Biogas development in the u s current trends and future opportunities

Even the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization is well aware of potential in this arena and proclaimed so in 1992: "Anaerobic digestion provides some exciting possibilities a

Your unpublished thesis, submitted for a degree at Williams College and administered by the Williams College Libraries, will be made available foir research use You may, through this form, provide instructions regarding copyright, access, dissemination and reproduction of your thesis

- The faculty advisor to the student writing the thesis wishes to claim joint authorship

in this work

In each section, please check the ONE statement that reflects your wishes

I PUBLICATION AND QUOTATION: LITERARY PROF'ERTY RIGHTS

A student author automatically owns the copyright to hisfher work, whether or not a copyright symbol and date are placed on the piece The duration of U.S copyright on a manuscript and Williams theses are considered manuscripts is the life of the author plus 70 years

- IJwe do not choose to retain literary property rights to the thesis, and I wish to assign them immediately to Williams College

Selecting ti-iis option will assign copyighr to iiie College This i ~ t iio way precludes 21 sli~c!c~it author from later pilhlishirig hisihzr ~ : o r h ; the ~rucicnt m o u l t l , howe\:er need t o contact [he Arei-tihes for a pcrrnission form TIle ,-\rchiveh LVOLIIC! be fice in this case to also grant pcrrn'i~sioo

to another i.e.;carcher- to pul?lish small secrions i'r.olil ille thesis liar-el) \voulci ihzi-e be zany reaxttn for the Archives t o grant perniission to si1otllc.r pai.ly to publish the thesis i n its eritirely: ii'wcll a

siti~ation arose thc Archi\.cs xc~tild he in toucli iviiiiLh the author to lei rhi-ni h ~ i o ~ v I l ~ i ~ t s i ~ c h a rcijuest liac! beer1 made

I J w e wish to retain literary property rights to the thesis for a period of three years, at which time the literary property rights shall be assigned to Williams College

Select~ng ih15 o p i ~ o n g t \ e \ the author LL feu bears r o niil,c: eucltib~ve use ot the 11tev\ tn up-corning

/ prolec1L ~ r t i c l e \ ldter rcearch etc

IJwe wish to retain literary property rights to the thesis for a period of years, or until my death, whichever is the later, at which time the literary property rights shall be assigned to Williams College

Selecting this option allows tl-te ailrl~or great flexibility in extending or shortening thc time of hisiher automatic copyright period S o n ~ e striderit:; are in~crcsied in using their tijesis ii; gi-adualc shoal mork In this casc it \vould rnake sense for them to cnter a uunlher sucli as ' 10 year>' iii the hlz!nh, and line o u t the twrds 'or u n ~ i l m y cleatl~, \vhichever i s the Inter.' 111 ail!; e\zilt it i s

eaiier for the Archives to actminister copjrigllt 011 a nlanuscript it' the period cnds u,irh the

i11clividti;tl's death our staff won't have to seal-cli for estate csccrttors in this case hi11 riiis is entirely up to each studenr

11 ACCESS

The Williams College Libraries are investigating the posting of theses online, as well as their retention in hardcopy

J Williams College is granted permission to maintain and provide access to my thesis

in hardcopy and via the Web both on and off campus

"ilettrng T ~ I > o p l ~ o n ailokxi re\eaiche~> diotinci i h t ~ v ~ o ~ l c i 10 , i c ~ e \ \ tire dlgrtdi C ~ I \ I O ~ I 01 )otIr

v, c>rh

- Williams College is granted permission to maintain and provide access to my thesis

in hardcopy and via the Web for on-campus use only

S e i e ~ i ~ n g tixi opt~oil ailov \ acceki to tke dig~tnl \ei\ion oi 5 oiir n o r h troni ths on-cdnlpub

nctaork 0111)

- The thesis is to be maintained and made available in hardcopy form only

Selecting this option allows access io yottr work only Liotn the ltardcopy yoii subinit S ~ i c h access

pertains to the entirety of your work, irlciuding any media that it comprises or includes

111 COPYING AND DISSEMINATION

Because theses are listed on FRANCIS, the Libraries receive numerous requests every year for copies of

works Iflwhen a hardcopy thesis is duplicated for a researcher, a copy of the release form always

accompanies the copy Any digital version of your thesis will include the release form

d Copies of the thesis may be provided to any researcher

Sclcctii~g this option alIc>.ivs an! rescar-ci~cs to rccjucst a c o p y f s o n ~ the Willia~rrs College Libraries

o r t o nialte orle f r o n ~ 311 electronic versirtn

- Copying of the thesis is restricted for - years, at which time copies may be provided to

any researcher

'i'l~is oprjoii allows the auil~or to set a tiine limit o n copyiiip ssstl-ictioiis 1)uring i.11is period an

cicctroiiic ver-\ion of the thesis will he prorected agaiilst duplication,

- Copying of the thesis or portions thereof, except as needed to maintain an adequate

number of research copies available in the Williams College Libraries, is expressly

prohibited The electronic version of the thesis will be protected against duplication

Sele~tllig ihii opilon dtJou> iro r cproductroni :o be llnciile i o l rc\e,~icllers The eizctritnic \ el51on

of the llle\t\ n ~ l l he plitle~ieii ,)gnrn\t C I J ~ I I C ~ ~ I O I I 1 ill\ optioil ~Ii>es 1101 dl\-nllou te\elucheri i ~ o n ~

iedcl~ng/\ t e \ ~ i n g the i \ ~ i ) l k 111 e ~ t h c ~ h n r ~ c o p o r d ~ g ~ t d l 101m

Accepted for the Libraries

Date accepted 5-47

BIOGAS DEVEILOPMENT IN THE U.S.: CURRENT TRENDS AND FUTURE

OPPOlRTUNITIES

Amelia Grace Bishop

Sarah Ciardner, Advisor

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors

in Environmental Studies

Williams College Williamstown, MA 01267

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures 3

List of Tables -3 Acknowledgements 4

Abstract 5 Introduction -6

Chapter 1: Biogas in the U.S Problem Overview 10

Anaerobic Digestion as an Energy So~irce 10

Where in the World is Anaerobic Digestion? Setting the Stage 12 Energy Problem Overview 15

Biogas as a Partial Solution to the Energy Problem 18

Chapter 2: Resources for Biogas Development in the U.S 24 Federal Resources 25

Federal Laws/Policies 26

Federal Programs by Agency 28

Combined Agency EfSort 36

State Analysis: California, Vermont and Massachusetts 37

State Resources Summary 37

California 42

Renewable Portfolio Standard/' Energy Trust Fund 42 Biogas Energy Policy Overview 43

