Presentations made in Track H at EUEC 2015, in San Diego, California.
GHG & CLIMATE MANAGEMENT
H1.1 Strategies to Comply with new Financial Regulations in the GHG Constrained Market
Nedia Miller, Founder, MILLER, CTA
This paper will examine how the new financial regulations have impacted the environmental markets.
We will begin with an overview of the environmental markets & products, & discuss which finaicial
instruments would maximize portfolio performance. The green markets effect on the investment
community will be analyzed. The most recent developments in the green markets will be looked at.
Examples from all the markets will be presented.
H1.2 Alternative Solutions for Lowering CO2 Emissions From Fossil Fuel EGUs
Tim Donnelly, Senior Project Manager, POWER Engineers, Inc.; Gary Baranowski
EPA’s proposed carbon rules for existing fossil fuel fired electricity generating units (EGUs) will require states to
develop plans for achieving compliance with Subpart UUUU state rate-based CO2 emission performance
goals. Existing solid fuel power plants will be under pressure to reduce carbon emissions. Low hanging
fruit options, such as full natural gas conversion or carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) may not be
feasible due to natural gas supply issues or lack of back-end space to accommodate CCS infrastructure.
Further, off-site transport of captured CO2 via pipeline may not be feasible or may be too costly.
This presentation examines a range of alternative solutions for lowering CO2 emissions for such facilities.
For power plants with access to natural gas or within reasonable distance to a natural gas pipeline,
we will examine advantages and disadvantages of several alternatives including the addition of a
simple cycle turbine to the existing system, combustion turbine combined cycle re-powering, as well
as hot windbox re-powering. For those with no reasonable access to natural gas supply, we will look
at co-firing with biomass. The presentation will consider engineering as well as regulatory aspects of
H1.3 Five years of Operating Experience with DryFining Fuel Enhancement Process
Sandra Broekema, Manager, Business Development, Great River Energy; Charlie Bullinger, Great River Energy; Nenad Sarunac, Power System Associates
The 1000 ton per hour DryFining fuel enhancement system has been in continous commerical operation
at Coal Creek Station in Underwood North Dakota since December of 2009. Several test campaigns
were conducted to determine baseline performance and quantify the effects of beneficiated lignite
on unit performance and emissions. The DryFining fuel enhancement process is a multi-pollutant
control technology that improves overall power plant efficiency while reducing operating costs and
emissions of sulfur, mercury, nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide. Five years of operating experience
on more than 30 million tons of lignite will be presented, including the operating cost savings and
material reductions in carbon intensity at an existing power station.
H1.4 The Effects of Pollution & Climate Change on Human Health
Katie Baron, Dental Student, NYU College of Dentistry; Bapanaiah Penugonda
Why do we pollute the air and water that we rely on for survival? There is a tight link between
environmental degradation, human health, the importance of sustainability and the impact the
environment has on health care professionals and their patients. This presentation will cover topics
including the effects of airborne pollutants on respiratory diseases such as asthma, the consequences
of pharmaceuticals in fresh water systems and how climate change could influence the prevalence of
disease. Considering the link between environmental issues and health, the union between providers
and patients could be a novel way of working towards a healthier world.
H1.5 Sugarcane to Low Carbon Energy in California
David Rubenstein, President / CEO, California Ethanol & Power, LLC (CE+P)
California Ethanol & Power, LLC (CE+P) is a development company that intends to construct, own and
operate a series of low carbon, sugarcane and sorghum feedstock based renewable energy facilities.
CE+P is in the late stage development of its first facility which will produce advanced biofuel grade
ethanol, low carbon electricity and bio-methane as well as various other low carbon byproducts.
CE+P has signed a contract under which Shell will purchase all of CE+P’s ethanol, electricity and biomethane.
CE+P has obtained the two primary permits required to construct its first facility; the county’s
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and the Authority to Construct (ATC) air permit. CE+P will locate its first
facility in California’s Imperial Valley, a well-established agricultural region that is ideal for growing
sugarcane. CE+P will convert 40,000 acres of sugarcane grown year round and 30,000 acres of
sweet sorghum grown seasonally into 66 million gallons of low-carbon fuel-grade ethanol per year, 50
megawatts of base-load renewable electricity, and 930 million cubic feet of bio-methane, all for sale
in California. It is important to note that CE+P’s ethanol, with 90% lower carbon intensity than gasoline,
will play a vital role in California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard and allow for premium pricing. David has
spoken at numerous industry events and would be glad to share our experiences with your audience
if given the opportunity to present.
