Tag: CARB

  • Fact vs. Fiction: Correcting Myths About California Dairy Methane Reduction Efforts

    Dairy Cares — Over the past eight years, California’s dairy farms have collectively achieved an annual reduction of 5 million metric tons of methane (CO2e) and counting. This is important, as scientists agree that reductions in methane emissions are critical to slowing global warming. The world-leading effort has drawn some well-deserved attention. Unfortunately, there are several common myths and misconceptions about California dairy’s methane reduction programs. Let’s explore the misnomers and the facts.

    Myth #1: California’s methane reduction efforts are focused on digesters.

    One common misconception is that digesters are the primary strategy being deployed to reduce dairy methane emissions in California. There are in fact several strategies being deployed, which are all equally important to ensuring success across all dairy farms, large and small. Here are the main strategies in no particular order:

    Strategy #1: Methane Avoidance – California dairy farms are avoiding the creation of methane via alternative manure management projects. This includes manure separators, compost pack barns, manure scrape and vacuum systems, conversion to pasture-based operations, and other practices. Through its Alternative Manure Management (AMMP) and Dairy Plus programs, the state has funded a total of 209 alternative manure management (methane avoidance) projects, more than the 142 state-funded digester projects. Estimated total annual reductions from alternative manure management projects operating to date are 252,000 MTCO2e, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA).

    Strategy #2: Methane Capture and Utilization – California has 168 dairy digesters operating with about 75 more projects in development. 142 of these projects received funding from the state via the Dairy Digester Research and Development Program (DDRDP). Digesters capture methane from manure storage and put it to productive use as carbon-negative transportation fuel or other renewable energy needs. Estimated total annual reductions from operating California dairy digester projects to date are 2.53 million MTCO2e, according to information from CDFA and digester developers.

    Strategy #3: Milk Production Efficiency/Herd Attrition – California dairy farms continue to shrink their environmental footprint by producing more milk (or consistent total milk volume) with fewer cows. Milk production efficiencies continue to be gained in many ways, including improved animal nutrition, selective breeding, and enhanced animal care and comfort. Overall, while total milk production has remained relatively stable, the number of dairy cows in California has continued to shrink since 2008, resulting in far fewer emissions. Estimated total annual reductions achieved to date are 2.13 million MTCO2e, based on herd numbers from the California Air Resources Board’s California Dairy and Livestock Database. These reductions are from both manure management and enteric methane (methane emitted directly from cows).

    Strategy #4: Methane-Reducing Feed Ingredients – Additionally, a newer strategy is now also being deployed to directly address enteric methane emissions. On a growing number of farms, methane reducing feed ingredients are included in feed rations, helping reduce enteric methane emissions.

    Strategy #5: Ongoing Research – Perhaps the most important strategy continues to be research. The California dairy sector supports ongoing research efforts to validate practices and identify additional strategies for further reducing methane emissions.

    Myth #2: California’s methane reduction policies are encouraging dairy farms to grow larger.

    Another harmful myth is that California’s methane reduction programs are incentivizing farms to grow larger. While it’s true that digester projects are more financially viable on larger dairies (including those that have experienced consolidation), the financial benefits of having a digester do not incentivize growth. This myth is based on the flawed assumption that dairies receive all revenue generated by a digester and therefore increase cows to increase revenues. In practice, digesters are substantial capital investments that are not financed, operated, and owned by the dairy farm. Most digesters are owned by specialized companies and investors that have access to capital, technology, and current natural gas infrastructure.

    A 2024 analysis performed by ERA Economics found there is no evidence that digesters cause consolidation. Additionally, econometric analysis of county- and state-level farm digester data provides empirical evidence that digesters are not causing consolidation. While the California dairy sector has consolidated over the last several decades, the underlying drivers for consolidation are broad and pre-date digesters. The report from ERA Economics confirms analysis performed by the California Air Resources Board, which shows no linkage between digesters and herd growth on dairy farms.

    Myth #3: CA policies encourage the creation of more methane for digester capture.

     A similar myth is that digesters encourage dairy farms to create more methane so that more energy can be created and sold. This claim is counter to how California’s digesters are designed and operated. Nearly all California dairy digesters have a covered lagoon design. On a dairy with this kind of digester, manure is collected via flushing barn floors with recycled water that is sent to a storage lagoon before being used to irrigate forage fields. Manure stored without oxygen (in wet conditions) creates methane, which is why a plastic tarp is used to cover the lagoon, capturing methane for use as an energy source.

    As solid separator (right) removes much of the manure solids before the stream enters covered-lagoon digester.