California Programs for Biogas 45

a Net Metering 45 b GrantsLoans 45

c T d r o d u c t i o n Inc'entives 47 California Non-governmental Initiatives 48

California Summary 49

Vermont 50

Renewable Portfolio Standard/' Energy Trust Fund 51

Biogas Energy Policy Overview 52

Vermont Programs for Biogas 54

a Net Metering 54

b GrantsLoans 55

c Tax/Production Incentives 57

Vermont Non-governmental Initiatives 58 V e m o n t Summary 60

Massachusetts 61

Renewable Porgolio Standard, ' Energy Trust Fund 62 Biogas Energy Policy Overview 63

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Biogas Production 11

Figure 2: Renewable Energy vs Total Energy Consumption in the U.S 2004 13 Figure 3 : The Origins of Biomass Energy 14

Figure 4: United States Fossil Fuel Productiocl/Consumption 16

Figure 5: Federal Biogas Incentives Summary 25

Figure 6: Impact of AgSTAR on the Number of Digesters in the U.S 30 Figure 7: SARE Grant Regions 31

Figure 8: EQIP Grant Program Allocations by State 33

Figure 9: United States Renewable Portfolio S'tandards 38 Figure 10: How Net Metering Works 40

Figure 11: United States Net Metering Programs by State 41

Figure 12: Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust Awards by Municipality 66 Figure 13: New England Greenstart vs National Grid Energy Resources (Massachusetts) 69

Figure 14: Net Metering Size Limits; CA, VT! MA 73

Figure 15: State Renewable Portfolio Standard Comparison; CA, MA 76

Figure 16: Sources of Japanese Electricity Generation, 2002 85

Figure 17: Sources of United States Electricity Generation, 2003 85 Figure 18: United States, Dairy Cows per Farrn -2001 107

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 : U.S States with Renewable Energy Trust Funds 39

Table 2: State Renewable Energy Trust Fund Comparison; CA, VT MA 72

Table 3: United States Net Metering Customers by State and Customer Class 7 4-75 Table 4: State and Federal Grant Comparison 77

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Foremost I would like to thank my advisor, Sarah Gardner, for her time and effort in making this project happen I also owe a great deal to Professor David Dethier for his patience, comments, and guidance; all were instrumental in this process Thanks also to

my father, who not only facilitated my digestion project but has inspired me to challenge myself over the years I owe a great deal to my contacts in California, Vermont, and Massachusetts; this project was only possible with your time and consideration

ABSTRACT This paper addresses the potential for farm and municipal wastewater treatment plant anaerobic digestion facilities in the United States In light of rising oil and gas prices indicating increasing petroleum scarcity, this type of biogas is an important energy alternative to consider While current use of on-farm and municipal wastewater biogas represents a minimal portion of the renewable energy sector, there is considerable room for improvement Biogas is surely not the only solution, but this thesis establishes that its potential contribution both to the renewable energy sector and to emissions reduction makes more widespread integration worthwhile

This paper looks first at how on-farm and niunicipal wastewater biogas is currently used in the United States and then at how it can be further developed Through a

comparative case study of three states, this paper addresses current U.S policies,

compares U.S initiatives with those of other countries, and establishes where there is room for improvement The thesis finds that, cln the whole, policies in foreign countries have been successful because they set requirements that generate more widespread and complex digester development, innovating ancl sharing information that fuel and are a result of these incentives

This paper ends with a set of conclusions based on the results of the comparative case studies and barriers to biogas development in the U.S It also proposes a set of

recommendations, based on these conclusions, to increase the use of this simple and valuable resource

Biogas is one of the most simple, yet least well known, technologies providing an alternative to fossil fuel use Unllke wind, vvater, and solar mechanisms, however,

anaerobic digestion produces a gas with a number of different potentials for use

Capturing biogas for energy production is a unique approach to the energy concerns facing the world today, yet there is much room for improvement in this technology and its application The leading countries in on-farm and municipal wastewater biogas

production are located abroad in countries such as Germany, Nepal, and China, while comparatively less has been done within the United States Even the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization is well (aware of potential in this arena and

proclaimed so in 1992: "Anaerobic digestion provides some exciting possibilities and solutions to such global concerns as alternative energy production, handling human, animal, municipal and industrial wastes safely, controlling environmental pollution, and expanding food supplies."3

' The World Factbook "Rank Order - Electricity - consumption."

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbooMrankorder/2042rank.html Last Updated 4.20.2006 Viewed 5.4.2006

The Greening Earth Society "Electricity Production Overview."

http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/linkshtml/electsicity/electsic production.htm1 01998- 1999-2000 byDesign and PowervisioN for The Greening Earth Society Last updated 2.19.2004 Viewed 5.8.2006

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Corporate Document Repository "Biogas Processes for Sustainable Development."

I find it pressing to address this potential and even more interesting to determine to what extent biogas can be harnessed as an alternative energy source in the United States

I am also interested in exploring the extension of biogas use from farms to cities As human populations expand (some studies predict a 10 billion high in 2100), more and more people move to cities As Stokstad predicts, within 35-50 years the number of people living in cities will d o u b ~ e ~ This prediction leads me to believe that there would

be enough waste generated from these metroplolises to produce a substantial amount of energy needed to run such bustling centers It is both pertinent to the dwindling supplies

of fossil fuels and personally interesting to delve into these more unexplored aspects of biogas application

Not only is using fossil fuels an environmentally hazardous practice, it is an

unsustainable one In his book "Out of Gas," David Goodstein discusses the end of

"American oil dominance" as worldwide discovery peaked around 1960, surpassed by consumption rates by about 1980.~ In a clearly unsustainable pattern, Goodstein notes that "no discoveries, past, present, or future, are going to keep up with demand."6 As third world countries such as China and India industrialize amongst all time population highs, dependency on this energy source becomes an increasingly immediate problem There is simply not enough oil in existence to support current consumption levels As among the world's most wealthy and persistent consumers, it is feasible and arguably necessary for the United States to promote alternative energy use The United States has

http://www.fao.or~/documents/show cdr.asp?url file=/docrep/T0541E/T0541E03.htm 0 1992 Viewed 3.21.2006 'Chapter Two: Introduction and Overview.'

