DRAFT
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EPA/600/R-13/008A
February 2014
External Review Draft
Development of Biofuel Scenarios to 2050:
A Workshop Report
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT. It has not been formally
released by the US Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this stage
be construed to represent Agency policy. It is being circulated for comment on
its technical accuracy and policy implications.
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
US Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review
under applicable information quality guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by EPA.
It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency determination or
policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ABSTRACT
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for developing and
implementing regulations to ensure transportation fuel sold in the United States contains a
minimum volume of renewable fuel, including cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and
advanced biofuel. In support of mandates in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
of 2007, EPA undertook a scenario planning process that builds a foundation for more
quantitative analyses, models, and lifecycle assessments. The resulting set of scenarios describe
the potential impact of key uncertainties (e.g., feedstock mixes, technologies) on the lifecycle of
bioenergy (renewable energy made from materials derived from biological sources), and expand
EPA's vision and analysis beyond the Renewable Fuel Standard 2 (RFS2) regulatory horizon of
2022to a time horizon of 2050. These scenarios can be used to guide parameterization of inputs
for models and assessments to inform decision makers on the range of environmental and
economic impacts of potential bioenergy pathways. The scenarios are designed to provide a
common framework and set of assumptions from which to work as different agencies explore
strategies for the future; they are not intended to be predictive. The scenarios do not represent
projections or expectations of the EPA.
February 28, 2014
li
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT II
LIST OF TABLES IV
LIST OF FIGURES IV
LIST 01 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS V
PREFACE VI
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS VII
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW 4
2.1. RFS2 Annual Volume Standards 5
2.2. Purpose and Goals of Scenarios 6
3. SCENARIO FRAMEWORK PROCESS 7
3.1. Define the Focal Question 7
3.2. Identify Driving Macro Forces 8
3.3. Rank the Macro Forces by Importance/Uncertainty 12
3.4. Select the Scenario Framework 14
3.5. Develop Storyboards/Outlines 17
4. SCENARIO NARRATIVES 18
4.1. Scenario Comparison Matrix 18
4.2. Scenario 1 Narrative: Fossil future 26
4.3. Scenario 2 Narrative: Bioenergy Bonanza 34
4.4. Scenario 3 Narrative: Bioenergy Boutiques 43
4.5. Scenario 4 Narrative: Wasteless World 52
5. CONCLUSIONS 59
GLOSSARY 60
REFERENCES 61
APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANTS 62
APPENDIX B: SECONDARY RESEARCH SOURCES 68
APPENDIX C: BIOFUEL MODELS AND PUBLICATIONS 69
February 28, 2014
in
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1. Scenario titles, uncertainties included for each, and scenario descriptors 3
Table 3-1. Likely truths identified through interviews and secondary research 9
Table 3-2. Trends and uncertainties related to the political/regulatory dimension 9
Table 3-3. Trends and uncertainties related to the economic dimension 10
Table 3-4. Trends and uncertainties related to the social/demographic dimension 11
Table 3-5. Trends and uncertainties related to the technological dimension 11
Table 3-6. Trends and uncertainties related to the environmental dimension 11
Table 3-7. Key characteristics of scenarios based on scenario framework 1 15
Table 3-8. Key characteristics of scenarios based on scenario framework 2 15
Table 3-9. Key characteristics of scenarios based on scenario framework 3 16
Table 4-1. Scenario comparison matrix 20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Examples of Feedstocks for Biofuel Production 5
Figure 3-1. Scenario framework and process used for scenario development 7
Figure 3-2. Key Uncertainties as Identified by Workshop Participants 13
Figure 3-3. Selected Key Uncertainties 14
Figure 3-4. Scenario Framework 1: Long-term Energy/Climate Change Policy and Price/Cost
Competitiveness of Biofuels 14
Figure 3-5. Scenario Framework 2: Global Food/Feed Demand vs. Agricultural Productivity and
Long-term Energy/Climate Change Policy 15
Figure 3-6. Scenario Framework 3: Global Food/Feed Demand vs. Agricultural Productivity and
Price/Cost Competitiveness of Biofuels 16
February 28, 2014
iv
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CAFE
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CBTL
Coal-Biomass-to-liquid
CTL
Coal-to-liquid
CNG
Compressed natural gas
DOD
US Department of Defense
DOE
US Department of Energy
EISA
Energy Independence and Security Act
EPA
US Environmental Protection Agency
EPAct
Energy Policy Act
GCIA
Global Change Impacts and Adaptation
GHG
Greenhouse gas
GM
Genetically modified
GTL
Gas-to-liquid
NCEA
National Center for Environmental Assessment
MSW
Municipal solid waste
NGO
Non-governmental organization
OECD
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development
RFS
Renewable Fuel Standard
RFS2
Renewable Fuel Standard 2
USD A
US Department of Agriculture
VMT
Vehicle miles traveled
February 28, 2014
v
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared by ICF International and the Global Change Impacts and
Adaptation (GCIA) program in the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) of
the Office of Research and Development at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The four scenarios described in this report are intended to provide useful and meaningful inputs
for agencies and organizations modeling bioenergy consumption through 2050. To develop the
final four scenario narratives, expert interviews were conducted in order to determine a focal
question, likely truths, trends, and uncertainties. The results of these interviews were presented,
discussed, and debated during a two-day workshop in Washington D.C. in August 2011. The
workshop, titled "Future Scenarios for Biofuels to 2050," included bioenergy experts from
Federal Government, academia, industry, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and
focused on developing four scenarios that would describe the state of bioenergy in 2050. The
scenario narratives are written descriptions and stories of potential future worlds and the impact
of those worlds on bioenergy. The scenarios are hypothetical situations intended to highlight
areas of uncertainty. It is not the intent of the EPA to suggest that there is a high likelihood of
occurrence; nor do the scenarios described represent the projections or expectations of the EPA.
Rather, the descriptive scenarios can be used as starting points for quantification of specific
inputs for models and assessments to inform decision makers on the impacts of potential
bioenergy policies and development pathways (See Appendix C for examples of models and
assessments).
February 28, 2014
vi
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS
The Global Change Impacts and Adaptation (GCIA) program within the National Center
for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and Development is responsible for
publishing this report. This document was prepared by ICF International under Contract No. EP-
C-09-009. Britta Bierwagen, Ph.D., served as the Technical Project Officer. Dr. Bierwagen,
along with Mr. Philip Morefield, provided overall direction and technical assistance, and
contributed as authors. The scenario outlines were developed by bioenergy experts participating
in the scenario planning workshop. A complete list of experts who attended the workshop is
provided in Appendix A.
AUTHORS
EPA
Britta Bierwagen, Philip Morefield, Caroline Ridley, and Steven LeDuc
ICF International
Paul Albert, Lauren Pederson, Lisa Gabel, Peter Bonner, Anne Choate, Elizabeth Kimball,
Heather Johnson, Lauren Tindall, David Weisshaar, Wendy Jaglom, and Shing Qian
REVIEWERS
EPA
OAQPS: Ron Evans, Julia Gamas
OTAQ: Vince Camobreco, Ben Hengst, Robert Larson
NERL: Megan Mehaffey
NRMRL: Dan Loughlin, Raymond Smith
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the workshop participants, who are listed in Appendix A. Their
expertise, thoughts, and ideas were instrumental in the development of the scenario narratives, which
will assist agencies in the formulation of further research and modeling.
February 28, 2014
vii
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There have been several assessments on the impact of bioenergy use, projecting
bioenergy consumption for a variety of timeframes. Estimated impacts vary greatly across these
assessments depending on selected inputs of biomass, processing and technological assumptions,
and their associated trends and uncertainties. Many of these studies determine inputs according
to the increased bioenergy production and use mandated by the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA) and the revised Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) requirements by 2022.
Due to uncertainties in a number of areas, it is difficult to project the future of bioenergy up to
and beyond the 2022 regulatory timeframe. A few examples of such uncertainties include:
• Whether subsidies and incentives will continue for growing and subsequent
processing of bioenergy feedstocks and the availability of natural resources required
to produce bioenergy;
• Development of biofuel production technologies;
• The projected price competitiveness with fossil-based fuels;
• The pace of fuel processing, vehicle technology, and infrastructure improvements
required to incorporate bioenergy and biofuels into the fuel mix;
• Impacts on air, water, and soil quality; land-use changes; climate change; and
biodiversity; and
• The adoption and continuation of energy and environmental policy in favor/against
increased bioenergy consumption.
To address considerations, such as environmental or economic impacts, and the
uncertainties that are important for the future development of renewable fuel and bioenergy, EPA
decided to undertake a scenario planning process using expert interviews and a workshop as one
avenue to explore a range of potential future pathways for bioenergy development. Scenario
planning is a technique used for preparing an organization for the future by considering
alternative yet plausible narratives formed from the most uncertain driving forces affecting the
organization's products and services (Wilson and Ralston, 2006; Schwartz, 1991). The end result
of the EPA biofuel scenario planning process is four scenarios that describe the state of
bioenergy in 2050. These four narratives can then be used as the basis for quantifying parameters
to be used as inputs into models and assessments to inform decision makers on the impacts of
potential bioenergy policies and development pathways.
This scenario planning process used the following six steps to develop the four scenario
narratives: (1) define the focal question, (2) identify driving macro forces, (3) rank forces by
importance/uncertainty, (4) select scenario frameworks, (5) develop storyboards/outlines, and (6)
create scenario narratives. Expert interviews and input were incorporated into the scenarios at
February 28, 2014
1
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
every step of the process and resulted in the development of the four distinct, plausible,
internally consistent and meaningful scenario narratives contained in this report.
Three key uncertainties were selected by workshop participants from a set generated
through expert interviews to develop the scenario framework and answer the focal question
"What will be the US biofuel portfolio in 2050 in the context of the global marketplace?":
1. long-term energy/climate change policy (including energy security),
2. price/cost competitiveness of biofuel s (including co-products), and
3. global food/feed demand versus agricultural productivity
These uncertainties were selected during the workshop because they are expected to have
the greatest impact on the bioenergy lifecycle. The end states of these uncertainties were plotted
onto the scenario framework continuum (Figure ES-1). Table ES-1 provides the four scenarios
with their key uncertainties, and a brief description of the scenario. Additional detail is provided
in Section 3.
Agricultural Productivity
Outpaces Global Food/Feed
Demand
Non-
Competitive
Price/Cost of
Biofuels
Scenario 1:
Fossil Future
Scenario 3:
Bioenergy
Boutiques
Scenario 2:
Carbon
Conscious
V
Highly
Competitive
Price/Cost of
Biofuels
Scenario 4:
Wasteless World
\
Global Food/Feed Demand
Outpaces Agricultural
Productivity
Figure ES-1. Uncertainties define scenario quadrants and differentiate
pathways to the end state described for 2050.
The scenarios developed in this report represent a set of divergent, yet equally plausible,
storylines about the development of the biofuel industry to 2050. Each scenario is based on
distinct sets of plausible, internally consistent assumptions that follow from the uncertainties that
February 28, 2014
2
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1 describe each scenario quadrant. This process creates scenario descriptions that can serve as
2 starting points for a variety of more quantitative and comprehensive environmental impact
3 assessments, lifecycle analyses, and other modeling that explores future biofuel development in a
4 way that is meaningful and consistent across agencies and organizations.
5
6 Table ES-1. Scenario titles, uncertainties, and scenario descriptors.
Scenarios
Scenario Descriptor
Scenario 1: Fossil Future
Agricultural productivity outpaces food demand
Biofuels are non-competitive
Rapid development of fossil fuel technologies and
policies in support of traditional fuel sources stall
bioenergy technology development at the expense of
natural resources
Scenario 2: Carbon Conscious
Agricultural productivity outpaces food demand
Biofuels are highly competitive
Global energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) pact drives
technological innovation and environmental
conservation and results in food, feed, and biofuels for
the world
Scenario 3: Bioenergy Boutiques
Agricultural productivity falls behind food demand
Biofuels are non-competitive
Innovations in agriculture and bioenergy do not keep
pace with the economic and demographic needs of the
global marketplace, resulting in world food shortages,
food's triumph in the food vs. fuel debate, and the non-
competitiveness of US bioenergy except for niche
markets
Scenario 4: Wasteless World
Agricultural productivity falls behind food demand
Biofuels are highly competitive
Careful consideration of resource utilization in
conjunction with competing demands for agricultural
byproducts leads to strong non-crop based biofuel
industry
7
8
February 28, 2014
3
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
2. INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for developing and
implementing regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains a
minimum volume of renewable fuel. To this end, the Agency developed the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) program, in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and other
stakeholders, as required under Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct)1. The original Renewable
Fuel Standards (RFS1) required that 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel be blended into
transportation fuel by 2012 (US EPA, 2007).
In December 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act
(EISA) to reduce US energy consumption and dependence on foreign oil, and to address climate
change through research and implementation of strategies to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs).
EISA expanded the RFS program in several key ways by requiring the EPA to revise the RFS
program, created under the 2005 EPAct, to do the following:
• Expand the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline, and fuel (primarily
diesel) used in nonroad vehicles and engines, locomotives, and marine engines;
• Increase the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel
from a new baseline of 9 billion gallons per year in 2008 to 36 billion gallons per year
by 2022;
• Establish new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for
each; and
• Apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure each category of
renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.
Specifically, the revised statutory requirements (finalized in February 2010, commonly
known as RFS2) establish new specific annual volume standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-
based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel that must be used in transportation fuel.
Meeting RFS2 in 2022 will result in biofuels comprising an estimated 7 percent of fuels (by
volume) used for transportation, which is projected to reduce 138 million metric tons carbon
dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq.) (US EPA, 2010a).
Section 204 of the 2007 EISA requires the EPA to collaborate with the US Department of
Energy (DOE) and US Department of Agriculture (USD A) to assess and report the impacts of
biofuels to date and potential future impacts of increased use of biofuels. The first of the
assessment reports was finalized in February 2012 (US EPA, 2012). The report examines air and
1 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005)
2 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (2007)
February 28, 2014
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
4
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
water quality, soil quality and conservation, water availability, ecosystem health and
biodiversity, invasive species, and international impacts.
2.1. RFS2 ANNUAL VOLUME STANDARDS
There are currently two main categories of biofuels that contribute to meeting RFS2
requirements: conventional and advanced biofuels. Conventional biofuels primarily consist of
ethanol produced from corn starch made in traditional corn ethanol plants. Advanced biofuels,
defined in EISA 2007 include "renewable fuel other than ethanol derived from corn starch that
has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.. .that are at least 50 percent less than baseline lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions." Advanced biofuels include three subsets of biofuel types including
cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based biofuel, and other types of advanced biofuels. As illustrated in
Figure 2-1, each of these overarching biofuel types has multiple potential feedstocks and varying
requirements for minimum and maximum volume standards.
Cellulosic
Biofuel
Other Advanced
Biofuel
Biomass-Based
Biofuel
Wastewater
biogas
Corn oil
extracted from
ethanol process
Urban waste
Corn starch
Agricultural
residues
(e.g. corn stover)
Virgin plant oils
(e.g., soy)
Yellow grease /
rendered fats
Wood residues
Landfill gas
Sugar or starch
(other than corn)
Dedicated
energy crops
(e.g. switchgrass)
Algae
Organic matter
(e.g., com starch)
for alcohols
Conventional Biofuel
(Max 15 billion gallons per
year by 2022)
Advanced Biofuel
(Minimum 21 billion gallons per year by 2022)
Figure 2-1. Examples of Feedstocks for Biofuel Production.
Source: Adapted from US EPA (2011).
The RFS2 establishes specific annual volume standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-
based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. Whereas RFS1 did not differentiate
between types of biofuels, RFS2 sets a volumetric cap on the conventional biofuels eligible for
credits. Conventional biofuel, such as ethanol derived from corn starch or sugar cane, can
contribute a maximum of 15 billion gallons per year to the total renewable fuel standard. At a
February 28, 2014
5
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
minimum, RFS2 states that 21 billion gallons per year by 2022 should be derived from advanced
biofuels.
The RFS2 has annual renewable fuel requirements, and each November, the EPA
Administrator is required by the 2007 EISA to adjust the cellulosic standard and potentially the
total advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volume standards for the following year (US
EPA, 2011). Based on information provided by the Energy Information Administration (EIA)
and other available data, the volume standards reflect the commercial capacity for production.
In 2009, corn ethanol accounted for 95 percent of total US-produced renewable fuel.
Biodiesel from soybean oil, other virgin vegetable oils, rendered fats, greases, and corn oil from
ethanol production accounted for the majority of the remaining biofuel produced (EPA, 2011).
As technology improves, the EPA expects more advanced cellulosic feedstocks to eventually
produce the majority of the US-produced renewable fuel. Research is underway to improve
technologies that convert different feedstocks to biofuels in a sustainable and economically
viable manner.
In order to build a foundation for more quantitative analyses, models, and lifecycle
assessments, the EPA developed a set of four scenarios contained in this report that describe
potential biofuel feedstock mixes, technologies, and pathways that go beyond the RFS2
regulatory horizon of 2022 out to 2050. There are a variety of considerations that are important,
yet uncertain, for the future development of liquid biofuels for the transportation sector,
including the influence of fuel economy and tailpipe GHG standards on biofuel needs,
technological changes, feedstock availability, etc. Scenarios are useful to understand the impacts
and implications that biofuels may have. The scenario planning process was carried out by EPA
as one avenue to explore a wide range of potential future pathways for biofuel development. The
following sections describe the scenario planning process that EPA undertook to determine these
pathways.
