UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
Post on 30-May-2018
219 Views
Preview:
Transcript
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
1/25
B ra z i l i an Sug a rc ane I ndu s tr y A s so c i a ti on (UN ICA ) 1 711 N St ree t NW Wash in g t on , DC 20036
Phone +1 (202 ) 506 5299 Fax +1 (202 ) 747 5836 wash ing ton@un ica . com.br www.un ica . com.br/EN
April16,2009
VIAELECTRONICMAILMaryD.NicholsChair,AirResourcesBoardHeadquartersBuilding1001IStreetSacramento,CA95814Reference: ProposedLowCarbonFuelStandardDearMs.Nichols:TheBrazilianSugarcaneIndustryAssociation(UNICA)welcomestheopportunitytoprovidespecificcommentsonCaliforniasproposedLowCarbonFuelStandard(LCFS).Thisletterexpandsonourpreviouscorrespondence1regardinglifecyclecalculationsofsugarcaneethanolandincludesanumberofspecificrecommendationsconcerningthecalculationsofindirectlandusechange.WeaskthatthisletterandallofitsreferencesbefullyconsideredbytheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard(CARB)andstaffpriortoapprovaloftheregulation.Theletterisstructuredasfollows:(I)IntroductionofUNICAashavingadirectandsignificantinterestinthisrulemaking;
(II)Commentsandrecommendedchangestolifecycleassessmentinputsandassumptions;(III)Commentsandrecommendedchangestolandusechangecalculations;and,(IV)Conclusions.I. INTRODUCTION
TheBrazilianSugarcaneIndustryAssociation(UNICA)istheleadingtradeassociationforthesugarcaneindustryinBrazil,representingnearlytwothirdsofallsugarcaneproductionandprocessinginthecountry.Our125membercompaniesarethetopproducersofsugar,ethanol,renewableelectricityandothersugarcanecoproductsinBrazilsSouthCentralregion,theheartofthesugarcaneindustry.Brazilistheworldslargestsugarcaneproducingcountrywith
overhalfabillionmetrictonsofcaneharvestedyearly.
1SeeourletterdatedFebruary10,2009,availableonlineathttp://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/lcfslifecyclews/65unica_comments_on_greetca_for_sugarcane.pdf.WealsonotethatUNICArepresentativeshavemetwithCARBstaffonvariousoccasions,mostrecentlyonApril2,2009,wherewediscussedmanyofthesepointsaddressedinthisletter.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
2/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 2
Lastyear,Brazilproducedover31milliontonsofsugarandabout26billionliters(6.8billiongallons)ofethanol.Inaddition,themillsgeneratetheirownpowerfromthesugarcanebiomass.Officialgovernmentdataindicatesthatsugarcanemillsproducedapproximately16,000GWhofelectricity(correspondstoabout3%ofthecountrysannualelectricitydemand)lastyear.
Thankstoourinnovativeuseofethanolintransportationandbiomassforcogeneration,sugarcaneisnowthenumberonesourceofrenewableenergyinBrazil,representing16%ofthecountrystotalenergyneedsaccordingtoofficialgovernmentdata.Ourindustryisexpandingexistingproductionofrenewableplasticsand,withthehelpofinnovativecompaniesinCalifornia2willsoonbeofferingbiobasedhydrocarbonsthatcanreplacecarbonintensivefossilfuels.II. LIFECYCLEANALYSIS
OurinitialassessmentoftheresultsoftheGreenhouseGases(GHG),RegulatedEmissions,andEnergyUseinTransportationmodel,asmodifiedbyCARB,(GREETCA)suggeststhatitwascarefullydone,capturingmanyofthecomplexitiesofouragriculturalandindustrialoperations.ThisisnotsurprisinggiventhatGREETsdesignershaveworkedwithBrazilianlifecycleassessmentscholars(namelyDrs.JoaquimSeabraandIsaiasMacedo)toincorporateandharmonizesomeoftheuniquecharacteristicsofsugarcaneproductionsystemsandprocessingintheoriginalGREETmodel.However,industrypracticescontinuetoevolve,andwebelieveitiscriticalthatCARBsanalysisreflectthecurrentstateoftheBraziliansugarcaneindustryandavoidpenalizingthoseplayerswhohavemadeinvestmentsinmoreefficientandsustainablemethodsofproductionsinceoriginalGREETvalueswereestablished.Insomeinstances,GREETCAsdefaultvaluesarefarfromthenormforcurrentBrazilianagriculturalpractices.Lifecycleanalysis,bydefinition,involvesaconsiderablenumberofvariableswithcomplexrelationships,andtheadditionofindirectlandusechanges(discussedinSectionIII)onlyexacerbatesthesecomplexities.Ithasbeentherecommendationofvariousstakeholdergroups(e.g.GlobalBioenergyPartnership,RoundtableonSustainableBiofuels,etc.)tosimplifytheanalysesbyeliminatingsomeaspectsthatareclearlyofsmallerimpactonthemodelsoutput.3Forexample,mostBrazilianandinternationalexpertsdonotconsiderthevolatileorganiccompoundsandotherpollutantsintheGHGcalculations,butdoincludetheinputsofenergyofequipmentsandconstruction.ItappearstousthatGREETCAdoestheveryopposite.Reachingaconsensusontheseapproacheswouldfacilitateanalysesandcomparisonsgoingforward.For
simplicity,wehavehighlightedonlythediscrepanciesthatleadtofundamentalshiftsinmodelmechanismsofthosethathaveasignificantimpactonthevalueofmodeloutputs.
2Forexample,EmeryvillebasedAmyrisannouncedlastyearapartnershipwithoneofUNICAsmembercompaniestoproducefuelssuchasdieselandjetfuelforcommercialuses.Seehttp://www.amyris.comformoredetails.WeareawareofsimilareffortsbetweenanumberofotherCaliforniabasedcompaniesandsugarcanemillsinBrazil.3SeeSustainablebiofuels:ProspectsandChallenges,TheRoyalSociety,January2008,PolicyDocument01/08.Availableathttp://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=7366
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
3/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 3
Inthissection,ourcommentsaddress:(A)thechangesthatshouldbeappliedacrossanysugarcaneethanolpathwaybasedonstandard,averagepracticestoday;(B)ongoingindustrypracticesimprovementsthatfurtherreducesugarcaneethanolscarbonintensity;(C)thetrendsforfurtherimprovementsbasedonexistingregulationsandchanges;and,(D)technicalandpolicyrecommendationstoCARBssugarcanefuelpathways.
A. ChangesforanyBrazilianSugarcanePathway
ThefollowingthreechangesbasedoncurrentindustrypracticesarerequestedforanyBraziliansugarcanepathwaythatCARBconsidersintheLCFS.1. SugarcaneFarming.ThestrawyieldfiguresareabovethenormforBrazilssugarcane
industry.Insteadof0.19drytonstrawpertonofcane,youshoulduse0.14drytonstrawpertonofcane.4Basedonourexperience,itappearsthatthedefaultvaluesforstrawyieldarepossiblybasedonHawaiian,notBrazilian,sugarcaneaverages.
2. ChemicalInputs.Theenergyvaluesandassociatedemissionsintheproductionoflime
(CaCO3)aresaidtobe0.6gCO2/MJ.However,limeproducedinBrazilhassignificantlylowercarbonintensity.5AscorrectlynotedintheStaffReport,Brazilsbaseloadelectricity(averagemix)iscurrentlyapproximately83%hydroelectric,thoughthemarginalexpansionmixhasbeenmostlynaturalgas.6Withthisinmind,accurateinputvaluesfortheproductionoflimeinBrazilare7kWhelectricity(withgridaveragemix)pertonoflime(notthemixofproductsfoundinsomeproductionplantsoutsideBrazil,includingcalciumoxide)and2.6litersofdieselpertonoflime.Consequently,theGREETCAvaluesshouldbeatmost0.11gCO2/MJintheproduction.WeanticipatethatthisamountwilllikelybeshowntobelowerinthecomingmonthsasmoreindepthresearchinBrazilisunderway.7
3. SugarcaneTransportation.Itappearsthattheenergyrequiredfortransportation,and
consequentlytheemissionsassignedinGREETCA,arehigherthanthoseobtainedbyourowngroundtruthingmeasurementsinBrazil.Webelievethatthediscrepancymaywellresultfromobsoleteassumptionsrelatedtoloadperformanceofthevehiclesduringfeedstocktransportation.GREETCAconsidersonly17tontrucks,whileamajorityofmills
4SeeBiomassPowerGeneration:SugarCaneBagasseandTrasheditedbySuleimanHassuanietal;publishedbyUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgram(UNDP)andSugarcaneTechnologyCenter(CTC)inBrazil,2005.Availableonlineathttp://www.ctcanavieira.com.br/images/stories/Downloads/BRA96G31.PDF5SeeHassuaniopcit.,pg157.Also,seeMacedo,Seabra&SilvainGreenhousegasesemissionsintheproductionanduseofethanolfromsugarcaneinBrazilinBiomassandBioenergy(2008).6Evenwhenconsideringadditionalhydroelectricpowerexpansion,emissionscalculationsshouldincludetransmissionimpacts,directandindirectlandusechanges.NewhydroelectricpowerisonlyavailableinremoteandenvironmentallysensitiveareasofBrazil(e.g.Amazonriverbasin),whichrequiresverylongtransmissionlines(over1,000miles)throughhighcarbon,highbiodiversityforests.Forarecentaccountofthis,seeDoubt,AngerOverBrazilDams;AsWorkBeginsAlongAmazonTributary,ManyQuestionHuman,EnvironmentalCostsinTheWashingtonPostonOctober14,2008.Also,forgeneralbackgroundonBrazilselectricitygridseeU.S.DepartmentofEnergysCountryAnalysisBrief,availableathttp://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Brazil/Full.html7PersonalcorrespondencewithDr.JoaquimSeabra,NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory,inApril2009.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
4/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 4
alreadyoperatewithtruckswithtwoorthreetimesgreaterloads.8Thespecificenergyconsumptionvaluesfortransportationfromthefieldtomillvaryaccordingtothetypeoftruckusedanddistancetravelled.Themeandistancetravelledforfieldtomillisabout12miles,asGREETCAcorrectlyassumes.Basedonproportionofeachtypeoftruckusedinfieldtomilltransportfromlatestavailabledata(i.e.,2004),weknowthat8%oftruckswere
15tonsinglewagon,25%were28tondoublewagon,and67%were45tontriplewagons.Therefore,basedonthis2004data,wecalculatethattheenergyconsumptionofsugarcanetransportfromfieldtothemilltobeapproximately20.4ml/t.km,orabouttwothirdsoftheconsumptionofasinglewagontruck(i.e.,30.3ml/t.km).Inshort,ourrecommendationwouldbetouse19,122BTU/mmBTUinsteadof25,722BTU/mmBTUinTable3.02.9oftheStaffReport.