Stokstad, Eric "Will Malthus continue to be wrong?" Science 2005 Jul 1;309(573 1): 102

Goodstein, David "Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil" W.W Norton & Company, Inc New York,

NY 0 2004.23

Ibid, 128-129

the capacity to be a leader in developing technologies that will help alleviate global warming and economic (little oil left to discover) problems pressing on the planet Biogas

is among the most biologically straightforward sources: using organic waste to produce fuel not only alleviates environmental pressure through decreasing C 0 2 production and methane release, but it reduces landfill volume and creates a rich fertilizer byproduct Biogas can also potentially be used as a source for hydrogen for fuel cell technology on a more massive scale: electricity generated bjr the methane in biogas can be used to split the hydrogen atom from a water molecule, isolating it for use in fuel cell production This essay explores two primary research questions First, why is on-farm and

municipal wastewater biogas not more widespread in the United States? Here I will explore existing circumstances and what policies and programs currently facilitate

digester projects Second, how can the United States improve its use of on-farm and municipal anaerobic digestion systems? In answering this question I look at the current culture and barriers in the U.S and apply successful European strategies to this end Ultimately, this thesis applies the outcome of this research to U.S social and economic systems in order to determine the most suitable approach to integration of biogas use in the U.S

This paper begins by examining the background and history of biogas and its role in the United States Most of Chapter 2 is devoted to a comparative case study among California, Vermont, and Massachusetts to determine which policies and programs are most successful in the U.S and why Chapter 3 is comprised of another comparative case study between the U.S and foreign countries in order to determine the differences and what accounts for any disparity In Chapter 4 this thesis assesses the barriers to digester

development in the United States Finally, the conclusions section assesses the current level of biogas development in the U.S., lessoins learned from abroad, and barriers to development in the U.S It culminates in a set of recommendations to improve the integration of on-farm and municipal wastewater anaerobic digestion systems in the United States

CHAIPTER 1 BIOGAS IN THE U.S.: PROBLEM OVERVIEW

Anaerobic digestion is not a particularly well known source of renewable energy In order

to discuss all aspects of improving the use alf biogas as an energy source in the U.S., the reader must be familiar with the background of the topic Subsequent chapters expand on the information discussed here This chapter seeks to familiarize the reader with biogas production: what it is and how it measures as source of renewable energy

Anaerobic Digestion as an Energy Source

Biogas technology is actually quite old ]Research by the Vermont Methane Project found that it has been around "since the timie of the Assyrians in the 10th century B.C where it was used to heat bath ~ a t e r " ~ It w,as first developed in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s when energy costs were high and people first realized that the quantity

of some natural resources is limited In the United States, the first farm digester was constructed in Iowa in 1972.~ Well before that, for example, inl895, biogas from a sewage treatment facility in Exeter, Devon ((England) was used to power street lamps.9 It has also been used in rural communities thrloughout the globe for heating and cooking In the 1970s and 1980s a number of digesters were constructed in the U.S but only a

fraction of these are in use today In 1998 tliroughout the U.S there were 28 usable farrn/manure digesters and 29 working but not used.''

The mechanics of biogas are straightforward The name anaerobic digestion indicates

Scruton, Dan "Vermont Methane Pilot Project Initial Literature Search Paper," To Vermont Methane Pilot Project Advisory Committee April 22, 1999 1, quoting Methane Recovery from Animal Manures, The Current Opportunities Casel7ook Phil Lusk 1998, NRELISR-580-25 145

Ibid

Goldstein, Jerome "Around the World With Anaerobic Digestion." BioCycle, April 2003

10

Scruton, Dan "Vermont Methane Pilot Project Initial Literature Search Paper," To Vermont Methane

Pilot Project Advisory Committee April 22, 1999 1

that the process takes place in the absence of oxygen During aerobic digestion the bacteria break down the 'sludge' (any mixture of organic waste and water; animal or human excrement, food, leaves, or organic industrial waste) and consume any oxygen in the system Then, lacking oxygen, "bacteria convert the acids and alcohols into methane and carbon dioxide." In the end, the gas that results will be approximately 60 to 70% methane and 30 to 40% carbon dioxide." The carbon dioxide is nothing new to the global system, however, since it was already contained in the organic material in the original sludge mixture Some of the gas produced from the digester must be used to heat the system, for these reaction temperatures take place at high temperatures approaching

100 degrees F

Figure 1: Biogas Production

Biogas - die Grundlagen Biogas, http://www.rapsbiodiesel.de/grundlagenbiogas.htm 63 2006 MR Wetterau e.V Alle Rechte vorbehalten Viewed: 4.24.2006

" Tyner, Wallace E and Adams, John "Rural Electrification in India: Biogas versus Large-Scale Power."

Asian Survey, Vol 17,20 8 (Aug., 1977), 724-734 University of California Press 725

There are three major types of digesters used in different situations based on the concentrations of solids in the sludge There are covered lagoons, complete mix digesters, and plug flow systems each with different qualities based on the geography, amount of manure available, etc The users of this technology are certainly not limited to farms Indeed, rural households across the globe have used it for centuries for heating and

cooking Municipalities use digesters as well; Deer Island Sewage Treatment Plant in Boston, the second largest waste treatment facility in the nation, uses the gas produced from its 12 egg-shaped digesters to help power the plant.'2 Regional projects also exist with towns or areas compiling their resources and reaping the benefits (one such project

is being contemplated in Pittsfield, ~assachusetts'~) Digesters are built by a number of companies such as RCM Digesters that conduct feasibility studies, perform the design and construction management, look at power market development, address regulatory compliance, and assess by-product market clevelopment for individuals, farms, or

municipalities looking to adopt digester technology.'4 In this thesis I discuss only farm and municipal wastewater treatment systems

Where in the World is Anaerobic Digestion? Setting the Stage

Biogas is one small piece of a much larger energy puzzle In 2004 the United States consumed a total 100.278 Quadrillion Btus of energy Of this 100.278, 86.186 consisted

of fossil fuels while 6.1 17 of these consisted of renewable energies l5 Among the

l 2 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority "The Deer Island Sewage Treatment Plant."

http://www.mwra.state.maaus/03s~wer/ht~sewditp.htm visited 10.15.2005 2

l 3 Landry, Thomas, Chief Operator of Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant Interview on 12.6.2005

14

RCM Digesters, Inc http://www.rcmdi~esters.corn/bio~as use.aspx O Copyright 2000,2001,2002,

2003, 2004 Resource Conservation Management, Inc., all rights reserved Viewed 8.2005