2.2. PURPOSE AND GOALS OF SCENARIOS
In order to meet EPA's statutory requirements and to build a foundation for more
quantitative analyses, models, and lifecycle assessments, EPA decided to undertake a scenario
planning process. The purpose of this process was to create a set of scenarios that would assess
the potential impact of key uncertainties (e.g., feedstock mixes, technologies) on the lifecycle of
bioenergy. The time horizon selected was from the present (2011) to 2050 in order to expand the
EPA's vision and analysis beyond the RFS2 regulatory horizon of 2022.
Scenarios are a method for preparing an organization for the future by considering
alternative, coherent stories. These stories are formed from the most relevant drivers and guided
by the potential paths of the most critical and uncertain driving forces affecting the
organization's customers, products and services. The goal of scenarios is not to predict the
February 28, 2014
6
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
future, but rather to describe plausible and meaningful potential futures that become the basis for
developing or "stress checking" an organization's strategy. For this effort, the EPA reached
across several government agencies, academia, and the private sector in order to obtain broad
perspectives on the potential future for bioenergy. An intention of incorporating broad
perspectives is to create a set of scenarios that can be used by a wide variety of researchers and
analysts dealing with biofuels beyond the EPA. The resulting scenarios can be used as starting
points to quantify model inputs, specify initial conditions, and set bounding parameters for
lifecycle assessments and other analyses relevant to understanding future pathways of biofuel
development, production, and use.
3. SCENARIO FRAMEWORK PROCESS
A proven scenario development method was used for this effort, as illustrated in Figure
3-1, (Wilson and Ralston, 2006; Schwartz, 1991). Of this process, only the first six steps were
implemented, and the outcome of the first six steps is a series of four scenarios that describe
potential bioenergy end states in 2050. This section describes each of the steps taken and the
outcome for each.
Develop Indicators/
Signposts
Develop
Storyboards/Outlines
Create Scenarios
Select Scenario
Frameworks
Define Focal
Question
Identify Driving
Macro Forces
Develop/"Stress-
test" Strategies
Rank Forces by
Importance/
Uncertainty
Develop/Monitor
Early Warning
System
¦=)
Figure 3-1. Scenario Method Used For Scenario Development.
3.1. DEFINE THE FOCAL QUESTION
As a starting point, the EPA developed a focal question that served as the foundation of
the scenario planning process. The focal question is designed to define a critical concern or issue
that is highly relevant and meaningful to an organization's leadership and, therefore, deserves
strategic exploration and discussion throughout the scenario process. To identify a focal
question, uncertainties, and future driving forces at play in the bioenergy industry were explored.
February 28, 2014
7
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Through a facilitated process the team narrowed the list of potential focal questions to one that
asked, "What will be the US biofuel portfolio in 2050?" The focal question was used to further
develop the uncertainties and trends associated with the future of bioenergy. In an effort to
consider the larger implications of biofuels and the role they will play in the global economy, the
question was expanded to include the context of the global marketplace. The final focal question
selected was:
Focal Question
What will be the US biofuel portfolio in 2050 in the context of the global marketplace?
This question was used as the basis for conducting guided expert interviews at the initial
stages of the process; the review of reports, analyses, and other data; and the development of
scenarios during the "Future Scenarios for Biofuels to 2050" workshop in August 2011.
3.2. IDENTIFY DRIVING MACRO FORCES
The next step in the scenario planning process is to identify driving macro forces
impacting the focal question. In developing scenario plots and identifying the driving macro
forces, it is critical to distinguish between trends, likely truths, and uncertainties:
• Trend - Driving force that may impact the future. Its direction, timing, and scope of
change are fairly predictable. Trends should be reflected either implicitly or explicitly
in all scenarios.
• Likely Truths - Future outcomes and characteristics that can be predicted with a high
level of probability of occurrence.
• Uncertainty - Driving force that may or may not be in place. The likelihood of the
direction, timing, and scope of change are virtually impossible to predict.
Uncertainties become the foundational blocks for scenarios. Scenarios may also
contain "black swans" (also referred to as "wild cards" or "disruptors"), which can
greatly affect outcomes but which are impossible to predict. A black swan is a single
event or a major step change that would significantly change the business
environment and the industry.
Information on the trends, uncertainties, and likely truths was gathered by conducting
secondary research and interviews with a broad base of experts from Federal Government
agencies, academia, industry, and NGOs. A list of the secondary research sources and bioenergy-
related models can be found in Appendices B and C.
Based on the interviews and secondary research, 11 likely truths were identified. These
likely truths are included in Table 3-1 below.
February 28, 2014
8
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1 Table 3-1. Likely truths identified through interviews and secondary
2 research
Likely Truths
•
Global regulation of GHG emissions will increase.
•
Demand for electricity, power, mobility will increase (step change in consumption);
highest increase in non-Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development
(OECD) countries
•
Climate change will continue
•
Water stress and scarcity will increase
•
Crop yields will continue to increase
•
Share of renewables/alternatives will increase
•
Oil production by conventional methods will peak (supply will struggle to keep pace with
demand)
•
Coal will be abundant in US, India, China, Australia, etc.
•
Natural gas will be abundant in many countries/regions
•
China will continue to pursue clean-tech development
•
Coal use in non-OECD countries will grow
3
4 In addition to the 11 likely truths, 35 trends and 29 uncertainties were identified. These
5 trends and uncertainties were designed to help the workshop participants identify the global
6 forces of change that could significantly impact the focal question. These trends and uncertainties
7 (included in Table 3-2 through Table 3-6) were categorized under five key dimensions:
8 political/regulatory, economic, social/demographic, technological, and environmental. Once
9 trends are put in the context of the scenario, they are further described in terms of direction,
10 speed, and magnitude. While these are current trends identified through expert interview and
11 secondary research, the scenarios may reflect only some trends or may alter certain trends
12 explicitly through key events described within each narrative.
13 Table 3-2. Trends and uncertainties related to the political/regulatory
14 dimension
Trends
Uncertainties
• Political focus on transition from
manufacturing to "green economy"
• Increased government funding of green
technologies and renewable energy
• Extent of government subsidizing of
green technologies
• Continuation of agricultural subsidies
• Extent of government agricultural
subsidies
February 28, 2014
9
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Trends
Uncertainties
• Continued slow deregulation of energy
sector (i.e., increasingly global market)
• Extent of deregulation of energy sector
• Continued emphasis on national security
• Department of Defense (DOD) reducing
dependency on oil
• US maintains vulnerable pipeline
structure
• Role of national security concerns in
shaping energy policy
• Food vs. fuel debate
• Environmental impact debate
• Land-use debate
• Local/regional/national policies
decisions
• Implementation of EISA
• Lack of long-term energy policy
• Stability of future long-term energy
policy
• Degree energy policy addresses climate
change/GHG
Table 3-3. Trends and uncertainties related to the economic dimension
Trends
Uncertainties
• Biofuels not price competitive vs. fossil-
based fuels and other renewables
• Price competitiveness of biofuels
• Biofuel infrastructure (including
workforce) in infancy stage
• Speed of biofuel infrastructure
development
• DOE/USD A incentivizing feedstock and
biofuel technology development
• Source of funding (private or public
funds)
• Government incentivizing incumbent
energy sources (oil, coal, etc.)
• Future of incentives
• Price and price volatility of crude oil
• Price of crude oil
• Volatility of crude oil
• Sufficient feedstock for current biofuel
production levels
• Increasing scarcity of natural resources
• Availability of feedstock (current/new
forms) to meet RFS
February 28, 2014
10
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
Table 3-4. Trends and uncertainties related to the social/demographic
dimension
Trends
Uncertainties
• Land-based, community-based lifestyle
• Extent to which communities become
self-sufficient
• Increased emphasis on "greening" and
conservation - or -
• Public skepticism of climate issue
• Work and lifestyle changes
• Extent to which "greening" and
conservation changes energy
consumption
• Increasing energy demands of
developing world
• Extent to which developing world will
rely on fossil fuels vs. adopt new energy
technologies
• Land-use debate
• Optimization of land-use space
Table 3-5. Trends and uncertainties related to the technological dimension
Trends
Uncertainties
• DOE/USD A incentivizing development
• US has scientific base for technology
• Pace of biofuel technology development
• Lack of technological breakthroughs in
other renewables
• Relative technological breakthroughs of
biofuels vs. other renewables
• Growth in hybrid, electric, and flexfuel
vehicles
• Degree to which flexfuel vehicles similar
to those in Brazil will be manufactured/
sold in the US
• Fuel storage, transportation, and
pumping accommodates oil-based fuels
• Degree to which biofuels can be
developed to use existing fuel storage,
transportation, and pumping
infrastructure
• US energy infrastructure aging
• Level of investment in energy
infrastructure (e.g., grid, pipelines)
Table 3-6. Trends and uncertainties related to the environmental dimension
Trends
Uncertainties
• Increasing focus on climate change
• Growth in number and degree of weather
extremes
• Increasing emphasis on being green and
conserving energy
• Extent to which consumers will be
concerned about fuel mix, carbon
footprint
• Increasing scarcity of natural resources
• Extent to which the scarcity of water and
other resources affects biofuel industry
February 28, 2014
11
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
• Renewable energy capacity additions are
growing
• Extent to which biofuels are part of the
renewable portfolio
• Public opinion of biofuels is mixed
• Public perception of biofuels
After the trends and uncertainties were identified, EPA hosted a two-day workshop to (1)
rank the macro forces by importance/uncertainty; (2) select the scenario frameworks from which
the scenario narratives were developed; and (3) develop the initial scenario storyboards for each
of the selected scenario frameworks. On August 2-3, 2011, EPA hosted a scenario planning
workshop that brought together 28 individuals from a variety of Federal Government agencies as
well as academic, non-governmental, and industry organizations (see Appendix A for a list of
these participants and their respective organizations). Bringing diverse views into the exercise is
important because it prevents bias in the scenarios from one specific group. Instead, all views
are expressed and incorporated into the scenario development. While the end result of the
exercise is a set of scenarios, the learning process is also valuable for the participants. All
participants benefit from being exposed to diverse and sometimes very different views within
this learning process.
3.3. RANK THE MACRO FORCES BY IMPORTANCE/UNCERTAINTY
The next step in the scenario planning process was to rank the macro forces by
importance/uncertainty based on workshop participant input. During the first day of the
workshop, participants collaborated with one another to edit, prioritize, and reduce the 28 key
uncertainties down to 12 central key uncertainties that participants felt were the most profound
and had the greatest likelihood of impacting the bioenergy portfolio in 2050. The 12 key
uncertainties and corresponding continuum selected by the workshop participants are shown in
Figure 3-2.
February 28, 2014
12
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Ever-
changing
Low
No Break-
Long-term Energy/Climate Change Policy (inc. energy security)
\r
I \
Price/Cost Competitiveness of Biofuels (inc. co-products)
throughs
) <
Breakthroughs in Science and Tech. Development
Stable
High
Rapid Break-
throughs
Lower
Community/
Local
Global Demand for Transportation Fuels
Regionalization/Globalization
Higher
Global
Insufficient
\r
Speed of Biofuels Life Cycle Infrastructure Development
Sufficient
Ratio Falling
Not Able to
Scale
Few Sources
Rate Increase Global Food/Feed Demand vs. Rate of Ag. Productivity
\i 1
Unfavorable/
Neutral
Scalability (Feedstock and Production)
Diversity or Uniformity of Bioenergy Supply Chain
Public Opinion of Biofuels v. Alternatives
Ratio Rising
Able to Scale
Many
Sources
Favorable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Low
Low
Willingness of Public to use Biomass Resources
I
Relative Impact/Constraints of Biofuels Development on the Environment
*
High
High
Figure 3-2. Key Uncertainties as Identified by Workshop Participants.
Through a series of facilitated discussions, the workshop participants consolidated the 12
uncertainties detailed above to the three that would potentially have the greatest impact on the
bioenergy lifecycle and that were considered to have a high degree of uncertainty. During this
discussion, workshop participants further refined and clarified the verbiage used to describe each
uncertainty. At this time, workshop participants felt that these three uncertainties would yield the
most robust scenarios. The end states of these uncertainties, as well as the modifications in
verbiage, were plotted onto the scenario framework continuum shown in Figure 3-3.
February 28, 2014
13
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Ever-
changing
Long-term Energy/Climate Change Policy (inc. energy security)
Stable
Non-
competitive
Price/Cost Competitiveness of Biofuels (inc. co-products)
Highly
Competitive
Demand
Outpaces -v.
Productivity
Global Food/Feed Demand vs. Ag. Productivity
Productivity
Outpaces
Demand
Figure 3-3. Selected Key Uncertainties.
3.4. SELECT THE SCENARIO FRAMEWORK
The next step in the process was to develop and select the scenario framework. Once the
three key uncertainties were identified, the uncertainties were plotted against one another to
create various scenario plots. The key characteristics of each quadrant were then defined. These
scenario frameworks are shown in Figure 3-4 through Figure 3-6, and the key characteristics of
the quadrants within each framework are reflected in Table 3-7 through Table 3-9.
Stable Long-term
Energy/Climate Change
Policy
Scenario 1
Non-
Competitive ^
Price/Cost of :
Biofuels
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Highly
h Competitive
Price/Cost of
Biofuels
Scenario 4
\
Ever-changing Long-term
Energy/Climate Change
Policy
Figure 3-4. Scenario Framework 1: Long-term Energy/Climate Change
Policy and Price/Cost Competitiveness of Biofuels
February 28, 2014
14
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
Table 3-7. Key characteristics of scenarios based on scenario framework 1
Scenario 1 Key
Characteristics
Stable Long-term Energy/Climate Change Policy and Non-
Competitive Price/Cost of Biofuels
Scenario 2 Key
Characteristics
Stable Long-term Energy/Climate Change Policy and Highly
Competitive Price/Cost of Biofuels
Scenario 3 Key
Characteristics
Ever-changing Long-term Energy/Climate Change Policy and
Non-Competitive Price/Cost of Biofuels
Scenario 4 Key
Characteristics
Ever-changing Long-term Energy/Climate Change Policy and
Highly Competitive Price/Cost of Biofuels
2
Agricultural Productivity
Outpaces Global Food/Feed
Demand
Scenario 5
Ever-changing
Long-term
Energy/Climate
Change Policy
Scenario 6
Scenario 7
Stable
Long-term
| Energy/Climate
Change Policy
Scenario 8
\
Global Food/Feed Demand
Outpaces Agricultural
Productivity
4
5
6
Figure 3-5. Scenario Framework 2: Global Food/Feed Demand vs.
Agricultural Productivity and Long-term Energy/Climate Change
Policy
Table 3-8. Key characteristics of scenarios based on scenario framework 2
Scenario 5 Key
Characteristics
Ever-changing Long-term Energy/Climate Change Policy and
Agricultural Productivity Outpaces Global Food/Feed Demand
Scenario 6 Key
Characteristics
Stable Long-term Energy/Climate Change Policy and Agricultural
Productivity Outpaces Global Food/Feed Demand
Scenario 7 Key
Characteristics
Ever-changing Long-term Energy/Climate Change Policy and
Global Food/Feed Demand Outpaces Agricultural Productivity
Scenario 8 Key
Characteristics
Stable Long-term Energy/Climate Change Policy and Global
Food/Feed Demand Outpaces Agricultural Productivity
8
February 28, 2014 15 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Agricultural Productivity
Outpaces Global Food/Feed
Demand
I
Scenario 9
Non-
Competitive ^
Price/Cost of
Biofuels
Scenario 70
Scenario 11
Highly
t Competitive
Price/Cost of
Biofuels
Scenario 12
\
Global Food/Feed Demand
Outpaces Agricultural
Productivity
Figure 3-6. Scenario Framework 3: Global Food/Feed Demand vs.
Agricultural Productivity and Price/Cost Competitiveness of Biofuels
Table 3-9. Key characteristics of scenarios based on scenario framework 3
Scenario 9 Key
Characteristics
Agricultural Productivity Outpaces Global Food/Feed Demand and
Non-Competitive Price/Cost of Biofuels
Scenario 10 Key
Characteristics
Agricultural Productivity Outpaces Global Food/Feed Demand and
Highly Competitive Price/Cost of Biofuels
Scenario 11 Key
Characteristics
Global Food/Feed Demand Outpaces Agricultural Productivity and
Non-Competitive Price/Cost of Biofuels
Scenario 12 Key
Characteristics
Global Food/Feed Demand Outpaces Agricultural Productivity and
Highly Competitive Price/Cost of Biofuels
After considerable discussion, debate, and review of the proposed scenario frameworks,
workshop participants were instructed to cast four votes for the four most distinct and
meaningful scenarios out of the 12 scenario frameworks presented. Based on this voting process
and following additional discussion (during which select scenarios were combined to minimize
overlap and ensure scenario divergence), workshop participants selected four scenarios for
further development. Ultimately, workshop participants decided that the quadrants formed by
two of the remaining three uncertainties would provide the most robust scenarios and thereby
eliminated the Long-term Energy/Climate Change Policy uncertainty from the scenario
development process.