H1.6 Kinetics of the CO2 Methanation Reaction Over Alumina Supported Ni & Ni-Fe Catalyst
Atul Kumar, Student, IIT Kanpur; Deepak Kumar & Goutam Deo
Carbon dioxide methanation is an industrially important reaction studied extensively. In the current
study, we utilized CO2 as a feedstock for methane production with help of a Ni based Al2O3
supported catalyst. Ni and Ni-Fe catalysts supported on Al2O3 were synthesized, characterized
and tested for the methanation reaction.Supported Ni-Fe catalysts showed enhanced CO2
conversion and higher CH4 yield as compared to supported Ni catalysts. Effect of contact time
and CO2 to H2 ratios on enhancement of catalytic activity, and the kinetic parameters for each
catalyst for a particular reaction mechanism were studied. Catalysts were characterized by various
techniques such as XRF, XRD, H2-TPR, H2-chemisorption, CO2-TPD, TEM, in-situ DR-UV-vis and Raman
spectroscopy. Reaction studies showed that the CO2 to H2 ratios at a constant total flow rate do
not play a significant role on the enhancement of catalytic activity with increased contact time. Ni
metal and Ni-Fe alloy were present on the reduced Ni/Al2O3 and Ni-Fe/Al2O3 catalysts. The degree
of reduction was different and may contribute to the enhancement in activity of the Ni-Fe/Al2O3
catalyst. Presence of Ni-Fe alloys and difference in reducibility has an effect on the CO2 conversion
and CH4 yield and may be the reason for the supported Ni-Fe catalysts being more active for
the CO2 hydrogenation reaction. The kinetic parameters for each catalyst were determined and compared.
H2.1 Analysis of Potential CO2 Reduction Using the EPA’s GHG Regulation Block Strategies for Existing EGUs
Emily Kunkel, Environmental Associate, Sargent & Lundy, LLC; Rajendra Gaikwad
The EPA signed for publication a regulation that limits GHG emissions at existing EGUs, requiring each
state to reduce their total CO2 emissions to achieve a nationwide goal. Required emission reductions
are listed for each state based on past and current emissions, while keeping a nationwide goal in mind.
Four reduction strategy Blocks were described by the EPA. Blocks 1 and 2 primarily apply to existing
coal-fired units and suggest heat rate improvements (HRI) and dispatching more generation to NGCC
plants. For each state, the EPA requires a CO2 reduction of approximately 6% with 4% predicted to
come from HRI strategies. Additionally, the EPA outlined six potential trade regions that could take
part in a market-based approach to CO2 reduction In this paper, Sargent & Lundy will investigate one
region with the highest CO2 baseline emissions. Each state of this region will be analyzed to determine if
4% reduction is feasible using the Block 1 approach. Coal-fired units will be analyzed based on existing
equipment to identify potential HRI strategies and estimate statewide reduction potential. Based on
the reduction determined by Block 1, the paper will explore the existing regional NGCC infrastructure
and analyze how much generation will need to be shifted away from coal-fired units to achieve the
remainder of the 6% reduction. Furthermore, high reduction percentages may potentially require cofiring
natural gas in the existing coal boilers in addition to fuel switching.
H2.2 GHG Permitting: Current Status & Recent Updates
Maren Seibold, Managing Consultant, Trinity Consultants
Since issuance of the GHG Tailoring Rule, air permitting requirements associated with GHG emissions
in the United States continue to evolve. Recently, the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the
Tailoring Rule that allowed a facility to trigger Title V or PSD permitting based solely on GHG emissions;
however, the court also affirmed EPA’s authority to include GHG considerations in air quality permits
that are triggered based on emissions of other regulated air pollutants. As such, many facilities must
continue to address GHG emissions, including Best Available Control Technology (BACT) evaluations
for those emissions, in their air quality permits. This presentation will provide an overview of air quality
regulations and requirements associated with GHG emissions that affect the utility sector. Specifically,
the effect of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, as well as the impact of the biogenic CO2 deferral
vacature, will be described. The implications of these rulings on GHG BACT requirements for utility
sources will be addressed. The presentation will also provide guidance for those facilities that have
been issued or are in the process of obtaining air permits solely because of GHG emissions. Finally, the
presenter will summarize recent federal and state-specific GHG developments and their implications,
such as the proposed NSPS for GHG emissions from electric utilities and EPA’s proposed Clean Power
Plan, which includes GHG reduction goals for each state.