15

Energy Information Administration: Official Energy Statistics from the U.S Government "Energy Overview: 1949-2004." htt~:llwww.eia.doe.~ov/emew'aer/overview.html Viewed 1.11.06 Note other components include: Electxicity Net Imports = ,039 and Nuclear Electric Power = 8.232

renewable energies (Conventional Hydroelectric, Geothermal, Biomass, Wind, and Solar), Biomass consists of 2.845 Quadrillion Btus, or approximately 3 percent of the total

energy consumption in the U.S, just- ahead of hydroelectric power at 2.725 to make it the

most consumed renewable resource of 2004

Total = 100.278 Quadrillion Btu Total = 6.1 17 Quadrillion Btu

Petroleum

40%

Geothermal 6% Hydroelectric 45'h

Figure 2: Renewable Energy vs Total Energy Consumption in the U.S., 2004

U.S Energy Information Administration, "Renewablle Energy Trends, 2004 Edition."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewabIes/~ae/trends/rentrendsO4.html Release Date August,

2005 Viewed 5.16.2006

The biomass listed here in Figure 2 includes alll forms of biomass, of which anaerobic digestion is a small but important part:

L lnde~slr~al Refuse

Plan t R e s ~ d u e s

O t h e r ffulsn~~fackircng

Source Energy In?ormatian Administrat~on, Office of Coa! Nuclear Electric and Alternative Fuels

Figure 3: The Origins of Biomass Energy

U.S Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternative Fuels

"Biomass Characteristics."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/paehiomasshiomasschar.pdf O 1992 Viewed 5.16.2006

For the purposes of this analysis, I am considering predominantly 'animal residues' and 'other manufacturing waste' under 'manufacturing process waste' in Figure 3 above In a more detailed analysis of 2004 renewable energy consumption separated by sector

(Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Transportation, and Electric Power), sludge waste is considered in the category of 'Other Biomass,' separated from WoodIWood Waste and Municipal Solid WasteILandfill Gas Yet this "Other Biomass" category includes

"agricultural byproducts/crops, sludge waste, tires, and other biomass solids, liquids, and

gasses".16 In total, the category of "Other Biomass" (of which sludge waste is still only a portion) produced I17 of a Quadrillion Btus in 2004 out of a total 100.278, a final

contribution of I167 percent to the energy consumed in the United States during this year

Landfills also produce biogas than can similarly be harnessed for energy production While capturing the gas produced from landfilils is technically biogas and is an

increasingly explored source of renewable energy, this is not the type of biogas I explore

in my thesis Hereafter when I use the term 'biogas7 I refer to the anaerobic digestion systems functioning at farms or municipal wastewater treatment facilities, excluding landfill gas operations

Energy Problem Overview

The U.S Department of Energy notes that the fossil fuels coal, oil, and natural gas comprise 85% of the energy used by the Unite:d states.17 Fossil are consumed by U.S citizens at an increasingly unsustainable rate:

l6 Ibid http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/pae/trends/table02.pdf Viewed 1.1 1.2006

l 7 U.S Department of Energy "Fossil Fuels." http://w~~w.ener~y.gov/enerll;ysources/fossilfuels.htm

Viewed: 1.5.2006

Figure 4: United States Fossil Fuel Production/Consumption

Strategic Energy Initiative "Energy Facts, Fossil Fuel Resources."

http://www.energy.gatech.edu/fossil.html Georgia Institute of Technology Viewed 5.16.2006

Figure 5 reveals that the United States only produces about 40% of the energy it

consumes, thus requiring approximately 601% to be imported How might the U.S

reverse such a trend? There are a number ofi alternative views reacting to impending resource scarcity, some having little or noth~ing to do with renewables Some economists predict that innovation and new resource use will account for potential scarcity and prevent a crisis before it arises

While these economists, such as Julian Simon, hold the view that modern society innovates to avoid a collapse when oil resources become scarce, other individuals are skeptical Diamond notes that "optimists wlho make such claims ignore the unforeseen difficulties and long transition times regularly i n ~ o l v e d " ' ~ in switching resource use One

of the issues with such a transition is the aniount of time needed to substitute one source with another (in this case heavy oil deposits or ethanol from corn to replace conventional

-

18

Diamond, Jared "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed." Penguin Group h c New York, New York 63 2005.506

oil) This is described by David Goodstein in Ihis book "Out of Gas" as the rate-of

conversion problem: "the rising price of oil may make those alternative fuels

economically competitive, but even if they are net energy positive, it may not prove possible to get them into production fast enough to fill the growing gap."I9 Thus, even if the production of these fuels could occur at a irate to meet the declining use of

conventional oil, their sustainability is questiolnable because it relies upon increased corn production where land availability and quality of soil are questionable variables

If we cannot rely on simply switching to a similar resource (as the problem will be postponed rather than solved), reliance on innlovation is a rational measure If we are to

do so, however, the increasing consumption aind decreasing production of oil indicate that

now is the time to act Gustave Speth calls for such action in Red Sky at Morning; "We urgently need a worldwide environmental revolution in technology - a rapid ecological modernization of industry and agriculture."20 1Conservationists argue that changing

people's consumption patterns is a solution that would eliminate a need to shift resource use, but these claims do not suggest enforcement mechanisms to see through substantial reductions or take into account rising populations that would counter conservation efforts There are scientists, politicians, and industries alike who deny the existence of a crisis, yet even the U.S Department of Energy released a report on oil consumption stating that

"the world has never faced a problem like this Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary."21

l 9 Goodstein, David "Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil." W.W Norton & Company New York,

London O 2004

20

Speth, James Gustave "Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis ofthe Global Environment " Yale University Press New Haven and London O 2004

Kunstler, James Howard "The Long Emergency." Published on 24 Mar 2005 by Rolling Stone

Magazine Archived on 25 Mar 2005

Across the globe, more and more people acknowledge renewable energy as an integral part of decreasing reliance on fossil fuels Goodstein notes that "the solar power falling

on the United States alone amounts to about ten thousand times as much electric power as even Americans consume."22 While this is a magnificent suggestion, there are days when the sun doesn't shine; while anaerobic dige~~tion may not generate as much energy as other renewable sources, it is a viable alternative with untapped potential

Biogas as a Partial Solution to the Energy Problem

When discussing biogas as a remedy for energy concerns, it is useful to assess this resource based on a number of characteristics that determine how successful any one solution will be Here I address the qualities of accessibility, cost, maintenance, and environmental impact While there are likely other elements to a successful solution, I find these four most important to establish before exploring further integration of biogas systems in the U.S The actual potential for biogas production depends on the number of large dairy farms and municipal wastewater treatment facilities that can be retrofitted with systems to capture the gas and generate electricity from it I discuss the areas with the most potential for improvement in Chapter 4