    For best maintenance outcomes, there is a critical step that occurs before the stream enters the lagoon: separating out much of the solids via a manure separator. Installation of a mechanical separator is typically part of every farm’s digester project investment. Reducing the amount of solids that enter the lagoon reduces the amount of methane that is created and available for capture. However, it also helps prevent solids from building up in the lagoon, reduces odors, and minimizes the need for costly lagoon cleanouts. Therefore, digester projects technically use both the methane avoidance and methane capture strategies, to most effectively manage manure and reduce emissions.

    Myth #4: California dairy farms operate without regulation.

    A final myth is one that is sometimes claimed by opponents of dairy farming or uniformed media outlets: that California’s dairies operate with little to no regulation. This could not be further from the truth. California dairies operate under the strictest environmental regulations in the nation and must comply with the nation’s most stringent air quality protection rules. Dairies are already subject to multiple environmental permits and regular inspections by regional water quality authorities, regional air agencies, and county land use authorities. Each California dairy and cattle operation submits extensive, detailed reports on their operations to state authorities on an annual basis. While California’s dairies are not currently directly regulated for methane emissions, they are doing their part to voluntarily meet the state’s target for a 40% reduction by 2030. The state’s dairy methane reduction programs (DDRDP, AMMP, and Dairy Plus) are persistently over-subscribed with farm applications.

    Fact: Despite misrepresentations, dairy farmers remain dedicated.

    Dairy farmers continue to participate in important conversations about the environment, and more importantly, they continue to take action to reduce emissions. By correcting misinformation and busting harmful myths, their world-leading efforts can be better understood and supported. Achieving the full 40% reduction in dairy methane emissions by the 2030 target is within reach if additional funding is made available to continue the state’s successful programs.

    California’s dairy farmers are committed to doing their part to reduce methane in ways that benefit local communities. 

  • Valadao Calls on Newsom to Suspend Gas Tax Increase

    Congressman David G. Valadao (CA-22) led the entire California Republican congressional delegation in urging Governor Gavin Newsom to suspend the state’s upcoming gas tax increase on July 1, 2024. According to Triple A, the national average price for a gallon of gas is $3.60, but in California, the average price is $5.13 per gallon.

    “Governor Newsom has failed to provide relief at the pump for hard-working Californians struggling with rising costs,” said Congressman Valadao. “My constituents are already paying the highest gas prices in the country, and the fact that our prices are about to go up even more because of the state’s policies is unacceptable. I am once again urging the Governor to suspend the gas tax to lower prices for Central Valley families.”

    For the last two years, Rep. Valadao has led efforts to suspend the annual July 1st gas tax increase to provide much-needed relief to middle class California families struggling with inflation. The lawmakers also raised their concerns over a recent report from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that signals gas prices are expected to rise by 47 cents per gallon in 2025 due to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard reforms.

    Congressman Valadao was joined in the letter by Reps. Ken Calvert (CA-41), Kevin Kiley (CA-03), Young Kim (CA-40), Doug LaMalfa (CA-01), Tom McClintock (CA-05), Jay Obernolte (CA-23), Michelle Steel (CA-45), John Duarte (CA-13), Mike Garcia (CA- 27), and Darrell Issa (CA-48).

    Read the full text of the letter here or below:

    Dear Governor Newsom,

    We are extremely concerned with two upcoming gas price increases that will impact all Californians. In September 2023, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) reported that gas prices are expected to rise by 47 cents per gallon next year due to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard reforms. This increase does not include the existing gas tax, which is expected to increase gas prices by nearly 60 cents on July 1st. Together, this more than one dollar increase will come at a time when the people of California are already grappling with the high cost of living in our state.

    For the past two years, we have urged you to suspend the gas tax, given the ongoing challenges faced by Californians that are forced to choose between filling their gas tanks and putting food on the table. Our concerns have continued to be ignored while Californians suffer the consequences. According to AAA’s state gas price averages, California leads the nation in gas prices at $5.26 per gallon for regular gas, which is already 45 cents higher than the next closest state. Adding another dollar to these already exorbitant prices will be disastrous for California residents.

    With the cost of goods continuing to rise across the board, we must act now to pursue all avenues of relief for California families. We urge you to immediately suspend increases to California’s excise tax on gasoline and to work with CARB to ensure that Californians do not suffer unnecessarily.

  • Congressmen Valadao, Langworthy Introduce Legislation to Stop Bans on Traditional Energy Sources

    Congressman David G. Valadao (CA-22) joined Representatives Nick Langworthy (NY-23), Tony Gonzales (TX-23), Mike Lawler (NY-17), Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11), Tom McClintock (CA-05), Jim Moylan (GU-AL), Claudia Tenney (NY-24), and Clay Higgins (LA-03) to introduce the Energy Choice Act. This bill would prohibit states or localities from prohibiting an energy service’s connection, reconnection, modification, installation, or expansion based on the type of energy source being delivered.

