Comment Log Display

Livestock Protocol – Summary of Evidence
AB 32 Offsets Challenge – Public Comments on October 18, 2011 
Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, as individuals and as volunteers
for Citizens Climate Lobby
Summary of Evidence that Proposed Greenhouse Gas Offset Protocols
and Regulations do not meet the AB 32 Integrity Criteria
Standard in Protocol:
The proposed Livestock Project Protocol would provide offset
credits for projects that are above “common practice” in the
relevant geographic region.  This is contrary to the AB 32
Integrity Criteria described below. 

AB 32 Integrity Criteria:

“(d) Any regulation adopted by the state board pursuant to this
part or Part 5 (commencing with Section 38570) shall ensure all
of the following:
(1) The greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved are real,
permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable by the state
board.
(2) For regulations pursuant to Part 5 (commencing with
Section 38570), the reduction is in addition to any greenhouse
gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation,
and any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that otherwise
would occur.

(See AB 32 at Section 38562(d).)

Evidence of Failure to Meet Integrity Criteria:  
1.	 Anaerobic Digesters are Already Being Used without Offset
Payment Incentive:
USDA News Release July 19, 2010:  Release No. 0377.10:  “The
technology uses generators that are fueled by methane captured from
farm animal manure.  Currently, only about 2 percent of U.S.
dairies that are candidates for a profitable digester are utilizing
the technology.” (Att. 1 at page 1.) 
2.	Anaerobic Digesters are Often Cost-Effective:
A.	Collaboration by EPA, USDA and DOE, the Agstar Program: 
EPA Factsheet:  Managing Manure with Biogas Recovery Systems: 
Improved Performance at Competitive Prices (2002): Presents the
reasons that anaerobic digesters can be cost-effective, see e.g.
“Anaerobic digestion is cost-competitive when compared to
conventional waste management practices.  For example, the cost of
both a covered lagoon and heated digester (including an attached
storage pond) ranges between $200 and $450 per AU [animal unit]. 
These systems can have financially attractive payback periods of 3
to 7 years when energy gas uses are employed.” (Att. 2 at page 8.) 
“Odor Control.  The effluent odor from anaerobic digesters is
significantly less than odors from conventional manure management
systems.  Odor reduction using anaerobic digestion can be very
cost-effective when compared to other alternatives such as
aeration.”  (Att. 2 at p.6).  Water quality protection.  Anaerobic
digestion provides several water quality benefits . . .especially
heated digesters isolate and destroy disease-causing organisms that
might otherwise enter surface waters and pose a risk to human and
animal health.” (Att. 2 at p.7.)
EPA Agstar Study: A Comparison of the Performance of Three Swine
Waste Stabilization Systems. (March 20, 2002.)  Environmental
benefits are documented in use of an anaerobic digester system. 
Some cost information is also collected. (Att. 3 )

EPA Agstar: A Comparison of Dairy Cattle Manure Management with and
without Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Recovery, by Eastern
Research Group, Inc., 2004.  Describes economic viability (Att. 4
at pp. 35-36). 

EPA Agstar Handbook (2005): Provides advice concerning how to
evaluate whether and what type of system will be profitable. (Att.
5).
EPA Agstar: An Evaluation of a Covered Anaerobic Lagoon for Flushed
Dairy Cattle Manure Stabilization and Biogas Production, by Eastern
Research Group, Inc., June 17, 2008.  The results of this study
confirm the environmental quality benefits realized by the
anaerobic digestion of dairy cattle manure with biogas collection
for the generation of electricity. These results also confirm that
the economic value of the electricity generated can be adequate to
recover the capital investment in a reasonable period and then
generate a long-term income stream if there is a reasonable rate of
compensation for surplus electricity delivered to the grid.” Study
of “Castelanelli Brothers Dairy; a 550-acre operation located Lodi,
California. The study began in January 2006 and ended in January
2007. Generally, the size of the Castelanelli milking herd is
between 1,500 and 1,600 cows.”   “Economic Impact:  $108,000 per
year after recovery of capital invested in 6.6 years). (Att.6, p.
8-9 of 46.)

EPA Agstar/USDA: U.S. Anaerobic Digester Status Report. (October
2010.) “Biogas recovery systems are technically feasible at more
than 8,000 U.S. dairy and swine operations. These systems offer a
substantial business opportunity to increase farm income by
offsetting energy purchases or through the sale of produced energy
back onto the electricity grid.” EPA estimates that 157 digester
projects were operating on commercial scale livestock facilities
nationwide as of this report.  The report also provides updated
information on federal grant and loan programs. (Att. 7 p. 4 of
12.)