To be successful, a renewable energy resource should be accessible to all individuals

In this respect, biogas is somewhat limited While the technology itself is ancient,

scientifically uncomplicated, and can be cre:ated and used by anyone (as my homemade digester indicates), larger applications require more education and attention Many farmers do not know much about the process and prefer to use traditional methods of treating waste As Forward notes, "the powers that be are entrenched in antiquated

22

Goodstein, David "Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil." W.W Norton & Company New York,

London O 2004.40

techn010~ies.l~~~ It is difficult to prove these norms wrong, especially when technologies were notoriously unreliable in the 1970s and 1980s

Anaerobic digestion is not commercially viable at the moment The goals of the Vermont Farm Methane Project, an undertaking started in 1998 by the Vermont

Department of Public Service and the Vermont Department of Agriculture to explore opportunities for farm digester projects in v e r ~ n o n t , ' ~ were to identify the barriers to widespread application and explore how to overcome those barriers.25 Project leaders wanted to see the technology self-sufficient in the marketplace In the 70s and 80s, when the technology was first developed due to rising oil prices, digesters were heavily

subsidized by the government As Forward rernarks, "when the subsidies dried up, so did the industry."26 The Vermont Farm Methane Project aimed to avoid that failure by

looking at how to make digesters self sufficient in the marketplace While their project alone, with only $700,000 in funds, did not co:me up with a complete solution, it did fund about 4 projects and helped to spread information on biogas throughout ~ e r m o n t ~ ~ Besides lack of inexpensive commercially available technologies, other barriers to biogas accessibility include lack of education and few system manufacturers Farmers and municipalities need to be educated on the specifics of the systems, the monetary returns, the benefits, and the drawbacks; when individuals know little, they are less likely

to seek the technology Furthermore, since the-re is not a great demand for the systems,

23 Forward, Jeff, formerly of the Biomass Energy Resource Center and former consultant to the Vermont

Farm Methane Project Personal Interview on 12.7.2005

24

U.S Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy "Projects by State."

http://www.eere.energy.gov/state energy proframlproiect brief detail.cfm/pb id=76 Last Updated 12.13.2005 Viewed 5.16.2006

25 Forward, Jeff, formerly of the Biomass Energy Resource Center and former consultant to the Vermont

Farm Methane Project Personal Interview on 12.7.2005

26 Ibid

Ibid

there is little production of and improvemerit in existing systems Forward notes RCM Digesters and GHD Inc are the primary companies that produce these systems With so few investing in the technology, Forward states that even if there was a market for 1,000 digesters next year, there wouldn't be anyone to build them.28 While surely increased demand would prompt manufacturers to produce these systems, the current state of

production indicates the small size of the market todaỵ

Above all, an energy solution must be ec~onomically viablẹ While this can be true for biogas, the initial investment is often high, deterring users Return on investment in a digester might take seven to ten years, but the natural process of digestion requires little maintenance, provides methane for heat and electricity, and produces a rich and

marketable compost that results naturally as a byproduct As with Foster Brother's Farm

in Vermont, this product can be sold and a whole other source of income generated Thomas Landry of the Pittsfield Waste Treatment Facility remarks, though, that one must have a market for such ventures to make it ~ o r t h w h i l e ~ ~

Though there can be issues with cleaning and maintenance, general operation of biogas systems is fairly straightforward This is advantageous, for digesters do not require much extra work once the technologies are in placẹ Regardless of the systems' apparent simplicity, however, concern over maintenance issues continues to inhibit adoption Small farmers with already stressed budgets are particularly reluctant to ađ another complication to their routinệ^' Also, it is rnore difficult to convert methane gas into

28 Ibid

29 Landry, Thomas, Chief Operator of Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant Personal Interview on

12.6.2005

30 Forward, Jeffrey W and Scruton, Dan "Vermont Methane Project Quarterly Report." 0 April 22,2002

and July 15, 2002 http:Npublicservicẹvern1ont.gov1energv-

efficiencvlee fileslmethane12nd2002.PDF 9

electricity than it is to use it for heat3' or bum it off to prevent direct release of methane into the atmosphere.32 While technology innovations make it easier to adopt digester equipment by reducing chance of failure, this is a concern nonetheless Depending on the size, municipal wastewater plants do not alwa~ys have the same operating concerns Since

biogas can only be used at a plant that already has a digester (and just needs to harness

the energy), operators of these plants are already familiar with the process and are not as wary of the technology

The final quality of a solution I establish, the environmental impact, looks favorably

on anaerobic digestion These systems have a low negative impact (releasing a miniscule fraction of the methane that would otherwise be released) and indeed many positive environmental benefits They reduce odor, decrease waste volume, and the digestion does not produce any more harmful greenhouse gasses (while C 0 2 is created along with the methane, it is not new to the earth system but was contained in the digested organic products) Furthermore, by removing nitrogen and chemicals, the digestion process makes the fertilizer byproduct even healthier for the land, reducing the potential runoff of nitrogen into waterways

One environmental concern, especially when digesting human waste, is sanitation While this is taken care of largely due to the high temperatures of the digestion process, people remain hesitant, especially in the use of the compost byproduct Furthermore, both phosphorous (predominantly from dung) and metals (from waste treatment facilities) are potentially harmful elements if spread on the earth as compost Phosphorous is

problematic in compost because it may leach into surface water and contribute to the

31 Ibid

Dethier, David Williams College Professor of Geosciences Thesis revision, 5.12.2006

production of algae which in turn chokes the fish and creates other environmental

hazards.33 There are strict regulations on levels of metals that can be used in land

application In Massachusetts these restrictions are even more stringent than federal requirements Thomas Landry of the Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant notes that their cadmium levels are too high to use the sludge on the land, so they must sent it to a plant in Connecticut for i n ~ i n e r a t i o n ~ ~ here are solutions to these issues (sanitation, phosphorous and metals levels) that are being addressed by digester manufacturers On the whole, however, biogas systems are extremely environmentally benign, especially when compared to fossil fuel burning alternatives

