Solid WastetoBiofuels Forum Review of Results Strategic Policy Development Committee Public Workshop

1
Solid Waste-to-Biofuels Forum Review of
ResultsStrategic Policy Development Committee
Public Workshop10 July, 2007

• Rob Williams
• California Biomass Collaborative
• University of California, Davis

2
Background

• The California Biomass Collaborative 4th Annual
  Forum was 27-28 March 2007 in Sacramento
• The Board sponsored one day of the Forum (28
  March)
• The Topic was
• Producing biofuels from waste research and
  commercialization strategies

3
Background
The goal of the Forum was to

• assess
• technical and economic feasibility of producing
  biofuels from solid waste
• with an emphasis on identifying
• key concerns and barriers
• research, testing, and
• pilot project opportunities
• provide information that the Board can use to
  support implementation of Executive Order S-06-06
  (establishes biofuels and bioenergy production
  targets for California)

A background discussion paper was prepared and
made available prior to the Forum Paper,
agenda, and presentations and transcript are
available here http//biomass.ucdavis.edu/
4
Forum Structure

• Margo Brown gave Keynote speech
• Two speaker panels in the morning
• Policies affecting use of biomass in municipal
  wastes (3 speakers)
• Biofuel production from municipal wastes
  (4 speakers)
• Facilitated Breakout Groups in the afternoon

5
Summary Results

• Overall, concerns, comments, and suggestions were
  diverse and far-ranging
• There was a set of key issues common to all three
  breakout groups
• - organized by category
• Policy
• Regulations and Permitting
• Research, Education, Outreach
• Financing

6
Common Key Issues Policy

• Diversion credits
• Diversion credit amount that depends on type of
  conversion technology can limit feedstock and
  impede innovation
• Variable diversion credit is arbitrary without a
  comprehensive life-cycle accounting in context of
  California integrated waste system
• Diversion credit for green waste as alternative
  daily cover (ADC) can skew feedstock market
• Violates the spirit of AB 939 diversion goals

7
Common Key Issues Policy

• Definitions
• Statutory definitions of conversion technologies
  are incorrect and/or outdated (including the
  concept of Transformation)
• Lifecycle thinking
• There is a need for lifecycle thinking, or
  systems approach to waste management policy and
  decision making
• Also referred to as cross media benefits/costs
  accounting

8
Common Key Issues Regulations and Permitting

• Feedstock for conversion technologies is a raw
  material and should not be under CIWMB purview
• Related to diversion credit and technology
  definitions above.
• Permitting needs
• One-stop permitting shop and/or Ombudsman
• Waiver for research/demonstration units
• Contradictory goals (and inconsistencies) across
  regulatory agencies (air/water/solid waste)
• Need for cross media approach to regulation

9
Common Key Issues Research, Education and
Outreach

• Need for technology demonstration at scale
• Using competent and objective evaluators
• To help fill in lack of data and information
• Regulators need to understand technology status
  and capabilities
• Project proponents need to know permitting
  process and the importance of reliable and
  independent technology performance information
• General public and stakeholders need to
  understand waste management options
• Benefits
• Impacts
• Tradeoffs

10
Common Key Issues Financing

• A general need for financial risk mitigation for
  emerging technologies
• To help bridge the so-called valley of death

11
These common concerns are not new

• Concerns have been discussed in earlier Board
  meetings, workshops, conferences, and studies,
  e.g.,
• 2001 CIWMB Conversion Technology Forum
  (http//www.ciwmb.ca.gov/organics/Conversion/Event
  s/TechForum00/)
• UC Conversion Technology Evaluation Report
  (http//biomass.ucdavis.edu/pages/reports/UC_CIWMB
  _Final_Sept.doc)
• Roadmap for Biomass in California (CBC)
  (http//biomass.ucdavis.edu/pages/reports/Roadmap.
  doc)

12
Conclusions
The results of this Forum reinforce the need to

• Conduct comprehensive life cycle assessment
  comparing full range of waste management options
  and strategies
• Include fate of the recycle stream sent outside
  of California
• use the results to inform policy
• Establish clear performance standards while
  avoiding inconsistent regulatory technology
  definitions and prescriptions.
• Set performance standards and let innovation
  meet/exceed them
• Clarify and consolidate permitting processes and
  responsibilities within the Board jurisdiction
  and across agencies

13
Conclusions
The results of this Forum reinforce the need to

• Adopt Life-cycle thinking among Board and
  policy makers
• Develop solid waste lifecycle analysis capability
  at the Board and/or within California
• Establish a sustained research program
• through laboratory, pilot, and full scale
  demonstration
• with clear objectives as to type and quality of
  data needed for Board assessment
• That includes appropriate analysis of waste
  management systems and strategies

14
Conclusions
Education and Outreach Forum illustrated the need
to improve

• Education and knowledge among
• the general public,
• interest groups, and
• regulators

• with respect to
• biomass and MSW conversion technologies,
• bioenergy and biofuels
• so that statutes and regulation do not precede
  technology understanding or impede innovation.

15
Thank You
Rob Williamsrbwilliams_at_ucdavis.edu(530) 752-6623