B. ImprovedLowCarbonIndustryPractices
Inthelastfewyears,therehavebeensignificantoperationalimprovementsintheBraziliansugarcaneindustry.10Thereareatleastthreeinterrelatedchangesthatsignificantlyimpact
carbonintensitycalculations,namely:
Reductionofpreharvestfieldburning Mechanizationofharvest Increasedcogenerationefficiency
Theimpactofthesepracticesontheindustryscarbonintensityandcurrentincreasingadoptionratesarediscussedbelow.GREETCApresumesallsugarcaneinBrazilisburnedinthefieldpriortobeingmanuallyharvested.11Moreover,themodelassumesallenergyfromsugarcanebiomassisemployedforethanolproduction,withnosurplus/credit(eitherintheformofbagasseusedasfuel,orexcesselectricityproducedinthecogenerationprocess).Theseareincorrectassumptionsthatdonotreflectcurrentindustrypractices.AgrowingshareofBrazilssugarcaneharvest(approximately35%)isnotburnedandismechanicallyharvested.12
8SeeCTCreportentitled,AnnualAgriculturalReportingforHarvests98/99,99/00,00/01,01/02,02/03[authorstranslation]fordetailedbackgroundongroundtruthingintransportpractices.Forabroaderdiscussionoftheseandotherevolvingpractices,seeSugarCanesEnergy,editedbyIsaiasMacedo(2005)aswellasSugarcaneEthanol:ContributionstoClimateChangeMitigationandtheEnvironmenteditedbyPeterZuurbierandJosvandeVooren(2008).9Forfurtherdetail,includingformulasused,seepage23,SectionA3,TransportofSugarcanefromFieldtoMill[authorstranslation],of2004SoPauloStateGovernmentreportentitledNetGreenhouseGasEmissionsintheproductionanduseofethanolinBrazil[authorstranslation].Availableonlineathttp://www.unica.com.br/download.asp?mmdCode=76A95628B5394637BEB3C9C48FB2908410SeeWorldWildlifeFundsAnalysisoftheExpansionofSugarcanesAgroindustrialComplexinBrazil[authorstranslation],availableonlineathttp://www.wwf.org.br/index.cfm?uNewsID=13760.AnEnglishversionofthereportisavailableuponrequest.11See1.3GHGEmissionsfromStrawBurninginFieldonpage22ofGREETCA.12Thoughthetrendisforallsugarcaneistobemechanicallyharvestedandnotallburnedcane,therearemillsthatstillburnthesugarcaneinthefieldbutharvestitmanually.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
5/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 5
Webelieveageneric,singlesugarcanepathwaymaynotaccuratelyincorporatetheseimportantchangesinthewaythesugarcaneindustryhasandcontinuestoevolveinBrazil.Wenotethatmerelycreatingseparatepathwaysoneforusingbagasseforelectricityproductionasacoproductandoneforusingmechanizedproductionofsugarcane,assuggestedinTableES6oftheStaffReportwillmissthemarkasitpresumesthattheseprocessesare
mutuallyexclusive.TherealityonthegroundtodayisthatmechanizationandbagasseforelectricityareoccurringinsignificantlevelsandwillonlyincreaseduetoestablishedregulationsinBrazil.13Themechanicalharvesting(withnosugarcanefieldburning)yieldsahighamountofadditionalbiomass(commonlyreferredtoastrashandincludesleavesandtopsofcanestalksamongotherpartsofthesugarcaneplant).Someofthisadditionalbiomassisbeingrecoveredandtransportedtothemillforprocessingandmuchmoreisexpectedintheverynearfuture.14Thisbiomassrecoveryprocessincreaseselectricityproductionthroughcogeneration(or,inthefuture,additionalethanolproductiononcecellulosicpathwaysarecommerciallyviable).Aschangesinfieldoperationscontinue,energyefficiencyimprovementsatmillsalreadyareaddingtothesurpluselectricityprovidedtothenationalgrid.15In2007,millsprovidedabout11,095GWh,whichcorrespondstoabout22.5kWhpertonofrawsugarcanecrushed.16In2008,theMinistryofEnergyindicatedthatpowergenerationincreasedto15.768GWh.17Thisincreasedisaresultofnotonlyincreasesugarcaneproductionbut,moreimportantly,newmillsupgradingtohighpressuresteamcyclegeneratorsthatproduceatleast70kWhpertonofcanewithbagassealone.18Moreover,moreefficientmillsareenteringintolongtermsupplycontractswithpowerdistributioncompanies.19Forinstance,theamountsalreadycontractedfor2012reach45,180GWh,whichbringspowergenerationto65kWhpertonofcane.20Therewillbeadditionalelectricityincorporatedintothegridby2012,eitherthroughthescheduled
governmentauctionsorviaopenmarketsales,butthosecontractshavenotyetbeensigned.Finally,lookingahead,whentheadditionalsugarcanebiomass(i.e.,trash)isusedforpower
13Onapersonalnote,whentheCARBChairvisitedBrazilinAugust2008,shesawthesechangessugarcanemechanizations,cogeneration,andmuchmorefirsthand.ItissurprisingthenthattheStaffReportfailedtoaccountforthat.14SeeHassuaniopcit.15Seepage10inAngeloGurgel,JohnM.Reilly,andSergeyPaltsev.PotentialLandUseImplicationsofaGlobalBiofuelsIndustryJournalofAgricultural&FoodIndustrialOrganization5.2(2007).Availableat:http://works.bepress.com/angelo_gurgel/116Sugarcaneharvestwas493milliontonsofsugarcaneaccordingtoactualproductiondatacompiledbyUNICAandavailableathttp://www.unica.com.br/dadosCotacao/estatistica/.DataforcurrentpowersalesisprovidedbytheBraziliangovernmentsMinistryofMines&EnergyandNationalElectricityAgency,theautonomousregulator,andcompiledbytheSoPauloCogenerationAssociation(COGENSP).WhileallthedataisinPortuguese,itiseasilyaccessibleonlineathttp://www.aneel.gov.brandhttp://www.cogensp.com.br.17PersonalcorrespondencebetweenUNICAsZilmardeSouzaandMinistryofMines&Energyofficials.18SeeMitigationofGHGemissionsusingsugarcanebioethanolbyIsaiasC.MacedoandJoaquimE.A.SeabrainSugarcaneEthanol:ContributionstoClimateChangeMitigationandtheEnvironmenteditedbyPeterZuurbierandJosvandeVooren(2008).19SeeBraziltoinvest$21.2billionincogenerationinTheEconomistIntelligenceUnit(1December2008).20SeeCOGENSPforadditionaldataandinformation,http://www.cogensp.com.br/cogensp/workshop/2008/Bioeletricidade_ENASE_01102008.pdf
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
6/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 6
production,thepowergenerationvalueswillincreasetoabove100kWhpertonofcanewithinthedecade(includingbagasseand40%ofthestrawpreviouslyburnedinthefield).21
C. TrendsinIndustryAdoptionofLowCarbonPractices
Mechanizationandcogenerationarecommonindustrypracticestodaythatweexpecttoberapidlyadoptedacrossallplantsinthecomingyears.22Thesetrendsarebeingdrivenbythefollowingpolicyandmarketpressures:1. PhaseOutofFieldBurning.Undercurrentregulationsandagreementsbetweenthe
environmentalauthoritiesandthesugarcaneindustry,nearlyallthesugarcaneintheStateofSoPaulowillbemechanicallyharvestedby2014.SoPauloaccountsfor60%ofallnationalproductionandalmost100%ofsugarcaneexportstotheUnitedStates.SoPaulostatelawrequiresthatsugarcanefieldburningbephasedoutby2021fromareaswheremechanicalharvestingispossiblewithexistingtechnology(over85%ofexistingsugarcanefields)andby2031inareaswherethismaynotbepossible(e.g.,steepslopes,irregular
topography,etc).23However,UNICAmembercompanieshaveenteredintoanagreement24withtheSoPauloEnvironmentalAgencytomoveupthedeadlinesforsugarcanepreharvestburningto2014and2017,respectively.Theagreementalsodefinesotherimportantactionssuchasconservationprogramsandrestorationprojectsforripariancorridorsassetasidelandpolicies.25
2. IncreasingRestrictionsonBurning.ExistingplantationsthatstillusemanualharvestinginthestateofSoPaulomustobtainstateissuedgovernmentpermitsforthepreharvestsugarcanefieldburning.Environmentalauthoritieshavesetstrictcontingenciesuponwhichthesepermitscanbesuddenlyrevoked(e.g.,ifairhumiditydropsbelow30%,caneburning
restrictionsareappliedandifairhumiditydropsbelow20%,allcaneburningissuspended).26Thisuncertaintyhaspushedmanyproducerstomechanicalharvestingtoeliminateassociatedoperationalrisk.