February 28, 2014
16
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
1. Agricultural Productivity Outpaces Global Food/Feed Demand and Non-competitive
Price/Cost of Biofuels (Scenario 9 above)
2. Agricultural Productivity Outpaces Global Food/Feed Demand and Highly
Competitive Price/Cost of Biofuels (Scenario 10 above)
3. Global Feed/Food Demand Outpaces Agricultural Productivity and Non-competitive
Price/Cost of Biofuels (Scenario 11 above)
4. Global Feed/Food Demand Outpaces Agricultural Productivity and Highly
Competitive Price/Cost of Biofuels (Scenario 12 above)
3.5. DEVELOP STORYBOARDS/OUTLINES
To develop the scenario storyboards and outlines, workshop participants were divided
into four breakout groups and assigned one of the four selected scenarios. During breakout
sessions, participants discussed scenario end states as well as the key events, headlines, factors,
behaviors, conditions, and outcomes that might be observed on the journey from today (2011) to
the end state (2050).
As the breakout groups developed the initial storyboards, they were asked to consider the
following questions, from both US and global perspectives:
• What will be the energy portfolio?
• What will be the biofuel mix?
• What will be the biofuel feedstock mix?
• What will be the role of national/global environmental policies?
• What will be the role of national/global climate policies?
• What will be the role of national/global energy policies?
• What will be the role of national/global agricultural policies?
• What will the agricultural production systems look like?
• How will infrastructures (e.g., energy, biofuels) evolve?
• What will be the speed and progress in energy technologies and innovation?
• What will be the transportation modes?
• What will be the biomass usage (high, low, divergent pathways)?
• What might be some unintended consequences?
Based on the storyboards developed during the workshop, detailed scenario outlines were
developed from refinement of the scenario end states and the pathways to these end states. Since
the four scenarios encompassed only two uncertainties, it was important to continuously cross-
check the scenarios to ensure distinctness while meeting plausibility and consistency
February 28, 2014
17
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
requirements. It was necessary at times to increase or decrease the emphasis and importance of a
scenario variable and in some cases add or delete variables.
4. SCENARIO NARRATIVES
Upon finalization and approval of the scenario outlines by workshop participants, the
scenario narratives were developed. The scenario narratives directly derive from the outlines and
consist of written descriptions and stories of potential future worlds and the impact of those
worlds on bioenergy. Each scenario was developed using the following common structure:
• Scenario Title
• Scenario Framework
• Scenario Descriptor
• End State 2050
• Pathways
o Today Through 2025
o 2026 Through 2040
o 2041 Through 2050
• Road Signs
As stated earlier, this effort was undertaken to meet EPA's statutory requirements and to
build a foundation for more quantitative analyses, models, and lifecycle assessments. The
purpose of this process was to create a set of scenarios that would assess the potential impact of
key uncertainties (e.g., feedstock mixes, technologies) on bioenergy use. The main value of
creating scenarios lies in the contribution they make to strategic decision making. The scenarios
highlight opportunities for expansion into new markets and creation of new services. Scenarios
can alert us to the possibility of new sources of competition, changes to the market structure and
consumer needs, technological change, and the economic and environmental impacts shifts in
policy may have. Scenarios suggest the need and opportunities for changes in strategy to adapt to
these and other new conditions. They provide a theoretical test bed for assessing the resilience
and potential payoff of both old and new strategic directions (Wilson and Ralston, 2006). By
formulating scenarios, we create a baseline for the comparison of potential futures using the
same underlying assumptions.
4.1. SCENARIO COMPARISON MATRIX
Each of the four scenario breakout groups considered and discussed a variety of issues
related to bioenergy. Prescribing certain outcomes related to land-use changes, air quality, water
February 28, 2014 18 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
quality, and GHGs was not part of this particular scenario planning process. Instead, breakout
groups were asked to consider the biofuel industry comprehensively and potential events in the
world that might impact the economy (both nationally and globally); future market conditions
and how the current RFS2 might play out in their scenario; and potential environmental, climate,
and energy policies.
Because the four scenarios encompassed only two uncertainties, it was important to
continuously look across all four scenarios to ensure distinctness while meeting feasibility and
meaningfulness requirements. Table 4-1 shows the scenario comparison matrix that was used to
ensure each scenario was distinct. The specific uncertainties driving each scenario are listed at
the top of the table. The cells in the table contain a brief summary of the main elements of each
scenario organized by key dimensions (i.e., political/regulatory, technological, environmental).
February 28, 2014
19
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1 Table 4-1. Scenario comparison matrix
Scenario Comparison Matrix
Scenario 1: Fossil Future
Scenario 2: Carbon Conscious
Scenario 3: Bioenergy Boutiques
Scenario 4: Wasteless World
Agricultural
Productivity v.
Global Food/Feed
Demand
Agricultural productivity
outpaces food demand
Agricultural productivity
outpaces food/ demand
Agricultural productivity falls
behind food demand
Agricultural productivity falls
behind food demand
Competitive v. Non-
Competitive
Price/Cost of
Biofuels
Biofuels are non-competitive
Biofuels are highly competitive
Biofuels are non-competitive
Biofuels are highly
competitive
Political/
Regulatory
Energy Policy
US has a pro-fossil energy policy
Comprehensive Energy and
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Pact
Energy policy focused on the
investment in domestic sources of
energy for transportation
Energy policy supports
bioenergy and technology
research
Environmental Policy
Extended Kyoto Protocol in 2014
(US did not ratify)
Comprehensive Energy and
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Pact
Carbon policy developed after
significant climate changes occur
Enviromnental policy supports
biofuel industry; allows use of
all available resources,
including waste products
Climate Policy
Climate policy in US is not a
priority
Comprehensive Energy and
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Pact
A climate policy is not enacted,
leading to a rise in GHG emissions
and fairly significant changes in
world climate.
A climate policy is not enacted.
Agriculture Policy
Support for agricultural research,
particularly efficient production
technologies
Federal agriculture policy
Agriculture Technology Sharing
Program
All food crop-based subsidies
are discontinued
Level of Energy
Security Concerns
Moderate to high; spurs desire for
energy independence
Low; natural disasters override
security concerns.
High level of concern due to
political unrest worldwide
Moderate to low; food security
is the concern.
RFS2
Expiration of RFS2 in 2022
US created RFS3 in 2018 to
further reduce GHG emissions
RFS2 cellulosic standard was
revised down in 2018
RFS2 expires and is replace by
new energy policy
February 28, 2014
20
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Scenario Comparison Matrix
Scenario 1: Fossil Future
Scenario 2: Carbon Conscious
Scenario 3: Bioenergy Boutiques
Scenario 4: Wasteless World
CAFE standards
CAFE standards eliminated
Fuel economy standards increase
CAFE standards no longer relevant
with an predominantly electric fleet
CAFE Standards are renewed
and upped
Political Stability
Political stability
Political stability
Political unrest
Some political unrest in less
developed nations
Economic
Strength/
Stability of Global
Economy
Stable economic growth
Relatively stable
Economic issues plague developing
nations
Not explicitly discussed though
presumed to be weak (hence
emigration)
Strength/
Stability of US
Economy
Stable economic growth
Relatively stable
US agriculture industry strong; no
mention of other economic issues
Policymakers maintain laissez
faire attitude towards fiscal
policy
Economic
Attractiveness of
Technology
Development
Financing to bring unproven
bioenergy technologies to
commercial scale did not
materialize
Abundance of bio masses and
economically feasible refining
and production process for second
and third generation liquid
biofuels
Non-food-based bioenergy has
found a home in niche markets but
is not competitive relative to other
energy sources
Algal oil. municipal solid
waste, and woody biomass are
economically feasible
Prices of Energy
Sources
Natural gas and oil are competitive
Price of oil is high
Aside from those subsidized by the
government commercial biomass
production is not economically
viable
Price of oil is high
Subsidies
Few for first generation biofuels,
many to encourage agricultural
production
US Federal Government
introduced subsidies for research
and development for low or no
carbon emitting energy producers
Government subsidizes some
bioenergy for military use
All food crop-based subsidies
and blending subsidies for
ethanol are discontinued
Social/Demographic
Public Opinion of
Climate Change
Not caused by humans/"who
cares" attitude
Influenced by catastrophic
weather events
Public realizes the impact of climate
change and supports US carbon
policy
Food shortage overrides climate
concerns.
February 28, 2014
21
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Scenario Comparison Matrix
Scenario 1: Fossil Future
Scenario 2: Carbon Conscious
Scenario 3: Bioenergy Boutiques
Scenario 4: Wasteless World
Public Opinion of
Climate Favorability
of Biofuel v.
Alternatives
Fossil fuels rule
Biofuels emerge as leader
US lias adapted to climate changes
by adjusting irrigation systems and
introducing higher yielding crop
varieties that are drought and heat
resistant. Therefore, biofuel is
somewhat favorable.
Natural gas viewed negatively,
opening the door for biofuels.
US Population
Urban sprawl; medium rate of
population growth
Low population growth
Medium population growth
Emigration to the US and
climate refugees leads to high
population growth rate
Global Population
Global population reaches 11
billion; disease outbreaks linked to
climate change
Global population stabilizes at 9
billion.
World population, spurred by years
of above-average population growth
in developing nations across the
world, most notably in Africa is
expected to reach 9.3 billion.
Global population reaches 10
billion
Technological
Technology
Innovation Drivers
(e.g., source of
funding or other
driver)
Biomass technology development
advanced only incrementally for
second generation biofuels
Numerous investment
opportunities and capital
following adoption of a number
of policies allowed technologies,
such as small-scale desalinization,
ocean fanning, algae co-location,
and cellulosic ethanol refinement
to develop rapidly
DOD R&D funding to obtain
reliable sources of biofuels to
reduce dependence on foreign
petroleum; subsidies for military use
Stable research and
development funding for algae,
municipal solid waste (MSW),
and woody biomass
Innovation in Energy
Heavy investment and many
developments in natural gas
technology
Innovation in desalinization; use
of algae for bioenergy
Developments in electrification and
use of CNG, coal-to-liquid (CTL),
and gas-to-liquid (GTL) technology
Algal-oil, municipal solid
waste, woody biomass
Feedstock
Production/
Conversion
Technology
Cellulosic technology did not
develop as expected
Abundance of bio masses and
economically feasible refining
and production process for second
and third generation liquid
biofuels
Breakthroughs in biological
feedstock and residue conversion
(but not scalable or commercially
viable)
Feedstock neutral
production/conversion
technology exists
February 28, 2014
22
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Scenario Comparison Matrix
Scenario 1: Fossil Future
Scenario 2: Carbon Conscious
Scenario 3: Bioenergy Boutiques
Scenario 4: Wasteless World
Biofuel Lifecycle
Infrastructure
Development
Did not require infrastructure
development
Infrastructure was not significant
Drop-in fuels dominant so no major
infrastructure development needed
Drop-in fuels dominant so no
major infrastructure
development needed
Environmental
Relative Impact of
Biofuels on
Environment/Water/
Biodiversity
GHG emissions rose due to the
widespread use of fossils; heavy
impacts on global surface
temperature rise and sea level rise
Large disincentives on
deforestation, conversion of
natural land for any reason is
discouraged, land with high
enviromnental value is placed
into permanent easements
GHG emissions have risen in recent
years due to the widespread use of
CTL technology
No major impacts by biofuels
on these areas because
feedstocks used are the ones
that are available
Temperature change
by 2050
2°C (3.6°F)
0.5°C (0.9°F)
2°C (3.5°F)
1°C (1.8°F)
Agriculture
Global Land
Productivity/
Crop Yield
Increased agricultural innovation
coupled with commonality of
genetically modified food and
agricultural productivity,
particularly in developing nations,
provides sufficient food for a
growing world population
Fewer agricultural imports from
the US and other countries
required because dramatic
improvements in US agricultural
production take hold in non-
developed countries
Cropland yields significantly below
projections
Lagging agricultural
productivity
US Land
Productivity/
Crop Yield
High productivity
High productivity
High productivity and yield due to
adjustment of irrigation systems and
introduction of higher yielding crop
varieties that are drought and heat
resistant
Land scarcity; crop-based
biofuels are unfeasible
Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) lands
Large reduction in CRP cap
CRP cap raised from 2007 levels
Modest reduction in CRP cap
CRP cap reduced and
management rules relaxed to
accommodate more grazing and
haying rotations
February 28, 2014
23
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Scenario Comparison Matrix
Scenario 1: Fossil Future
Scenario 2: Carbon Conscious
Scenario 3: Bioenergy Boutiques
Scenario 4: Wasteless World
Bioenergy
Availability of
Feedstock
Corn is abundant, sold for starch
ethanol production
Abundant
Bioenergy currently in use include
those that are supported using
sustainable residue and waste
feedstocks, have high energy
density, and are drop-in
replacements for petroleum fuel.
Regionalized; use biomass
feedstocks indigenous to region
Types of Feedstocks
Com woody biomass
Energy crops, specifically
perennial grasses, algae, mixed
native prairie grasses, and
residues and wastes
Algae, corn stover, woody biomass
Algae, Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW), and woody biomass
Biomass Usage
Limited; US exports biofuel
Abundant portfolio of biomasses
Food-based biomass is virtually
nonexistent.
Non-crop based biofuel energy
sources
First, Second, or
Third Generation
Bioenergy
First generation bioenergy
continued (starch ethanol, some
biodiesel)
Second and third generation
bioenergy
Second/third generation bioenergy
in niche markets
Algae, wood-based biomass,
and MSW fully commercialized
Transportation/Oth
er Energy Mix
Light-Duty Vehicles
Coal-to-liquid (CTL), natural gas,
oil
Suburban light-duty
transportation powered by second
and third generation biofuels;
light-duty transportation and mass
transit electrified with biomass in
urban areas
Electric, CNG, CTL, and GTL
50% of market electrified
Heavy-Duty Vehicles
& Equipment
CTL, natural gas, oil
Biofuels dominate the market
CNG, CTL, GTL, diesel, and
biodiesel (in limited quantities)
Largely dependent on liquid
fuels
Aviation
Not a scenario element
Relies on liquid biodiesels
Biofuels (only industry in which
they are commercially viable)
Not a scenario element
Maritime
Not a scenario element
Relies on liquid biodiesels
Primarily diesel, nuclear, and some
biodiesels
Not a scenario element
February 28, 2014
24
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Scenario Comparison Matrix
Scenario 1: Fossil Future
Scenario 2: Carbon Conscious
Scenario 3: Bioenergy Boutiques
Scenario 4: Wasteless World
Power Generation
Generated using fossil fuels
Generated using alternative, low-
Carbon sources
Generated by coal, natural gas,
some biomass, wind, solar, and
hydropower
Generated with regionally-
available power sources, such
as wood pellets and MSW
Regional Differences
No regional differences
Marketplace uses a portfolio of
second and third generation
biomasses produced in a
regionalized fashion
Localized niche bioenergy markets
developed using available
feedstocks as a way to avoid the
prohibitive costs associated with
feedstock distribution
Vehicle electrification in urban
areas where battery re-charging
stations abound; rural and many
suburban areas use liquid fuels
1
February 28, 2014
25
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
4.2. SCENARIO 1 NARRATIVE: FOSSIL FUTURE
Agricultural Productivity
Outpaces Global Food/Feed
Demand
Scenario 1:
Fossil Future
Non-
Competitive ^
Biofuels
Scenario 3:
Bioenergy
Boutiques
Scenario 2:
Carbon
Conscious
Highly
I Competitive
Biofuels
Scenario 4:
Wasteless World
\
Global Food/Feed Demand
Outpaces Agricultural
Productivity
Rapid Development of Fossil Fuel Technologies and Policies in Support of
Traditional Fuel Sources Stall Bioenergy Technology Development at the
Expense of Natural Resources
End State: 2050
This is a world in which fossil sources of energy dominate the US portfolio, stalling the
development of bioenergy technology and negatively impacting the environment. In 2050, the
US focuses on fossil-based sources of fuel for national security and other domestic drivers, while
countries with more stringent carbon requirements and/or less abundant fossil sources attempt to
increase research, development, and commercialization of alternative energy sources. Significant
developments in fossil technologies (e.g., gas-to-liquid (GTL) and coal-to-liquid (CTL)) enable
US-based companies to commercialize these technologies. The capacity for hydraulic fracturing
to capture natural gas has increased dramatically and gained popular support.
In 2050, the US has not reached a consensus on action regarding climate change.
Although environmental impacts such as sea level rise, warmer temperatures, and landscape
changes continue, many Americans are unsure of the relationship between human activity,
increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, and the effects of changes in climate.
Climate policy in the US is not a priority - no value has been placed on carbon and there are no
greenhouse gas (GHG) controls. Thus, policies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other
GHGs are not adopted in the US, and other environmental policies related to air and water
February 28, 2014
26
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
pollution are relaxed, including elimination of fuel economy standards; in general, environmental
activities are viewed as voluntary. Land and transportation costs are low, resulting in an increase
of urban sprawl in many areas.
Increased agricultural innovation coupled with increased agricultural productivity,
particularly in developing nations, provides sufficient food for a growing world population.
Sources of increases in agricultural productivity include high resolution sensing of field
conditions and widespread fertilizer use. Genetically Modified (GM) food crops are common and
the US is the world GM technology leader. Food prices are low in the US as well as globally,
giving less wealthy countries better access to agricultural imports. Global transportation
networks have become much more efficient as a result of innovation combined with low fuel
prices, leading to more effective distribution of food. Within the US, agricultural policy is pro-
research (e.g., agricultural systems like high-precision fertilizer applications, as well as
biotechnology) with a focus on efficient production technologies.
