Placer County’s Bio-energy

Project: Health Impact & other

Excellent Adventures

Presented to:

Climate Action Team Public Health Workgroup

November 20, 2013 Sacramento, California

Brett Storey, Placer County Biomass Program Manager

(530) 745-3011 bstorey@placer.ca.gov

Why Did Placer County

Embrace Biomass ?

• Placer County Problem: History of increasing forest fires, increasing open

burning of piles, increasing air emissions, canceling of fire insurance,

respiratory related health issues

• Board Of Supervisors Direction

– Reduce Catastrophic Fire Conditions

– Improve Regional Air Quality

– Provide Long Term Solution for Forest Waste

– Create Employment Opportunities

• Develop Strategic Plan (adopted in 2007)

• Develop Public/Private Biomass Facility

What Has Been

Accomplished To Date ?

Program Management Accomplishments:

Engineering analyses & design gasification heat & power facility

Fuel supply contracted: USFS 10 year Stewardship Agreement

Permitting and land use conditions: Environmental/Design Approved

Economic pro-formas: Undergoing private financing review

Key Milestones:

Overall project feasibility studies confirmed likely success in 2010

Met all technical, economic and environmental standards by 2012

Power Purchase Agreement, Private financing and Investment tax

credits during 2013

Facility built in 2014 ? Operational in 2015 ?

CREEK BID MASS FACILITY PLACER COUNTY , CALIFORNIA

VIEWPOINT 1 VISUAL SIMULATION

WOOD -RODGE:R:S D■Y■LO .. INO INNOYATIY■ D■SION SOLUTIONa

3301 C S t r•et, Bldg. 100-B T•I : 819. 3 41 .7700 Sacramento, CA 05818 F■• : 018. 3 41.7787

What Does the Facility Look Like?

-------

\

• Diamond Springs

Project Location Eastern Regional Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station

Squaw • Valley

DESOLATION

WILDERNESS

RENO

Where is the Facility Located ?

What Does Technology Look Like ?

(Gasification Process)

Creates Solution Creates Electricity $

Creates Syn Gas

Creates Bio-char $

D Open Pile Burn ■ Displaced Grid Electricity

D Tahoe Regional Biomass D Biomass Processing ■ Biomass Transportation

120

99% Reduction

0 ..____,_ __

Particulate Matter

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

88% Reduction

o_,..__._.__.,_

Nitrogen Oxides

98% Reduction

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100 0 .u..--1..--.

Carbon Monoxide

96% Reduction

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10 0 .,____,___._---L

Volatile Organics

Table 9-8 Avoided Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Open Burning(tons/ year)

Avoided Emissions NOx ROG PM10 f>M25

Open Burning of Forest-Sourced Biomass 78 102 167 142

Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = oxides of nitrogen PM,o = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM:u = resp1rable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less tons/year = tons per year

Estimated emissions levels assume that 17,000 bone dry tons of fo1est-sourced biomass would be consumed by the planl Appendix X for det81l on model inputs, assumptions, and project specific modeling parameters.

Source: Modeling Conducted by Ascent Env1ronmental 2012.

18% Reduction

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0 ..........................

Greenhouse Gases

What Do Emissions Look Like ?

Avoid Open Pile Burns

Reduce a Variety of Emissions

How has This Branched Out ?

Placer County has received requests from multiple counties in Ca and other states

to develop program

Sierra Nevada Conservancy is now supporting multiple organizations to develop

small facilities

Protocols have been developed in support of both avoided burning to energy

(adopted by CA Board of Forestry & others) and bio-char (in progress)

Public Utilities Commission has embraced small biomass facility support – AB1122

New markets are opening up – Carbon/CEQA/Bio-char

Scandinavian countries have been doing this for years

heating whole towns/managing fire danger

Why Do an

Health Impact Assessment ?

What Is The Value Of a

Health Impact Assessment ?

Public allowed to ask “Fantastic” questions

Outside 3rd Party review of impacts

Qualitative +Quantitative Information = Greater Acceptance

Environmental Impact Report clearly showed :

Less than Significant Impact

Health Risk Assessment for cancer showed :

No Significant Health Risk

Health Impact Assessment provided health review and statement :

Likely benefit community health in the Lake Tahoe Region

Questions/Comments

http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/Biomass.aspx