3. ExpansiononlywithMechanization.Since1986allnewsugarcaneplantationsandmillsare
requiredtosubmitenvironmentalimpactstudiespriortoconstructionandoperationin
21Forfurtherdetails,pleasereviewTechnicalEconomicEvaluationfortheFullUseSugarcaneBiomassinBrazil,[authorstranslationfromPortuguese],JoaquimSeabra,UniversidadeEstadualdeCampinas,July2008.22SeeHassuaniopcit.AlsoseeRabobanksreportPowerStruggle:TheFutureContributionoftheCaneSectortoBrazilsElectricitySupplybyAndyDuffandRodolfHirsch(November2007).23SeeSoPauloStateLaw11.241enactedon19Septemberof2002,whichrequirestheeliminationofsugarcanefieldburning,isavailableathttp://sigam.ambiente.sp.gov.br/Sigam2/Repositorio/24/Documentos/Lei%20Estadual_11241_2002.pdf24SeeProtocoloAgroAmbientaldoSetorSucroalccoleiroPaulista,availableinPortugueseathttp://www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/cana/protocolo.pdf25SeeEnvironmentalSustainabilityofSugarcaneEthanolinBrazilbyWeberAmaraletal.inSugarcaneEthanol:ContributionstoClimateChangeMitigationandtheEnvironmenteditedbyPeterZuurbierandJosvandeVooren(2008).26SeeSoPauloStateEnvironmentalAgencysResolutionSMA38/08ofMay16,2008,availableonlineathttp://sigam.ambiente.sp.gov.br/sigam2/default.aspx?idPagina=123.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
7/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 7
ordertoobtainrequiredpermits.27Morerecently,inordertoreceiveapermittoestablishgreenfieldsugarcanemills,theSoPaulostateenvironmentalauthoritiesrequire100%mechanicalharvesting.Otherstatesareinactivediscussionstofollowtheirlead.Moreover,additionalregulationsimposedbythestategovernmentofSoPauloestablishesenvironmentalzoningforthesugarcaneindustryandprogressivelystricterrequirementsfor
licensingandrenewalofexistingplantationsandmills.28
Nottobeoutdone,thefederalgovernmenthasannouncedthatasimilarrequirementformechanizationwillbeestablishednationwidelaterthisyear.29
4. OneThirdHarvestMechanizationNationwide.Theuncertaintiescausedbytheimpactof
harvestpermits,coupledwiththeaforementionedlegislativeandregulatorychanges,haveledtoaquickerthanexpectedtransitiontoallmechanized,unburnedsugarcaneharvest.AccordingtoBrazilsSugarcaneResearchCenter,30whichworkswithnearlyallsugarcaneproducers,about35%ofallsugarcaneinBrazilisalreadymechanicallyharvested,andnearlyallofthisisnotburnedinthefield.In2008,abouthalfofthesugarcanefieldsinthestateofSaoPauloweremechanicallyharvested.AndotherstatessuchasGois,MatoGrossodoSul,andParanarealsoimplementingmechanicalharvest.Infact,therobustpaceofmechanizationwasrecentlyhighlightedinaJohnDeereearningsreleasethatstates,salesarebeinghelpedby[]risingdemandforsugarcaneharvestingequipment.31
AnyrealisticevaluationofcarbonemissionsfromsugarcanefarminginBrazilmustreflectthestrictpoliciesbeingimplementedandactionalreadytakenthatphaseoutofsugarcaneburning,increaseinmechanicalharvestandcogenerationoutput.Withoutreasonableallocationofthesevariousaspects,GREETCAcannotproviderealisticcarbonintensityvalues.Infact,thedevelopersoftheGREETmodelrecognizedthiswhentheywrote,eliminationofopenfieldburninginsugarcaneplantationswillresultinadditionalGHGemissionreductionsby
sugarcaneethanol.32
27SeeCONAMA(BrazilianNationalCouncilonEnvironment)firstresolutioninJanuary1986,availableathttp://www.antt.gov.br/legislacao/Regulacao/suerg/Res00186.pdf.FormoreinfoonCONAMAsactionregardingsugarcane,seehttp://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/index.cfm28SeeSoPauloStateEnvironmentalAgencysresolutionSMA088of19December2008aswellasresolutionSMASAA004,of18September2008,availableathttp://www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/contAmbientalLegislacaoAmbiental.ph[2009andhttp://sigam.ambiente.sp.gov.br/sigam2/default.aspx?idPagina=12329SeestatementsbyEnvironmentMinisterCarlosMinconthisaswellastheenvironmentalandeconomiczoningbeingpreparedbyaninterministerialgroupoftheBraziliangovernmentandexpectedtobepubliclyannouncedshortly.Availableonlineathttp://www.mma.gov.br30SeeCentrodeTecnologiaCanavieira(CTC),accessibleonlineathttp://www.ctcanavieira.com.br.31SeeDeere&Companyssecondandthirdquarterof2008earningsreports,availableonlineathttp://www.deere.com/en_US/ir/financialdata/2008/thirdqtr08.html32SeeLifeCycleEnergyUseandGreenhouseGasEmissionImplicationsofBrazilianSugarcaneEthanolSimulatedwiththeGREETModel,byMichaelWangetal.inInternationalSugarJournal(2008),availableonlineathttp://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/529.pdf
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
8/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 8
D. Technical&PolicyRecommendations
ThetablebelowsummarizesthetechnicalimplicationsofactualindustryperformancetodayanddetailshoweachfuelpathwaycomponentwillbeaffectedinGREETCAbythesechanges.Alltheproposedchangesarebasedoncurrentproductionprocesses,notprojectionoroptimisticbestcasescenarios.Recognizingtheevolvingnatureofthetechnological
improvements,abroaderstructureforhowtointegratetheseandfutureimprovementsintosugarcanelifecycleanalysisfuelpathwaysisdiscussedattheendofthissection. CARBCOMPONENTS
FORSUGARCANEETHANOL
VALUE
(gCO2/MJ)
PROPOSEDCHANGESTOEXISTING
AND/ORADDITIONALPATHWAYS
A SugarcaneFarming 9.9
(1)StrawYieldshouldbechangedto0.14drytonpertoncane;(2)Caneburningemissionsareatmost2.9gCO2/MJundercurrentconditionsandaredecreasingrapidly;(3)Newpathwaysshouldbecreatedtocreditmechanizedandunburnedharvestbenefits
B AgriculturalChemicals 8.7 Energyvaluesinproductionoflime(CaCO3)shouldbechangedto0.11gCO2/MJbasedonaveragegridmix
C SugarcaneTransportation 2.0Totalenergyintransportfromfieldtoplantshouldbereducedto19,122BTU/mmBTUgiventruckscarryloadslargerthan17tons
D EthanolProduction 1.9Emissionsfromethanolproductionshouldbelowered1.1gCO2/MJsincenotallbagassegoesintoethanolproduction
E EthanolDistribution 4.1 Nomajorchangesrecommendedatthispoint
F CogenerationCredit 0
(1)Creditsofatleast1.8to3.6gCO2/MJ,basedonlowendofemissionsscenarios,shouldbeincluded;(2)Trendsandliteratureconfirmthatcreditswill
increasetooffsetothercomponentemissions;(3)Newsugarcaneethanolpathwayswouldallowforaccuratecreditstobegiven,particularlyforincentivizinglesscarbonintenseprocesses
A. SugarcaneFarming.DependingonvariouspathwaysandassumptionsCARBdecidesto
pursue,thevaluesforsugarcanefarmingwillvary.Consideringthecurrentlevelsofmechanicalharvest(i.e.,35%ofallcane)andarevisedstrawyieldfigure(14%ofthecane),and90%ofactualburningintheburnedarea,totalemissionsfromburningcanetodayshoulddropfrom8.2gCO2/MJtoapproximately2.9gCO2/MJ.Thatshouldbethebaseline
forGREETCApathways.However,asnotedelsewhere,werecommendthatGREETCAeitherconsideranevenlowerfiguretorecognizethatthesugarcaneethanolboundforCaliforniacomesfromareasthatarealreadymechanized,ordevelopseparatepathwaystocapturethiscarbonbenefit.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
9/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 9
B. AgriculturalChemicals.TheproductionofLime(CaCO3)inBrazilisconsiderablylesscarbonintensivethanGREETCAsuggests.Asyounoted,recognizinggridaveragemixandotherfactors,GREETCAvaluesforLimeproductionshouldbe0.11gCO2/MJ.
C. SugarcaneTransportation.Energyrequiredforcroptransportationfromfieldtomillis
exaggeratedinGREETCA,likelybecauseofhigherloadperformanceofthevehiclesusedinBrazil.GREETCAshouldconsidertruckswithtwoorthreetimesgreaterloads,leadingtoarevisedvalueof25,722BTU/mmBTUfieldtoenergyconsumption.
D. EthanolProduction.Asdetailedatlengthabove,GREETCAinaccuratelyassumesthatthe
electricitygeneratedfrombagassecombustionisinsufficienttocreatedasurplus.33Basedonacorrectunderstandingoftheuseofbagasse,thetotalGHGemissionsforethanolproductionshouldbereducedfrom1.9gCO2/MJto1.1gCO2/MJonaveragewithlowerfigureslikelyintheverynearfuture.
E. TransportationandDistribution.WeseenosignificantdiscrepancybetweenGREETCAand
ourownanalysiswithregardstotransportanddistribution.F. MissingCogenerationCredit.Therearenocreditsforexcesscogenerationelectricityfrom
sugarcanebiomass.ThereisaninherentfallacyinanyanalysisofsugarcanethatdoesnottakeintoconsiderationtheincreasingsurplusofcogenerationelectricityproducedatsugarcanemillsinBrazil.ThoughGREETCArecognizesthatsugarcanebagasseisusedtoproducesteamandelectricitytopowertheprocessing,itdoesnotconsiderthatthemillisgeneratinganincreasingsurplusofelectricity,whichissoldintothenationalgriddisplacingcarbonintensesourcesofelectricity.Inotherpathways(e.g.,FarmedTreeCellulosic),suchcreditsaregivenandweseenoreasonablebasistodenyitwithintheGREETCAfor
sugarcane.34Failuretoincorporatetheanticipatedgrowthinelectricitycogenerationnotonlyunderminesoneofthegreatestenvironmentalbenefitsofthesugarcanepathway,butalsocreatesfurtherdiscrepanciesintheyearsaheadthatcoulddiscouragecarbonmitigationbehavior.Basedonthelowendoftherangeofanticipatedelectricitysalestothegrid(i.e.45,180GWhalreadycontractedfor2012),aGHGemissionreductioncreditof1.8to3.6gCO2/MJshouldbegrantedunderGREETCA.
