Mayhead, Gareth J

Tittmann, Peter :

O u t l o o k Uncertain future for Californiaâ??s biomass power plants Gareth Mayhead , Academic Coordinator , Center for Forestry , UC Berkeley In recent years , a number of attempts have been made to restart nonoperational facilities , which is signi � cantly less ex - Peter Tittmann , Postdoctoral Researcher , Institute of Transportation Studies , UC Davis pensive than building a new facility ; in some cases this may be the only way to add biomass capacity since the old plant retains iomass power plants convert organic plant matter such its original permits , and regulations make it dif � cult to get new as sawmill residues , green waste , orchard prunings , nut permits . Another major trend has been in co - � re / conversion Bshells and fruit pits into electricity . Despite policy changes projects . Co - � ring or conversion is direct substitution for fos - that have made the economics challenging , California has the sil fuels and , similar to restarts , often makes � nancial sense . most biomass power plants of any state . Yet according to the Developers restarting facilities , working on co - � re / conversion California Energy Commission , biomass - derived power only or building new projects have been able to negotiate new RPS contributes about 2 % of the stateâ??s electricity . contracts with the IOUs and receive higher prices for electricity Government incentives to develop renewable energy date than existing facilities , creating in effect a dual market . Despite to 1978 , when Congress passed the Public Utilities Regulatory the low electricity prices received , during the past year at least Policies Act ( PURPA ) . A response to the 1970s oil crisis , PURPA six of the existing power plants have been sold to investors . This aimed to reduce U.S . reliance on imported oil . California imple - trend may be driven by speculation that the IOUs will pay more mented PURPA to encourage biomass , wind and solar energy , for electricity as the 2020 RPS deadline approaches . leading to emergence of the biomass - to - electricity industry in Three pilot projects are demonstrating gasi � cation as a way the 1980s and early 1990s . to produce electricity from biomass at a smaller distributed The California Renewable Portfolio Standard ( RPS ) , cre - scale ( 40 to 200 kilowatts [ kW ] ) in addition to a small commer - ated in 2002 and subsequently strengthened several times , cial unit ( 500 kW ) . All the small projects have faced signi � cant now requires utilities to source 33 % of electricity from renew - challenges â?? both bureaucratic and � nancial â?? in connecting able sources by 2020 . In 2010 , Californiaâ??s three largest Investor to the electricity grid . This is in contrast to the streamlined Owned Utilities ( IOUs ) procured 17 % of electricity from renew - interconnection procedures available for small solar projects . able sources , according to the state Public Utilities Commission . A clean alternative All new capacity brought online under the RPS in 2011 ( 830 Biomass power plants not only generate renewable base - megawatts ) was either solar or wind â?? intermittent renew - load power , they offer a clean and cost - effective disposal op - able energy sources that cannot provide consistent baseload tion for biomass residuals from the agricultural , urban and power ( the amount which utilities must make available to meet forestry sectors while sustaining rural jobs and communities . minimum demand , at all times on all days ) . With no new con - For example , the U.S . Forest Service relies on the industry to tracts , biomass - derived electricity appears to have less appeal to take biomass material from National Forest System ecosystem California utilities than it once did , when PURPA � rst passed . restoration projects in California , helping to offset the cost to Current trends in biomass power in California taxpayers . If the industry did not exist , the Forest Service be - Existing public information on solid - fuel biomass power lieves that fewer acres would be treated , increasing catastrophic plants in California is often outdated or dif � cult to access . wild � re risks . Figure 1 , a map developed by the Woody Biomass Utilization As people interested in California agriculture and forestry , Group at UC Berkeley , shows the current status of the stateâ??s we should recognize the environmental and social values of biomass - to - electricity industry . We attempted to identify all biomass - to - electricity . Regulators and policymakers could existing biomass power plants , whether currently operational or identify methods to recognize these co - bene � ts in the rates that not . ( Online map links to contacts . ) utilities pay for electricity from biomass . The current rulemak - Of the existing 40 solid - fuel biomass power plants , 23 are ing process for the Feed - in Tariff presents an opportunity to currently operational , eight are idle , six are nonoperational offer a higher price that would incentivize small - scale ( less than and three are the subject of restart projects . There is one new 3 megawatts ) biomass - to - electricity facilities . Reauthorization proposed solid - fuel plant at a sawmill in of the Public Goods Charge ( a fee to elec - Anderson . Many of the existing plants have tricity retail consumers that funds public For more info : suffered in recent years : They are locked programs including biomass research and into 30 - year contracts with IOUs that pay development and existing biomass power Biomass power map , them low prices for electricity produced , plants ) , which expired at the end of 2011 , updated quarterly : http : / / ucanr.org / BiomassPower resulting in facilities shutting down for would also help . Solar , wind and other periods of time when they cannot afford to sources are all part of a balanced energy Renewable Portfolio Standard and run . This has signi � cant implications for portfolio ; electricity rates should re � ect other information : the communities where these facilities are the range of environmental and social co - www.cpuc.ca.gov / PUC / energy / Renewables based , as they are often a major employer bene � ts that biomass - to - electricity delivers and contributor to the tax base . in California . 6 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE â?¢ VOLUME 66 , NUMBER 1Fig . 1 . Current status of California biomass power plants , 2011 . One megawatt can power 800 to 1,000 homes . 34 6 ! ( \ ( Plant Capacity Plant Capacity 1 ! ( r ( 5 ID City ( megawatts ) ID City ( megawatts ) \ ! ( \ 1 Bieber 7.5 21 Mendota 25.0 ! ( 16 2 4 ! ( ( \ ( ! ( \ ! ( 2 Blue Lake 11.0 22 El Nido 12.5 \ 40 3 Ione 18.5 23 Brawley 18.5 # 39 ! ( \ ( ! ( \ ( Eureka Redding \ 4 Burney 31.0 24 Bakers � eld 44.0 25 ! ( 19 11 # 17 \ ( ! 41 5 Burney 11.0 25 Westwood 11.5 8 \ \ ( ( \ ! ! ( ( ! ( 35 6 Etna 0.041 26 Oroville 18.0 ! ( \ ( ! ( \ ( 51 \ 46 \ ( ! 7 Chowchilla 12.5 27 Jamestown 22.0 ! ( 44 ! ( \ ( 8 Chester 12.0 28 Merced 0.5 9 Mecca 47.0 29 Truckee 3.0 26 43 \ ! ( 10 Delano 50.0 30 Fresno 25.0 \ ( ! 11 Fairhaven 18.0 31 Bakers � eld 40.0 29 12 Stockton 4.5 32 Bakers � eld 40.0 ! ( ( r 42 49 48 \ ! ( \ ( 13 Dinuba 12.0 33 Rocklin 25.0 ! ( 33 14 Winters 0.05 34 Weed 12.0 ! r ( \ 52 ! ( 15 Stockton 45.0 35 Scotia 28.0 \ ! ( Sacramento # 16 Samoa 50.0 36 Auberry 7.5 3 14 17 Wendel 32.0 37 Terra Bella 9.5 ! ( r ( ¾ [ 45 18 Brawley 18.0 38 Soledad 13.4 15 ! ( \ ( 12 27 ! ( ¾ [ ( 19 Anderson 31.0 39 Burney 20.0 \ 50 \ 20 Firebaugh 28.0 40 Anderson 4.0 ( ! 47 # San Francisco ( ¾ [ \ 41 Anderson 6.0 ( ! 42 Lincoln 18.0 28 ! ( r 43 Loyalton 20.0 7 36 \ ( ! 22 44 Quincy 25.0 \ ! ( \ 20 Biomass power plants ! ( 45 Sonora 8.0 \ ! ( 30 46 Susanville 12.5 Cogeneration # \ ! ( Fresno 47 Tracy 19.4 13 Cogeneration \ ! ( 21 \ 48 Woodland 0.2 Facility where waste heat is utilized ! ( 38 \ in another industrial process ( for ( ! 49 Williams 26.5 37 example , in kilns drying lumber ) ! ( \ ( 50 Stockton 45.0 31 Not cogeneration 51 Anderson 50.0 ( ¾ [ 52 Woodland 25.0 24 Plant type 10 ( [ ¾ \ ( ! Biomass solid fuel \ # ( 32 Traditional biomass power plants ( ¾ [ Bakers � eld Co - � re or conversion from fossil fuels ¾ Fossil fuel â?? � red facilities that are converting to include biomass as partial or total replacement fuel Gasi � cation ( r An alternative thermal process where biomass is converted to a gas used to fuel an internal combustion engine or turbine , generating electricity Los Angeles # Status 9 Active project ( in transition ) \ ( ! New construction , conversion or restart under way Counties Idled Temporary stoppage ( months or longer ) where Utility lines 18 restarting would be a relatively simple process 23 \ \ Nonoperational ( ! ! ( San Diego # Landcover type Facility has not operated for years and may require signi � cant capital to restart Forest Operational Shrub Pilot project Small - scale demonstration Grassland Proposed project Agriculture In planning http : / / californiaagriculture.ucanr.org â?¢ JANUARY â?? MARCH 2012 7