EPA Agstar Study – Protocol for Quantifying and Reporting the
Performance of Anaerobic Digestion Systems for Livestock Manure,
March 2011 by Eastern Research Group, Inc., cites numerous benefits
of such digesters, including reduced methane emissions (and
associated climate impacts), reduced noxious odors, reduced water
pollution potential, renewable energy production and revenue. (Att.
8 at p.7 of 48.)

B.	USDA Factsheet: Funding Programs for Developing Anaerobic
Digestion Systems. April 2011.   USDA describes a variety of grant
and loan programs that are already in place to encourage adoption
of livestock waste digesters. (Att. 9.) 
3.	Anaerobic Digesters Help Farmers Avoid Liability:  As noted
above, anaerobic digesters can help control odor and run-off of
contaminants.  Farmers have an incentive to adopt anaerobic
digesters to obtain these benefits in order to avoid the legal
liability from nuisance lawsuits by neighbors and regulators.
A.	Nuisance Liability
Manure Related Nuisance Lawsuits by Eldon McAfee (2005) notes that
“producers must take all reasonable steps available to them to try
to minimize the impact of their operations on neighbors and
minimize the risk of a nuisance lawsuit . . .  [I]n a 1999 case the
Georgia Supreme Court agreed with the district court’s order
halting the construction of a 22,800-head swine operation with
anaerobic and aerobic lagoons. Neighbors objecting to the proposed
hog operation claimed that the operation ‘would result in
groundwater and aquifer contamination as well as impairment of air
quality.’”  (Att. 10 at p.1.)
Pig Odor Lawsuit: Farm Must Pay Neighbor for Smell by Stephanie
Rabiner (findlaw.com blog June 7, 2011.) A pig odor lawsuit was
filed against Synergy, which owns the hogs, and Kenoma, which
raises them, reports the Associated Press. Their Barton County farm
raises about 200,000 hogs per year, which equates to a lot of
stank. And waste.  A jury verdict decided the hog farmers must now
pay its neighbors $1.95 million. (Att. 11 p.1.)
Missouri Plaintiffs Awarded $11 million in hog odor lawsuit by
Agweek.com, March 5, 2010.  A jury awarded more than $11 million to
15 plaintiffs in a lawsuit over the odors from a Premium Standard
Farms hog operation in northern Missouri.  The company argued the
smells are a normal part of life in an agricultural area. (Att. 12 
p.1).
B.	Regulatory Liability
US EPA Chino Dairies Press Release: U.S. EPA Orders 13 Chino
Dairies to Control Manure Runoff; Joint effort with local Water
Board to protect Santa Ana River Release date: 09/26/2011 EPA
announced that “Among the violations discovered at the dairies
subject to EPA’s orders were . . . failure to construct or maintain
controls necessary to prevent manure and other contaminants from
discharging into waterways . [EPA will] be evaluating whether
monetary penalties are appropriate, pursuant to our authority under
the federal Clean Water Act.” (Att. 13 at p.1.)
Iowa Attorney General Press Release:  Feb. 3, 2010.  State files
lawsuit to enforce manure management plan rules. "Manure management
plans are required in order to show that operations have adequate
land for application of manure produced by the animals," said
Attorney General Tom Miller. "The plans are an important tool to
protect the environment.” (Att. 14.)
4.	The Price of Carbon Offsets is Too Low and Too Uncertain to Be
Reliably Claimed as “the” reason for Implementation of an Anaerobic
Digester System:
USDA Economic Research Service, Carbon Prices and the Adoption of
Methane Digesters on Dairy and Hog Farms:  While additional profit
is always an incentive, this report makes it clear that, while a
steady known carbon offset price could encourage additional
adoption of digesters, market price of carbon offsets has been
volatile. “The additional revenues that could be earned from carbon
offsets could have a large effect on digester profitability and
adoption if offset price is sufficiently high.  However, future
carbon prices are uncertain.”  The report documents prices in
various markets that have varied by 100% or more.  Finally, the
report notes that other factors are also important, to whether it
is profitable for farmers to adoption digesters, including the size
of the operation, electrical usage, price to sell surplus
electricity, initial levels of methane, among other factors. 
(Att.15 at pages 6 -8.) 
Attachments: 
Livestock Att. 1 - USDA News Release No. 0377.10, July 19, 2010.
Livestock Att. 2 - EPA Factsheet: Managing Manure with Biogas
Recovery Systems:  Improved Performance at Competitive Prices,
2002.
Livestock Att. 3 - EPA Agstar Study: A Comparison of the
Performance of Three Swine Waste Stabilization Systems, March 20,
2002. 
Livestock Att. 4 - EPA Agtar: A Comparison of Dairy Cattle Manure
Management with and without Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas
Recovery, by Eastern Research Group, Inc., 2004.  
Livestock Att. 5 - EPA Agstar Handbook, 2005.