Chapter 1 Conclusion

While it is clear that the use of biogas is ]problematic in some respects, the technology

is improving With time and dedication of leaders and farmers (and with impending scarcity of oil reserves), ideally the technology will become more accessible and useful

on a widespread scale How to facilitate this transition before emissions restrictions, energy scarcity, or disposal expenses become too costly is uncertain Forward is

optimistic: "I think people are very concerned about energy prices," he notes, "I don't want you to be discouraged There are some: very good people working on some

innovative Before addressing how biogas can be further integrated into the social and economic system in the United States, it is useful to examine what there is to work with, what ventures are currently underway in this country In Chapter 2 I address this,

comparing the successes of United States' and European countries' initiatives

CHAIPTER 2 RESOURCES FOR BIOGAS DEVELOPMENT IN THE U.S

In this chapter I discuss the current opportunities available in the United States in order to assess the potential for integration of anaerobic digestion systems While private individuals or groups can purchase and install a digester independently, equipment is expensive and the process complicated enough that most require financial assistance to complete a project Digester projects range from $250,000 to about $500,000 and pay for themselves in 7 to 10 years While digesters are cost effective in the long term, the up front capital expenses are such that a grant program or other funding assistance is

generally needed to get the project underway.36 In this chapter I assess how much federal

vs state funding is available for anaerobic dligestion systems and how it is distributed Following an analysis of federal resources, I examine the activities of three states: California, Vermont, and Massachusetts Each of these states employs anaerobic

digestion technology in a different way with varying levels of biogas use California has both large dairy farms and municipalities that use digester technology to generate heat and electricity Vermont's activity is confined to predominantly small farms (though municipal use is on the rise) Massachusetts, with no farms of substantial size, has both large and small municipal systems; while such technologies are certainly employed in other states, Massachusetts famously harnesses this power to generate electricity Deer Island, Boston's wastewater treatment plant and the second largest in the nation, uses electricity generated by 12 digesters that use a steam turbine generator to power the plant These digesters produce enough electricity to power 1000 homes, or approximately half

of the power necessary to run the plant, saving the plant (and ultimately tax payers) 6

36 Angie, Environmental Scientist at RCM Digesters Personal Interview on 4.11.2006

million per year.37 In the next chapter I compare opportunities in the United States with European Countries' efforts to determine why the technology is successfully harnessed abroad in countries such as Germany, Denmairk, or Japan

Federal Resources

Figure 5: Federal Biogas Incentives Summary

Data from personal research and DSIRE: Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy

"Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy." http://www.dsireusa.or~/ Last Updated 5.16.2006 Viewed 5.16.2006

37 Boston Harbor Islands Partnership "A National Park Area, Renewable Energy: Installations on the

Island." http://www.bostonislands.com/manage/manae news sresd2,html Last Updated 1.3 1.2006 Viewed 2.1.2006

In the first part of this chapter I address the programs in each of the categories of federal resources detailed in Figure 5, starting with laws and policies and ending with the

Environmental Protection Agency I assess the utility or effectiveness of the programs where possible throughout my discussion

Federal Laws and Policies

The first law that had a direct impact on the potential for biogas generation was PURPA, the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act Enacted in 1978, this act mandated that utilities purchase energy from third parties at the utility's "avoided

Unfortunately PURPA did not specify what this term meant and did not mandate any renewable energy purchases It only required utilities to purchase electricity from

'qualifying utilities,' defined as: "nonutility facilities that produce electric power using cogeneration technology or renewable power plants with capacities of less than 80

M W " ~ ~ While the intent of PURPA was the right one, its inception was followed by a dearth of activity in utility restructuring Little progress was made until state utility restructuring laws (i.e the Energy Policy Act of 1992) starting in the late 1990s.~' The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 is important in that it recognizes the utility of biomass at a national level Perhaps more importantly, though, it created the National Biomass Initiative, which I address below

The Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Improvements Program, made possible

by the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, was created under the Farm Security and

38 Martinot, Eric, Wiser, Ryan, and Hrnarin, Jan "Renewable Energy Policies and Markets in the United

States." http:llwww.efchina.org/documents/RE Policies&Markets US.pdf Viewed

4.24.2006.Solutions (CRS), San Francisco, CA 1

39 Ibid, 14

Ibid

Rural Investment Act of 2002 (ạk.ạ 2002 Farm Bill) Designed for "farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses to develop renewable energy systems," $23 million was

available for M 2003 only and funded up to 25 percent of project costs.41

There is also a Corporate Tax Credit called the 'Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit' that applies to biomass among other reinewable energies Enacted in 2004 and expiring in 2008, the REPC provides a tax credit for the industrial and commercial

sectors on per kilowatt hour for "electricity generated by qualified energy resourcệ"^^ The Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) is a production incentive directed

at 'livestock methané among other renewables This was reauthorized under Section 202

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, "provides financial incentive payments for electricity produced and sold by new qualifying renewable energy generation fãilities.""~

Beyond federal laws, further funding can be found at the agency level The two

primary participants are the Departments of Agriculture and Energỵ The Department of Energýs Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has a Biomass Program boasting that 2003 was the fourth year in a row in which Biomass was the leading source

of renewable energy in the United ~ t a t e s ~ " The program references anaerobic digestion systems only briefly, noting that it is an 'Other Platform' of less importance than the 'Sugar Platform' and 'Thermochemical Platform' currently the focus of the Department

41 Ibid p 9

42 DSIRE: Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energỵ "Federal Incentives for Renewable Energỵ"

http://www.dsiseusạos~/librarv/inc1udes/enesicfedesal.cfm?State=Fedesal&CuentPaeId= 1 Last DSlRE Review 10.25.2005 Viewed 2.1.2006

43 Ibid

ỤS Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energỵ "Biomass Program, Technologies: Biomass Todaỵ" htt~:Nwww.eesẹenerã.~ov/biomasslbiomass todaỵhtm1 Last Updated: 8.10.2005 Viewed: 1.16.2006

The Biomass Programs admits to little activity in this area and directs interested parties to the AgSTAR Program run jointly by the EPA, DOE, and U S D A ~ ~

Federal Programs by Agency

The AgSTAR Program, designed to reduce methane emissions with additional

environmental benefits, is a "voluntary effort jointly sponsored by the U.S

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S Department of Agriculture, and the U.S Department of ~ n e r ~ ~ " ~ ~ The AgSTAR webpage notes the purpose of the program

is to promote "the use of methane recovery (biogas) technologies at the confined animal feeding operations that manage manure as liquids or ~lurries."~" Assistance through the AgSTAR program is limited to farm-associated projects

While it does not cover all anaerobic digestion, the AgSTAR Program is a significant step forward in promoting the use and exploration of farm-digester technology The

Program serves as a central unit for organizing dialog and progress around the technology The April 25-26,2006 AgSTAR National Conference "on the status and potential of

anaerobic digestion of animal wastes" included sections on: Project Planning, Centralized Systems, State Public Utility Regulations, Operation and Maintenance Issues, Green