H2.3 eGRID Updates
Travis Johnson, Environmental Protection Specialist, US Environmental Protection Agency; Jeremy Schreifels, US EPA; Cristina Quiroz, Radium Consulting
Summary of the recent changes to eGRID and a discussion of scope 2 and 3 emissions calculations in corporate GHG inventories.
H2.4 Plasma Gasification Offsets of GHG Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants
Louis Circeo, Chief Scientist, Applied Plasma Arc Technologies, LLC
CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants are estimated to range from 2 to 3 tons for every ton of
coal combusted. Collocated plasma waste-to-energy gasification facilities processing municipal solid
wastes could offer several opportunities to mitigate a sizable portion of these GHG emissions. Past
EPA studies have determined that with conventional gasification systems, the gasification of 1 ton
of MSW would actually reduce the amount of CO2-equivalent GHG emissions to the atmosphere by
more than 1 ton, since the MSW would not be landfilled. Plasma gasification systems would extend this
GHG reduction by up to 2 tons per ton of MSW processed. Since plasma gasification of the “biogenic”
portion of the MSW (about 60%) would be considered a form of renewable energy, this portion could
be considered to be “carbon-neutral” and not considered a GHG. Additional GHG offsets would
accrue from reducing the amount of coal required to be combusted to produce an equal amount of
power produced by the MSW. In addition, these GHG reductions could be used to fulfill “green power”
requirements, and may be eligible for Renewable Energy Credits. As a result of these offsets, even the
most egregious GHG emitters have the potential to be brought into closer compliance with EPA New
Source Performance Standards.
H7.1 Simple AB32 GHG Position Management Solution
David Gloski, President, xOverTime Inc.; Todd Barth & Michael Lehane, xOvertime; Ken Nold, Turlock Irrigation District
What management wants to know is “What is our compliance position compared to our
forecast for year-to-date (YTD) and end of year(EOY)?” They will also be interested in “What is
our financial position for YTD and EOY?” Presenting these positions clearly and concisely keeps
everyone feeling good that the process is being managed well. Having a system in place where
management can call up the position anytime is important for meeting everyone’s comfort level.
While some companies can afford to spend for special enterprise system to bring the data together,
there are many participants in the market that cannot justify a large expenditure to manage this
information. The challenge is that while they may have much smaller emissions, these companies
have many of the same regulatory requirements and sometimes more than the larger companies.
A solution will be presented that is currently in use at some California Public Utilities for managing thee
data associated with their GHG portfolio position. The solution is based upon Microsoft Excel so that it is
easily customizable and affordable. The solution is augmented with a SaaS database to improve data
governance and collaboration across the company. Incorporated into the solution are capturing all
allowance and credit transactions, forecast and actual emissions, market data, and recovered cost information.
H7.2 Comparative Analysis of GHG Data Collected Under EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program & California’s Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulation
Sean Hogan, Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The purpose of this paper is to compare data collected under the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) and data collected under
California’s Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulation. EPA’s GHGRP, as codified at 40 CFR Part 98,
established provisions to ensure the accuracy of emissions data through monitoring,recordkeeping
and verification requirements. Verification requirements entail self certification of reported data
followed by EPA verification. The California Air Resources Board Regulation for the Mandatory
Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), sections 95100-
95157) incorporated by reference certain requirements promulgated by the U.S. EPA at 40 CFR Part 98.
However, under the California MRR, reporting entities are required to have their GHG emissions data
reports verified by an ARB-accredited verification body. These third-party verification requirements are
specified in section 95103(f) of California’s reporting regulation. This paper will compare data collected
under both programs for source categories where applicability requirements, facility definition, and
reporting methodologies are are comparable.
