08 03 06 cmag meetiing minutes by r45PE72

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 7

									                               Meeting Notes
                               August 3, 2006
                   DCNR Carbon Management Advisory Group


Participants:

Mike DiBerardinis, DCNR Secretary
John Quigley, DCNR
John Harper, DCNR
Paul Roth, DCNR
Jim Smith, USDA Forest Service
Bill Bragonier, USDA Forest Service
Ken Manno, PA Sustainable Forestry Initiative
Brian Gallagher, Western PA Conservancy
Greg Czarneki, DCNR
Sally Just, DCNR
David Hess, Holston & Crisci
Blaine Puller, Collins Pine
Jim Grace, DCNR
Matt Azeles, PA State Parks
Sue Felker, DCNR
Dan Desmond, DEP
Elizabeth Martin, NRDC
Bob McKinstry, PSU
Larry Williamson, DCNR
Sam Berkheiser, DCNR
John Norbeck, DCNR
Joe Sherrick, DEP
Ron Ramsey, The Nature Conservancy
Dylan Jenkins, TNC
Paul Lyskava, PA Forest Products Association
Will Price, Pinchot Institute
John Hanger, PennFuture
Tom Peterson, Center for Climate Strategies
Karl Hausker, Center for Climate Strategies
Brian Hill, PEC
Scott Van de Mark, PEC




   1. Welcome & Introductions
2. Opening Remarks by Secretary DiBerardinis

Secretary DiBerardinis opened the meeting by thanking those in attendance for their
willingness to assist the agency in this new phase of its stewardship mission. He
noted that the scientific debate over global warming is over, and that it represents the
biggest long term threat to Pennsylvania’s natural heritage, and perhaps to our world.
He said that as a major emitter of global warming pollution, Pennsylvania has an
obligation to advance solutions, and he believes Pennsylvania’s public lands can play
a key role, and in so doing help DCNR to advance its mission. He also noted the
importance of involving DCNR’s stakeholders, Federal agencies and NGO partners,
the academic community, and sister agency DEP in this collaborative planning effort.
He concluded by stating that he was pleased to be partnering with PEC and the Center
for Climate Strategies in this planning effort.

3. Opening Remarks by Brian Hill:

Mr. Hill thanked the DCNR for launching the Carbon Management planning process
and the member of the Carbon Management Advisory Group for their participation in
the process. Mr. Hill suggested that PA is well positioned to make significant
progress in developing carbon and geologic sequestration by virtue of its’ abundant
geologic sinks and forest lands and its significant current carbon footprint.

4. Review of the Agenda

5. Review of the Carbon Management Advisory Group Process:

Using a Powerpoint presentation, Tom Peterson provided background information on
greenhouse gas emissions in PA and its current rank as the 24th largest source of GHG
emissions in the world and information regarding other state climate mitigation
policies across the United States.

It was noted that the Nature Conservancy is a participant in the Northeast Carbon
Feasibility Project, including PA, and can provide assistance to the DCNR Carbon
Management Process regarding that research effort.

Mr. Peterson presented a draft “catalog” of state level GHG reduction policy options
that is not complete and asked that CMAG members review the list and propose
additional options as a homework assignment for the next meeting of the CMAG on
October 23, 2006.

Mr. Peterson suggested that the ideal solutions for climate change have multiple co-
benefits including economic development.

Ms. Alison Bailie, via speaker phone, provided a review of the draft PA GHG
Emissions Inventory and Reference Case Projections document published by the
Center for Climate Strategies on behalf of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council.
The Reference Case Projections assume that electricity consumption and GHG
emission rates will continue to increase based on current trends.

It was noted that 25% of the electricity generated in Pennsylvania is exported to
neighboring states and that the inventory document addresses both consumption and
production based data for electrical generation. It was also noted that for the
purposes of the Carbon Management project, that all greenhouse gases are converted
to carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units.

Mr. Jim Smith provided a summary of the Forestry sector covered in the draft
Inventory document. It was explained that on an annual basis, forest growth and
conversion to wood products in PA results in approximately 15 million metric tons of
carbon sequestration offsetting approximately 350 million metric tons of CO2e
emissions per year in PA

Mr. Peterson invited all CMAG members to review the comment and provide
comments and questions about the draft document in advance of the October 23rd
meeting of the CMAG.