Power, Available Alternatives, AgSTAR Program Resources Update, and a Performance valuation.^^ The Program itself does not provide funding but rather information,

including unique FarmWare software, "to identify appropriate systems for various farm

45

U.S Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy "Biomass Program, Technologies: Other Platforms." http://www.eere.energv.gov/biomass/other platforms.html Last Updated: 8.19.2005 Viewed: 1.16.2006

46 U.S Environmental Protection Agency "The AgSTAR Program" http://www.epa.gov/agstar/index.html

Last updated: 1.12.2006 Viewed 1.16.2006

47 Ibid

48 U.S Environmental Protection Agency "The AgSTAR Program" http://www.e~a.~ov/agstar/index.html

Last updated: 1.12.2006 Viewed 1.16.2006

types,"49 helping interested parties determine precisely how feasible and beneficial a digester will be for their operations based on manure availability, geography, cost, etc AgSTAR produces a handbook designed to help individuals assess circumstances for digester implementation Furthermore, it prornotes an 'Industry Provider List' of

"vendors and service providers available to help develop projects" in addition to the

handbook "Funding On-Farm Biogas Recovery Systems: A Guide to Federal and State Resources" which guides potential developers to the most relevant financial assi~tance.'~ There is still room for improvement in AgSTAR In a November 2001 issue of

BioCycle journal, Kurt Roos, manager of the AgSTAR Program, notes that "there is a great need for performance evaluation as the biogas industry moves f o r ~ a r d " ~ ' Roos sees a need to find a common set of criteria b:y which to judge digestion systems; in this way, technologies can be compared and improved upon in a uniform manner Roos

commends the collaboration of state programs with "evaluation components" like

California and New York with the Federal AgSTAR system, noting that such joint efforts will lead to "better technical performance, increased credibility of AD [anaerobic

digestion] technology and lower risk perception,"52 all of which will help streamline production of these systems and integrate them more regularly into society As of 2001, the AgSTAR program had "facilitated the con~struction of about 15 on-farm digesters since 1996," was working on 10 more, and saw 20 to 50 projects on the h o r i ~ o n ~ ' In the summer of 2004, AgSTAR reported a 30% increase in "the number of operational

49

U.S Environmental Protection Agency "Frequent Questions" http://www.epa.aov/aastar/faq.html#9 Last updated: 4.6.2005 Viewed 1.16.2006

50 Ibid

51 Goldstein, Jerome "Renewable Energy Revs Up: Commercial Infrastructure Takes Shape for Anaerobic

Digestion." BioCycle, November 2001 p 27

52 Ibid

53 ROOS, Kurt F "Farm Scale Anaerobic Digestion - Past, Present and Future." BioCycle, November 2001

p 29

digester systems."54 The increased number of digesters is impressive, but it should be noted that the first three bars represent decaclal means while the fourth displays only one year's results (see Figure 6)

Figure 6: Impact of AgSTAR on the Number of Digesters in the U.S

U.S Department of Agriculture, AgSTAR Program "Accomplishments."

http://www.epa.gov/agstar/accomplish.html Last Updated 3.8.2006 Viewed 4.24.2006

Department of Agriculture

Since 1988, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) grants, under the USDA, have funded over 2500 projects55 to "assist farmers in adopting sustainable agricultural practices to improve profits, protect the environment, and enhance quality of life." These grants fall under the categories (of Research and Education Projects (awarded

at levels of $60,000 - $150,000), Producer Grant Projects (awarded at levels $1,000 to

$15,000), and Professional Development Projects (awarded at levels of $20,000 to

54 U.S Environmental Protection Agency "The AgSTAR Program: Accomplishments."

htt~~://www.epa.gov/agstar/index.html Last updated: 1.12.2006 Viewed 1.16.2006

'' U.S Department of Agriculture "Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education: SARE Regions."

http://www.sare.org/about/regions.htm Viewed 5.16.2006

$90,000):~ and are distributed in four regions (North Central, Northeast, Southern, and Western, see Figure 7 below)57:

Figure 7: SARE Grant Regions

U S Department of Agriculture "Sustainable Agricuiture Research and Education: SARE Regions." http://www.sare.org/about/regions.htm Viewed 1.116.2006

Within the regions, projects are selected by committees of farmers, ranchers, university representatives, govelnment officials, and agribusiness and nonprofit organizations.58 Administered by the USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) division, SARE will award approximately 15 million dollars in total These funds have not been fully administered and do not have a deadline.59 Awards range from $500.00 to $200,000.00 and none of the Applications for FY 2004 were awarded.60

56 U.S Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

"Funding Opportunities: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program."

htt~://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/fundview.cfm?fonum= 1 130 Last Updated: 1.28.2005 Viewed: 1.16.2006

57 U.S Department of Agriculture "Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education: About."

htt~://www.sare.ora/about/ Viewed 1.16.20016

58 Ibid

59 U.S Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

"Funding Opportunities: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program."

http:Nwww.csrees.usda.govlfo/fundview.cfm?fonum=1130 Last Updated: 1.28.2005 Viewed: 1.16.2006

Ibid

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, is a grant run by the

USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Se:rvice The purpose of the fund is to promote

"agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible goals"; it was expanded under the 2002 Farm Security and Rural Invlestment Act (a.k.a 'Farm Bill') which

mandated that sixty percent of EQIP funds be used for animal operations.61 Funds are distributed differently by state (see Figure 8 below) where California and Texas receive the most (40 to 100 million) while the Northeast, Nevada, and Alaska receive

comparatively little (1 to 15 million)62:

U.S Environmental Protection Agency, AgStar Energy and Pollution Prevention "Funding On-Farm Biogas Recovery Systems: A Guide to Federal and State Resources."

http://www.epa.gov/agstar/pdf/ag fund doc.pdf Viewed 1.16.2006 p 4

62 U.S Department o f - ~ ~ r i c u l t u r e : Natural Resources Conservation Services "EY - 2005 Conservation

Program Allocations to States by Program."

