA Factsheet: Managing Manure with Biogas Recovery Systems: Improved Performance at Competitive Prices, 2002. Livestock Att. 3 - EPA Agstar Study: A Comparison of the Performance of Three Swine Waste Stabilization Systems, March 20, 2002. Livestock Att. 4 - EPA Agtar: A Comparison of Dairy Cattle Manure Management with and without Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Recovery, by Eastern Research Group, Inc., 2004. Livestock Att. 5 - EPA Agstar Handbook, 2005. Livestock Att. 6 - EPA Agstar: An Evaluation of a Covered Anaerobic Lagoon for Flushed Dairy Cattle Manure Stabilization and Biogas Production, by Eastern Research Group, Inc., June 17, 2008. Livestock Att. 7 - EPA Agstar/USDA: U.S. Anaerobic Digester Status Report, October 2010. Livestock Att. 8 - EPA Agstar Study – Protocol for Quantifying and Reporting the Performance of Anaerobic Digestion Systems for Livestock Manure, March 2011. Livestock Att. 9 - USDA Factsheet: Funding Programs for Developing Anaerobic Digestion Systems. April 2011. Livestock Att. 10 - Manure Related Nuisance Lawsuits by Eldon McAfee, 2005 Livestock Att. 11 – Pig Odor Lawsuit: Farm Must Pay Neighbor for Smell by Stephanie Rabiner findlaw.com blog, June 7, 2011. Livestock Att. 12 - Missouri Plaintiffs Awarded $11 million in hog odor lawsuit by Agweek.com, March 5, 2010. Livestock Att. 13 - US EPA Chino Dairies Press Release: U.S. EPA Orders 13 Chino Dairies to Control Manure Runoff; Joint effort with local Water Board to protect Santa Ana River Release date: 09/26/2011. Livestock Att. 14 - Iowa Attorney General Press Release, Feb. 3, 2010. Livestock Att. 15 - USDA Economic Research Service, Carbon Prices and the Adoption of Methane Digesters on Dairy and Hog Farms by Nigel Key and Stacy Sneeringer, Feb. 2011. See also: the following web excerpts: This is an excerpt from EERE Network News, a weekly electronic newsletter. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=15685 December 16, 2009 Anaerobic Digesters to Help Cut Dairy Emissions by 25% by 2020 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on December 15 an agreement with U.S. dairy producers to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020 while turning manure into electricity using anaerobic digesters. Under a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy , the USDA, and dairy producers, the groups agreed to work together to reach the target. USDA will contribute by undertaking research initiatives, allowing implementation flexibility, and enhancing efforts to market anaerobic digesters to dairy producers. Anaerobic digester technology is a proven method of converting waste products, such as manure, into electricity. The technology utilizes generators that are fueled by methane captured from the animal manure. Currently, only about 2% of U.S. dairies that are candidates for a profitable digester are using the technology, even though dairy operations with anaerobic digesters routinely generate enough electricity to power 200 homes. Through the agreement, USDA and the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy will increase the number of anaerobic digesters supported by USDA programs. Beyond promoting the digesters, the agreement will encourage the research and development of new technologies to help dairies reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. See the USDA press release and the description of anaerobic digesters on DOE's Energy Savers Web site. http://www.energysavers.gov/your_workplace/farms_ranches/index.cfm/mytopic=30005 Economics and Benefits of Anaerobic Digesters Before you install a anaerobic digester—also known as a biodigester—on your farm or ranch, you should explore its economic value and potential benefits. A biodigester usually requires manure from more than 150 large animals to cost effectively generate electricity. Anaerobic digestion and biogas production can also reduce overall operating costs where costs are high for sewage, agricultural, or animal waste disposal, and the effluent has economic value. In the United States, the availability of inexpensive fossil fuels has limited the use of digesters solely for biogas production. However, the waste treatment and odor reduction benefits of controlled anaerobic digestion are receiving increasing interest, especially for large-scale livestock operations such as dairies, feedlots, and slaughterhouses. |
Attachment | www.arb.ca.gov/lists/capandtrade11/89-livestock_digester_protocol_comment.zip |
Original File Name | Livestock Digester Protocol Comment.zip |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2011-10-18 16:03:13 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.