35Lookingahead,sugarcanemillsoperatingwith70kWh/twillachieveemissioncreditsinthe1020gCO2/MJrange,likelycompletelyoffsettinganyemissionsduringproduction,processing,andtransportation.In
33Torecap,mechanicalharvestyieldsasignificantincreaseintheamountofbiomass(commonlyreferredtoasstrawortrash)thatcomestothemill,insteadofbeingburnedinfield.Thisadditionalbiomassisnowaddedtotheexistingbagasse(canebiomassremainingafterjuiceextraction)togeneratesteamandelectricityforthemillsprocessesaswellassaleofsurpluselectricitytothenationalgrid.Finally,millshavebeenreplacingolder,lowpressureboilerswithhigherpressureboilers,thereforeobtaininggreaterefficienciesinpowergeneration.Alladditionalelectricitygenerationisleadingtoagrowingroleofcogeneration.34Anydenialtoacceptthesurplusenergycogeneratedwouldrequireattheveryleastareallocationoftheemissionstopowertheethanolproduction,furtherreducingsugarcanesethanoloverallemission.35TherangedependsonthebaselineemissionsscenariosforBrazilianelectricity.ItmustbenotedthatundertherecentlyapprovedEuropeanCommissionDirective,cogeneratedelectricityfromsugarcanewasgivensimilarcarboncreditsforethanol.Seehttp://ec.europa.eu/energy/strategies/2008/2008_01_climate_change_en.htm.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
10/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 10
fact,astheOrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD)recentlypointedoutinalengthycomparativeanalysisofbiofuels,sugarcaneethanolmaysoonhavenegativeemissionsonalifecyclebasis.36
Now,turningtoourpolicyrecommendations,UNICArecommendsthatCARBconsidereitherof
thefollowingadjustmentstotheGREETCAfuelpathwaysforsugarcaneinordertoreflectthevariationsinagriculturalandindustrialoperationsinBrazilssugarcaneindustry,aswellastoaccuratelycreditcarbonreducingbehavior:
OptionOne.GREETCAcouldassumeatleast70%ofthesugarcaneusedforethanoltobemechanicallyharvestedandnotburnedinthefield.37Asexplainedabove,themainsugarcaneproducingareaofBrazilreached50%mechanizationinthelastharvestandisrequiredtohaveachievedatleast70%mechanizationby2010.WhenconsideringthewholeofBrazil,about35%ofallsugarcaneisharvestedmechanically.Thehigherfigure(from35%to70%proposedinthisoption)moreaccuratelyrepresentstheactualsourceofthesugarcaneethanolthatmakesittotheUnitedStates;or,
OptionTwo.Alternativepathways38couldbedevelopedformechanicallyharvested,nonburnedsugarcaneethanolandtheadoptionofmoreefficientcogenerationtechnologiesdescribedabove.Whilemorecomplex,suchamethodwouldhavethebenefitofnotonlyaccuratelyportrayingcurrentspecificpracticesbutalsoproactivelyencouraginglowercarbonintensitysugarcanebiofuelsproduction,whichistheunderlyingpublicpolicygoaloftheLCFS.Inseparatepathways,creditwouldbegiventomillsfornonburningofsugarcaneinthefield(i.e.,avoidedemissions),aswellasthecogenerationsurpluspowerdisplacingcarbonintensefuelssuchasnaturalgasorheavyfueloilusedinmarginalpowergenerationinBrazil.
Regardlessofthefinalapproachonadditionalpathways,westronglyurgethatCARBadoptverifiablemechanismthatensuresbestcarbonmitigatingpracticesarerewardedonatimelymannersoastoensurequickeradoption.MerelyupdatingtheGREETCAmodelinhindsight(threeyearsashasbeensuggestedinpublichearings)willnotbeenoughtoreachtheobjectivesofCaliforniasforwardlookingclimatechangepolicy.
36Ethanolfromsugarcaneisthepathwaywherethemostconsistentresultswerefound.Allstudiesagreeonthefactthatethanolfromsugarcanecanallowgreenhousegasemissionreductionofover70%comparedtoconventionalgasoline.Thelargemajorityofreviewedstudiesconvergeonanaverageimprovementaround85%.Highervalues(alsobeyond100%)arepossibleduetocreditsforcoproducts(includingelectricity)inthesugarcaneindustry.ThisreflectstherecenttrendinBrazilianindustrytowardsmoreintegratedconceptscombiningtheproductionofethanolwithothernonenergyproductsandsellingsurpluselectricitytothegrid.Seepage44ofEconomicAssessmentofBiofuelSupportPoliciesbyOrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(2008),availableonlineathttp://www.oecd.org/.37AnotherwaytoimplementOptionOnewouldbetosetthepercentageasavariablenumbersinceitcanbeeasilyobtainedonanannualbasisfrompublicandofficialsourcesinBrazil.UNICAwouldbepleasetoworkwithCARBtoestablishthismechanism.38Asnotedabove,webelievethatthetwopathwaysproposedinTableES6oftheStaffReportfailtocapturetherealityofsugarcaneethanolfarmingproduction.Mechanizedharvestwithorwithoutburningandcogenerationcannotbeseparated,astheyareoftenpartofthesamepathway.WewouldbepleasedtoreviewsugarcanefarmingandethanolproductionprocesseswiththeCARBstaff.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
11/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 11
III. INDIRECTLANDUSECHANGE39
Inthissection,UNICApresentsourassessmentoftheStaffReportcalculationsonsugarcaneslandusechangeimpact,whichreliedontheGlobalTradeAnalysisProject(GTAP)fromPurdueUniversity.
Weechothevariouscommentsfromstakeholdersparticularlytheletterby111Ph.D.Scientistsstatingthatthescienceusedindeterminingthesemarketmediated,indirectimpactsisquitelimitedandhighlyuncertain.Inaddition,theselectiveenforcementofindirectlanduseimpactsforbiofuelsoverotherfuelsincludedintheLCFSviolatesthemostbasicprinciplesofregulatoryfairness.Afewlinesmadeintheaforementionedletterbearrepeating:
Weareonlyintheveryearlystagesofassessingandunderstandingtheindirect,marketmediatedeffectsofdifferentfuels.Indirecteffectshaveneverbeenenforcedagainstanyproductintheworld.Californiashouldnotbesettingawidereachingcarbonregulationbasedononesetofassumptionswithclearomissionsrelevanttotherealworld.[...]This
proposalcreatesanasymmetryorbiasinaregulationdesignedtocreatealevelplayingfield.Itviolatesthefundamentalpresumptionthatallfuelsinaperformancebasedstandardshouldbejudgedthesameway(i.e.identicalLCAboundaries).Enforcingdifferentcompliancemetricsagainstdifferentfuelsistheequivalentofpickingwinnersandlosers,whichisindirectconflictwiththeambitionoftheLCFS.40
Moreover,giventhetighttimelineforCARBimplementationoftheLCFS,aswellasthecomplexityanduncertaintyassociatedwithsuchmodelingexercises,41wewouldliketoexpressourconcernabouttheaccuracyofmodeldataassumptions,methodology,andotherkeyfactorsunderlyingtheGTAPrunsmadebyCARB.Weweregiven45daystoreviewandcommentonworkthatCARBtookmonthstodevelop.BytheCARBstaffsownadmissiontheyhaverushedtheprocessandcalculations.Ourexperiencewithothersimilarmodels(e.g.,FoodandAgriculturalPolicyResearchInstitute(FAPRI)model)suggestscarefulanalysisandadeliberativeprocessthatconsidersallfactors(i.e.,landusedynamicsinBrazilinourcase)isfundamentaltominimizeinaccuraciesinmodeloutputs.
39UNICAwishestoacknowledgetheinvaluableinputofvariousscholarsinthepreparationofthissection.AmongthemareProf.AngeloCostaGurgel(UniversityofSoPaulosCollegeofEconomics,BusinessAdministration,andAccountingFEARP/USP),AndrMeloniNassar(PresidentoftheBrazilianInstituteforInternationalTradeNegotiationsICONE),MarceloMoreira(ICONE),LauraBarcellosAntoniazzi(ICONE),LeilaHarfuch(ICONE),LucianeChiodi(ICONE),andProf.WeberdoAmaral(USP).Withtheirassistance,andthatofmanyotherscholars,ourcommentswouldnothavebeenpossible.40Seehttp://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/lcfslifecyclews/74phd_lcfs_final_feb_2009.pdf41ArecentworkshoporganizedbyEnvironmentalDefenseFund(EDF)andtheEnergyBiosciencesInstitute(EBI)withover120expertsnotedthecomplexuncertaintiesassociatedwithmodelinglifecyclegreenhousegases.Thereportssummarystates,TherapidlyevolvingscienceandpolicyofGHGreductionsinvolvesadizzyingarrayofsectorsandtechnologiesthatneedtobemanaged.FuelslifecyclemodelingisadynamicandrapidlyevolvingfieldthatisstrugglingtonarrowthemanyuncertaintiesregardingthedirectandindirectGHGimpactsofarapidlygrowingvarietyofbiomassfeedstocks,productionmethods,andconversionprocesses.Indeed,littleisknownabouttheGHGimpactofawiderangeofcroppingsystemsforbiomassthatmightbeemployedtoproducelowcarbonfuels.Seepagethreeofreportsummary,MeasuringandModelingtheLifecycleGreenhouseGasImpactsofTransportationFuels,EDF&EBIsUniversityofCaliforniaBerkeley(July2008),availableonlineathttp://www.edf.org/fuels_modeling_workshop.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
12/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 12
RecognizingthatCARBappearsdeterminedtopushthisregulationdespitewidespreadconcernsabouttheaccuracyofitsILUCcalculations,weareseekingtoaddresswhatweseeasthemostsignificantmiscalculationsofCARBsILUCanalysis.Thissectionisdividedintothreeparts:(A)indirectlandusechange,(B)carbonintensity
calculations,and(C)proposedscenarios.First,weprovidecommentstoimprovetheGTAPanalysis,especiallywithrespecttoachievingmoreaaccuraterepresentationofBrazilianagricultureinthemodel.Then,wepresentalternativemethodologiestocalculatecarbonemissionsaswellasemissionsfactorsfromBrazilthatwebelieveshouldbeadoptedbyARB.Finally,webringtogethertheresultsintermsoflandusechangeandcarbonintensityaccordingtothealternativespresentedinthissection.
A. IndirectLandUseChanges
Webelievethatanyattempttoincludetheimpactofmarketmediated,indirectlandusechange(ILUC)inemissionscalculationsmusttakeintoaccounttheinterplayofeconomic,
institutional,technological,culturalanddemographicvariablesinherentwithlandusechange.42
1. SystematicSensitivityAnalysisTheILUCeffectsmeasuredbyCARBintermsofcarbonintensity(gCO2e/MJ)wereestimatedusingaComputableGeneralEquilibrium(CGE)model,theGTAPmodel,wellknownandrecognizedasastateoftheartmodelinthisfield.CGEmodelsareusuallydesignedtocomparealternativescenariosanditseconomicresults,mostlyintermsofwelfarechanges.Inthisway,theyaresuitabletoaddresseconomicimpactsfromexogenouschangesinsomesimplifiedartificialeconomy,builtasalabforsimulations.CGEmodelsgivethedirection(sign)ofchangesfromthesimulatedscenarios,identifythebestandworstcasesandrankingoftheresults,giveanideaaboutthemagnitudeorrelativescaleoftheimpacts,andallowtotrack(orexplain)theeconomicreasonsleadingtotheresults.Therefore,modelersavoidputtingtoomuchweightorcredenceontheprecisenumbersproduced.Thechoiceofanintervalofresultsisawidelyrecognizedmethodtousethemodelresults,andcentralnumbersareusedmerelytosimplifytheexplanationaboutresultsandconclusionsfromthemodelingexercise.Giventheuncertaintyorevenlackofscientificknowledgeaboutmany
parametersusedinthemodel,anextensivesensitivityanalysisisalwaysrecommendedwhenusingnumbersfromCGEmodelstopolicyimplementation,asdiscussedandappliedinMorgan
42B.L.TurnerII,EricF.Lambin,AnetteReenberg,Theemergenceoflandchangescienceforglobalenvironmentalchangeandsustainability,PNASvol.104,no.52(Dec.26,2007).