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/2005 allocations/index.html Last Updated: 7.20.2005 Viewed 1.16.2005

-. FT-2005 EQlP Allocations to States

L-z 1 .ODO.ODii - 15,G@2,3@0

1?5.DOo.h31 - 22.Dati.CW

gjjgq 22.000,mr - so.m,ooct 30.000.OJ9 - *0.000,006

40.000 03101 - 100000.030

Figure 8: EQIP Grant Program Allocations by State

Natural Resources Conservation Service "FY-2005 Conservation Program Allocations to States by Program." http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/200~5 allocations/ Last Updated 3.30.2006 Viewed 5.16.2006

Funds can cover up to 75 percent of "certain conservation practices" while "limited resource producers and beginning farmers and ranchers can be eligible for cost-share funding up to 90 percent."63 Grants are awarded based on environmental and cost considerations and are distributed by "state c o n s e r ~ a t i o n i s t s , ' ~ ~ a position within the

U S D A ~ ~

-

63 U.S Environmental Protection Agency, AgStar Energy and Pollution Prevention "Funding On-Farm

Biogas Recovery Systems: A Guide to Federal and State Resources."

http://www.epa.~ov/agstar/pdf/ag fund doc.pdf Viewed 1.16.2006 p 4

64 Ibid

65 Dethier, David Williams College Professor of Geosciences Thesis revision, 5.12.2006

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service is an agency within the Department of Agriculture Created in 1994 as part of the Department

Reorganization Act, the mission of CSREES is to "advance knowledge for agriculture, the environment, human health and well-being, and communities by supporting research, education, and extension programs" and it provides funding and program leadership at state and local levels to these ends.66

The Department of Agriculture also administers the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program created under the 2002 Farm Bill; this

mentions anaerobic digestion technology splecifically and covers 25% of project costs in a grant (limited to $500,000.00) and can cover 50% in a loan (limited to $10 million) Outlined by Section 9006 of the 2002 Farm Bill, this program, which began in 2003 and expires in 2007, is aimed at "agricultural producers and rural small businesses to

purchase renewable-energy systems and make energy-efficiency improvements."67

66 U.S Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State, Research, Education, and Extension Service

"CSREES Background." http://www.csrees.usda.gov/about/back~ound.html Last Updated: 10.6.2005 Viewed: 1.17.2006

67 Ibid

Ibid p 6

Ibid

category: the Pacific Northwest and Alaska Region focuses on bio-refinery processes, while the Western Region has "a special emphasis on small municipalities and rural

c o m m ~ n i t i e s " ~ ~ Individual region websites were difficult to navigate

While biogas potential is mentioned by the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of the DOE, it is little explored Opportunities for funding through the DOE Biomass Program can be found in the 'financial opportunities' section where there are links to potential sources of funding One, to the Department of Energy's e-Center

('Business and Financial Assistance Opportunities with Energy'), permits browsing opportunities by program office, i.e EERE

Environmental Protection Agency

The role of the EPA in promoting digester development is less than either the

Department of Agriculture or the Department of Energy The EPA is a part of AgSTAR While the EPA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 did not place restrictions particularly targeting methane release, they did encourage utility purchase of renewable energies (see Figure 5)

Section 3 19 of the 1987 Federal Clean Water Act which mandates that "states assess nonpoint source pollutions problems, establish programs to address them, and provide funding to support the programs."71 Funding is provided through the EPA for these programs and is directed towards nonpoint sources of pollution such as urban runoff or

70 U.S Environmental Protection Agency, AgStar Energy and Pollution Prevention "Funding On-Farm

Biogas Recovery Systems: A Guide to Federal and State Resources."

httv://www.epa.gov/agstar/pdf/ag fund doc.vdf Viewed 1.16.2006 pp 6-7

" University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources "Reference: Water Pollution

Control Legislation." ANR Publication 8088 FWQP Reference Sheet 8.1

ht~:Ngroundwater.ucdavis.edu/Publicationsarter FWQFS 8088.pdf O 2003 Regents of the

University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Viewed: 1.23.2006

agriculture, where anaerobic digestion systems play a role in reducing environmental impacts of waste disposal

Combined Agency Effort: National Biomass Initiative

The National Biomass Initiative is self described as the "the multi-agency effort to coordinate and accelerate all Federal biobased products and bioenergy research and development,"72 and is an integral federal resource for biomass funding Run by the Departments of Energy and Agriculture and formed in 2000 by the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000, the Initiative website provides links to various

opportunities for funding under the 'solicitations' heading 73

One of these solicitations, administered by the CSREES, is called the National

Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program Opening October 17, 2005, this

Program made $183 million available in support of "high priority fundamental and

mission-linked research of importance in the biological, environmental, physical, and social sciences relevant to agriculture, foodl, and the environment'' as well as

"competitively awarded research, extension, and education grants addressing key issues

of national and regional importance to agrilculture, forestry, and related Other opportunities listed through the National Biomass Initiative are the Small Business

Innovation Research Program, the Energy Innovations Small Grant Program out of

California, and Continuing Solicitation for the Office of Science (DOE) where

72

U.S Department of Energy, National Biomass Initiative "Biomass Research and Development Initiative: About the Initiative." http://www.bioproducts-bioenergv.gov/about Website built and managed

by BSC, Incorporated Viewed: 1.17.2006

73 U.S Department of Energy, National Biomass Initiative "Biomass Research and Development Initiative:

Solicitations." http://www.bioproducts-bioenerev.~ov/solicitations/solicitations.asp Website built and managed by BSC, Incorporated Viewed: 1.17.2006

74 U.S Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

"Funding Opportunities: National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program."

http://www.csrees.usda.~ov/fo/fundview.cfm?fonum=ll12 Last Updated: 1.13.2006 Viewed: 1.17.2006

applications are continually accepted for grants "supporting basic energy science research

in the natural sciences and engineering areas, leading to new and improved energy

technologies and to understanding and mitigating the environmental impacts of energy technologies."75

State activities go beyond federal efforts, often using federal funding opportunities to meet more specific state needs This paper now examines the states of California,

Vermont, and Massachusetts' policies and activities in developing biogas technologies in order to gain an understanding of the relative importance of state versus Federal activity

in promoting biogas usage This evaluation of state and federal programs will help to explain why some policies andlor practices are more successful than others

State Analysis: California, Vermont, Massa~~husetts

Reviewing state activities and policies helps illustrate how biogas technology is utilized

in the U.S While this analysis is limited in scope, it explores what types of policies and practices are in use and, through comparison, how successful these measures are For each state I review the general renewable energy policy and biomass/biogas activity in particular I then assess the resources and programs for biogas development in each state, categorizing the latter by type of assistance: net metering, grantslloans, taxlproduction incentives, and rebates I also examine non-governmental initiatives in each state and conclude with a summary of state activity at the conclusion of each study

State Resource Summary

State incentives for biogas development come predominantly from state legislatures and regulations regarding utility purchase of renewable energy resources These are

'' Ibid