Livestock Att. 6 - EPA Agstar: An Evaluation of a Covered Anaerobic
Lagoon for Flushed Dairy Cattle Manure Stabilization and Biogas
Production,  by Eastern Research Group, Inc., June 17, 2008.  
Livestock Att. 7 - EPA Agstar/USDA: U.S. Anaerobic Digester Status
Report, October 2010.
Livestock Att. 8 - EPA Agstar Study – Protocol for Quantifying and
Reporting the Performance of Anaerobic Digestion Systems for
Livestock Manure, March 2011.
Livestock Att. 9 - USDA Factsheet: Funding Programs for Developing
Anaerobic Digestion Systems. April 2011.   
Livestock Att. 10 - Manure Related Nuisance Lawsuits by Eldon
McAfee, 2005
Livestock Att. 11 – Pig Odor Lawsuit: Farm Must Pay Neighbor for
Smell by Stephanie Rabiner findlaw.com blog, June 7, 2011.
Livestock Att. 12 - Missouri Plaintiffs Awarded $11 million in hog
odor lawsuit by Agweek.com, March 5, 2010.  
Livestock Att. 13 - US EPA Chino Dairies Press Release: U.S. EPA
Orders 13 Chino Dairies to Control Manure Runoff; Joint effort with
local Water Board to protect Santa Ana River Release date:
09/26/2011.
Livestock Att. 14 - Iowa Attorney General Press Release, Feb. 3,
2010.  
Livestock Att. 15 - USDA Economic Research Service, Carbon Prices
and the Adoption of Methane Digesters on Dairy and Hog Farms by
Nigel Key and Stacy Sneeringer, Feb. 2011.
See also: the following web excerpts:
This is an excerpt from EERE Network News, a weekly electronic
newsletter.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=15685
December 16, 2009
Anaerobic Digesters to Help Cut Dairy Emissions by 25% by 2020
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on December 15
an agreement with U.S. dairy producers to cut their greenhouse gas
emissions by 25% by 2020 while turning manure into electricity
using anaerobic digesters. Under a Memorandum of Understanding
signed by the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy , the USDA, and
dairy producers, the groups agreed to work together to reach the
target. USDA will contribute by undertaking research initiatives,
allowing implementation flexibility, and enhancing efforts to
market anaerobic digesters to dairy producers.
Anaerobic digester technology is a proven method of converting
waste products, such as manure, into electricity. The technology
utilizes generators that are fueled by methane captured from the
animal manure. Currently, only about 2% of U.S. dairies that are
candidates for a profitable digester are using the technology, even
though dairy operations with anaerobic digesters routinely generate
enough electricity to power 200 homes. Through the agreement, USDA
and the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy will increase the number
of anaerobic digesters supported by USDA programs. Beyond promoting
the digesters, the agreement will encourage the research and
development of new technologies to help dairies reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions. See the USDA press release and the
description of anaerobic digesters on DOE's Energy Savers Web
site.

http://www.energysavers.gov/your_workplace/farms_ranches/index.cfm/mytopic=30005
Economics and Benefits of Anaerobic Digesters
Before you install a anaerobic digester—also known as a
biodigester—on your farm or ranch, you should explore its economic
value and potential benefits.
A biodigester usually requires manure from more than 150 large
animals to cost effectively generate electricity. Anaerobic
digestion and biogas production can also reduce overall operating
costs where costs are high for sewage, agricultural, or animal
waste disposal, and the effluent has economic value.
In the United States, the availability of inexpensive fossil fuels
has limited the use of digesters solely for biogas production.
However, the waste treatment and odor reduction benefits of
controlled anaerobic digestion are receiving increasing interest,
especially for large-scale livestock operations such as dairies,
feedlots, and slaughterhouses.