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
13/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 13
andHenrion(1990)43,Websteretal.(2003)44,DeVuystandPreckel(1997)45andPearsonandArndt(2000)46.Inthisway,webelievethatthesinglecarbonintensitynumbergeneratedfromtheGTAPimplementationofonlyfivescenarios(forsugarcaneethanol)orsevenscenarios(forcorn
ethanol)isscientificallyweakandalegallyquestionablemethodtorepresentthecomplexityandbroadpossiblepathwaysrelatedtolandusechangesfromanykindofbiofuelexpansion.WestronglyurgeCARBthatpriortoimplementationofthisregulationaSystematic
SensitivityAnalysis47shouldbeappliedontheanalysis,consideringthepossiblerangeand
probabilitydistributionfunctionsofkeyparameters.Givenourteamofscholarsandresearchers,andalsoourpartnershipwithBrazilianresearchinstitutions,weareabletooffersomehelptoCARBinsettingupandimplementing,orevenperforming,suchsystematicsensitivityanalysisforsugarcaneethanol.
2.
SizeoftheShockCGEmodelsareusedtoperformanalysisofpolicyinstruments(e.g.,taxesandsubsidies),technologicalchanges,andchangesinresourcessupply.ItisuncommontofindintheCGEliteraturedemandshocks,asimplementedbyCARB.Thatsaid,wewereevenmoresurprisedtoseethatCARBchosesuchlargedemandshocks.Thebasisforthechoiceofthesizeofthesugarcaneethanolshock(2billionsofgallons)isnotexplainedintheStaffReportorduringpublichearings.SuchanexaggeratedshockintermsofthepotentialofproductionbeingexportedfromBrazilinthenextdecadeisnotjustifiedbyrecenttrendsandavailableanalysis.TotalBrazilianethanolexportshaveexpandedbylessthan
850milliongallonsfrom2001to2007,accordingtotheMinistryofMinesandEnergy.48Ashockof2billiongallonsrepresentsaboutanincreaseinethanoldemandfromBrazilofabout55percent!Asevidencethatthesizeoftheshockfundamentallyaltersresults,whenwerantheGTAPmodelusedbyCARBwithaslightlysmallershock(increaseethanoldemandfromBrazilin1.5billionofgallons),weobservedsmallerlandusechangesandsmallerILUCcarbonintensitynumbers(Table1).
43Morgan,M.G.,andM.Henrion,1990.Uncertainty:aguidetodealingwithuncertaintyinquantitativeriskandpolicyanalysis.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.44WebsterM.,C.Forest,J.Reilly,M.Babiker,D.Kicklighter,M.Mayer,R.Prinn,M.Sarofim,A.Sokolov,P.Stone,C.Wang,2003.ClimaticChange61(3):295320.45DeVuyst,E.A.,P.V.Preckel,1997.Sensitivityanalysisrevisited:Aquadraturebasedapproach.JournalofPolicyModeling19(2):175185.46Pearson,K.,C.Arndt,2000.ImplementingSystematicSensitivityAnalysisUsingGEMPACK.GTAPTechinicalpaper3,CenterforGlobalTradeAnalysis,PurdueUniversity,Indiana.47AdditionalinformationonSystematicSensitivityAnalysiscanbeobtainedfromImplementingSystematicSensitivityAnalysisUsingGEMPACK(2000)byPearson,KenandChanningArndt,GTAPTechnicalPaperNo.03.48OfficialdataforethanolsupplyanddemandbalanceinBrazilisavailableonlineathttp://www.mme.gov.br/site/menu/select_main_menu_item.do?channelId=1432&pageId=17036.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
14/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 14
Table1:GTAPmodelingresultsforsugarcaneethanollandusechangewithalternativeshocksizes(ScenarioA)
Shocksize 2billionsgallons 1.5billiongallons
Totallandconverted(millionha) 1.28 0.92Forestland(millionha) 0.43 0.31Pastureland(millionha) 0.85 0.61
Brazillandconverted(millionha) 0.89 0.64Brazilforestland(millionha) 0.30 0.22Brazilpastureland(millionha) 0.59 0.42ILUCcarbonintensity(gCO2e/MJ) 56.7 50.6Sources:CARBdocumentationandauthorscalculation(GTAPoutputsavailableathttp://www.iconebrasil.org.br/).Note:CO2emissionswerecalculatedusingemissionfactorsfromthearrayEMISSCTR.Theamountofforestryandpasturelanddisplacedwasmultipliedbytheemissionfactorsofthementionedarray.Forestgainedandcropswerenottakenintoconsideration.
Inshort,asthesizeoftheshockreallymattersintermsofILUC,westronglyrecommendthatCARBuseamorerealisticprojectionoftheincreaseinthedemandofsugarcaneethanolfrom
Brazil,takingintoconsiderationaspectssuchasthetotalproductioncapacityinplaceandtheinvestmentstoexpandtheproduction.And,asnotedabove,CARBshouldperform
systematicsensitivityanalysisofthealternativeshocksizes,giventheuncertaintyaboutthe
incrementalcapacityinthenextdecades.WeagaincanhelptoprojecttheincreaseinproductioncapacityinBrazilandalsotoimplementtheshocksinGTAP.
3. CattleIntensificationTheusefulnessanddesirabilityofaneconomicmodelresidesinitscapacityofrepresentingrealityusingthesimplestpossiblerepresentationofthephenomenaunderstudy(approach,theory,equations,relationships).Thereisstrongevidenceofcattleintensificationoccurringthe
sametimeastheexpansionofsugarcane,oilseeds,coarsegrains,andcommercialforeststakingplaceinBrazilsince2001.Inthelastdecadeorso,comparingdatafromthe1996and2006AgriculturalCensusespresentedinTable2,itcanbeobservedthatpasturelandhasdecreasedandcattleherdhaveincreased.Followingthesametrend,beefproductionandexportshavealsoincreaseddespitethereductioninpastureland.Also,arecentstudyhasshownthatmostofthesugarcaneexpansionisoccurringonoldpastureland,althoughthecropisalsoexpandingoveragricultureland(Nassaretal.,2008)49.
49Nassar,A.M.,Rudorff,B.F.T.,Antoniazzi,L.B.,Aguiar,D.A.,Bacchi,M.R.P.andAdami,M,2008.ProspectsoftheSugarcaneExpansioninBrazil:ImpactsonDirectandIndirectLandUseChanges.In:SugarcaneEthanol:ContributionstoClimateChangeMitigationandtheEnvironment.Zuurbier,P,Vooren,J(eds).Wageningen:WageningenAcademicPublishers.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
15/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 15
Table2:BrazilianAgricultureCensus:PastureArea,CattleHerdandPastureProductivitybyRegions
1996 2006
PastureArea CattleHerd StockingRate PastureArea CattleHerd StockingRate
(ha) (heads) (heads/ha) (ha) (heads) (heads/ha)
Brazil 177,700,469 153,058,275 0.86 172,333,073 169,900,049 0.99
RegionNorth 24,386,622 17,276,621 0.71 32,630,532 31,233,724 0.96
RegionNortheast 32,076,340 22,841,728 0.71 32,648,537 26,033,105 0.80
RegionSoutheast 37,777,049 35,953,897 0.95 32,071,529 34,994,252 1.09
RegionSouth 20,696,546 26,219,533 1.27 18,145,573 23,888,591 1.32
RegionCenterWest 62,763,912 50,766,496 0.81 56,836,902 53,750,377 0.95
Source:IBGE,AgriculturalCensus,availableathttp://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/pesquisas/ca/default.asp?o=2&i=P(Preliminarydatafor2006)
AscanbeseeninTable2,thehighernumberofanimalsperunitofland(stockingrateindex)demonstratesthatpastureyieldsarebeingimproved.Higherstockingrateandhigherbeefproductionsuggeststhatpastureyieldstendtogrowwhenmorepasturelandisreleasedfor
cropsandotheruses,whichmeansthatpastureyieldsrespondstronglytocattlepricechanges.ThelowlevelofpastureintensificationreinforcesargumentthatthereisstillconsiderableroomforevengreaterimprovementsonpastureintensificationinBrazil.Inotherwords,thisdatasuggeststhatpastureintensificationiselastictoprice.Anempiricalanalysisofthepastureyield(measuredbythestockingrateindex)responsetopricesispresentedinTable3.AccordingtoICONEscalculations,pastureyieldpriceelasticityinBrazilis0.6,muchhigherthanthecropyieldelasticitiesusedintheGTAPscenariospresentedintheCARBStaffReport.Table3:ResultforPastureYieldwithrespecttoRealPrices,inlogarithm
50
Coefficient(1)
tStatistic Probability
RealPrice(2) 0.60 8.83 0.000000
DummyforHighYield(3) 0.64 12.62 0.000000
Constant 2.26 9.46 0.000000
Rsquared 0.92
AdjustedRsquared 0.90
NumberofObservations 28
Notes:(1)UsingPesquisaPecuariaMunicipal(PPM)forcattleherdandpastureareafromAgriculturalCensus(1996and2006),bothfromIBGE.;(2)Realpricesfor1996and2006for14BrazilianRegions.(3)Dummyvariableforregionsthathadyieldhigherthanonein1996.Source:ICONE,underlyingdataandregressionsavailableathttp://www.iconebrasil.org.broruponrequest.