H7.3 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan: Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation White Paper
Susan Freedman, Senior Regional Energy/Climate Planner, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); Allison Wood
Climate change is expected to have significant and widespread impacts on California’s environment
and economy. Limiting the impacts of climate change requires collaboration and action throughout
all sectors of California’s economy and governmental agencies. California’s approach includes
strategies that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and prepare for climate change impacts,
while also supporting economic prosperity, improving public health and social equity, protecting
infrastructure investments, and conserving natural habitat and open space. Local and regional
governments throughout California are working to create innovative policies, plans, and programs to
address climate change. In the San Diego region, local governments, the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG), and other regional public agencies are working collaboratively with local
non-profits, universities, and businesses to prepare plans and implement programs that complement
efforts at the state, federal, and international level. The purpose of the Climate Change Mitigation
and Adaptation White Paper is to inform the development of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan,
a combined update of the SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan, Regional Transportation Plan,
and Sustainable Communities Strategy. The paper includes an inventory of regional GHG emissions,
recommendations for a regional approach to address climate change, and a summary of current
efforts in the San Diego region.
H7.4 Real-Time Interactive Dashboard of Zero Emission Vehicle Development in California
Ria Langheim, Research Analyst, Center for Sustainable Energy; John Anderson
Achieving California’s zero emission vehicles (ZEV) goal of 1.5 million vehicles on the road by 2020
will require coordinated effort among policymakers, policy advocates, manufacturers and dealers to
effectively facilitate market expansion. To aid in this effort, the Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE),
in coordination with the Air Resources Board (ARB), has developed a data visualization tool using
information collected through the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) PEV Owner Survey. This tool
allows stakeholders to analyze the spatial and temporal trends in electric vehicle adoption, as well as
changing demographic compositions, dealer effectiveness, and consumer motivations. This interactive,
real-time platform for accessing data presents a powerful new research tool for stakeholders in the ZEV
space, supplementing traditional research products and processes. To understand how this tool is
impacting the State’s PEV market, CSE is conducting research into how stakeholders are leveraging
this data to support their market facilitation work. This research includes analysis of interviews with
stakeholders and data from the dashboards feedback form. CSE will present insights from this work
on stakeholder utilization of the tool as well as highlighting the development process, design and
functionality of the dashboard.
H7.5 Understanding the California Carbon Market: The Timing Effect
Jonathan Ornelas, Director of US Emissions, ICIS; Jan Frommeyer & Judith Schroeter
As part of California’s Assembly Bill 32, the California cap-and-trade program seeks to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. By placing a hard cap on emissions & setting up a market
based mechanism, California has placed a price on carbon emissions covered by the program. These
sectors include power producers, industrials, & fuel distributors. The California Air Resources Board has
instituted several market instruments to help companies manage their carbon compliance obligations.
Companies covered by the cap-and-trade program must purchase California Carbon Allowances
(CCAs) to cover their emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Companies can also use offset
credits as a lower cost alternative to CCAs for compliance. There are several unique characteristics
to carbon markets that we will explore. ICIS carbon market analysts will give you an introduction into
the carbon market & give you the insight you need to create your market strategy. The cap-andtrade
program is a unique market mechanism called an emissions trading system. Emissions markets
have used this system around the world. At ICIS, our proprietary Timing Impact Model focuses on
behavior based analytics that go beyond just traditional fundamental analysis. Whether you have a
compliance obligation or are just interested in learning more about the landmark California cap-andtrade
program please allow us to share our view of carbon markets.
G5.1 A Framework for Ecological Re-use of Disturbed Ecosystems
Mark S. Laska, Ph.D., Founder & CEO, Great Ecology
Despite industrial and agricultural degradation and contamination, disturbed lands hold significant
natural resource value. Land owners of disturbed or contaminated sites are looking for creative ways
to achieve beneficial site re-use for otherwise unusable sites. They need a programmatic approach
that quantifies and maximizes the natural resource value of the land in the ecosystem marketplace,
thereby reducing their potential liability and simultaneously improving community relations. In this
session, we will describe a three-part framework to achieve site re-use beneficial to the land, land
owner, the surrounding community, and the stakeholders. This approach consists of systematic site
assessment, conceptual planning and evaluation of alternative business opportunities. We will use
project examples to demonstrate how preserving and promoting high-value natural resources, as well
as restoring degraded habitats on disturbed sites, can offer property owners significant benefits.
G5.2 A Greener Shade of Brownfields – A Corporate Perspective
Jane Anderson, Strategy Advisor, Chevron Environmental Management Company
This presentation explores a relatively new approach to generate value from surplus properties held
by corporations that may be unsuitable for industrial, commercial, or residential redevelopment.