The US has a pro-fossil energy policy. Incentives for legacy biofuels (e.g., first
generation biofuels such as corn ethanol) continue, while incentives for newer bioenergy never
emerged. Although significant developments in fossil technologies have been achieved, biomass
technology advanced only incrementally due largely to a lack of investment. Interest in second
generation fuels never materialized. The biomass feedstock mix in the US consists of both crop
and woody biomass. The US exports biodiesel, starch ethanol, and biomass (e.g., woody biomass
and corn stover) to countries with demand for bioenergy sources due to more stringent
environmental regulations and, consequently, more robust markets for renewable biomass. The
US transportation market is composed of oil, natural gas, and CTL. Ethanol is sparingly used as
a fuel additive domestically. US electric markets use natural gas and coal for power generation,
but biomass is not a substantial domestic source of electric power.
Today Through 20253
In the early years of this timeframe, cellulosic technology did not develop as expected.
Despite billions of dollars in Federal grant and loan guarantees, financing to bring unproven
technologies to commercial scale did not materialize because of slow economic growth and
unexpectedly slow industrial learning. Advanced biofuel companies petitioned policymakers for
more help, realizing that they were falling behind the Congressional mandate to use 21 billion
gallons of advanced biofuels by 2022 (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007).
However, additional tax credits for advanced biofuels made no progress in Congress. Oil
companies had no financial incentive to ensure cellulosic ethanol refineries got off the ground.
3 Note: All events referenced below are fictional, though they are intended to speak to plausible future
occurrences based on the logical confines of this particular scenario.
February 28, 2014 27 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
By 2018, petroleum refiners and blenders, tired of purchasing cellulosic biofuel waiver
credits when they fell short, realized they would not hit their RFS2 targets for 2022 and
petitioned policymakers for legislative relief. The advanced biofuel industry also pushed for
changes to the policy because they could not meet the requirements. Policymakers accepted these
realities and policies supporting second generation bioenergy technologies eroded. By the end of
this period, cellulosic technology remained unable to break into commercial use. The slow pace
of development and investment in cellulosic biofuels undermined, and led to the expiration of,
RFS2 in 2022. In general, investors became less attracted to a broad range of new bioenergy
technologies, leading to a reduction in investments. First generation biofuels continued
production and in 2022 corn ethanol production peaked at 25 billion gallons per year, while
biodiesel reached 2 billion gallons per year.
Meanwhile, GTL and other fossil technologies rapidly advanced, leading to adoption of
new fossil technologies in the US. Energy experts accepted the idea that world energy needs
could not be met without fossil fuels, and attention shifted to development of fossil technologies.
By the end of 2025, the US government made a strong policy commitment to supporting GTL
and CTL technologies.
Natural gas producers invested in new shale gas extraction techniques with great success.
Advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques—as well as improved
seismic surveying, drill bits, steering systems, and instrumentation monitoring equipment—
contributed to higher success and recovery rates, reduced cycle times, lowered costs, and
shortened the time required to bring new shale gas production to market. In 2020, a major
breakthrough in natural gas extraction technology caused the available supply of natural gas to
increase and natural gas prices to mostly stabilize. Shale gas was the prime example of
successful technology deployment in an otherwise challenging environment. Through an
educational campaign, the natural gas industry convinced consumers that shale gas fracturing
posed little environmental threat. Partially due to this education effort, supply development
efforts were not hindered by environmental concerns. The fracturing process was subsequently
buffered against future water pollution concerns. Investment in natural gas technology
skyrocketed.
Greenhouse gas emissions steadily increased throughout the time period, but support for
GHG reduction policies eroded in the US as fewer Americans considered climate change as a
threat to themselves. Japan, Russia, and Canada declined to support an extended Kyoto Protocol
in 2012. A binding successor to Kyoto was not agreed upon until 2013, followed by a lengthy
ratification process in national parliaments. The successor to Kyoto, agreed upon in Beijing in
late 2014, continued without US ratification. In the new agreement, China agreed to reductions
in GHG emissions. China's leadership and that of other countries looked for low carbon fuels to
maintain economic growth while controlling and ultimately reducing carbon emissions.
February 28, 2014 28 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
After discovery of a formation of black shale larger than Marcellus, the US seized on a
goal of energy independence. The idea caught on with a public tired of being tied to potential
Middle East instability, causing policymakers to focus on developing domestic fossil fuel
sources. Coupled with disinterest in climate change, the desire to increase domestic supply of
fossil fuels led to relaxation of rules that restricted offshore drilling in Atlantic states and
mountaintop removal mining. As the era continued, dramatic increases in the domestic supply of
oil, natural gas, and coal gave the US unprecedented energy independence. Politicians looking to
reduce the size of the Federal government reduced the budget of the EPA in 2024, limiting its
ability to enforce existing environmental regulations. During the same timeframe, Section 526 of
the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) was revoked, meaning that Federal agencies
were able to procure alternative or synthetic fuels for mobility-related use even if the emissions
of that fuel are greater than emissions from conventional fuel produced from petroleum. The
Department of Defense (DoD) moved to procure fuels produced synthetically with higher carbon
footprints.
At the same time the US was rolling back legislation supportive of advanced biofuels,
GM crops gained wide acceptance among European countries seeking to provide food for
burgeoning populations. China and developing African nations also embraced GM technologies
during the end of this period. Considered a leader in GM agricultural technology, the US
benefited financially from the investment in new research. With greater productivity on existing
agricultural land now possible, the "food versus fuel" debate was quieted with respect to
biofuels.
2026 Through 2040
To remain energy independent, the US continued to focus on increasing domestic natural
gas and coal production, and invested in technology to make the process cheaper and more
efficient. The natural gas market stabilized and regulated prices, enabling it to compete with oil
as an automobile fuel. Although the demand for natural gas increased, just-in-time production
enabled by shale gas supplies eliminated price volatility. Prices did not rise dramatically and
remained competitive with other energy sources. As a result, power plants made long-term
investments in natural gas power generation. CTL technology continued to become more
efficient and remained competitive with the cost of oil and natural gas. CTL penetration reached
10% of US consumption. The overall increased supply of fossil fuels led to lower fuel prices.
The US made agricultural policy a priority as its population continued to grow.
Agricultural productivity became a high priority and a new Federal grant program encouraged
innovation. Many factors contributed to increased agricultural productivity. New technologies
increased pest resistance and drought tolerance. Genetic modifications enhanced desired crop
traits such as increased resistance to herbicides and improved nutritional content. Double-
February 28, 2014
29
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
cropping and intercropping became popular ways to increase land efficiency, attenuate land
nutrient loss, and maintain soil fertility. The price of fertilizer tracked the decreasing price of
fossil fuels, resulting in an overall increase and intensification of fertilizer use in the US Farmers
used telecommunication and GPS technologies to monitor crops and apply fertilizer and water
more precisely. Due to low transportation costs globally, food distribution systems grew
substantially. These practices led to a global food surplus, with agricultural yields, productivity
and efficiency increasing around the world.
Changes in land use also occurred during this time period. With transportation fuel
increasingly less expensive, many opted to live further from cities, exacerbating the trend of
urban sprawl in many areas of the US. Due to a more conservative fiscal philosophy and a
subsequent de-emphasis on environmental programs, the USDA reduced the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), leaving more land available for agriculture, energy production and
other types of development.
Domestic fossil fuel production continued to increase, reaching record levels.
Accordingly, domestic GHG emissions continued to increase with decreasing fossil fuel prices.
The increase in production was actively supported by government policies encouraging
innovation and relaxing environmental restrictions that enable offshore drilling and CTL to
prosper. This led to a reduction of oil imports, and by 2040, North America was fuel
independent.
Globally, many countries were increasingly concerned with GHG emissions and Europe
supported increased environmental regulation. Fossil fuel prices in most countries remained
higher than in the US because these countries lacked their own domestic fossil resources or were
unwilling to use them. While US population growth was steady, the world's population hit 8
billion in 2035. Rapid economic and population growth in China, India, and other countries
created a significant demand for low-Carbon energy. China's desire to diversify its energy mix
and Europe's more stringent environmental laws created a market for US exported first
generation bioenergy.
2041 Through 2050
Environmentally, the effects of global climate change became more apparent in this era.
Global CO2 concentrations continued to rise at a linear pace. By this time, obvious landscape
changes had occurred. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets continued melting rapidly,
(contributing to a sea-level increase of 50cm) and the Northwest Passage was free of ice by
2045. Global mean surface temperature increased 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)
from 2000 to 2050.
Climate change increased the risk of infectious diseases in some areas of the world,
including malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Higher temperatures, in
February 28, 2014
30
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
combination with rainfall intensification, prolonged disease transmission seasons. The global
population at risk for vector-borne malaria increased by 220 million by 2050, with increased risk
particularly in Africa, but also in Britain, Australia, India, and Portugal. Climate-related
increases in sea surface temperature and sea level led to higher incidence of water-borne
infectious and toxin-related illnesses, such as cholera. As temperatures increased, incidences of
these diseases were more widespread, killing millions. Developing nations without established
public health systems were hit particularly hard. Combined with very low birth rates in
developed nations, population growth slowed considerably in many areas of the world. However,
by 2050 there were approximately 10 billion people, despite a slowing growth rate.
In this era, agricultural developments continued, enabling the agricultural system to keep
pace with the world population's demand for food. For example, high-resolution remote sensing
contributed to precision farming by assessing leaf area development and crop cover at field scale
during the growing season to inform irrigation and fertilizer and pesticide applications. As
temperatures rose, the net effect of warming and precipitation changes temporarily benefited US
agriculture and were favorable to agricultural productivity. Despite overall abundance, in many
parts of the world regulatory oversight and accountability regarding the food supply remained
weak.
By 2040, water quantity and quality in the US had been affected by gas drilling,
hydraulic fracturing, mountaintop removal mining, and other fossil extractions. To combat this,
desalinization was used for coastal regions, but for landlocked states water was a precious
resource. At the end of the era, breakthroughs in the shale gas fracturing process included using
air, as opposed to water, for shale gas extraction. Due to multiple advances in fracturing, the
natural gas supply remained strong and investments in GTL technologies led to further
innovation. CTL penetration achieved 25% of US volume.
By 2050, the US biofuel market was mainly serving countries with subsidies for biofuels
due to their GHG reduction or energy diversification policies. In the same year, US biodiesel
exports reached 5 billion gallons per year and US corn ethanol production peaked at 35 billion
gallons per year. Woody biomass exports also continued due to the international market demand.
February 28, 2014
31
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
"Road Signs" - Indicators of the Future
Note: Road signs represent recent factual developments that foreshadow the future
described in the above scenario.
Financing woes stall cellulosic ethanol production
"Citing continued low volumes of cellulosic ethanol production,
EPA announced last week that it would slash targets for 2012 from 500
million gallons of cellulosic ethanol to between 3.45 million and 12.9
million gallons. EPA cited the industry's shaky progress in recent years in
its explanation for the cuts. 'Currently there are very few, if any, facilities
consistently producing cellulosic biofuel for commercial sale.
Announcements of new projects and project funding, changes in project
plans, project delays, and cancellations occur frequently,' EPA said in a
statement explaining its proposed 2012 production targets." - 9 News
Now, June 27, 2011
Advanced biofuels 'will stall without tax credit'
"Seattle: Developers of advanced or second-generation biofuels,
such as cellulosic ethanol, confront myriad challenges—from technology
development to sustainable feedstock supplies and commercial
distribution systems. 'In the near term, however, the seemingly intractable
hurdle confronting the advanced biofuel industry is access to capital to
support the timely development of commercial-scale projects,' write more than 30 advanced
biofuel companies in a letter to the heads of key financial committees in the House and Senate."
- Recharge News, March 12, 2010
Global warming not considered a major threat by many in developed nations
"Concern over climate change has taken a back seat to economic concerns in developed
nations, a recent poll indicates. The economy concerns and more immediate environmental
issues, such as air and water pollution, water shortages, waste disposal and use of pesticides,
have edged out climate change concerns among Internet users worldwide poll by Nielsen." -
International Business Times, August 28, 2011
US lower 48 states' natural-gas output rises
"NEW YORK (MarketWatch) - US natural-gas output in the lower 48 states hit a record
in June for the shale-gas era, rising slightly from upwardly revised May figures, according to
government data released Tuesday. Gross natural-gas production rose by 0.1% in June to 69.47
billion cubic feet a day, the Energy Information Administration said in a closely watched
February 28, 2014 32 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
monthly report. The May production figure was revised higher, to 69.39 Bcf a day, from 69.22
Bcf a day." - The Wall Street Journal, August 30, 2011
Pa. natural gas production rises 60 percent
"SCRANTON, Pa. - Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale drilling industry is posting huge
gains in production. The state's 1,632 working Marcellus wells produced 432.5 billion cubic feet
of natural gas through the first six months of the year, a 60 percent increase over the amount of
gas reported for the last six months of 2010, according to Department of Environmental
Protection statistics released this week." - The Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2011
February 28, 2014
33
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
4.3. SCENARIO 2 NARRATIVE: CARBON CONSCIOUS
Agricultural Productivity
Outpaces Global Food/Feed
Demand
4L
Scenario 7;
Fossil Future
Non-
Competitive
Price/Cost of
Biofuels
Scenario 2:
Carbon
Conscious
x-
Scenario 3:
Bioenergy
Boutiques
Highly
t Competitive
Price/Cost of
Biofuels
-1/
Scenario 4:
Wasteless World
\
I Global Food/Feed Demand
Outpaces Agricultural
Productivity
Global Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Pact Drives Technology Innovation
and Environmental Conservation and Results in Food, Feed, and Biofuel for the
World
End State: 2050
This is a world in which there is a comprehensive energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) pact
that has robust global participation, including countries such as the United States, Australia,
Brazil, Japan, China, and India, among many others. The Pact includes global cap and trade and
provides international standards for full fuel lifecycle accounting of the direct and indirect
carbon impacts to accurately capture energy consumption and environmental impacts. It is
designed to limit carbon emissions, place large disincentives on deforestation, and discourage
conversion of natural land for any reason. The Pact is largely credited for curbing rising
temperatures, such that the realized change is only 0.5°C (0.9°F). The Pact also spurs technology
innovation in clean, low-carbon energy.
In the US, performance standards are strengthened to reduce GHG emissions and satisfy
the global energy/GHG pact. These performance standards target emissions in myriad sectors,
such as power generation (e.g., new and existing facilities), agricultural production (e.g., tractor
usage) and consumer products (e.g., light-duty, personal automobiles and lawnmowers).
Additionally, the emission standards and renewable fuel standards (RFS) approach is framed
through the lens of the global energy/GHG pact. The pact also includes an increase in Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The RFS is revised so that corn ethanol, given its
February 28, 2014 34 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
carbon output, is phased out, and second and third generation biofuels emerge as leading liquid
fuel sources.
With the passage of an energy/GHG pact and a Federal agricultural policy that provides
for conservation and controls on agricultural production to protect environmental quality across
the board, there are significant technological advances in sustainable agricultural productivity.
Major strides are made in practices such as double-cropping, intercropping, cover cropping,
ocean farming, and shore farming that cause agricultural productivity to steadily rise in a
sustainable, cost-effective manner. Additionally, advances in small-scale desalinization make
technology cost effective and allow regionally distributed use of brackish and saline water for
agricultural production, particularly for farming in coastal states, and direct human consumption.
In this world, the population stabilizes at 9 billion people and a relatively stable global
political world exists. The advances in agricultural productivity and improvements in crop yields
enable the world to stay ahead on agriculture and biomass productivity, and efficiency
improvements in US agricultural production, such as small-scale desalinization, intercropping,
and double-cropping, are transferred to non-developed countries. Able to produce food to feed
their own populations, these countries now require fewer agricultural imports from the US and
other countries.
After a series of antibiotic-resistant bovine- and avian-borne pathogen scares between
2026 and 2036, there is a global leveling off on the demand for meat protein (i.e., the average per
capita consumption of animal products drop). Additionally, meat-based diets are not widely
adopted in developing nations. The decreased demand for meat-based protein reduces feed and
land requirements globally. This, combined with significant technological advances in
sustainable agricultural productivity coupled with the Federal agricultural policy, put lands with
high environmental value into permanent easements. To help facilitate this conversion, the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreage cap is raised and exceeds the all-time high of 36.8
million enrolled acres in 2007.
In this world, dramatic technological advances in the refining process make production of
cellulosic-based energy sources efficient and economically feasible. Given that these energy
sources yield a greater net energy benefit and results in much lower GHG emissions, cellulosic-
based energy emerges as a leader in a culture where "the world is going green." Additionally,
only modest improvements in battery technology are realized and the energy density of liquid
fuels is never matched. This generates incentive for capital investment in biofuel technology.
Advances in technology and the regionalization of biomass production provide for a portfolio of
second and third generation biomass in the production of biofuel. This portfolio consists of: 40%
energy crops, specifically perennial grasses; 40% algae; 10% mixed native prairie grass; and
10%) residues and wastes, primarily from agricultural production and wood residue.
February 28, 2014
35
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
In addition to a variety of biomasses, the US markets employ varied energy sources in
transportation. Due to substantial investments, including investment from the military and the
lack of advancements in battery technology, heavy duty transportation (e.g., aviation and
shipping) relies on liquid biodiesels. Additionally, light duty transportation in suburban and
rural environments uses liquid biofuels. Finally, light duty transportation and mass transit in
urban environments is electrified, with electricity supplied by biomass. Overall, there is limited,
if any, fossil fuel based energy sources for transportation.
Today Through 20254
In the early years of this era, the incidents and intensity of severe weather across the
globe were ever-present, with droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, and tsunamis
dominating the news and causing extreme distress and damage to people's lives and property.