SuchphenomenahighresponseofpastureyieldstopriceschangesmustbecapturedbytheGTAPmodel.However,theresultsfromGTAPaboutlandusechangesduetotheincreaseinsugarcaneethanolproductionshowastrongdecreaseinpasturelandassociatedtostrongreductioninforestland.GivenourknowledgeaboutthedynamicsofagricultureinBrazil,CARBresultssuggestthatthepasturelandisbeingreplacedbysugarcaneandothercrops,andthatpasturelandisadvancingontoforestareas.ThisanomalyinCARBresultsmaybeduetothesmallelasticityofcropyieldswithrespecttoareaexpansion,whichrequiressignificantlymore50WecanprovideanyinformationregardingtheresultspresentedinTable3forCARB,aswellasthedataandtheregressionsusedtoestimatetheparameters.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
16/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 16
pastureareatoplaceanewsugarcaneplantationorrecoverthedisplacedproductionofothercropsbysugarcane.Wewilladdressourconcernsaboutthiselasticitybelow,butfirstwebelieveCARBmustaddresshowlivestockproductionincorporatedintothemodel.Anothermodelingissuethatisgeneratingverylowintensificationisrelatedtothe
representationofthelivestockproductiontechnologyinthemodel.Oneaspectofsuchtechnologyisthepossibilityofimperfectsubstitutionamongseveralprimaryfactorsandinputs,asdescribedinBiruretal.(2008).51Themodelassumesalowelasticityofsubstitution(0.2)amongallprimaryfactors(naturalresources,land,labor,andacapitalenergycompositefactor)inallregionsofthemodel.IfwelookattherealityonthegroundandcomparethetechnologyoflivestockproductioninBrazilandtheUnitedStates,wewillobserveamuchmoreintensifiedprocessinUnitedStatesandaveryextensiveuseoflandinBrazil.Intermsofmodeling,itwouldimplysomewhathigherelasticityofsubstitutionamongprimaryfactorsinBrazilthaninUnitedStates.Asanexperiment,inTable4,wehaveimplementedtheGTAPmodelusedbyCARBwithahighervalue(0.4)forthiselasticityinBrazilthaninotherregions(0.2),andhaveseensubstantialdifferencesintheresults,withhigheruseandintensificationofpasturelandinBrazilandlessdeforestation.The0.6pastureyieldelasticitypresentedbeforereinforcestheargumentthattheelasticityofsubstitutionforpastureshouldbehigherinBrazil.Table4:GTAPmodelingresultsforsugarcaneethanollandusechangewithalternativeelasticityofsubstitution
amongprimaryfactorsinlivestockproduction,ScenarioA
ElasticityofSubstitutionamongprimary
factorsinlivestockproduction0.2everywhere
0.2everywhere
but0.4inBrazil
Totallandconverted(millionha) 1.28 1.33
Forestland(millionha) 0.43 0.20
Pastureland(millionha) 0.85 1.13
Brazillandconverted(millionha) 0.89 0.95
Brazilforestland(millionha) 0.30 0.08Brazilpastureland(millionha) 0.59 0.88
ILUCcarbonintensity(gCO2e/MJ) 56.7 39.3
Note:CO2emissionswerecalculatedusingemissionfactorsfromthearrayEMISSCTR.Theamountofforestryandpasturelanddisplacedwasmultipliedbytheemissionfactorsofthementionedarray.Forestgainedandcropswerenottakenintoconsideration.Sources:CARBdocumentationandauthorscalculation(GTAPoutputsavailableathttp://www.iconebrasil.org.br/).
Insum,westronglybelievethattheGTAPmodelusedbyCARBshouldtakeintoconsiderationthehigherelasticitiesofsubstitutionamongprimaryfactorsinthelivestockproductionsector
inBrazil,wherelivestockintensificationispotentiallyhighandisoccurringinpractice.Wewill
beworkingonestimatingsuchelasticityandimplementingtheGTAPmodelwithsuchhigherelasticity.
51Birur,D.K.,T.W.HertelandW.E.Tyner,2008.ImpactofBiofuelProductiononWorldAgriculturalMarkets:AComputableGeneralEquilibriumAnalysis.GTAPWorkingPaperNo.53,CenterforGlobalTradeAnalysis.PurdueUniversity,WestLafayette,IN.Availableat:https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/4034.pdf
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
17/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 17
4. ElasticitiesandScenariosAsourexpertsdiscussedwithCARBstaffrecently,thecombinationofdifferentelasticitiesinalternativescenarioshasconcernedusgreatly.WhenwecompareCARBscenariosacrossalternativebiofuelsfeedstock,itisclearthatthechoiceofelasticitieswasinconsistent,ifnot
haphazard,aswasalsothenumberofscenariosimplemented.Asexample,thecentralvalueoftheelasticityofcropyieldwas0.4inthecaseofthesevencornscenarios,butitwasonly0.25forallsugarcaneethanolandsoybeanbiodieselscenarios.Asthiselasticityisappliedtoallcrops,thereislittlejustificationtoapplyinghighernumbersincornscenariosthaninotherfeedstockscenarios.CARBstaffhasexplainedtousthattheunevenapplicationofelasticitieswasnotonpurposebutaresultofhavingspenttoomuchtimetryingvariouscornscenarios.Asaconsequence,thestaffinformedus,themodelersgeneratedmorerunsandwereabletofigureoutthatthe0.25forcropyieldelasticitywasabettervaluetoassume.Fromamodelingtestingandcalibrationperspective,itiseasytounderstandthepressureandvariousruns.Nevertheless,thereremainsnocredibleexplanationastowhythebetterchoiceaboutelasticitieswasnotappliedinthesamewayacrossalternativebiofuelsfeedstockscenarios.Unevenapplicationofthemodelparametersyieldsresultsthatshouldnotbeused.Asaresult,westronglyurgeCARBstaffandexpertstorunthesamenumberofscenariosandsamecombinationofelasticitiesforallbiomasssourcestobeabletoachieveafairandbalancedprocess.
5. ElasticityofCropYieldswithRespecttoAreaExpansion
CropYieldswithRespecttoAreaExpansionexpressestheyieldsthatwillberealizedfromnewlyconvertedlandsrelativetoyieldsonacreagepreviouslydevotedtothatcrop.OnpageIV20oftheStaffReport,itisassertedthat:becausealmostallofthelandthatiswellsuitedtocropproductionhasalreadybeenconvertedtoagriculturaluses,yieldsonnewlyconvertedlandsarealmostalwayslowerthancorrespondingyieldsonexistingcroplands.ThefactthatalmostallofthelandwellsuitedtocropproductionhasalreadybeenconvertedcanbetrueintheUnitedStatesandtheEuropeanUnion.But,inmanyotherpartsoftheworld,asinLatinAmerica,andparticularlyBrazil,thereisconsiderable,potentiallywellsuitedagriculturalareaforcropexpansion.Somestudieshaveshownthispotentialintermsoflandavailabletoagricultureorbiomassproduction,asChouetal.(1977)52,EdmondsandReilly(1985)53andBotetal.(2000)54showus.Suchresearchsuggeststhattheelasticityofcropyieldswithrespecttoareaexpansionispotentiallylargerinthoseregionswithlargerlandavailability.
52Chou,M.,D.P.HarmonJr.,H.Kahn,andS.H.Wittwer,1977.WorldFoodProspectsandAgriculturalPotential.NewYork:Praeger,316p.53Edmonds,J.A.,andJ.Reilly,1985.GlobalEnergy:AssessingtheFuture.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.54Bot,A.J.,F.O.NachtergaeleandA.Young,2000.LandResourcePotentialandConstraintsatRegionalandCountryLevels.Rome:FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,WorldSoilResourcesReport90.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
18/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 18
Moreimportantly,theGTAPmodelishighlysensitivetothevalueofthiselasticitysincetheindirectlandusechangecarbonintensitycanchangemorethan75%whenthiselasticityvariesfrom0.25to0.75.WenotethatCARBstaffchosevaluesrangingfrom0.5to0.75(exceptonescenarioforsugarcaneethanolinwhich0.8wasusedforBrazil)tobeusedintheGTAPmodel
runsthoughthereisnodetailedexplanationastothebasisofsuchdecision.Infact,fromamicroeconomicperspective,wewouldhardlyexpectinvestmentsinnewareasiftheyieldofthenewcropwouldbehalfofthetraditionalarea,asassumedwithanelasticityof0.5proposedbyCARBstaff.EmpiricaldatainBrazilshowsthatthecropyieldelasticitywithrespecttoareaexpansionshouldbearound0.90.95,ratherthanintherangeof0.5to0.75.TheanalysisoftheempiricaldataispresentedinTable5,butfirstweoutlinethestepsthatwereusedtopreparethedata:
a. Consideringthetimehorizonfrom2001to2007,the558IBGEmicroregionsweredividedinnewandtraditionalareasaccordingtothegrowthinplantedareaforcropsandallocatedareaforpastures.The10percentlargestgrowthmicroregionswereconsiderednewareasandtheremainingmicroregionsthetraditionalareas.
b. Yieldsfornewandtraditionalareasarecomparedtothecorrespondingyear.Forexample,in2007thesugarcaneyieldinthenewareaswas83.4tonsperhectare,whileinthetraditionalareasitwas64.8tonsperhectare.
c. Themeasurethatrepresentstheyieldelasticitywithrespecttotheareaexpansionis
presentedinthelastcolumnofTable5(20072001).Thevaluesinthiscolumnaretheratiooftherelationbetween2007and2001yields(newandtraditional).Intuitively,in
thecaseofsugarcane,thisvaluesuggeststhatahectareinthenewareaofthecrophasayieldthatis95percentoftheyieldinthetraditionalarea,iftheincrementwouldhavetakenplaceinthetraditionalarea.
Table5:YieldElasticitywithRespecttoAreaExpansion:EstimatesforBrazil
(tonsperhaforcropsandanimalsperhaforpasture)
2001 2007 20072001
Activities(1)
Yield
New
Areas
Yield
Traditional
Areas
New/
Traditional
Areas
Yield
New
Areas
Yield
Traditional
Areas
New/
Traditional
Areas
New
Area/Traditional
Area(2)
Sugarcane 76.68 56.86 1.35 83.38 64.78 1.29 0.95
Soybean 2.77 2.59 1.07 2.84 2.75 1.03 0.97
Corn 3.46 3.17 1.09 3.70 3.74 0.99 0.91
Rice 3.42 3.09 0.91 3.80 3.79 1.00 1.11
Pasture(3) 0.76 0.95 0.81 1.34 1.12 1.20 1.48
Sources:(1)Considering10%ofthe558IBGEmicroregionsthathadthelargestareaincreasebetween2001and2007(basedonPesquisaAgricolaMunicipalIBGEdata);(2)Yieldrelationfornewareaswithrespecttotraditionalonesduetoexpansionbetween2001and2007.Thismeasureistheequivalentofthecropyieldelasticitywithrespecttoareaexpansion;(3)Pastureyieldistheratiobetweencattleherd(basedonPesquisaPecuariaMunicipalIBGEdata)andpasturearea(basedonBrazilsAgriculturalCensus)fortheyears1996and2006.Theexpansionwascalculatedbasedontheincreaseoncattleherdfrom2001to2006.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
19/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 19
Wenotethatalthoughthereisnopastureyieldelasticitywithrespecttoareaexpansion,wealsocalculatedthatmeasuretoshowthatnewareasofpasture,asitisthecaseforcrops,producethesameasthetraditionalareas.