Mr. John Harper provided the Group with a summary of geologic sequestration
potential in PA based on ongoing research by the DCNR in cooperation with the
Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership.

Mr. Harper cited the Oriskany sandstone formation as having significant potential for
geologic carbon sequestration. Mr. Harper also noted that approximately 10% of the
capacity of deep saline aquifers in Pennsylvania could provide 250 years worth of
carbon sequestration at current PA GHG emission rates.

Mr. Harper cautioned that any specific geologic sequestration projects would require
a thorough site evaluation.

It was noted that conventional coal and natural gas fired electric generating plants are
not designed for advanced carbon capture and sequestration and that the
modernization and conversion of conventional capacity to integrated gasification
combined cycle facilities and the implementation of the EDGE Initiative are beyond
the scope of the CMAG process.

Some concerns were raised regarding geologic carbon sequestration as a proven
technology, leakage and the need for more research and pilot testing projects.


Mr. Harper informed the group about a MRCSP carbon sequestration pilot project at
the R.E. Burger Power Plant near Shadyside, Ohio, which can inform the CMAG
process.
Mr. John Hanger mentioned a proposed coal liquefaction project in Schuylkill County
that may be an excellent demonstration site for a geologic sequestration at a new
facility. Mr. John Quigley said that DCNR is interested in helping to inform
discussion about this.

It was stressed that the DCNR is very interested in implementing pilot sequestration
projects in PA in coordination with the CMAG process.

The question of ownership of mineral rights on DCNR owned lands was discussed. It
was estimated that the DCNR owns the mineral rights to approximately 80% of
DCNR of state forest, game and park lands. In order to confirm this estimate, there is
a need to identify where and to what extent the state owns mineral rights associated
with its surface ownership.


The CMAG should take a look at chemical sequestration as a possibility – Bob
McKinstry cited a new patented approach from a Penn State student.


The Group needs to consider long-term liability/responsibility associated with
sequestration (who – should state assume the liability). NRDC representative said
that some states, such as Texas, are doing this.

Pipeline and footprint issues related to geologic sequestration should also be
examined.

It was suggested that the DEP Oil & Gas Division may have some advice/knowledge
about potential liabilities associated with geologic sequestration.

It was reiterated that the CMAG members are invited to submit ideas and suggestions
and comments for the Catalog of state policy actions so that the Group can begin
prioritizing those actions leading ultimately to policy recommendations.
It was suggested that many of the oil and gas wells drilled since 1968 could be
candidates for carbon sequestration. However it was noted that most oil and gas well
don’t extend to a depth below 2,000 feet and that CO2 turns from a liquid to a gas
phase above depths of 2,100 feet below ground. Therefore, it was recommended that
CO2 be injected into formations such as saline aquifers below 2,100 feet.

It was recommended that the CMAG explore how to promote the implementation of
the EDGE program and IGCC in PA in order to enable carbon capture and
sequestration at those facilities. However, it was reiterated that the focus of the
CMAG effort is on those policies and programs that can be implemented directly by
DCNR and that are specifically related to the public lands and DCNR core mission
programs. The CMAG will consult with DEP representatives in the Group about
informing discussion and policy development relating to the promotion of these
technologies. It was also noted that there are significant opportunities for carbon
sequestration through changes in conventional agricultural practices and that possible
coordination with the PA Department of Agriculture should be considered by the
CMAG.

It was recommended that the CMAG member list be posted to the DCNR Carbon
Management Plan webpage.

While discussing possible options for increasing forest carbon sequestration, it was
recommended that the Group analyze the economics associated with privately owned
forest management in order to tailor policies that both economically benefit private
owners and maximize carbon sequestration.

Continuing with the discussion of private forest management options, it was
suggested that aggregators of carbon offset credits can play a critical role in
facilitating a more liquid marketplace for credits. This lesson can be learned by
studying water quality credit trading markets including the emerging nutrient trading
market in the Susquehanna and Potomac watersheds in PA.