The US alone experienced more than 60 $1 billion-plus natural disasters between 2011 and 2014,
making them a routine and devastating part of life in the US. For example, by September 2011,
the US had experienced 10 such disasters, nearly exhausting the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) budget. Globally, the natural disaster disruptions/emergencies
caused instability in many countries and the need for US military support and other aid. In the
Middle East, countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Libya were particularly hard hit
by weather-related natural disasters causing increased oil prices around the globe. These events
drove prices to an all-time high of $180 per barrel.
Spurred by the continued need to cut costs, particularly due to the need to deploy US
personnel to address disruptions and emergencies globally, the US military increased investment
in the development of second and third generation biofuels. After successful flights by an MH-
60S Seahawk helicopter using a 70% biofuel/30% petroleum blend made from second generation
biomass and a Command Ship driven by 100% algal-derived distillate, the Department of
Defense (DoD) viewed second and third generation biofuels as promising new technologies for
future fuel consumption. Together, the US Department of Agriculture (USD A), US Department
of Energy (DOE), and DoD invested up to $510 million with private sector companies to
manufacture biofuels from second and third generation biomass, as well as make infrastructure
upgrades in equipment to prevent leakage of alternative fuels.
In 2015, a consortium of top scientific research universities published a study, the
Climate Change and Disasters Report, which showed a correlation between the increase in the
severity of global natural disasters and GHG emissions. This report was widely publicized in the
4 Note: All events, company names, and newspaper sources and titles referenced below are fictional,
though they are intended to speak to plausible future occurrences based on the logical confines of this particular
scenario.
February 28, 2014
36
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
US and around the world. In the US, the report pressured lawmakers to take action given the toll
the recent natural disasters had on people's finances and property, as well as the US budget.
Driven by the Climate Change and Disasters Report, continued natural disasters, sky-
rocketing oil prices, and increased military costs due to foreign deployments, the US joined with
other countries to forge a global energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) Pact in 2016. The Pact
included global cap and trade and provided international standards for full fuel lifecycle
accounting of the direct and indirect carbon impacts to accurately capture energy consumption
and environmental impacts. The full fuel lifecycle accounting includes GHGs consumed and lost
in production, generation, transportation, distribution, and consumption of fuels, rather than
limiting evaluation to the point the energy is used. The global energy/GHG pact was designed to
favor clean, low carbon energy and steadily curb GHG emissions over several decades. It placed
restrictions on the biggest pollutants, managed transportation to slow or reduce emissions from
automobiles, and made better use of renewable energy sources—such as solar power, wind
power, and bioenergy—in place of fossil fuels. The global energy/GHG pact permitted GHG
emissions trading and emissions permits, which allowed nations that were able to easily meet
their targets to sell credits to those that were not. Additionally, the Pact placed large
disincentives on deforestation and discouraged conversion of natural land for any reason.
Implementation of the pact was scheduled over 10 years with specific GHG emissions targets to
be met by 2024. Australia, Brazil, Japan, and a number of Western and Eastern European
countries were the first to adopt the Pact.
In 2016 the US passed an amendment to the Clean Air Act that established more stringent
domestic performance standards to reduce GHG emissions. The standards outlined in the Clean
Air Act amendment specifically targeted emissions in a myriad of sectors, such as power
generation (e.g., existing and new coal power plants and petroleum refineries), agricultural
production (e.g., tractor usage), and consumer products (e.g., light-duty, personal automobiles
and lawnmowers). In the power generation arena, electric utilities were required to reduce
emissions 15% below the most efficient base load plant at the time in the US, by 2024.
During this time period, the Renewable Fuel Standard 2 (RFS2) remained intact until the
passage of the global energy/GHG pact. In 2018, US EPA created RFS3 to further reduce GHG
emissions. These standards generated greater growth in cellulosic ethanol use. RFS3 required
fuel suppliers to reduce the lifecycle emissions of the fuels they sell on an average per-gallon
basis. Rather than promoting particular technologies, fuel suppliers were free to choose how they
met the emissions targets. For example, fuel suppliers could blend lower-carbon biofuels, such as
cellulosic ethanol, into the gasoline they sell; sell low carbon biofuels for use in flex fuel
vehicles; or reduce emissions from the refining process. The RFS3 also completely phased out
corn ethanol over the next 20 years by requiring second and third generation biomass be used.
February 28, 2014
37
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
The global energy/GHG pact, domestic performance standards implemented in the Clean
Air Act Amendment of 2016, and RFS3 spurred investment in technology development in a
variety of low carbon energies, such as wind, solar, and bioenergy, particularly liquid biofuels.
The US Federal Government introduced subsidies for research and development for low or no
carbon emitting energy producers.
Following the adoption of an global energy/GHG pact, the Clean Air Act Amendment of
2016, and RFS3, investment opportunities were numerous and increased rapidly to develop and
bring agricultural technologies to market that would allow the US to meet the initial GHG goals
required by 2024 and employ more productive, sustainable agricultural practices. For example,
advances in small-scale desalinization made the technology cost-effective and allowed regional
use of brackish and saline water for agricultural production, particularly in coastal states, and for
direct human consumption. Advances made in ocean farming allowed for the more efficient
production of algae and halophytes for biomass. Algae was also produced through co-location
with nutrient-rich wastewater and CO2 from other industrial processes. Finally, cellulosic ethanol
experienced breakthroughs in its refining and production processes to make pretreatment,
fermentation with yeast alternatives, and process integration methods cheaper and more
effective.
Agricultural productivity steadily rose, with more farmers experimenting with double-
cropping, consecutively producing two crops on the same land in one year, and intercropping,
simultaneously cultivating two or more crops on the same land in a growing season. These
practices helped augment and steady net farm returns and improved non-renewable inputs (e.g.,
using water more efficiently). Integral to these practices was the use of energy crops, such as
perennial grasses like switchgrass and giant miscanthus, in intercropping given the passage of the
global energy/GHG pact and the desire to identify and use low carbon energy sources.
2026 Through 2040
Around 2026, a series of widespread contamination scares began from antibiotic-resistant
bovine- and avian-borne pathogens in industrially produced meat in the United States, Europe,
and China. These pathogens, such as Staphylococcus aureaus, persisted for more than 10 years,
causing sickness worldwide. Due to this series of pathogen scares, there was a global leveling
off on the demand for meat protein, which eventually led to a reduction in feed and land
requirements.
In addition to the domestic performance standards and RFS3, Federal agricultural policy
was developed to help satisfy the global energy/GHG pact. This policy called for more
sustainable agricultural practices in agricultural production. Specifically, the policy discouraged
fertilizer and pesticide usage to achieve gains in productivity. Farmers, who had been
experimenting with double and intercropping and cover cropping in the first era, were fully
February 28, 2014
38
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
supported by the land use policies of the USD A, which forced farmers to take a long-term
perspective on the value of land by limiting conversions. Additionally, it encouraged farmers to
implement a suite of conservation and best management practices in production. These included
measures such as diversifying harvesting practices and creating a mosaic of habitat (e.g.,
switchgrass production alongside wheat production), selecting crop species and varieties well
suited to local soils and climate and making the most efficient use of non-renewable resources
and on-farm resources. Overall, the Federal agricultural policy strengthened conservation and
controls on agricultural production to protect environmental quality.
As a result of the agricultural policy and the leveling off on the demand for meat protein,
land with high environmental value started to transfer into permanent conservation easements
(e.g., off-limits category). To help facilitate this conversion, the USDA increased the CRP's
acreage cap to record high levels of enrollment Moreover, advances made in small-scale
desalinization, ocean farming, and cellulosic ethanol refinements made prior to 2026 burgeoned.
The industry and investors continued to see the value of their sustainability.
In 2026, a global summit was held to renew the energy/GHG pact. This second iteration
of the Pact gained robust global participation, with China and India, among other countries,
joining the existing participants. In this Pact, specific GHG emissions targets were refined to
include more stringent requirements. The standards were increased for electric utilities so that
25% GHG emission reductions were required by 2050. One outcome of the Pact was that
energy companies, including multi-nationals, were now held financially accountable for
environmental problems they created globally.
With the cap and trade aspects of the global energy/GHG pact renewed, the demand for
permission to emit GHGs in the US drove up the price for permits. This resulted in an influx of
capital for technology investments for low carbon fuels. This new capital supported the
maturation of a variety of low carbon energy technologies, such as wind, marine hydro-kinetic,
biofuel, and biomass to electricity, all competing to be the most reliable, cost-efficient, and
lifecycle carbon efficient technology.
2041 Through 2050
Dramatic improvements seen in efficiencies in US agricultural production, such as
intercropping, began to take hold in non-developed countries. Able to produce food to feed their
own populations, these countries required fewer agricultural imports from the US and other
countries during this time period. Also during this time, the move away from western, meat-
based diets continued to take hold globally as people, many of whom were still troubled by the
pathogen scares between 2026 and 2036, bought into the many health and environmental benefits
of this diet. Overall higher quality of life led to relatively low population growth, particularly in
February 28, 2014
39
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
the US, but also worldwide. These trends resulted in a stabilization of the global population to
approximately 9 billion.
Battery technologies did not progress sufficiently enough to become a viable option for
long-range transportation. This fact, coupled with investments in alternative fuels in 2015 by the
military, allowed liquid biofuels to rapidly begin to dominate the market in long-range and
heavy-duty transportation (e.g., aviation, shipping). In the urban environments, light-duty
transportation and mass transit were electrified with biomass.
In the competitive marketplace of low carbon energies, second and third generation liquid
biofuels emerged as leader in light-duty transportation in suburban environments due to the
abundance of biomasses and an efficient, economically feasible refining process. In addition to
the refining process, liquid biofuels emerged because substantial infrastructure changes were not
required for the transportation of biomasses. The marketplace began to use a portfolio of second
and third generation biomasses, including energy crops, such as switchgrass, algae, mixed native
prairie grasses, and residues and wastes, all of which were produced in a regionalized fashion.
For example, switchgrass and mixed native prairie grasses were used in the Midwest, while algae
production dominated in urban and coastal areas.
At the end of this era, as emission targets were met and sustainable land use practices
were implemented, steady improvements in air quality, water quality, soil conservation, and
biodiversity were realized.
February 28, 2014
40
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
"Road Signs" - Indicators of the Future
Note: Road signs represent recent factual developments that foreshadow the future
described in the above scenario.
Time to brace for the next 9/11: The biggest threat to America
isn't terrorism. It's the wrath of Mother Nature.
All told, Hurricane Irene killed 43 people in the United States, and
estimates of the damage range up to $20 billion. That's just a little taste
of things to come. Whatever the cause—greenhouse gases, natural
warming, or both—rising temperatures and sea levels already are breeding
bigger more intense hurricanes and more dangerous storm surges. Former
vice president A1 Gore, the teller of so many inconvenient truths about
climate change, says it is "absolutely" a national security issue. "We can
expect continued increases in the frequency and severity of extreme
floods, droughts, wildfires, storms and other events," he says. "We need
to begin the process of preparing for the disasters that are to come." -
Newsweek, September 12, 2011
Drug-resistant bacteria found in grocery meat
Researchers have found high levels of bacteria in meat commonly
found on US grocery store shelves, with more than half of the bacteria
resistant to multiple types of antibiotics, according to a study released on
Friday.... "Staph causes hundreds of thousands of infections in the United States every year,"
[Dr. Laura] Price said in an interview. "It causes a whole slew of infections ranging from skin
infections to really bad respiratory infections like pneumonia."... Price said the most significant
findings from the study aren't the level of bacteria they found, but rather how the bacteria in the
meat was becoming strongly resistant to antibiotics farmers use to treat the animals they
slaughter.... "Antibiotic resistance is one of the greatest threats to public health we face today." -
Renters, April 15, 2011
Emerging powers call for extending global climate deal
Brazil, South Africa, India, and China said Saturday that November's UN climate talks
should aim to extend the Kyoto Protocol, the only binding global deal to cut greenhouse gases.
The four key emerging powers—seen as critical to the success of any future effort to combat
climate change—said keeping Kyoto alive should be the "central priority" at the key UN summit
in South Africa. -AFP, August 27, 2011
February 28, 2014
41
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
US Navy tests algal-derived fuel
The US Navy has conducted a full power demonstration of a 100 percent, algal-derived
distillate fuel using a Riverine Command Boat. The test by Naval Sea Systems Command took
place in Norfolk, Virginia... ."Our primary mission for Navy energy reform is to increase war
fighting capability, both strategically and tactically," said Rear Adm. Philip Cullom, director of
the Chief of Naval Operations Energy and Environmental Readiness Division, which leads the
Navy's Task Force Energy. "From a strategic perspective, we are reducing reliance on fossil fuels
from unstable locations. Tactically, efficient use of energy resources extends our combat range
and use of non-petroleum fuels assures multiple supplies are available." - UPI, October 25, 2010
Feed the future research forum
Food security and sustainable production are two buzz phrases that go hand in hand in
today's global environment. Even discussion among American policy makers seems to revolve
around the phrases "food secure" and "sustainably produced." A research forum of more than
300 stakeholders of global hunger relief and sustainable productivity from the US and around the
world will gather in Washington for a research forum to discuss the direction of Feed the
Future's research going forward... .Feed the Future (FTF), a global hunger and food security
initiative by the US Government, has a vested interest in gathering research to advance the
productivity frontier, transform production systems, and enhance nutrition and food safety. -
AgWeb.com, June 19, 2011
February 28, 2014
42
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
4.4. SCENARIO 3 NARRATIVE: BIOENERGY BOUTIQUES
Agricultural Productivity
Outpaces Global Food/Feed
Demand
Non-
Competitive
Price/Cost of
Biofuels
V
Scenario 3:
Bioenergy
Boutiques
A.
Scenario 1:
Fossil Future
\
Scenario 2:
Carbon
Conscious
Highly
^ Competitive
Price/Cost of
Biofuels
Scenario 4:
Wasteless World
Global Food/Feed Demand
Outpaces Agricultural
Productivity
Innovations in Agriculture and Bioenergy Do Not Keep Pace with the Economic
and Demographic Needs of the Global Marketplace, resulting in World Food
Shortages, Food's Triumph in the Food vs. Fuel Debate, and the Non-
Competitiveness of US Bioenergy Except for Niche Markets
End State: 2050
This is a world in which a perfect storm of climate, environmental, and population factors
have accelerated world hunger resulting in pockets of political unrest. Today, the world's
landscape and climate are quite different than in 2011: the Earth's temperature has risen by 2°C
(3.6°F), droughts are more common, sub-Saharan Africa is almost completely desertified, and
the oceans are the most acidic they have ever been. Communities have attempted to shift
agricultural production and fishing operations to new, more suitable areas to adapt to these
climate changes but have been unable to do so at a fast enough rate. In addition, the world's
population is expected to reach 9.3 billion this year, spurred by years of above-average
population growth in developing nations across the world, most notably in Africa. In addition, in
spite of more intensive and extensive farming, world cropland yields still remain significantly
below projections made in the 2010s. To compound productivity issues, economic and logistical
issues continue to plague developing nations. Moreover, political unrest in some parts of the
February 28, 2014
43
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
world has further separated the "have's" and "have not's": the gap between rich and poor, who
has food and who doesn't, who has access to medical care and who doesn't, is ever-growing.
However, there are glimmers of hope on the horizon. The US agricultural industry, in
comparison to many other countries, is doing well. Although some other countries had difficulty
adapting to climate change issues and continued to experience depressed productivity levels, the
US has been able to adapt by adjusting irrigation systems and introducing higher yielding crop
varieties that are drought and heat resistant. As a result, agricultural export levels are the highest
they have ever been. Additionally, global yield in the past five years has increased, due in part to
the Agricultural Technology Sharing Programs deployed by the US to diminish the widening
gap. With this upswing in agricultural productivity, countries are beginning to make inroads in
the feeding of their populations, not to mention that producers are feeling the positive economic
effects of this fact. However, this is a recent development, and much work is left to be done to
transform these glimmers into a reality for the majority of the world.
In this world, in which the fight to feed the world's population is the foremost concern,
food is the winner in the food vs. fuel debate and energy production from food-based biomass is
virtually nonexistent. While some non-food-based bioenergy has found a home in niche markets,
the bioenergy industry as a whole is not competitive relative to other energy sources. In the US,
this non-food-based bioenergy survives due to government subsidies and is used primarily by the
military in an effort to further reduce dependence on foreign oil. Bioenergy currently in use
includes fuels that are supported using sustainable residue and waste feedstocks, have high
energy density, and are drop-in replacements for petroleum fuel. In general, aside from those
subsidized by the government, commercial biomass production is not as economically viable as
was expected in 2011. A case in point is corn-based ethanol: the higher demand for agricultural
land and food production, the resulting persistence of higher corn prices, and an overall shift in
US priorities put corn-based ethanol out of production.
Tensions over food supply and climate change-related problems result in enacting a
carbon policy and support for an Agriculture Technology Sharing Program in an attempt to
reduce global instability. Overall, US energy needs are being met by a portfolio of energy
sources. Light vehicles are primarily electrified, using compressed natural gas (CNG), and/or are
fueled using coal-to-liquid (CTL) or gas-to-liquid (GTL) technology. Carbon capture and storage
(CCS) technologies have recently been commercialized in hopes of reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions that have continued to rise due to the widespread use of fossil fuel
technologies. Heavy vehicles are using CNG, CTL, GTL, diesel and biodiesel in limited
quantities, while maritime transport uses primarily diesel, nuclear, and some biodiesels. Power is
generated by coal, natural gas, wind, solar, hydropower, and some biomass. In general, the
markets have spoken: CNG and fossil fuel-based technologies are more profitable than biomass
conversion and as such, are the winners.
