The Role of Solid Waste and Climate Change: Perspectives from the Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions Amy Banister – Waste Management
Introduction
• • • • •
What is SWICS? Waste Industry Emission Sources Inventorying GHG Emissions Emerging Climate Change Programs Issues and Challenges
Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions (SWICS)
• •
Informal coalition of solid waste stakeholders Established 1/2007 to provide technical and policy feedback to California agencies on designing and implementing GHG programs Support development of GHG inventory/reporting systems based on accurate data that recognize source reductions/beneficial use Formal written and oral comments on California AB32 implementation, CCAR, and TCR protocols Meetings with CARB, CCAR, and USEPA
•
•
•
What is the Big Picture?
•
Landfill CH4 emissions are estimated to be the largest source of anthropogenic CH4 emissions in the United States. However, the waste industry is estimated to be a relatively small contributor to GHG emissions: • Globally <5%1 • US ~3%2 • Canada ~4%3
•
1IPCC,
AR4, WGIII, 2007 2006 3Environment Canada, 2006
2 NSWMA,
GHG Pollutants and Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Solid Waste Management GHG Sources and Sinks
Source
?
Source Sink
Source Sink
Sink
Calculating GHG Emissions
•
Fuel Consumption (on and off road)
• • •
Fuel supplier records Site-level fuel purchase records/Controller tax reports Emission factors based on type of fuel and VMT Electricity, heat and steam (Kwh usage or MMBtu usage) Utility Bills Emission factors based on usage rates and generation type
•
Energy Consumption
• • •
•
Recycling (avoided emissions)
Calculating GHG Emissions
•
Combustion (and Electric Power Transmission?)
WTE • Site records of waste tonnage, default emission factor • Site records of electricity sold • LFGTE and Flaring • Site records of LFG flow and methane concentration • Site records of electricity sold
•
Calculating GHG Emissions
•
Landfill Fugitive Emissions • Site records of LFG flow and methane concentration • LFG generation is modeled (e.g., LANDGem) • Default factors for methane oxidation and fugitives • Published/on-going research on measuring net emissions (oxidation, sequestration, fugitive)
Emerging Regulatory Programs
• • • • •
Voluntary or Mandatory GHG Inventorying Capping GHG Emissions for Selected Sectors GHG Offset or Allowance Trading Carbon Taxes Biofuels or Engine Mandates
•
CAFE increased 40% by 2020 National RPS? Low carbon fuel standard?
•
Incentives for New Technology & Renewable Energy
•
Federal Action to Date
Most likely Climate legislation will:
•
Regulate fossil fuel producers by having them purchase GHG emission allowances based on the carbon content of the fuel produced; and Cap GHG emissions of large stationary fossil fuel users and major industrial GHG sources and allow trading of offsets to comply. Congress not likely to pass law before 2009, but may decide regulatory approach next year
•
•
Federal Action to Date
• Senate EPW reported out Lieberman-Warner S. 2191 cap & trade bill early December, full Senate won’t vote on it without significant negotiations—later in 2008 • House E&C issuing papers framing legislative issues, bill introduction Winter/Spring 2008 • Congressional passage of bill unlikely before 2009
Environment Canada Climate Plan
• •
CY2006 baseline GHG inventory due 5/31/08 National intensity-based cap and trade system
• •
Reduce intensity by 34% by 2020 from 2006 levels First milestone is 2010 Internal reductions Inter-company allowance trading Purchase CDM credits (10% limit) Early action credits (capped at 15 mil tonnes ) Invest in TIF (C$15/tonne) Purchase domestic offset
•
Possible compliance options include:
• • • • • •
•
Offset system rules due Spring 2008
The Climate Registry
•
Currently, 39 U.S. States, 4 Canadian Provinces, 3 Mexican States, and 3 Tribes creating uniform GHG inventory rules and reporting system. TCR Rules will be template for most, if not all, state reporting programs. WM and others in waste sector participating on the Stakeholder Advisory Committee or commenting on draft protocols
•
•
The Climate Registry – General Reporting Protocol (GRP)
•
GRP for voluntary emissions reporting (draft)
• •
All 6 GHGs annually Entity-wide emissions from North American operations at facility level Direct, indirect emissions AND Biogenic emissions Above de minimis (>3%)
• •
• •
Third Party verification required Public disclosure of facility-level data
SWICS Perspective
• •
Support standardization of inventorying protocols Protocol development process not transparent/inclusive of stakeholders Draft general reporting protocol very stringent and labor intensive Third Party verification not logistically or financially feasible Disagree with required reporting of biogenic emissions Support entity-level reporting, not facility-level reporting
De minimis level is too stringent/not consistent with other registries
•
• • •
•
Western Climate Initiative
• • • • •
Regional Goal: Aggregate reduction of 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. Multi-sector market-based mechanisms All sectors targeted - includes transportation, waste management and energy supply By August 2008, design recommendations for regional cap-and-trade program Stakeholder input via 5 subcommittees: reporting, scope, electricity, allocations, and offsets.