It was recommended that DCNR should consider how sustainable
management/carbon management information and best practices can be disseminated
to landowners who own smaller parcels

Maintaining and improving regeneration and forest health were stressed as a critical
elements of a forest carbon management plan and that it could represent as much as
10-20% of potential carbon sequestration in PA. Consideration of urban forests was
recommended.

It was pointed out that afforestation can be a very expensive process and cost as much
$800 per acre.

In reference to slide 108 of the Powerpoint presentation “Forestry Issues – Key
Decisional Issues”, it was suggested that the following two points be added to this
slide:
     Effect of policy on existing timber markets
     Effect of policy on forest composition and productivity

It was noted that approximately 13-15 million tons of CO2 are currently sequestered
in PA forests and that additional in-depth analysis of this inventory may not be
warranted given its scale relative to annual GHG emissions – offsetting about 4% of
annual emissions – and the difficulty and expense.

It was recommended that additional clarification is needed regarding the definition
and assumptions associated with the category of “forest floor and coarse woody
debris” and forestry waste and residue.
It was recommended that a conference call be scheduled, before the end of August
2006, with forestry experts and forest industry representatives to discuss and clarify
the forestry data and assumptions included in the draft inventory and by DCNR staff.
Specifically, Ken Manno, Blaine Puller, Jim Smith, and Rich Birdsey should be
included in the call to address any question relating to assumptions in the forest
projections and models such as forcarb and hard carb.

PEC and CCS will provide relevant “hardcarb” and “forcarb” data available to the
Group.

Mr. Joe Sherrick provided an update to the CMAG regarding PA’s participation as an
observer to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) process and the Eastern
Climate Registry (ECR).

It was suggested that the CMAG track the progress of the RGGI and ECR and
identify policy implications for carbon sequestration in PA.

A concern was raised that regional carbon markets and registries should provide
“baseline protection” to early adopters in all sectors.

Under “Crosscutting Opportunities”, the Group should look at funding that has
multiple impacts – federal farm bill, federal AML legislation, clean coal and biomass
tax credits in federal Energy Policy Act of 2004, and state AEPS program, to name a
few. It was also suggested that consideration be given to the existence of emission
reduction goals and the impact of such goals on DCNR’s carbon planning effort.


6. Next Steps for CMAG:

The next meeting for the CMAG will take place in Room 105 at the Rachel Carson
Building on Monday, October 23 at 9AM.

Homework Assignment: CMAG members are asked to review the Catalog of State
Options and provide comments on existing options and identity additional options to
potentially include in the catalog.

Following our first meeting of the Pennsylvania Carbon Management Advisory
Group (CMAG), a series of five teleconference meetings will be held to discuss
forestry and geologic resources issues in more detail and to prepare for the next
CMAG meeting on October 23, 2006. Two calls each will be held for forestry and
geologic resources sectors, as well as holding a special forest products call, to
accomplish the following objectives:

1) Review the draft greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory and forecasts for each sector to
   determine if any revisions or additional details are needed to support the CMAG
   planning process. This will include detailed review of data sources, methods and
   key assumptions.
2) Review the list of potential carbon management options from the CCS Catalog of
   States Actions to determine if any potential actions for DCNR consideration are
   missing. In addition to adding options that may be missing from the current list,
   we also will begin early ranking of the potential of options to support decisions on
   priorities at the next CMAG meeting.
3) Review wood products carbon storage measurement issues related to the carbon
   stock inventory provided by the US Forest Service at the first CMAG meeting.
   Any potential revisions to the US Forest Service FORCARB and WOODCARB
   assessments related to wood products carbon sinks and flows will be identified at
   this call.

These calls will be used to prepare for the second CMAG meeting in order to identify
a set of draft potential carbon management options for further development. They will
cover issues and options related to both forestry and geologic resources issues, as well
as discussion of cross cutting issues (reporting, registries and education) that relate to
both. They also will cover any key inventory and forecast issues identified in the
interim teleconference calls, if needed. Details of these calls will be distributed in
advance to CMAG members.



7. Meeting Adjourned

								
To top