February 28, 2014
44
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Today Through 20255
The BRICS (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries continued to
experience an economic boom during this period, leading to a corresponding rise in their GDP
per capita. This was coupled with a concurrent increase in the growth rate of the human
population, which increased from 1.16% in 2011 to 1.29% in 2025; this growth occurred at a
more rapid pace than expected due to the fact that fertility did not decline as quickly as expected
in some developing countries, in addition to a slight fertility increase in several wealthier
countries.
As world population increased, so too did the demands for food and energy. Although
initially agricultural productivity increased to meet the food demand, worldwide demand grew
faster than supply beginning in 2015. This prompted localized famines in developing nations
around the world due to food price increases and local supply shortages, which were brought on
both by actual shortages and problems with the logistics infrastructure. The initial supply
shortages were compounded by the fact that world crop yields grew at only .5% per year, which
fell short of the 1.4% estimated growth projections. The slow growth in crop yields was largely
attributed to the world's continued reliance on relatively inexpensive agriculture inputs (e.g.,
seeds, seedlings, irrigation water, pesticides, fertilizer), as opposed to investing in the
development of precision agriculture techniques or genetic advancements. For example, at the
beginning of this period, North India began planting early maturing high-yielding wheat and rice.
This allowed producers to double crop, such that they were able to harvest wheat in time to plant
rice. Although this increased land productivity to a point, the technique could not keep pace with
the food demand, prompting localized famines within India and neighboring regions.
As food prices continued to rise during this period, unrest spread to key petroleum
producing countries, leading to petroleum supply disruptions. As the situation worsened, the
International Energy Agency (IEA) issued a series of urgent warnings about the potential for
sustained supply disruptions and the expected repercussions that would have on world markets.
Although the US was able to "ride out" the supply disruptions using its reserves, the
disruption once again called attention to US dependence on foreign energy and sparked a
renewed focus on finding additional domestic reserves. As the international situation became
direr, environmental concerns related to offshore oil exploration and production were largely put
on a "back burner" due to widespread public outcry over rising gasoline prices. Moreover, the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) cellulosic requirement was revised down in 2018. Four years
5 Note: All events, company names, and newspaper sources and titles referenced below are fictional,
though they are intended to speak to plausible future occurrences based on the logical confines of this particular
scenario. These references are distinct from sign posts at the end of each scenario narrative that are in fact actual
quotes from news sources.
February 28, 2014 45 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
later in 2022, government leaders decided against extending the overall RFS2 program due to the
high cost in meeting mandates.
The international oil supply situation also focused attention on finding alternative sources
of energy to supply the US military. Prompted by the success of a partnership between the US
Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Air Force, Navy, and the private sector to invest in
advanced drop-in aviation and marine biofuels, the Department of Defense (DoD) expanded the
partnership department-wide, including establishing a DoD Biofuel Council to work in close
cooperation with the White House Biofuel Interagency Work Group. After substantial military
research and development (R&D) investments throughout this period, a large breakthrough in
conversion technology associated with converting biological feedstocks (i.e., algae) and residues
(e.g., corn stover, woody biomass) to fuel became a viable technology in 2021 but continued to
need government support to compete in the market.
Although DoD continued to supply R&D funding to obtain reliable sources of biofuels to
reduce dependence on foreign petroleum, a lack of funding and interest in further development
of most first generation biofuels led to their stagnation. This lack of funding and interest was
motivated primarily by market factors: US agricultural producers responded to the worldwide
food shortages and high food prices by converting larger portions of arable land to food, not fuel,
crops. Therefore, first generation biofuels became less profitable to produce, as demand for
agricultural land and food production continued to rise. In addition, for the corn-based ethanol
industry, higher corn prices and the expiration of US government subsidies further reduced its
profitability.
However, in some regions of the US, small bioenergy markets developed using locally
available feedstocks as a way to avoid the prohibitive costs associated with long-range feedstock
transportation. In these highly regionalized markets, biofuels were produced in small, localized
refineries primarily using oil (e.g., waste oils, soybean oils), agricultural and forestry
waste/residues, and urban waste. Overall, US energy policy focused on the investment in
domestic sources of energy for transportation. As horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing
techniques continued to make the production of natural gas increasingly economical, the US
government funneled R&D money into the development of affordable compressed natural gas
(CNG) powered vehicles and natural gas fueling stations. As a result, natural gas became cheaper
than gasoline as a transportation fuel, which prompted a decrease in the cost of natural gas
vehicles. Continued efficiencies in new battery technology were also achieved. In addition, the
US built several CTL and coal-biomass-to-liquid (CBTL) plants on a demonstration scale.
2026 Through 2040
As the world population continued to grow at 1.29%, global food production was not able
to meet demand, leading to additional localized famines and driving up world food prices. In
February 28, 2014
46
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
addition, as governments strove to meet food demands, international climate policy was largely
abandoned, leading to a rise in GHG emissions and fairly significant changes in world climate.
These changes included the acceleration of desertification, most significantly in Africa. In
addition, as the concentration of carbon dioxide rose in the atmosphere, ocean acidification
accelerated and ocean current patterns shifted, which led to the collapse of fisheries around the
world. This in turn further strained land-based food resources by increasing demand for land-
based sources of protein; this fact, combined with the overall rise in global demand for food,
meant that marginal lands were increasingly used to grow crops. Also during this time period,
the Indian monsoon failed to materialize for the second year in a row, leading India to rely more
and more heavily on imports to feed its rapidly growing population.
During this period, the US too began to feel the effects of climate change, particularly the
Midwestern US, which experienced several consecutive years of drought. Fortunately, the
Southeastern US was able to compensate for this loss by moving more land into production,
including some CRP lands, employing irrigation systems, and utilizing drought and heat resistant
crop varieties. Additionally, US population growth remained moderate.
While the US continued to subsidize R&D related to biofuels, these biofuels did not
become competitive in the free market, due to high conversion costs and higher demand for
agricultural land. Instead, CNG became the most cost-competitive of all available liquid fuels for
light-duty vehicles. In addition, the charging infrastructure for electric vehicles expanded
broadly, prompted by advances in battery technology, in addition to the establishment of
significantly more renewable energy in the grid. In sum, 75% of US light-duty vehicles were
powered by either CNG or electric-power. Notably, due to the high cost of CCS technologies and
the lack of a carbon policy, CCS technologies were not used, which contributed to the extreme
climate effects experienced worldwide.
As the demand for food continued to increase, land use changes occurred, such that corn
was replaced by other food crops, thereby driving corn prices up to $20 per bushel. This,
combined with the push towards primarily drop-in fuels, led to the conversion of the last US corn
ethanol facility into a biobutanol facility. Two leading biofuels producers supported these
facility conversions as part of a multi-billion dollar DoD contract aimed at improving America's
energy independence.
Globally, the proportion of personal income allocated to food increased. High commodity
prices sapped the world's ability to consume other goods and services, both in the US and
abroad. Given that context, global instability resulting from worldwide food shortage and climate
change led to widespread support for a US carbon policy.
2041 Through 2050
February 28, 2014
47
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
World food shortages continued, especially in the Middle East and Asia, due in part to a
reduction in Australian exports resulting from six consecutive years of drought. In addition, as
fisheries continued to collapse and plant-based protein prices increased, world per capita meat
consumption declined for the first time in history.
To meet the growing demand for more plant-based proteins and to help reduce food
shortages, the US exported approximately 40% of its agricultural production during this period,
as compared to the 19.2% exported in 2008. Investments in more precise irrigation systems and
development of higher yielding drought- and heat-tolerant crop varieties, coupled with moderate
expansions onto more marginal lands, helped boost agricultural production. The strong export
market helped improve the US economy to the point where it began establishing and funding
agricultural technology sharing and assistance programs for foreign nations to boost their
agricultural productivity. Congress enacted an Agriculture Technology Sharing Program to
further strengthen the US position, optimize current technology, and disrupt the negative path
toward world food shortages.
In 2045, the world began to see a reversal in previous trends partially due to US
assistance and technology sharing programs: global agricultural productivity began to increase,
and improvements were seen in the logistics infrastructure, such that more food reached more
people. Although there was marked progress, many problems still existed. Unrest in Central Asia
over pervasive food shortages and a lack of government response to them sparked riots that
turned violent. In addition, mass migration continued in Africa, as desertification continued.
As the impacts of climate change became more apparent, the US developed a
comprehensive carbon policy. One significant change as a result of the policy was the use of
CCS technologies at all GTL, CTL and CBTL conversion plants. In the presence of the new
policy, the percentage of liquid fuel supplied by GTL/CTL/CBTL conversion briefly dipped;
however, quick advances were made in CCS technology and commercialization, such that
GTL/CTL/CBTL conversion increased significantly. Light duty vehicles were heavily
electrified during this period with an additional mix of CNG, GTL, CTL, and CBTL fuels
sources; heavy duty vehicles were fueled by a mix of renewable diesel, CNG, GTL, CTL, and
CBTL. Renewable diesel was used because it could be produced and distributed using existing
refineries and fuel-distribution systems and had approximately the same energy density as
conventional diesel. CAFE standards are no longer seen as relevant since the light duty fleet is
mostly electrified, which exceed previous standards.
Niche, boutique uses of bioenergy also continued during this period. For instance, the US
military furthered its investments in bioenergy R&D and as such, renewed its contract with Algal
Systems and BuDesign. After many years of subsidization, sustainably produced drop-in biofuels
succeeded subsidy-free exclusively in the aviation industry. These biofuels finally made it to the
February 28, 2014
48
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1 commercial fleet due to innovation in their production, storage, and distribution, though
2 petroleum is still the major fuel source.
February 28, 2014
49
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
"Road Signs" - Indicators of the Future
Note: Road signs represent recent factual developments that foreshadow the future
described in the above scenario.
USGS: Marcellus has 84 trillion cubic feet of recoverable
natural gas, far higher than thought
"The US Geological Survey said Tuesday that the Marcellus Shale
region contains some 84 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, recoverable
natural gas, far more than thought nearly a decade ago. Tuesday's figure is
much higher than the last government assessment in 2002, which suggested
about 2 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas." - Associated Press, August
24, 2011
President Obama announces US will invest up to $510 million
in biofuels to power military and commercial transportation
President Obama today announced that the US Departments of
Agriculture, Energy and Navy will invest up to $510 million during the
next three years in partnership with the private sector to produce advanced
drop-in aviation and marine biofuels to power military and commercial
transportation. - White House Press Release, August 16, 2011
Record droughts, floods and fires strain food markets'
resilience
UNITED NATIONS — A string of devastating natural disasters many are attributing to
climate change has sent food prices on a roller coaster ride, leading to fears of a wave of climate-
induced food price shocks of the sort that sparked rioting in the developing world two years ago.
-New York Times, August 13, 2010
USDA grant to study benefits of irrigation in southeast
Supported by [a $2.2 million] USDA grant, Dr. Richard McNider, from The University
of Alabama in Huntsville, leads a team that will spend the next four years studying the
environmental and economic impacts that widespread expansion of irrigated agriculture might
have in the Southeast..."If the forecasts for climate change are accurate, the dry Western states
will get drier and the wet states will get wetter," said McNider. "Whether we have climate
change or not, the Western region is very likely to return to the 'normal' climate of the previous
500 years, which is much drier than the climate of the past 100 years." - Neighbors, a
Publication of the Alabama Farmers Federation, a Member of the American Farm Bureau
Federation, August 1, 2011
February 28, 2014
50
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Coal-to-liquid fuels poised for a comeback
Converting coal into liquid fuels is known to be more costly than current energy
technologies, both in terms of production costs and the amount of greenhouse gases the process
emits. However, with the rise in energy prices that began in 2008 and concerns over energy
security, there is renewed interest in the conversion technology... The study found that, without
climate policy, CTL might become economical as early as 2015 in coal-abundant countries like
the United States and China. In other regions, CTL could become economical by 2020 or 2025.
Carbon capture and storage technologies would not be used, as they would raise costs. In this
scenario, CTL has the potential to account for about a third of the global liquid-fuel supply by
2050. - MITnews, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, June 9, 2011
PA awards $1.3 million grant for coal-biomass-to-liquids plant
The state of Pennsylvania has awarded a $1.3 million grant to Accelergy Corporation to
enable construction on their integrated coal-biomass-to-liquids (CBTL) facility to move forward.
The CBTL plant is located at Intertek PARC, located at the U-PARC facility in Pittsburgh. Prior
to this award, the company received a $175,000 grant for a feasibility study that included
recommended site locations. Once completed, the pilot plant will prove out Accelergy's coal to
liquids technology and provide the base needed to move to commercial scale technologies. -
Algal Biomass Organization, April 28, 2011
February 28, 2014
51
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
4.5. SCENARIO 4 NARRATIVE: WASTELESS WORLD
Non-
Competitive
Price/Cost of
Biofuels
V
Agricultural Productivity
Outpaces Global Food/Feed
Demand
Scenario 3:
Bioenergy
Boutiques
A.
Scenario 1:
Fossil Future
\
Scenario 2:
Carbon
Conscious
Highly
^ Competitive
_ * Price/Cost of
Biofuels
Scenario 4:
Wasteless World
Global Food/Feed Demand
Outpaces Agricultural
Productivity
Careful Consideration of Resource Utilization in Conjunction with Competing
Demands for Agricultural Bi-Products Leads to Strong Non-Crop Based Biofuels
Industry
End State: 2050
This is a world in which global land scarcity, coupled with major technology
breakthroughs, results in a position of market strength for non-crop based biofuels. Resource
constraints serve as an impetus for using all potential energy inputs. In 2050, the world is
experiencing global food shortage as a result of lagging agricultural productivity innovation,
high population growth, climatic changes, and shifts in diet preferences. The food shortage is
driving millions of people to emigrate from their countries of origin where some political unrest
is occurring to more developed, stable nations, and the US represents one of the most desirable
destinations. The US population is currently 452 million, which has outpaced US Census Bureau
projections by about 50 million. Much of this population growth is due to immigration
However, in the US, the combination of stagnating agricultural productivity caused by warming,
drying, and an influx of immigrants has led to land scarcity. Marginal lands are brought into
production where possible, and CRP management rules are relaxed. The US biofuel industry is
heavily impacted by land scarcity in that crop-based sources are economically unfeasible.
February 28, 2014
52
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
The true winners are non-crop based biofuel energy sources. In particular, algae, residual
wood-based biomass, and municipal solid waste (MSW) are fully commercialized. The
breakthroughs that have occurred in algae production and waste water used in algae growth
allow for cost-effective algal biomass lipid technology. Additionally, production of wood-based
biofuel and bio-products is economical at the commercial scale. Even MSW, a formerly doubted
biofuel source, has made great gains in conversion efficiency and has seen greatly expanded
production. In short, producing drop-in fuels is now cost-competitive and feedstock independent.
US governmental policy helps to promote a robust non-crop based biofuels industry.
Energy policy supports bioenergy and technology research and development through a steady
funding stream. Policymakers maintain a laissez faire attitude towards fiscal policy in their
attempts to drive down interest levels on debt, thereby freeing up private capital for investment
in bioenergy. Environmental policy buttresses the biofuels industry in that it allows use of all
available resources, including wood and waste products, which supports the most efficient
resource usage possible.
The current pervasive resource scarcity shapes the regionalized nature of the biofuels
market. Each region of the US produces biomass feedstocks that are indigenous to the area.
Feedstock conversion and end-user consumption also take place in a regionalized manner.
Several competing modes comprise the transportation market. Vehicle electrification is
popular in urban areas where battery re-charging stations flourish, while liquid fuels are the
predominant option in rural and exurban areas. The light-duty vehicle market is largely
electrified, with 50% of the market being solely electrified, whereas the heavy-duty vehicle
market is largely dependent on liquid fuels. Due to the dependence of many sectors of the
transportation market on liquid fuels, biofuels have a significant entree into the transportation
market.
Today Through 20256
As the tide of industrialization spread across the developing world, China became the
fastest growing automobile market. This new automobile habit, coupled with continued high
automobile usage in the developed world, led to unprecedented demand for gasoline. Given the
relatively fixed worldwide supply of oil, oil prices rose precipitously to record highs. Between
2011 and 2025, the price of a barrel of crude oil was regularly above $150, with occasional
spikes near $200. Realizing that oil prices were likely to remain high, US consumers increasingly
began demanding alternatives to petroleum. In particular, consumers demanded that the
substitute energy source be transparent and secure in its production, delivery, and usage.
6 Note: All events, company names, and newspaper sources and titles referenced below are fictional,
though they are intended to speak to plausible future occurrences based on the logical confines of this particular
scenario.
February 28, 2014
53
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The importance of developing an alternative energy source to petroleum was heightened
by geopolitical realities. The Arab Spring of 2011 produced decidedly mixed results. While
democracies sprouted up in several countries, resource distribution continued to be uneven, as
much of the petroleum-based wealth remained concentrated in the hands of very few citizens.
This continuance of cartel-driven oil policy was typified by OPEC's lasting influence on the
petroleum market. Instability in many of the principal oil exporting countries impressed upon US
consumers and policymakers alike the importance of developing an energy source that would
loosen the US's dependence on foreign oil.