• •
Teleconference 12/6/2007 Public workshops starting 2008
Alberta Regulation 251/2004: Climate Change and Emissions Management Act
•
Effective July 1, 2007, Alberta facilities that directly emit more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2e/year must: Submit certified annual inventory reports; and Reduce emissions intensity by 12%.
• • •
• •
Operating improvements Buy Alberta-based credits; or Contribute to the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund.
•
Biomass CO2 emissions excluded
California Global Warming Act of 2006 (AB32)
•
Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 Requires statewide cap on GHG emissions starting 2012 CARB to establish mandatory reporting system By 1/1/2008, CARB must define 1990 GHG emissions baseline
• • •
CARB Landfill Inventory Protocol
•
CARB inventory protocol for landfills:
•
Uses LFG recovery data and default collection efficiency to determine uncollected gas (75%) Default methane oxidation factor (10%) applied to uncollected gas All LFG combustion devices are assumed to have the same destruction efficiency regardless of type (98%) Considers CO2 biogenic Includes carbon sequestration as in informational item only; does not consider actual emission reduction
•
•
• •
Overview of SWICS Inventory Methodology for Landfills
•
Follows CARB methane emission calculation equation but refines default values based on site data and research Collection Efficiency
• •
•
Based on cover type and (Subtitle D) liner Allows for adjustment based on site monitoring data and system performance 50% default assumed where no GCCS installed
•
Overview of SWICS Inventory Methodology for Landfills
•
Methane Oxidation Factors
•
Based on cover type per area • Daily, intermediate, final, and biocovers Account for increased oxidation from improved covers like biocovers Expressed as percentage and g/m2/day
•
•
SWICS Methane Destruction Efficiency
•
Uses values based on source tests from 2003 to 2007 of flares, engines, and turbines Based on type of control device (flare, engine, or turbine)
Device Type Flare Engine Turbine Destruction Efficiency 99.96% 98.34% 99.97%
•
SWICS Carbon Sequestration Methodology
• •
Reflects carbon mass balance for the landfill Can use site specific waste characterization data if available or statewide data Uses carbon storage factors specific to each refuse component Includes factors for more than just wood waste Suggests inclusion as emission reduction or avoided emissions
•
• •
Comparison of Values
Parameter Methane capture efficiency Methane oxidation in cover Methane destruction efficiency Carbon storage value CARB Default Value 75% 10% 98% SWICS Value 50%-99% 22.70%-53.33% 98.34%-99.97%
Combination of EPA, Several waste dependant IPCC, and CEC factors. storage factors 50% of degradable organic carbon for most waste
CARB Mandatory Reporting
• • •
CY2008 emissions inventory reportable in 2009 All electric generating plants 1MW+ (including biomass) All fossil-fuel combustion sources emitting 25k+ tons CO2 (including biomass) Waste sector impact:
• •
•
LFGTE and WTE projects Flares
•
Third Party verification required – when????
SWICS Perspective
• •
Formal comments submitted September 2007 Streamlining issues
• • •
Use existing inventorying and reporting processes (e.g., CCAR) Focus on highest emitting sectors first Exempt biogenic sources from reporting
•
Recommended that renewable sources of electricity be exempt
CARB Early Action Measures
Regulatory process – effective no later than January 1, 2010 • Landfills only sector to reduce GHG emissions from 1990 levels
•
•
Landfills 1.5% of 1990 statewide GHG inventory, but….
Further reductions required (based on old inventory data!) • June 2007 – CARB approved improved gas capture measures
•
Increase CH4 capture efficiency (earlier GCCS installation?) • Require GCCS installation at smaller landfills • Increase SEM or lower limit
•
Anticipate CARB Hearing Q4-2008 • Transportation Sector (Diesel trucks/engines)
•
SWICS Perspective
• • •
Submitted formal comments May 2007 Organics diversion from landfills/alternative management Should defer LFG capture efficiency requirement until research completed Promote Renewable Energy/remove barriers to development Credit for increased recycling No “one size fits all” approach / need compliance flexibility Include various options for exemptions
• • • •
Issues and Challenges
•
Solid waste GHG emissions are decreasing; however new reduction requirements likely Accurate assessment of all SW management practices Policymaking is outpacing technical tools and data
•
• •
Refinement of LFG emissions data and use of site-specific data
•
Inventory protocols not defined for most waste management activities; no global agreement on inventory protocols Landfill emission protocols should appropriately reflect carbon sequestration & methane oxidation
•
Issues and Challenges
• • •
Biogenic power recognition and credit Organics diversion/alternative management options Timeline is accelerating; CA AB 32 and Alberta Rules in place, regional registries formed, other states in rulemaking process Trade Associations not educated on policy/technical issues Does “What happens in CA stay in CA” ?
• •
In Closing . . .
It’s going to be another busy and interesting
Will GHGs drive recycling and other waste reduction initiatives? Will biogenic emissions be regulated? New protocol/models for fugitive landfill emissions? Recognition of sequestration? Additional regulatory requirements? Will Waste-to-Energy be revitalized?