• Who We Are
    • The Climate Trust
    • Climate Trust Capital
    • Achievements
    • Leadership And Board Of Directors
  • What We Do
    • Action
    • Impact
    • Case Studies
  • Financials
  • Media
    • Blog
    • News & Press
The Climate Trust | The Debate Over LCFS Biomethane Inclusion

The Debate Over LCFS Biomethane Inclusion

Biogas, Policy, Scorcher

In the fall of 2021, a petition was filed to exclude biomethane derived fuels from dairy and swine manure in California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program (LCFS). Critics argued that the inclusion increases pollution in low-income communities, does not fully account for greenhouse gas emissions, and that promoting digesters incentivizes the creation/expansion of new factory farms. California Air and Resource Board (CARB) recently pushed back on this assertion and denied the petition but agreed to continue engagement with environmental justice organizations.

Critics have suggested that the inclusion of dairy digesters in the LCFS market will increase the size and number of dairies in operation. This has not been demonstrated.  Installing anaerobic digester requires high upfront capital costs that easily reach into the millions of dollars. Further, LCFS prices are volatile, ranging from $150-$220/credit since 2016; recently credits dropped to $140. The combined volatility and upfront capital cost make it difficult to justify expanding a dairy operation just to access this market. To date, there are 317 installed anaerobic digesters in the country out of about 40,000 dairy farms. Overall, there has been low adoption of anaerobic digesters. The LCFS market driving the creation of new dairies seems far-fetched.

When considering dairy digesters, it is important to remember their significant impact on reducing baseline emissions. While dairies do contribute to climate change and have other negative environmental impacts, the installation of a digester is one of the biggest steps that can be taken to mitigate them. Dairy digesters have a two-fold effect: 1) Digester’s reduce methane emissions that would have been released to the atmosphere and 2) The gas or electricity produced by the dairy digester replaces fossil fuel energy sources that have a much higher carbon intensity.

In CARB’s response to the petition, they noted that the number of operational digesters has increased in California from 20 to 77, providing local odor and air quality benefits on top of reducing methane emissions by 75%. The benefits of anaerobic digesters on existing dairy operations should not be misconstrued by anti-dairy advocacy. The addition of a digester is a clear win compared to continuing emission of methane and local air pollutants. This program is critical for reaching our climate goals, as California is one of the largest producers of dairy in the country. It will be important to monitor the impacts of the LCFS program on the dairy industry as a whole, but at this stage, delaying the inclusion of dairy digesters in the LCFS market does more harm than good.

 

News + Resources

LCFS Petition Response
CARB, January 26, 2022
Dairy Farmers are Cashing in on California’s Push for Cleaner Fuel
Dan Charles, NPR, February 10, 2022

Tags
Adaptation
Aggregation
American Carbon Registry
Biochar
Blue Carbon
C-AGG
California Air Resources Board
California Carbon Info
Cap and Invest
carbon offset standards
Carbon Pricing
Carbon-Pulse
Clean Power Plan
Climate Action Reserve
Climate Bonds
Conservation Finance Network
Corporate Social Responsibility
CORSIA
Culture
Dairy Digester
Ecosystem Marketplace
Edible Portland
Energy Central
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Justice
EPAF
Farm Power Northwest
GreenBiz
IPCC
Job Announcement
Leadership
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Milestone
Oregon Carbon Dioxide Standard
Oregon Clean Fuels Program
Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council
Oregon Global Warming Commission
Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy
Paris
Portland General Electric
REDD
Renewable Fuel Standard
Renewable Identification Numbers
Request For Proposal
RGGI
Rice
Risk Management
Scientific American
Social Cost of Carbon
Supply Chain
Sustainable Business Oregon
Triple Pundit
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Verified Carbon Standard
Western Climate Initiative
Recent Comments
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
Proud Member Partners in Diversity
  • DONATE
  • CAREERS
  • CONTACT

©2020 The Climate Trust. Crafted by ILLUSIO