High oil prices and the public's recognition of the need to move away from purchasing
Middle Eastern oil was the momentum the bioenergy industry needed to enter the transportation
sector with bioproduct alternatives. Specifically, industry experts pointed to market opportunities
for investors beyond first and second generation biofuels. Food crop-based and cellulosic ethanol
were judged to be non-cost competitive, while the value of non-crop based feedstocks was
finally realized.
The trend in the US and throughout the world towards increasing land scarcity drove the
biofuels industry further away from crop-based biofuels. The effects of climate change and a
slowing pace of innovation on the part of agricultural science led to a stagnation in agricultural
productivity. In conjunction with increasing population, the net effect was twofold: an increased
price of land and food shortages in certain parts of the world. With the backdrop of high land
prices and food shortage, serious investment in crop-based biofuels became unlikely, as most
farm land had been dedicated to food production.
US economic policy bolstered the development of non-crop based biofuels. Economic
policy embraced a laissez-faire, conservative model, which helped to free up capital to spur
industry innovation. As non-crop based biofuels were being developed, the Federal government
provided Research and Development (R&D) funding to more quickly diversify biofuels
technology away from crop-based sources. Steady federal government investments for non-crop
biofuels between 2011 and 2025.
Energy policy also allowed a strong non-crop-based biofuels industry to develop. As was
foreshadowed by the overwhelming Senate vote to end billions of dollars of ethanol subsidies
during the 2011 budget crisis, the Federal government ultimately discontinued all food crop-
based subsidies and all blending subsidies for ethanol in 2014. This removal of market
distortions signaled the death knell for the crop-based sector of the biofuels industry.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) was replaced by an energy
policy aimed at technological innovation. A critical impact of the Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS) was to raise the cognizance of policymakers regarding the importance of biofuel usage as
part of a sustainable energy future, but also to convince them that crop-based ethanol should not
comprise a significant portion of the ethanol industry moving forward. By 2025, more stringent
February 28, 2014 54 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and greenhouse gas tailpipe standards were
fully implemented.
2026 Through 2040
While many countries saw the benefits of rapid development of biofuels, a food disparity
quickly surfaced. The stratification that came to light juxtaposed rapidly developing countries
whose citizens were adopting Western diets and underdeveloped and undeveloped nations who
were suffering from acute food crises. The end result of both phenomena was the same: added
pressure on the US and world agriculture systems. The increasing demand for meat in rapidly
developing nations pushed the US and other countries to produce increasing levels of poultry,
beef, and pork, which exacerbated water quantity and quality issues, in addition to land
pressures. The US relaxed rules governing CRP lands, such that more grazing and haying
rotations were possible. Ultimately, the world agriculture production system was unable to keep
pace with increased demand, which led to price increases and food insecurity. The US responded
to food crises in the developing world by exporting food to stricken areas. While food aid was
able to forestall major famine, it provided only a "band aid" solution, as climate refugees spurred
by food pressures fled to the US by the millions. The coupled net effect of these trends was
pressure on the US and world agricultural production system not seen since World War II.
Interest and enthusiasm for capital investment in crop-based biofuel production waned.
The key developments that allowed the biofuel industry to prosper were rapid technology
breakthroughs and infrastructure development. The technologies needed to produce drop-in fuels
from algae blossomed. Renewable oil in the form of algae became a high volume reality.
Multiple methods of algae-based oil production became effective, including a sunlight-driven
photosynthetic process and a heterotrophic process utilizing plant sugars. Algal science
progressed to the point where microalgae systems began producing at least 30 times more energy
per unit area than most second-generation biofuels, which solidified algal-oil as a leading biofuel
source. Additionally, a series of definitive studies found that, from cradle to grave, algal oil emits
far less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels.
Despite the incredible successes of algal oil science, industry insiders recognized that
additional biofuel sources were needed to meet the surging liquid fuel demand. Given the ever-
present resource scarcity issue, there was a strong focus on using locally available feedstocks.
Two of the most successful were wood-based biomass and MSW. In the southeast and northwest
US, a reliance on wood-based biomass became central to the transportation fuel make-up. The
critical factor precipitating this trend was the realization on the part of policymakers that the
US's forestland was overstocked. A careful consideration of the ecological benefits associated
with clearing some previously untouched forestland for biofuels usage led to the requisite forest
policy change that allowed for additional wood biofuel production.
February 28, 2014
55
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
In urban areas, there was a massive upsurge in using a wide range of MSW, including
discarded furniture, appliances, yard wastes, and organic food scraps, among many other types.
Local infrastructure changes opened the door for greater local power generation via MSW, which
included MSW being generated for electric plug-in vehicles. A critical technical breakthrough in
the MSW field was improving the pyrolysis process. Scientists were able to develop conversion
techniques through which large quantities of oxygen were removed from the MSW, and
sustained the strength of the reaction beyond what was previously possible.
The legislative environment for non-crop based biofuel production was favorable.
Congressional decision makers recognized the market opportunities for biofuels derived from
algae, wood, and MSW and responded by maintaining stable research and development funding
for those energy sources. This constant funding stream ensured the rapid technological
advancement that was necessary for the biofuel industry.
The advancement of non-crop based biofuels was buoyed by the relatively weak market
position of other energy sources. A severe accident involving a major US natural gas pipeline,
along with several studies which exposed the extent of negative groundwater impact of natural
gas hydraulic fracturing, changed the public's perception of natural gas. Natural gas was viewed
as a risky energy source, which weakened the position of compressed natural gas in the
transportation fuels market. This relative weakness, an increase in regulations, the growing
politicization of the natural gas industry, and economic consequences of a NIMBY mentality
with regard to pipelines paved the way for further market penetration on the part of biofuels.
2041 Through 2050
Full commercialization of non-crop based biofuels was achieved. Whereas in earlier
years non-crop based biofuel technology existed but was not commercially available on a large
scale, scalability of non-crop based biofuel technology was achieved in this time period. In the
algae market, companies' ability to produce large quantities of algal-oil both outdoors through
photosynthesis and indoors through a heterotrophic process was a major boon in that algae
facilities could be constructed nearly anywhere. In the wood-based biofuel market, industry
leaders became skilled at using residues and other wood-derived products in the most efficient
manner possible. MSW producers added previously un-utilized urban waste streams to their slew
of feedstocks and vastly expanded their geographic reach. The net result was the full
commercialization of drop-in fuels with a feedstock-independent conversion process and
minimal consumptive water use.
US non-crop based biofuel companies possessed the premier conversion technologies in
the industry. In addition to flooding the US market, they also exported their technologies
overseas, notably to European and Asian markets. Furthermore, most of the feedstocks used for
biofuels originated in the country where the conversion and usage took place, thereby decreasing
February 28, 2014
56
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
transportation costs associated with production. Two principal factors paved the way for this
energy market penetration. The first was pervasive worldwide food shortage, which was caused
by food demand from a global population of 11 billion outpacing agricultural productivity. The
second factor was widespread water scarcity, exacerbated by an average increase in global
temperatures of 1°C (1.8°F) due to climate change, increasing population and industrial
processes' reliance on fresh water. These realities, coupled with a decreasing supply of easily
accessible oil and safety concerns with natural gas production, made non-crop based drop-in
fuels an attractive option, as their production required little water and used readily available
feedstocks. The triumvirate of algae, woody biomass, and MSW dominated the international
market just as it did in the US market.
February 28, 2014
57
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
22
23
24
25
26
"Road Signs" - Indicators of the Future
Note: Road signs represent recent factual developments that foreshadow the future
described in the above scenario.
Algae can replace 17 percent of US imported oil: PNNL
research
"Growing algae for biofuel, while being water-wise, could also
help meet congressionally mandated renewable fuel targets by replacing
17 percent of the nation's imported oil for transportation, according to a
paper published in the journal Water Resources Research."
- Biofuels Digest, April 14, 2011
It's a go for MSW-to-ethanol plant near Chicago
"A long-proposed municipal solid waste (MSW)-to-ethanol
project in Lake County, Ind., has locked in the financing needed to
construct the facility and is expected to undergo construction in July.
Powers Energy of America Inc. plans to construct a 42 MMgy facility in
Schneider, Ind., approximately 35 miles south of Chicago, which will
begin producing ethanol and electricity in 2013." - EthanolProducer
Magazine, June 17, 2011
Business booms at B.C. bioenergy project
"A bioenergy plant at the University of Northern B.C. is performing better than expected,
giving its Vancouver-based developer credibility to expand into new markets. . . 'It's a
watershed,' that 'validates use of woody biomass as a clean energy system,' BC Bioenergy
Network executive director Michael Weedon said." - Vancouver Sun, August 25, 2011
February 28, 2014
58
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. CONCLUSIONS
The scenarios described in this report represent four divergent storylines of potential
developments in important drivers of bioenergy futures. These drivers include policies and
regulations, economic growth, social and demographic processes, technological advancements,
environmental conditions, and evolution of the transportation and energy sectors. Exploring
different paths that these drivers can take leads to differentiation of the storylines. For example,
policies that encourage use of fossil fuels can lead to less development of advanced bioenergy
domestically, though global demand for bioenergy could still drive substantial domestic
production. Alternatively, an energy policy that supports bioenergy and technology research can
facilitate breakthroughs with respect to second and third generation biofuels, though economic
factors may still limit the penetration of these biofuels into domestic energy markets. As
experience with biofuel production grows and the biofuel industry continues to evolve, these
initial scenarios should be expanded and updated to reflect current information or concerns.
These scenarios represent an initial step in the development of more quantitative and
comprehensive environmental impact assessments, lifecycle analyses, and other modeling. First,
the scenarios depict distinct sets of plausible, internally consistent assumptions about the future
of the biofuel industry. The narratives and their specific scenario elements, such as type of
biofuel feedstock, agricultural productivity, energy prices, and population growth, can serve as
guidelines for the parameterization of quantitative models described in Appendix C, for example.
Parameterization of such models with these four scenarios will result in a set of analyses that can
inform decision makers of the outcomes of potential policy choices. Using this set of scenarios
across different models, agencies, and institutions facilitates the comparison of the model
outputs, because underlying assumptions will be consistent. This allows potential comparisons
among the scenarios of the level of GHG emissions, types of land use changes, and shifts in
agricultural commodities, for example. Such comparisons across a broad range of environmental
impact assessments, lifecycle analyses, and modeling would provide an important foundation for
informing biofuel policies, particularly if these scenarios are utilized by other agencies and
organizations in addition to the EPA.
February 28, 2014
59
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1 GLOSSARY
2 Advanced Biofuel - A renewable fuel, other than ethanol derived from corn starch that has life
3 cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are at least 50 percent less than lifecycle GHG
4 emissions from petroleum fuel. A 60 percent reduction in GHG is required from cellulosic
5 biofuels to get credit for being an "advanced" biofuel.
6 Biomass-Based Diesel - Biomass-based diesel includes non-co-processed renewable diesel,
7 which does not use the transesterification technology.
8 Black Swan ("wild card;" "disruptor") - A single event or a major step change that would
9 significantly change the business environment and the industry.
10 Cellulosic Biofuel - A renewable fuel derived from lignocellulose (i.e., plant biomass comprised
11 of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin that is a main component of nearly every plant, tree, and
12 bush in meadows, forests, and fields). Lignocellulose is converted to cellulosic biofuel by
13 separating the sugars from the residual material, mostly lignin, and then fermenting, distilling,
14 and dehydrating this sugar solution.
15 Conventional Biofuel - refers to ethanol derived from corn starch that does not lead to at least a
16 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to petroleum.
17 Likely Truths - Future outcomes and characteristics that can be predicted with a high level of
18 probability of occurrence.
19 Transportation Fuel - Fuel that is used in motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, non-road
20 vehicles, or non-road engines (except for ocean-going vessels).
21 Trend - Driving force that is in the pipeline. Its direction, timing, and scope of change are fairly
22 predictable. Trends should be reflected either implicitly or explicitly in all scenarios.
23 Uncertainty - Driving force that may or may not be in the pipeline. Its direction, timing, and
24 scope of change are virtually impossible to predict. Uncertainties become the foundational
25 blocks for scenario plots.
February 28, 2014
60
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
REFERENCES
2 Wilson, I. and Ralston, W.K. (2006). The Scenario Planning Handbook. Thomson/South-
3 Western Educational Pub., Crawfordsville, IN.
4 Schwartz, P. (1991). The Art of the Long View. Doubleday, N.Y., N.Y.
5 US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2005) Energy policy act of 2005, Pub. L. No.
6 109-58, 119 Stat. 594.
7 US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2007) Regulation of fuels and fuel additives:
8 Final rule. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/rfs-finalrule.pdf.
9 US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2010a) Regulation of fuels and fuel additives:
10 Changes to renewable fuel standard program: Final rule. Available online at
11 http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480ac93f2&disposit
12 ion=attachment&contentType=pdf.
13 US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2010b) Renewable fuel standard program (RFS2)
14 regulatory impact analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006. Available online at
15 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420rl0006.pdf.
16 US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2012) Biofuels and the environment: the first
17 triennial report to congress. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC;
18 EPA/600/R-10/183F. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=217443.
February 28, 2014
61
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANTS
This section contains a list of participants who participated in the two-day workshop and
contributed to final scenario development in follow-up conference calls.
Paul Argyropoulos, US EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Mr. Argyropoulos is a Senior Policy Advisor in EPA's Office of Transportation & Air
Quality. He is responsible for providing advice and analysis to the Office Director on a broad
range of transportation program issues with a focus on fuels. He chaired EPA's intra agency
work groups for the national renewable fuels standard programs implemented under both the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Bruce Babcock, Ph.D., Center for Agricultural and Rural Development - Iowa
Dr. Babcock is a professor of economics and the director of the Center for Agricultural
and Rural Development at Iowa State University. His research interests include understanding
agricultural commodity markets, the impacts of biofuels on US and world agriculture, the
development of innovative risk management strategies for farmers, and the analysis of
agricultural and trade policies.
Britta Bierwagen, Ph.D., US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment
Dr. Bierwagen is a Physical Scientist with the National Center for Environmental
Assessment in the Office of Research and Development at the US EPA where she works on
issues related to global change, biofuels, ecosystems, and water quality. Recently, she assisted
with the preparation of US EPA's first Report to Congress on the environmental consequences of
biofuels.
Randy Bruins, Ph.D., US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National
Exposure Research Laboratory
Dr. Bruins is a Senior Environmental Scientist in the US EPA's Office of Research and
Development. At EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory, he is co-leading the Future
Midwestern Landscapes Study, an examination of ecosystem services in the Midwestern US with
special emphases on the implications of biofuels development and the use of conservation
practices.
Marilyn Buford, Ph.D., US Forest Service
February 28, 2014
62
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Dr. Buford is the National Program Leader for Quantitative Ecology Research at the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Research and Development (R&D) office.
Her responsibilities include program leadership for quantitative ecology research within Forest
Service R&D; shared responsibility for carbon sequestration, biomass, and productivity R&D;
specialist in biometrics, modeling, system processes, and soil productivity; and shared liaison
with the Department of Energy (DOE) for climate change and bio-based products and bioenergy.
Brian Bush, Ph.D., US DOE, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Dr. Bush is a Principal Strategic Analyst in the Strategic Energy Analysis Center in
DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. His research interests include energy modeling
methodologies, and his expertise includes energy and infrastructure modeling, simulation, and
analysis.
Vince Camobreco, US EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Mr. Camobreco is an Environmental Protection Specialist in the US EPA's
Transportation and Climate Division. He has worked with the branch since 2006, focusing on the
lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of renewable and alternative fuels.
Christopher Clark, Ph.D., US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment
Dr. Clark is a Research Scientist at the National Center for Environmental
Assessment. His research interests include the environmental impacts of biofuels,
resilience of ecosystems and urban areas to climate change, and the impacts of global
change on ecosystems and ecosystem function (esp. from climate change, land use change,
and nitrogen deposition). His work on biofuels focuses primarily on the feedstock
production phase and more recently on the development of integrated lifecycle
assessments across the supply chain.
Geoff Cooper, Renewable Fuels Association
Mr. Cooper is Renewable Fuels Association's (RFA) Vice President of Research and
Analysis. In addition to overseeing market analysis and policy research, he provides regulatory
support and strategic planning for the association and its members. He also manages RFA
programs related to sustainability and ethanol co-products.
Bruce Dale, Ph.D., Michigan State University
February 28, 2014
63
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Dr. Dale is a professor of Chemical Engineering at Michigan State University. His
research interests include utilization of cellulose and other renewable resources, rate limiting
processes in biological systems, and modeling of integrated economic/environmental systems.
Virginia Dale, Ph.D., Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Dr. Dale is an Oak Ridge National Laboratory Corporate Fellow. Her primary research
interests are in a landscape design for bioenergy, environmental decision making, land-use
change, landscape ecology, and ecological modeling. Her current research involves working
closely with resource managers to identify indicators of ecological change at different scales and
to design models that can project regional changes in environmental conditions.
Rebecca Dodder, Ph.D., US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National
Risk Management Research Laboratory
Dr. Dodder is Senior Physical Scientist at the National Risk Management Research
Laboratory. Her research involves computer modeling of the US energy system and looks at the
environmental impact of using biomass as a source of energy for transportation fuels, industrial
energy, and electric power.
Jennifer Dunn, Ph.D., Argonne National Lab
Dr. Dunn is an Environmental Analyst in the Center for Transportation Research at
Argonne National Laboratory, where she conducts life cycle analyses of transportation
technologies including biofuels and battery-powered vehicles. Prior to joining Argonne, Jennifer
was a Project Manager at URS Corporation and an Environmental Engineer at the US EPA.