Inshort,basedonthisanalysis,werecommendthatCARBrunallscenariosforBraziliansugarcaneethanolusing0.90cropyieldelasticitywithrespecttoareaexpansion,inorderto
avoidoverestimationsoflandconversionforBrazil.
6. Adjustmentsforsugarcaneyield
TheStaffReportsuggeststhattheGTAPresultsonsugarcanelandusechangewereupdatedtoreflectthe8.2percentincreaseinBraziliansugarcaneyieldsobservedbetween2001andtheaverageforthe20062008timeperiod.However,thephysicalyieldofthesugarcaneplantisnottheonlysourceofyieldgainsintheproductionofsugarcaneethanol.TheyieldgaininTotalRecoverableSugars(TRS)shouldalsobetakenintoaccount.AccordingtotheMinistryofAgriculture,LivestockandSupply(2007)55,theTRSpertonofsugarcanewas138.7in2001and149.47in2006anincreaseof8.3percent.(Wenotethatthisresultwouldbeevenhigherifofficialdatafor2007and2008werealreadyavailable.)TRSisameasureoftheenergycontentofthesugarcane.56HigherTRSareobtainedovertimeduetodifferentimprovementsinsugarcaneproduction,suchasbettervarietiesandharvestingperiod.TRSisconvertedintosugarorethanolusingtechnicalfactors.AccordingtoCONAB,57thefollowingfactorsareusedforethanol:
1literofanhydrousethanol 1.7651kgofTRS1literofhydrousethanol 1.6913kgofTRS
1kgofsugar 1.0495kgofTRSUsingthosefactors,theaverageethanolproductionperhectarefor2001was5,457liters[(69.44x138.7)/1.7651]whilefor20062008theaverageincreasedto6,365liters[(75.13x149.47)/1.7651].Inotherwords,includingtheyieldgainsinTRS,theethanolyieldhasincreasedby16.6percent(6,362/5,457=1.166).Consequently,werecommendCARBadjustsugarcanelandusechangetoreflectthetotalgainsinyield,whichis16.6percent,ratherthan8.2percent.58
55Seetable5ofthefollowingstudy:MinistriodaAgricultura,PecuriaeAbastecimento.2007.BalanoNacionaldaCanadeAcareAgroenergia.EdioEspecialdeLanamento(availableatwww.feagri.unicamp.br/energia/bal_nac_cana_agroenergia_2007.pdf).56TechnicalexplanationaboutTRScanbeobtainedinthefollowingpublication:Macedo,I.C(organizer).2007.SugarCanesEnergy:TwelveStudiesonBrazilianSugarCaneAgribusinessanditsSustainability.Berlendis&VertecchiaandUNICAUniodaAgroindstriaCanavieiradoEstadodeSoPaulo.SoPaulo(availableathttp://english.unica.com.br/multimedia/publicacao/).SeealsoSEABRA,J.E.A.Anlisedeopestecnolgicasparausointegraldabiomassanosetordecanadeacaresuasimplicaes.Campinas:UniversidadeEstadualdeCampinas,FaculdadedeEngenhariaMecnica,2008(PhDThesis).57Seepage45ofthefollowingstudy:CompanhiaNacionaldeAbastecimento(CONAB).2008.PerfildoSetordeAcaredolcoolnoBrasil.Braslia(availableathttp://www.conab.gov.br/conabweb/download/safra/perfil.pdf).58WhenwepresentedthisargumentinameetingwithARB,itwasraisedaquestionaboutreductioninbagasseproductionbasedontheargumentofamassconservation.Theargumentwasthatifmoreenergyisextractedfromatoneofsugarcane,it
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
20/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 20
B. CarbonIntensityCalculations
InadditiontotheimprovementsintheGTAPassumptionsandparametersdescribedabove,itisnecessarytoadjustthecarbonemissionsfactorforeachtypeoflandusechange.Thecommentsbelowareanattempttoimprovethecarbonintensitycalculationsforsugarcaneethanolscenarios.Wesuggestthreemaintargetareasforoptimizingthemodeloutcomes.
1. CarbonDataforLatinAmericaUsedasDefaultValueforBrazilConsideringthatmostofthelandusechangeduetosugarcaneexpansiontakesplaceinBrazil(62%asanaverageofthe5scenarios),itisessentialthatemissionfactorsvaluesusedforBrazilareaccurate.However,theemissionfactors(asCO2equivalent)usedintheCARBanalysiscamefromtheWoodsHoledata,whichconsidersLatinAmerica(aregiontwicethesizeofBrazil)aswhole.ThisapproximationresultsinhighervaluesthantheonesobservedinBrazil,whereconsiderablemoreresearchoncarbonstocksisavailable.
PeerrevieweddataforBrazilianecosystemsarecomparedwithWoodsHoledefaultvalues,aswellasdataforpasturelandcarbonstocks,inTables6and7.DatafromAmaralatal.(2008)59indicatetotalcarbonstocksindifferentnaturalvegetationrangefrom71.5MgC/haforCerrado(typicalsavannah)to271.0MgC/hafortropicalforest.Thesamestudyindicatestotalcarbonstocksinpasturelandrangefrom42.0MgC/haindegradedpasturesto58.5MgC/hainmanagedpasture.Table6:Carbonstocksindifferentlanduses,consideringbothaboveandbelowcontent,inMgCperhectare
Landuse Above Below Total
Tropicalevergreenforest 200 98 298
Tropicalseasonalforest 140 98 238
Tropicalopenforest 55 69 124
Temperateevergreenforest 168 134 302
Temperateseasonalforest 100 134 234
Grassland 10 42 52
Desert 6 58 64
Source:WoodsHole(http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/ef_tables.xls)
shouldexpectedthatlessbagasseisproducedandthenlessbagasseshouldbetakenintoaccountinthecogeneration.TherealityisthattheamountofbagasseinformedforthecogenerationintheGREETanalysisisbasedoncurrentnumbers,whichmeansthatitisthebagasseproductionwithhigherTRS.IftheTRSwouldnothavegrownfrom2001to2006,morebagassewouldbeavailableforcogeneration.SeeoutcommentsinSectionIIundersugarcanefarming.59Amaral,W.A.N.;Marinho,J.P.;Tarasanthy,R.;Beber,A.;Giuliani,E.EnvironmentalsustainabilityofsugarcaneethanolinBrazil.In:Sugarceneethanol:contributiontoclimatechangemitigationandtheenvironment.Zuurbier,P;Vooren,J.vande(eds).Wageningen:WageningenAcademicPublishers,2008.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
21/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 21
Table7:Carbonstocksindifferentlanduses,consideringbothaboveandbelowcontent,inMgCperhectare
Landuse Above Below Total
Tropicalforest 200 71 271
CerradoWoodySavannah 33.5 53 86.5
CerradoTypicalSavannah 25.5 46 71.5CampoLimpoGrasslandSavannah 8.4 72 80.4
ManagedPasture 6.5 52 58.5
DegradedPasture 1.3 41 42.3
Source:Amaraletal.(2008)
GiventheavailabilityofpeerrevieweddataforcarbonstocksinBrazil,werecommendthatCARBadoptthedatainTable7initsemissionsvalues.
2. ForestLostandGained
ItisnotclearhowthecarbonfactorsforforestgainedwereconsideredinCARBcalculations.SuchcoefficientsshouldbemultipliedbytheareaofforestincreasinginsomeGTAPregionstoestimatetheamountofcarbonbeingsequestered,sincelandusechangesfrompasturetoforestwouldimplyanetcarbonuptake.However,thecarboncoefficientsinthemodel(GTAParrayEMISSCTR)donotincludecarbonfactorsrelatedtoforestgainedandthen,thecarbonemissionsbeingcalculatedbyGTAPdonotaccountforthemodelresultsaboutreforestation.Werecommendthatforestgainedbeconsideredascarbonuptake.
3. CropsCarbonEmissionFactors
ThecurrentCARBassumptiondoesnotconsideranycarbonuptakefromcrops,eventhoughthereisampleliteratureoncropcarbonuptakefromaboveandbelowgroundbiomass.UnlessCARBcanprovideevidenceastowhyacropscarbonupdateshouldnotbeconsideredinthemodeling,webelieveCARBmusteither(a)usecropspecificdefaultvaluesforcropsthatshowsignificantareavariationor(b)usedefaultvaluesforthemostimpactingcroponlandusechanges(i.e.,sugarcane).Sugarcaneexpansionscenariosshouldusethecarboncontentspecifictothiscropbecausemostofthecropvariationisrelatedtosugarcane.Consideringthemostconservativeestimateforsugarcaneuptake,whichconsidersjustthebelowgroundsoilcontent,carbonstockwouldbeanaverageof49.25MgC/ha(IPCC,2006).60ButwenotethatIPCCdoesnotrecommendthe
useofgeneraldefaultvalueswhencountryspecificdataareavailable,asitisthecaseofBrazil.Infactthereisavastandwelldocumentedofliteratureoncarbonuptakefromsugarcane(Cerri,198661;Macedo,200862).
60IPCC,2006.GuidelinesforNationalGreenhouseGasInventories,preparedbytheNationalGreenhousegasInventoriesProgramme.In:H.S.Eggleston,L.Buendia,K.Miwa,T.Ngara,andK.Tanabe(eds.)Japan:IGES.61Cerri,C.C.,1986.DinmicadaMateriaOrgnicadoSolonoAgroecossistemaCanadeAucar.Tese(livredocencia).EscolaSuperiordeAgriculturaLuizdeQueiroz,Piracicaba,SP,Brasil.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
22/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 22
Table8:Carbonstocksindifferentcrops,consideringbothaboveandbelowcontent,inMgCperhectare
Below(1)
Above(2)
LAC HAC Vegetation
TOTAL(3)
Maize 31.0 42.0 3.9 40.4
Soybean 31.0 42.0 1.8 38.3
Cotton 23.0 31.0 2.2 29.2
Sugarcane(4) 41.5 57 17.4 66.65
Average 31.63 43.00 6.33 43.64
Sources:(1):IPCC,2006.Guidelinesfornationalgreenhousegasinventories,preparedbytheNationalGreenhousegasInventoriesProgramme.In:H.S.Eggleston,L.Buendia,K.Miwa,T.Ngara,andK.Tanabe(eds.)Japan:IGES;(2):Macedo,I.C.;Seabra,J.E.A.,2008.MitigationofGHGemissionsusingsugarcanebioethanol.In:Sugarcaneethanol:contributiontoclimatechangemitigationandtheenvironment.Zuurbier,P;Vooren,J.vande(eds).Wageningen:WageningenAcademicPublishers.;(3):itwasconsideredtheaverageofLACandHACvalues;(4):theaverageofburnedandunburnedsugarcanewasconsidered.
