Forest Hauth Initiative 1. Description: The option would accelerate USFS activities on National Forest lands in the Rockies and Easter Cascades to restore degraded forests to a fully stocked condition with species appropriate to long-term health. These forests have been degraded due to past management activities which removed the naturally occurring systems and allowed species less well suited to the area, climate, and water and pathogen regimes to dominate the sites. These sites need to be restored through intensive management and planting. Such conversion will end the downward trend in carbon inventories, allow carbon to build up and ensure the stability of the system against catastrophic loss. Wood harvested during conversion activities can be directed towards solid wood products which will further increase the carbon sink. USFS could set some aggressive goals for forest restoration and enlist the timber industry and environmental NGOs in the effort. Industries could be offered partnerships wherein they were given short-term guarantees of timber cut volumes in retum for underwriting a large percent of the management cost. USFS plans could specify management of these lands for restoration of a specific percent of the original distribution of old-growth and other ecosystems of interest to NGOs. USFS would have to monitor compliance with its management plans closely to prevent abuses, and ensure maintenance of air and water quality standards during implementation. The initiative could be a first demonstration of USFS's sustainable "ecosystem management program. 2. Timing: The option could contribute modestly to the current Action Plan goals, but can contribute substantially to post-2000 goals. 3. Emissions Reductions: Up to 2000: Low 2000-2010: Medium Beyond 2010: Medium Ancillary environmental benefits: Water quality, air quality and biodiversity improvements. Enhancement of recreation, wildlife, salmon, and timber values 4. Costs: Private sector participants would incur costs for management, but the returns on their timber harvesting would likely be greater than the costs. S. Implementation Problems: Legal: The option can be implemented through existing USFS authorizations Funding: USFS may need increased staff and funding, but much of the management cost could be provided through partnerships with industry. Rangeland Best Management Practices Initiative ion: This option proniotes increased vegetation on federally owned western range ugh best management practices which impose acreage restrictions and rotations on ing by lessees. Higher levels of carbon will accumulate and be maintained as re imposed which prevent overgrazing and allow vegetation to build up. With zing fees under review, the government could offer maintain fees at current levels, them in return for lessees imposing federally specified best management practices 3. Alternatively, the government could raise grazing fees on those who do not order to pay for federally implemented management practices, the cost of which gher due to federal agencies' need to hire and manage contractors, The incentive this option fits into a scheme currently underway in the west where these rangeland re senled through negotiation between. all interested parties. (Colorado model ?) : Option could contribute moderately to current Action Plan goals and substantially 100 goals. ons Reductions: Reduction scheme assumes gradual implementation over millions of ter implementation would speed up achievement of high GHG benefits. 2000: Low to medium 2010: Medium to high id 2010: High environmental benefits: Water quality improvements Costs will increase to grazing permit holders, and their revenues from grazing may if restrictions are placed on numbers of animals per acre. mentation Problems: 1: DOI and USDA, or the President, have the authority to implement such a plan. ling: Some small amount of new funding may be needed to enforce compliance. ing: Option could be implemented immediately. tics: Grazing fees are currently a politically sensitive subject, but ranchers generally er non-regulatory measures which allow them to maintain control of a situation. They ze that DOI wants to raise fees, and they might support a measure like this which ents that from happening in return for management actions that they can take. role: EPA would work with DOI and USDA to suggest and develop this program, and contribute supporting analysis. 1g: 8 raft For Discussion Only 9:48 May 31, 1994 Amend 1992 EPAct to Provide Incentives for Open-Loop B 1. Description: This option would expand the current 1.5 cent per kilowa subsidy provided in the 1992 EPAct for closed-loop bioenergy facilities t Closed-loop systems require that the biomass feedstocks be grown specifi of energy production. Open-loop systems include all forms of biomass in grown specifically for energy production. Removing the "closed-loop co utilities to use the cheapest forms of biomass, including: pulpwood, wood residues, and agricultural residues. To further reduce the costs of this option, the incentive system could scheme to allow utilities to compete for the subsidy. Utilities would dete they would require to switch to biomass energy systems. Utilities requiri incentive would be the first selected into the program. This concept is si structure used to select participants in USDA's Conservation Reserve Prc 2. Timing: This option would require new legislation, either as an amenc other legislation. In either case, it could take 2+ years for Congressional years to implement, and 2-4 years for utilities to make the conversions : facilities. Carbon benefits, from backing out fossil fuel use, would there! after the year 2000. 3. Emissions Reductions: Preliminary analysis conducted with the DEGI that up to 60 MMTCE can be offset with subsidies of 1.5 per kWh, a subsidies under 0.8 per kWh (assuming $2.00 MMMBtu feedstock cost $200/kW capital costs). These estimates are preliminary and greatly effe about biomass feedstock costs. Biomass feedstock costs range from $1.C residues to $3.50-54.00/MMBtu for dedicated energy crops. 4. Costs: The costs are a function of the level of program implementati assumptions referred to above, it requires $3.75 billion dollars per year MMTCE of carbon offsets. The 20 MMTCE offset requires a subsidy o billion dollars (a cost of slightly less than $200 per ton of carbon). The extremely sensitive to biomass feedstock assumptions. For example, if $1.50 per MMB, the cost drops to slightly over $20 per ton of carbo option would be to target, if possible, lower cost feedstocks. Additiona S. Implementation Problems: Legal: Requires Congressional approval. Funding: Costs of program could be large. Potential revenue sourci Farm Bill crop subsidies, although this has not been explored 6. Rating: 3 The potential benefits are large; however, the costs could preliminary modeling. More work is needed to better understand the p costs of biofuels feedstocks. EPA Draft For Discussion Only Build Capacity of Developers of Low-Income Housing to 1. Description: Developers of low-income housing are often unaware of the potential cost savings from energy efficiency and renewable energy. Even when they are, financing is seldom available. Those who do make improvements receive linle economic benefit, since the HUD Section 8 utility allowance currently pays part of utility costs not covered by payments from tenants. This option would establish the following: Shared savings: To provide an economic incentive, allow resulting savings from the HUD Sec. 8 utility allowance payments to be shared with the developer to fund other socialservices at the housing site. The developers could be encouraged to work with local Energy Service Companies. Training: For low-cost or no-cost options, set up a training program for housing developers and building managers to educate them about these options. Training could include simple, accessible spreadsheet programs to allow building managers to keep track of energy use and savings. (Current programs from utilities are too complicated and technical) Revolving loan fund: For more costly options, set up a revolving loan program to promote investments in energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy systems. This could be funded at the local and state level through the savings in the HUD Section & utility allowance payments, municipal link deposit programs (city treasury deposits in private lending institution that typically give loans for low-income housing purchase and rehabilitation), and utility DSM programs. 2. Timing: Shared savings may require legislation. Training would require 1 year to design program, operate annually. A revolving loan fund would take 2 years to set up. 3. Emissions Reductions: Up to 2000: Low 2000 2010: Medium Beyond 2010: Medium 4. Costs: Minimal, since it is funded in large part by savings in existing programs 5. Implementation Problems: Legal: Need legislation to change use of HUD Section & utility allowance Funding: Need to get agreements at local level from sources of revolving loans, but program should eventually pay for itself Timing: see above Politics: support from environmental and low-income advocates 6 Rating: 9 EPA Draft For Discussion Only 9:48 May 31, 1994 |