Jennifer holds a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Michigan.
William Harrison, US Department of Defense (DOD)
Mr. Harrison leads the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Energy Office. He is also
a technical advisor to the Director of the Propulsion Directorate for fuels technology and energy,
at the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).
Chad Haynes, Ph.D., Booz Allen Hamilton
Dr. Haynes is a Consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton. He has served as an energy
consultant to the DOE Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E), US Biomass
Research and Development Board, US Air Force, and the USDA Agricultural Research Service.
Jason Hill, Ph.D., University of Minnesota
February 28, 2014
64
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Dr. Hill is an assistant professor in bioproducts and biosystems engineering at the
University of Minnesota. His research interests include the technological, environmental,
economic, and social aspects of sustainable bioenergy production from current and next-
generation feedstocks.
Kristen Johnson, US Department of Energy (DOE)
Ms. Johnson is a Presidential Management Fellow with DOE's Biomass Program.
Steven LeDuc, Ph.D., US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment
Dr. LeDuc is a Forest Soil Scientist in EPA's National Center for Environmental
Assessment. His research interests include the effects of biofuel feedstock production,
particularly perennial grasses and woody crops, on soil quality. Dr. LeDuc also co-authored
Biofuels and the Environment: the First Triennial Report to Congress.
Scott Malcolm, Ph.D., US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research
Service
Dr. Malcolm is an agricultural economist in USDA's Economic Research Service
Branch. He contributed to the report, "Ethanol and a Changing Agricultural Landscape," which
summarizes the estimated effects of meeting EISA targets for 2015 on regional agricultural
production and the environment.
Sarah Mazur, US EPA, Office of Research and Development, Air Team Office of
Science Policy
Ms. Mazur is the National Chemical Sector Liaison within the Sector Strategies Program
of the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation at the US EPA. Through Sector Strategies,
she helps analyze performance drivers and barriers within the chemical sector and develop
regulatory and voluntary initiatives to improve environmental performance and reduce excess
burden.
Andy Miller, Ph.D., US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory
Dr. Miller is a Supervisory Environmental Engineer in the US EPA Office of Research
and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), Air Pollution
Prevention and Control Division, (APPCD), Air Pollution Technology Branch (APTB). His
research focus has been on characterization of emissions from combustion sources, including
work on emissions from the combustion of emulsified fuels. Dr. Miller is currently the leader of
the Biofuels/Bioenergy Research Team for NRMRL.
February 28, 2014 65 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Phil Morefield, US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment
Mr. Morefield is a Geographer in the EPA's Air, Climate and Energy Research
Program. His main areas of research include land-use change modeling, assessing the
impacts of climate and land-use change and evaluating the environmental effects of
biofuels. Mr. Morefield also co-authored Biofuels and the Environment: the First Triennial
Report to Congress.
Roberta Parry, US EPA, Office of Water
Ms. Parry is an Agriculture Policy Specialist at the EPA's Office of Water. During her 17
years with EPA, she has worked on a variety of legislative, regulatory, programmatic, and
scientific agriculture issues. She has focused on collaborating with a wide variety of stakeholders
to implement programs and encourage research that will protect bodies of water and drinking
water supplies from agricultural sources of pollution.
Donna Perla, US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Ms. Perla is on detail as the Senior Advisor of Bioenergy in the Office of the USDA
Chief Scientist. She is on detail from the US EPA's Office of Research and Development where
her work includes leading a Waste-to-Energy EPA network, assisting EPA's representative to the
federal Biomass Research and Development Board, and coordinating EPA's participation in the
DOE-led National Biofuel Action Plan.
Caroline Ridley, Ph.D., US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment
Dr. Ridley is an Ecologist in the EPA's National Center for Environmental
Assessment. She provides scientific support for water and energy policy decisions within
and outside the EPA, by helping decision-makers understand risks to biological
communities. She co-authored Biofuels and the Environment: the First Triennial Report to
Congress.
Roger Sedjo, Ph.D., Resources for the Future
Dr. Sedjo is a Senior Fellow and the Director of Resources for the Future's (RFF) forest
economics and policy program. His research interests include forests and global environmental
problems; climate change and biodiversity; public lands issues; long-term sustainability of
forests; industrial forestry and demand; timber supply modeling; international forestry; global
forest trade; forest biotechnology; and land-use change.
February 28, 2014 66 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Mark Segal, Ph.D., US EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic
Substances
Dr. Segal US EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) since 1979 and
participated in the initial development of the Biotechnology Program. He currently participates
in intra- and interagency working groups developing guidance for microbial risk assessment as
part of a group coordinating EPA's intra- and interagency biofuels related activities.
Luke Tonachel, Natural Resources Defense Council
Mr. Tonachel is a Vehicles Analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council's
climate and energy team. His work focuses on the environmental impact of mobility, and he is
working on ways to promote cleaner and more efficient car and truck technologies.
February 28, 2014
67
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1 APPENDIX B: SECONDARY RESEARCH SOURCES
2 The following set of reports, articles, and web pages were used to inform identification of
3 driving macro forces.
Secondary Research Sources
The Future of Biofuels - The Economist
Biomass Multi-Year Program - DOE
Biofuels in the US - Challenges and Opportunities - Desert Research institute
Biofuels and the Environment: the First Triennial Report to Congress (External Review
Draft) - EPA
Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) -EPA
America's Energy Future - National Academies
Challenge and Opportunity: Charting a New Energy Future - Energy Future Coalition
Outlook for Energy: A View to 2030 - Exxon Mobil
Integrated Energy Outlook - Internal ICF Energy Report
Annual Energy Outlook 2009 & 2010 Early Release Overview - Energy Information
Administration
Transforming America's Power Industry: The Investment Challenge 2010-2030 - The
Edison Foundation
Renewable Revolution: Low-Carbon Energy by 2030 - WorldWatch
Hard Truths: Facing the Hard Truths about Energy - National Petroleum Council
A National Strategy for Energy Security - Energy Security Leadership Council
February 28, 2014
68
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1
APPENDIX C: BIOFUEL MODELS AND PUBLICATIONS
2 The models listed in Table C-l present both primary and secondary impacts with respect
3 to biofuel production and consumption in various sectors, including transportation, electric
4 power sector, agriculture, land-use change, and biofuel blenders and fuel producers. Although a
5 few international models exist, they were not included in this memo as the international models
6 were only capable of a global analysis or an analysis specific to the European Union.
February 28, 2014
69
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1 The models listed in Table C-l use lifecycle analyses to examine the impact of biofuel production. This table presents models that
2 estimate lifecycle impacts or use lifecycle impacts as part of the modeling framework. The basic data needs include the key drivers or inputs
3 required by model users.
4 Table C-l. Biofuel lifecycle models, descriptions, and basic data needs/inputs
Model Name
Description
Basic Data Needs
Biomass Scenario Model (BSM)
BSM is used to understand the transition to biofiiels (specifically ethanol-based fuel)
use in the transportation industry to 2017. The model uses supply chain framework
to analyze and understand the feedback effects of production and consumption.
• Feedstock production
• Feedstock logistics
• Biofuel production
• Biofuel distribution
• Biofuel end use
Greenhouse gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy Use in
Transportation (GREET)
GREET models the full lifecycle for a given transportation fuel/technology
combination. The model is designed to allow researchers to input their own
assumptions and generate fuel-cycle energy and emission results for specific
fuel/technology combinations.
• Fleet size, vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), fuel
economy
• Fuel use
• Biofuel feedstock source
Peak/Poke software package
Peek/Poke serves as a driver for GREET, allowing the user to introduce input data
into the software and run simulations without having to modify the GREET code
directly. The model first "pokes" the user-defined inputs into the GREET model via
Visual Basic macros. Then the software runs the GREET simulation and "peeks" at
the results by outputting them from the GREET report.
• Fleet size, VMT, fuel
economy
• Fuel use
• Biofuel feedstock source
Matrix Organization Using Specific
Energy (MOUSE)
The MOUSE software works with GREET results to provide accurate accounting of
mixed fuels that are not contained within GREET. MOUSE contains a matrix of
GREET-calculated fuel lifecycle emissions and allows users to determine emissions
for mixtures of fuel types, such as E85 (85 percent ethanol in diesel fuel). The
software is designed to help blenders and fuel producers calculate emissions of fuel
mixtures that are specific to their processes, compositions, and regions.
• Mixed-fuel consumption
• Fleet size, VMT, fuel
economy
• Fuel use
• Biofuel feedstock source
VISION
VISION provides estimates of the potential energy use, oil use, and carbon emission
impacts of advanced light- and heavy-duty vehicle technologies and alternative fuels
through the year 2050. Model consists of 2 Excel workbooks: a Base Case of US
• Vehicle market penetration
• Fuel prices
• Fuel blends
• Ethanol feedstocks
February 28, 2014
70
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Model Name
Description
Basic Data Needs
highway fuel use and carbon emissions to 2050 (to 2100 in 2008 and newer versions)
and a copy (of the Base Case) that can be modified to reflect alternative assumptions
about advanced vehicle and alternative fuel market penetration.
• VMT
• Vehicle costs
The Long-range Energy Alternatives
Planning System (LEAP)
LEAP can be used to track energy consumption, production, and resource extraction
in all sectors of an economy. It can be used to account for both energy sector and
non-energy sector greenhouse gas (GHG) emission sources and sinks.
• Fuel consumption, by sector
(top-down)
• Fuel consumption by
devices, end-uses, and
economic sectors (bottom-
up)
• Population, rates of
urbanization, average
household
• GDP, interest and inflation
rates
• National energy policies and
plans
ERG Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model
(EBAMM)
The ERG Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model (EBAMM) provides a relatively simple,
transparent tool that can be used to compare biofuel production processes among
these six different biofuel studies and analyses.
• Transport energy
• Energy used in irrigation
• Biorefinery Energy
• Crop yields
• Energy inputs for
agricultural and biorefinery
phase
The Lifecycle Emissions Model
(LEM)
The model estimates energy use, criteria pollutant emissions, and C02-equivalent
GHG emissions from a variety of transportation and energy lifecycles to 2050.
• Modes of passenger freight
transport
• Vehicle cycle inputs
• Fuel cycle inputs
Biofuel Energy System Simulator
(BESS)
The BESS model is a software tool to calculate the energy efficiency, GHG
emissions, and natural resource requirements of corn-to-ethanol biofuel production
systems. The model provides a "cradle-to-grave" analysis of the production lifecycle
of biofuels from the creation of material inputs to finished products. The model
• Crop production (corn grain
yield)
• Biorefinery production
performance, energy
consumption
February 28, 2014
71
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Model Name
Description
Basic Data Needs
evaluates a single corn-ethanol biorefinery and its surrounding feedstock crop
production zone.
• Cattle feedlot performance,
transportation
The Energy Choice Simulator
The Energy Choice Simulator models the interaction of a wide range of Federal and
State energy policies. These policies, along with an energy consumption baseline,
provide a context for the simulation of economic decisions between now and the year
2050. It models the effect of various fuel policies on the price, quantity, and
emissions from the transportation fuels sector.
• Vehicle fuel efficiency
• Biodiesel and ethanol
capacity, prices,
infrastructure costs, lifecycle
emissions
• Feedstock availability
Biofuels Emissions and Cost
Connection (BEACCON) model
The Biofuels Emissions and Cost Connection (BEACCON) model was developed by
Richard Plevin at UC Berkeley to calculate the costs of GHG reductions from
ethanol.
• Plant characteristics
• Financing data
• Plant energy supply
• Energy prices
The models presented in Table C-2 simulate changes in policy, economic, or resource conditions and evaluate resulting impacts on
various sectors or areas of industry.
Table C-2. Economic/policy analysis models, descriptions, and basic data needs/inputs
Model Name
Description
Basic Data Needs
Model for Estimating the Regional
and Global Effects of Greenhouse Gas
Reductions (MERGE)
MERGE combines a bottom-up representation of the energy supply sector with a
top-down representation of the remainder of the economy. The model quantifies
alternative ways of thinking about climate change and explores alternate views on
costs of abatement, damage from climate change, valuation, and discounting.
• Capital costs
• Labor costs
• Energy consumption
The Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA) Regional Input-Output
Modeling System (RIMS II)
A tool for estimating the indirect impacts of changes in a local economy. The model
and corresponding multipliers estimate how much a one-time or sustained increase in
economic activity in a particular region will be supplied by industries located in the
region.
• Impacted region
• Impacted industry
• Initial changes in output,
earnings, and unemployment
The Impact Analysis and Planning
(IMPLAN) model
IMPLAN models the total regional economic effect of a given change, and splits the
additional effects beyond the initial action into two categories: indirect and induced.
Indirect effects are changes in interindustry transactions, or basically the supply and
• Employment by industry
• Income by industry
February 28, 2014
72
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Model Name
Description
Basic Data Needs
distribution chains of the affected entity. Induced effects are the changed spending
habits in the local economy and can disaggregate impacts into sectors of the
economy.
Policy Analysis System (POLYSYS)
POLYSYS simulates changes in policy, economic, or resource conditions and
estimates resulting impacts for the US agricultural sector. It is a structured system of
interdependent modules simulating crop supply, demand and prices, livestock supply
and demand, and agricultural income.
• Land retirement
• Crop prices and quantity
• Environmental targets,
constraints
• International trade variables
• Regional planted/harvested
acreage
• Regional market prices
• National and regional yields
• Export demand
The Regional Environment and
Agricultural Programming Model
(REAP)
REAP is designed for general-purpose economic, environmental, technological, and
policy analysis of the US agriculture sector. REAP facilitates scenario—or "what
if'—analyses by showing how changes in technology; commodity supply or
demand; or farm, resource, environmental, or trade policy could affect a host of
performance indicators important to decisionmakers and stakeholders.
• Regional supply of crops and
livestock
• Commodity prices
• Crop management behavior
by crop, rotation, and tillage
practice
• Farm income
• Environmental indicators
Integrated Global System Modeling
Framework (IGSM)
An earth system model that comprises a multi-sector, multi-region economic
component and science component that models the interaction between the economic
and natural systems.
• National and/or regional
economic development
• Emissions
• Land-use change
The models presented in Table C-3 simulate changes in agriculture and land management practices.
Table C-3. Agriculture/land-use change models, descriptions, and basic data needs/inputs
Model Name
Description
Basic Data Needs
Forestry and Agricultural Sector
Optimization Model-Greenhouse Gas
FASOMGHG simulates the allocation of land over time to competing activities in
both the forest and agricultural sectors. The model simulates the consequences for
• Discount rate
• Commodities
February 28, 2014
73
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Model Name
Description
Basic Data Needs
Version (FASOMGHG)
the commodity markets supplied by these lands and the net GHG emissions. The
model was developed to evaluate the welfare and market impacts of public policies
and environmental changes affecting agriculture and forestry.
• Price and cost data
• Demand
• Supply/land inventory
• Supply/biophysical yield
Food and Agricultural Policy
Research Institute (FAPRI) model
FAPRI consists of several interlinked models that project national (US) and
international agricultural commodity production, consumption, trade, prices, and
land use. There are separate interlinked models for grains, oilseeds, livestock, sugar,
dairy, and cotton. Recently, the FAPRI-Missouri University (MU) Biofuels, Corn
processing, Distillers Grains, Fats, Switchgrass, and Corn Stover Model was
developed.
• Population, GDP, policy
variables
• Commodity inputs
• Region of analysis
• World prices, domestic
prices, production,
consumption, stocks, area
harvested, yield
Global Trade Analysis Project
(GTAP)
GTAP is a multi-region, multi-sector computable general equilibrium model that
estimates changes in world agricultural production. It can estimate the impact of an
economic event on the domestic and international agricultural sector.
• Commodity inputs (ethanol
from grains, and sugarcane,
biodiesel from oilseeds
• Biofuel production, costs
Global Change Assessment Model
(GCAM) (formerly known as
MiniCAM)
An integrated assessment model that combines a technologically detailed global
energy-economy-agricultural-land-use model with a suite of coupled gas-cycle,
climate, and ice-melt models.
• Population, labor
productivity growth in
energy and land-use systems
• Labor productivity
• Renewable and non-
renewable resources by
grade
• Regional energy conversion
technologies
• Regional land characteristics
Soil and Water Assessment Tool
(SWAT)
SWAT is a river basin scale model developed to quantify the impact of land
management practices in large, complex watersheds. The model predicts the effect of
management decisions on water, sediment, nutrient, and pesticide yields with
reasonable accuracy on large, ungaged river basins.
• Watershed dimensions
• Length of simulation
• Precipitation
• Temperature, humidity
• Solar radiation
• Wind speed
• Surface runoff
February 28, 2014
74
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Model Name
Description
Basic Data Needs
• Sediment erosion
• Pesticide, bacteria in
soil/runoff
• Water quality
• Plant growth
The Environmental Policy Integrated
The model was developed by USDA to simulate the impact of agricultural
• Tillage management
Climate (EPIC) Model
management strategies on agricultural production and soil and water resources.
practices
• Soil temperature
• Wind erosion
• Snowmelt runoff and erosion
• Precipitation
• Solar radiation
Agricultural Policy Extender (APEX)
The model facilitates multiple sub-area scenarios and/or manure management
• Tillage management
model
strategies, such as automatic land application of liquid manure from waste storage
ponds. APEX extends the capabilities of the EPIC model to whole farms and small
practices
• Soil temperature
• Wind erosion
• Snowmelt runoff and erosion
• Precipitation
• Solar radiation
watersheds.
February 28, 2014
75
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
------- |