Pathways to Forest Health and Carbon Neutrality in California

As part of our long-term policy design work,CSG has been exploring how California can achieve its ambitious forest healthand GHG emissions reduction goals. In this blog post, we highlight findings todate from collaborations with UC Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, and others, including promising strategies for aligning the state’sforest health and carbon neutrality goals.

* * *

As Californians, we fear that 2020 will beanother disastrous fire year. In 2018 alone, fires burned almost 2 millionacres, caused well over $15 billion in damages, and resulted in 100 fatalities.These fires also resulted in dramatic climate impacts, releasing over 45million tons of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and greatly hampered progress towards ourlong-term climate and air quality goals. More recently, PG&E’s publicsafety power shutoffs underscore how fire affects all Californians – from ruralcommunities to big cities. In an era of climate change, now more than ever, itis imperative that our forests are healthy, resilient, and able to withstand thegrowing threat of catastrophic wildfire.

California’sForest Policy

California aims to increase the pace and scaleof forest management, including forest thinning, prescribed fire, and similarfuels reduction treatments, in order to reduce wildfire and improve foresthealth. In 2018, former Governor Brown issued Executive Order (EO) B-52-18, whichdescribed how the state’s forests are overgrown and deteriorating due to ahistory of fire suppression. This EO was accompanied by the finalization ofCalifornia’s Forest Carbon Plan (FCP), which sets an aspirational goal for the stateto treat one million forested acres per year.

FCP implementation presents a number ofimplications for California. First, it requires a significant increase in thelevel of forest treatments, which are currently about 250,000 acres per year.Second, it requires a substantial increase in funding for forest treatments. Assumingit costs $2,000 to treat one acre, it will cost the state $2 billion+ per year,for the next 20+ years, to implement the FCP. In the 2019-20 budget, Californiaonly spent $200 million on forest treatments. Finally, it requires a newstrategy for forest residues management. FCP implementation will generatehundreds of millions of new tons of wood waste. If this waste can only beprocessed via current approaches, including open pile burning, decomposition,or combustion in biomass power plants, this will result in substantial GHGemissions, and thestate’s efforts to achieve forest health will undermine its climate goals.

CSG, in collaboration with UC Berkeley,Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and others, has been exploringeach of these implications, as well as potential strategies to help the stateachieve its goals. We highlight some findings from key analyses that we haveworked on.

Fire, Carbon,and Jobs

UC Berkeley evaluated the fire, carbon, andjobs implications of increasing forest management in California. UC Berkeleyfound that the ability to convert wood waste resulting from fuels reductiontreatments into wood products is critical for enabling wildfire reduction, GHG emissionsreductions, and job creation benefits. UC Berkeley considered two keyscenarios:

• Business-As-Usual (BAU): If wood waste can only be processed via current approaches, including open pile burning, decomposition, or combustion in biomass power plants, then fire and jobs benefits are limited. This is because BAU disposal options provide limited revenue to support an expansion in forest management. Moreover, with only BAU disposal options, GHG emissions from forests could actually increase over the period to 2045; meaning efforts to improve forest health would undermine the state’s climate goals (Figure 1a).

• Wood Products: If wood waste can be collected and processed into wood products, including biofuels and mass timber[1], then fire, carbon, and jobs benefits can accrue. As wood products increase the value of wood waste, forest management can be expanded, resulting in fire and jobs benefits. New wood products manufacturing also creates jobs in rural communities. A preliminary analysis indicates that a wood products initiative could create at least 60,000 new jobs in California[2]. Finally, avoided BAU disposal options, in conjunction with lifecycle GHG benefits provided by biofuels and mass timber, provide high GHG reductions (Figure 1b).

Figure 1: This diagram compares three scenarios based on their ability to yield beneficial outcomes for fire reduction, job creation, and GHG reductions. We found that converting wood waste into wood products with CCS would maximize fire reduction, job creation, and GHG reductions.

Figure 1: This diagram compares three scenarios based on their ability to yield beneficial outcomes for fire reduction, job creation, and GHG reductions. We found that converting wood waste into wood products with CCS would maximize fire reduction, job creation, and GHG reductions.

Interplay with Carbon Neutrality

Forest residues are not only a source ofpotential energy, but also, carbon dioxide (CO­₂). In a recent study, LLNL and itscollaborators demonstrated how capturing and storing the CO₂contained in California’s biomass waste streams, of which forest waste is thelargest, is a critical strategy for the state to achieve carbon neutrality by2045 (known as “negative emissions”). This is possible where biomass waste isconverted into biofuels, such as renewable hydrogen or renewable natural gas,with carbon capture and storage (CCS). As a result, the prospect of convertingforest waste into biofuels with CCS presents an important opportunity to alignthe state’s forest health and climate goals. Additional state and federalincentives for performing CCS can support an expansion in forest management. CCSwould also serve to create new job opportunities in the Central Valley (e.g. apotential hub for a new carbon economy). In full, woodproducts with CCS allows fire, carbon, and jobs benefits to be maximized (Figure1c).

PolicyOpportunities

CSG is currently working to develop new policies that would put this science into action. Figure 2 provides a conceptual reference point for this work.

Figure 2: Forest waste-to-fuels with CCS supply chain.

Based on a wide range of discussions withacademics, conservation partners, project developers, state agency experts, andothers, we are exploring three key issues related to this supply chain:

• Feedstock supply:How can we ensure that forest residues aresustainably removed, and that facilities can obtain reliable, long-termsupplies of feedstock? CSG is exploring how new regional wood wastemanagement entities (“Forest Resilience Authorities”) could achieve both ofthese objectives. See here for a recent discussion paper.

• Product price:How can we ensure sufficient incentivesfor biofuels products? CSG is exploring how California’s Low Carbon FuelStandard (LCFS) could feasibly be amended to provide increased incentives for verylow-carbon and carbon-negative fuel pathways, as well as wood waste fuelpathways. See here for a discussion paper. Importantly, given itslifecycle assessment foundation, the LCFS could be leveraged in a way thatrewards ecological and multi-benefit forest management.

• Carbon capture and storage (CCS): How can we demonstrate and scale CCS in California? CSG is exploring how a “CO₂ transport and storage” entity could reduce barriers to market entry. See here for a preliminary concept paper.

Conclusion

The severity of California’s forest healthcrisis – and what it will take to scale wildfire risk reduction treatments tomeet state goals – is a multi-faceted, multi-decadal, complex problem. Based onthe work of UC Berkeley, LLNL, and others, converting forest residues into woodproducts with CCS appears to be a strong potential strategy which can supportand align California’s ambitious forest treatment and climate goals. It alsopaves the way for numerousother benefits, including air and water quality improvements and biodiversityprotection. Finally, it may present an opportunity to enhance the state’s currenteconomic recovery efforts. For moreinformation on this work, please contact Sam Uden (sam@csgcalifornia.com) or Amanda DeMarco (amanda@csgcalifornia.com).

---

[1] UC Berkeley and theJoint Institute forWood Products Innovation (JIWPI) showed that biofuels are suited to derivationfrom small-diameter, non-merchantable forest residues, while mass timberproducts, such as cross-laminated timber, are suited to derivation frommerchantable timber (i.e. greater than 8” in DBH).

[2] This includes acombination of new forestry jobs (i.e. 17,153), wood products infrastructureconstruction jobs (37,021), wood products operations jobs (1,577), and supplychain/indirect effects job creation (12,401).