Inconclusion,regardlessofthealternativeused,carbonemissionfactorforcropsshouldrepresentanetcarbonuptakewhenitreplacespasture.Furthermore,bothaboveandbelow
groundcarbonmustbeconsidered,aswasdoneintheotherlanduseestimations.C. ProposedScenariosforCARBsILUCCalculations
ThissectionpresentsasetofalternativescenarioscombiningthesuggestionsdiscussedinthepreviouspartsofthisSectiononILUC.Thescenariospresentedbelowaredividedintwogroups:
(i) Table9showstheresultsoflandusechangeandcarbonintensityresultingfromchangesmadeintheparametersoftheGTAP(shocksize,elasticityofsubstitutionamongprimaryfactorsinlivestockproduction,elasticitywithrespecttoareaexpansion,adjustmentsforsugarcaneyields)thatareproposedabove;and
(ii) Table10depictstheresultsintermsofcarbonintensitydepartingfromthelandusechangescenariopresentedinTable9andmakesthenecessaryadjustmentsincarbonuptakefromforestgainedandfromcropsexpansion.
TheresultspresentedinTable9arebasedonashocksizeof1.5billiongallon,onanelasticityofsubstitutionamongprimaryfactorsinlivestockproductionof0.4forBraziland0.2inothercountries,onacropyieldelasticitywithrespecttoareaexpansionof0.9andonanadjustmentforsugarcaneandTRSyieldsof16.66%.Thecarbonintensityforthatscenario,accountingonlyfortheemissionsassociatedwithforestryandpasturesconversion,is25.3gCO2e/MJ,about
halfofthevaluesproposedinTableIV12oftheproposedregulation.
62Macedo,I.C.;Seabra,J.E.A.,2008.MitigationofGHGemissionsusingsugarcanebioethanol.In:Sugarcaneethanol:contributiontoclimatechangemitigationandtheenvironment.Zuurbier,P;Vooren,J.vande(eds).Wageningen:WageningenAcademicPublishers.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
23/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 23
Table9:GTAPModelingResultsforSugarcaneEthanolLandUseChangewithAlternativeScenarios
1. Shocksize 1.5billiongallons
2. Elasticityofsubstitutionamongprimaryfactorsinlivestockproduction
0.2everywherebut0.4inBrazil
3. Cropyieldelasticityw/areaexpansion 0.9
4. AdjustmentforsugarcaneandTRSyields 16.66%
Totallandconverted(millionha) 0.60 Forestland(millionha) 0.01 Pastureland(millionha) 0.59 Brazillandconverted(millionha) 0.35 Brazilforestland(millionha) 0.07 Brazilpastureland(millionha) 0.42 ILUCcarbonintensity(gCO2e/MJ) 25.3
Source:CARBdocumentationandauthorscalculation(GTAPoutputsavailableuponrequest).Note:CO2emissionswerecalculatedusingemissionfactorsfromthearrayEMISSCTR.Theamountofforestryandpasturelanddisplacedwasmultipliedbytheemissionfactorsofthementionedarray.Forestgainedandcropswere
nottakenintoconsideration.
DepartingfromthescenariodrawninTable9,asetofthreecalculationsforcarbonintensityarepresentedinTable10.Theunderlyingprinciplesofallofthemarethesame:forestgainedandcropsexpansionshouldbetakenintoaccountasacarbonuptake,followingthecommentsabove.Inthecaseofforestgained,thereisnodifferenceinthecalculationsastheemissionfactorsobtainedinthearrayEMISSCTRweremultipliedbytheforestgainedandaccountedasacarbonuptake.Thedifferentalternativesrelyoncropscalculations.InAlternative2,theincreaseincropareais
multipliedby18MgCO2e/hacitedinthefileef_tables.xls,sheetGTAPEFs.However,asarguedintheprevioussection,thosefactorsdonotrepresentthecarbonuptakeassociatedtosugarcane,oilseedsandcoarsegrains.Evenwithverylowemissionfactorsforcrops,itcanbeobservedthatthesugarcanecarbonemissionisstronglyreduced(12.4gCO2e/MJ)incomparisonwiththedepartingscenario(25.3gCO2e/MJ).MorereliablecarbonemissionsforsugarcaneinBrazilareusedinAlternative3.Theemissionfactorofthisalternativeis66.65MgC/ha(244MgCO2e/ha),aspresentedinTable8.BothCinvegetationandbelowgroundweretakenintoaccountinthisfactor.Inthatalternative,carbonemissionsbecamepositive,confirmingthatsugarcaneisuptakingcarbon,ratherthanemitting.Alternative4isbasedonanaverageofaboveandbelowcarbonemissionsfactorsofthecropspresentedinTable8(43.64MgC/ha),withoutdifferentiatingsugarcaneinBrazilaswasthecaseinAlternative3.Negativeemissionswerealsoobtainedinthatalternative.AlthoughTables6and7clearlyshowthatcarbonemissionsfactorsusedinWoodsHoleforLatinAmericaoverstatesemissionsinBrazil,becauseemissionfactorsforBrazilianecosystemsarelower,wedecidednottochangeemissionsfactorsforforestsandpasturelandsinthe
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
24/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 24
alternativescenariospresentedinthissection.However,itisworthmentioningthatmoreprecise(specificdataalreadyavailableinpeerreviewliterature)carbonemissionsfactorsshouldbeusedforBrazil,giventhatthemajorityofthesugarcanelandusechangeistakingplace,forallscenarios,inBrazil.
Table10:CarbonIntensityUsingLandUseChangefromTable9andAlternativeScenariosforCarbonUptake
AlternativeScenariosILUCcarbonintensity
(gCO2e/MJ)
1.DepartingScenario(Table9) 25.3
2.DepartingScenario+CarbonUptakeofForestGained(arrayEMISSCTR)+CarbonUptakeofCropsfromGTAPEfsef_tables.xls(18MgCO2e/ha)
12.4
3.DepartingScenario+CarbonUptakeofForestGained(arrayEMISSCTR)+CarbonUptakeofCropsRestofWorldfromGTAPEfsef_tables.xls(18MgCO2e/ha)+CarbonUptakeforSugarcaneBrazilfromTable8(244MgCO2e/ha).
9.4
4.DepartingScenario+CarbonUptakeForestGained(arrayEMISSCTR)+CarbonUptakeCropsfromTable8(160MgCO2e/ha)
10.7
Source:AuthorsCalculationsavailableuponrequest
ThelargevariationsinthevaluespresentedinTable10makesclearthatbothforlandusechangeandforcarbonintensitycalculationsresultsarehihglysensitivetocriteriaandparametersused.NotonlychangesinGTAPparametersleadtostrongreductionsinlandconvertedasaresultofsugarcaneexpansion,butalsotheinclusionofthecarbonuptakeinforestgainedandcropsexpansionmayrevertcarbonemissionstocarbonuptake.
GiventhatBrazilianagriculturedynamicsareasignificantdeterminantinlanduseandthattheanalysisabovedonewithsupportoftheleadingagriculturaleconomistsinBrazilrunscountertoCARBspreliminaryresults,westronglyurgeCARBtorevisitthemethodologiesusedinthelandusechangemodelingcarefully.WithrespecttoGTAPanalysis,therevisionshouldfocusonimprovementstobetterrepresentthecomplexdynamicsoftheBrazilianagriculture.Withrespecttocarbonintensitycalculations,CARBshouldreviseallcarbonemissionfactorsusingspecific,crediblevaluesforBrazilianecosystemsaswellascarboncreditsresultingfromforestgainedandcropsareaexpansion.Oncethoseimprovementsareimplemented,wefullyexpectthatCARBwouldconcludethat
BraziliansugarcaneILUCismarginal,asweendeavoredtodemonstrateinthisdocument.
8/14/2019 UNICA Comments to CARB on Sugarcane Ethanol
25/25
UNICA Comments on CaliforniasLowCarbonFuelStandard Page 25
IV. CONCLUSION
WecommendCARBforitsassessmentofthelifecycleemissionsassociatedwiththeproductionofsugarcaneethanol.However,webelievetheanalysisassessmentrequiresacomprehensiveupdatewithmoreaccurateandrealisticdatafromcurrentexperienceandanticipatedtrendsinBrazil.
AsforGREETCAmodeling,perhapsnootherissuedeservesgreaterattentionthanthecreditsresultingfromthecombinationofreducedfieldburning,increasedmechanization,andimprovedboilerefficiency,whichwereabsentinCARBsanalysis.AsforestimatesofindirectlandusechangesbasedonGTAPmodeling,whilewestrenuouslydisagreewiththeassertionsthatILUCcanbeaccuratelycalculatedatthismoment,webelieveanumberofcriticalelementsareabsentfromtheStaffReportanalysis,particularlyanexplanationoftheassumptionsmade,supportingevidenceforelasticitiesused,andunderstandingoflandandcattledynamicsinBrazil.
Itisimperativethattheselanduseissuesbeproperlyaddressedinordertohavearobustandmeaningfulcalculationofthecarbonintensityofbiofuels.WithoutadoubtanILUCpenaltyof46gCO2/MJforsugarcaneethanolhasnoscientificbasis.Asevidencedbythelevelofanalysisofthisletter,theremaywellbecarboncreditsgeneratedinsugarcaneproductionifthemodelisreasonablycalibrated.WehopethisletterwillcontributetoimprovingthedevelopmentoftheLCFSinCaliforniaandremainatyourdisposaltoansweranyquestionsyouoryourcolleaguesmayhave.Sincerely,MarcosS.JankPresident&CEO
JoelVelascoChiefRepresentativeNorthAmerica
cc: Dr.DanielSperling
Mr.KenYeagerMs.DoreneD'Adamo,Esq.Mrs.BarbaraRiordan
Dr.JohnR.Balmes,M.D.Ms.LydiaH.Kennard,Esq.Ms.SandraBergMr.RonRobertsDr.JohnG.Telles,M.D.Dr.RonaldO.Loveridge
top related