These properties have been a challenge to Corporate Land Managers and Environmental Managers
for decades. Factors such as poor physical setting, past use stigma, residual contamination, and
unfavorable market conditions are some of the reasons why these properties remain in corporate
land portfolios. Recently, some companies are beginning to recognize the financial value of largescale
conservation projects. This value can be maximized by optimizing investigation and remediation
resources, pursuing conservation and preservation incentives, and effectively controlling long-term
land use as a liability management strategy. These factors to maximize value will be discussed in this
presentation. In an effort to support a stronger tax-base for the community, large-scale conservation
projects can carve out some parcels for a traditional redevelopment. This approach can provide
the opportunity to place residually contaminated soil areas beneath vegetative caps or parking
areas. Additionally, a subset of conservation projects can also support ecosystem Mitigation Banks.
An overview of Mitigation Banking will be discussed as it relates to an effective property disposition
strategy for brownfields.
G5.3 A Case Study of Wetland Mitigation in a Heavily Industrialized Waterfront
Brian Kellmann, Wetlands Project Manager, Kinder Morgan; Mark S. Laska, Ph.D., Great Ecology
Corporate landowners successfully manage complex remediation and restoration projects on
contaminated sites using best industry practices that focus on connectivity to the habitat, partnership
with the community and stakeholders, and innovative technologies. The Woodbridge Waterfront
Park in New Jersey is a compelling case study that used these practices. The corporate landowner
was required to remediate contaminants while mitigating approximately 50-acres of wetland habitat
on this 185-acre site. Ecologists and remedial engineers collaborated early to satisfy the regulatory
requirements and design a successful project. Post permitting, the integrated team expanded to
include a general contractor. This project was successful because we identified the final site use and
restoration goals early, developed an innovative remediation and restoration plan and strategy that
united the community, environmental advocacy groups, and stakeholders in full partnership. The
innovative mitigation design saved the client $50 million in compensatory regulatory charges and
returned public connectivity to the Raritan River.
G5.4 Private capital investment in large scale restoration
Adam Davis, Partner, Ecosystem Investment Partners
Ecosystem Investment Partners is a private equity fund manager investing in large scale ecological
restoration projects around the United States in order to deliver cost-effective compliance solutions
for development, infrastructure and other economic activity. Founded in 2006, the firm is currently
investing its $181M EIP II fund, and now has over 50 square miles of wetland restoration and 100 linear
miles of stream restoration underway. This presentation will describe several of the existing portfolio
investments, and provide detail on the specific restoration results and compliance options provided.
G5.5 Restoration of Impaired Ecosystems: An Ounce of Prevention or a Pound of Cure?
Timothy Hoelzle, VP Technical Services, Great Ecology; Steve Glomb, USDOI; Ruth Hull, Intrinsik
Environmental Sciences Inc.; Will Clements, Colorado State University;Aïda Farag, Diane Larson, US
Geological Survey; Ralph Stahl, Dupont Corporation; Jenny Stauber, CSIRO Land and Water; Mike
Hooper, US Geological Survey; Larry Kaputska, LK Consultancy; Sam Luoma, University of California,
Davis; Jason Ruhr, University of South Florid; Anne Wagner, Chevron Energy Technology Company
Multiple stressors alter the composition and integrity of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Land use
change, mining, urbanization, and climate change all represent major impacts to habitats and
ecological processes. Restoration of contaminated ecosystems is even more critical as natural
systems become more limited. The process of restoring contaminated ecosystems and preventing
contamination during restoration poses unique challenges that must be addressed prior to initiating
remediation and restoration. These challenges include identifying restoration goals, developing and
implementing restoration design, determining restoration effectiveness, and anticipating pitfalls. The
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and the Society for Ecological Restoration
(SER) sponsored a joint technical workshop on the Restoration of Impaired Ecosystems, which
connected international experts in the fields of aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicology, restoration, and
related disciplines to address these challenges, discuss case studies, and illustrate key approaches and
research needs. The overall objective was to define the best scientific practices available for preventive
actions to limit contamination and restore aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems where toxicants have
been released. This presentation will offer key takeaways from the joint SETAC/SER workshop on how
appropriate planning, restoration design and monitoring can positively influence restoration outcomes.