    “California has been ground zero for misguided mandates that penalize traditional energy sources – driving up costs for working families and further stressing our state’s already unreliable power grid,” said Congressman Valadao. “Governor Newsom has banned the sale of combustion-engine vehicles in the state after 2035 – putting the interests of extreme environmentalists over hardworking Californians. I’m proud to support the Energy Choice Act to put an end to these misguided energy policies and ensure an all-of-the-above approach to energy production and use.”

    “Governor Kathy Hochul and Democrats in Albany are hurting Upstate New Yorkers with their relentless war on American energy,” said Congressman Langworthy. “Her effort to ban the use of gas in buildings across the state will not only increase energy costs for families, but it will also eliminate a reliable and necessary source of energy that keeps homes heated and people safe during our extreme winter storms. As this is becoming a dangerous trend in blue states across the country, the Energy Choice Act would end these costly bans and secure our nation’s energy future.”

    “To achieve energy independence we need energy diversification, but not to the exclusion of traditional energy sources,” Congresswoman Malliotakis said. “I’m proud to join my colleagues in introducing legislation to prevent states like New York from banning specific types of energy to increase reliability, protect our constituents during the cold winter months and ensure Americans have access to affordable energy options.”

    “President Biden and Governor Hochul continue to squash American energy production and infringe on Americans’ right to choose how they heat their homes by implementing legislation to make energy for our communities less reliable and more expensive,” said Congresswoman Tenney. “The Energy Choice Act would prevent any state attacks on energy choice to save our families money and unleash American energy dominance. The Left must end their war on natural gas and allow Americans to choose the energy sources that work best for them!”

    “As a result of weak policies, the American people are burdened by a higher cost of living now more than ever before,” said Congressman Moylan. “The Energy Choice Act works to ease the pockets of Americans by giving them the right to access affordable and reliable energy through prohibiting restrictions on natural gas. Most importantly, this bill would make us less dependent on foreign adversaries for our energy needs.”

    Background:

    In August of 2022, California’s Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a measure requiring all new vehicles sold in the state of California to emit zero emissions by 2035. Since then, nine other states have committed to following California’s standard, saying they will enforce the ban on the sale of all internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035. These states include New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, and Rhode Island.

    In April of this year, Congressman Valadao led a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom urging him to reconsider this policy and cited the impacts on the state’s electrical grid, supply chain, and economy.

    The full text of the bill can be found here.

  • Agricultural Organizations Demonstrate Alternatives to Agricultural Burning

    On June 29, Nisei Farmers League, along with other agricultural organizations, held an in-person demonstration pilot project at a vineyard in Madera County to display alternatives to agricultural burning. The project is looking for cost-effective solutions to orchard and vineyard removals due to most agricultural burning being phased out by December 31, 2024, as passed earlier this year by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

    Participating in the event were Jared Blumenfeld, Secretary of Cal-EPA; Carlos Suarez, State Conservationist for USDA-NRCS; Richard Corey, Executive Officer for California Air Resources Board; Samir Sheikh, Executive Director and Air Pollution Control Officer for the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD); Dr. Tania Pacheco- Werner, CARB and SJVAPCD board member; Fresno County Supervisor Buddy Mendes, as well as SJVAPCD board member; Madera County Supervisor Tom Wheeler, as well as SJVAPCD board member; and City of Los Banos Mayor Pro Tem Deborah Lewis, as well as SJVAPCD board member.

    Equipment demonstrated included:

    • An air curtain burner built by AirBurners. This machine utilizes a constant stream

      of air on the top of the wood waste to push emissions/smoke back into the fire to

      reburn, which significantly reduces particulate matter.

    • A horizontal grinder, provided by Bandit Industries, that chips wood debris and

      can remove metal, including wire, from the material.

    • A vineyard mulcher, built by Seppi, which drives over the top of the vine and

      mulches it back into the soil.

    • A mobile grinder that would grind trees, brush and vines (material that does not include metal.)

      Other equipment used in the demonstration process included excavators, tree grapple machines, and log and brush loading equipment.

      With some agricultural entities losing the ability to burn by December 31 of this year, finding economical alternatives quickly has become a top priority. Agricultural organizations are working with the SJVAPCD and CARB to locate and distribute funds for these alternative methods. All the demonstrated alternatives are many times more expensive than open burning because of the additional labor and equipment needed.

    Agricultural groups sponsoring the event included: Fresno County Farm Bureau; Allied Grape Growers; California Fresh Fruit Association; California Cotton Ginners and Growers; Western Agricultural Processors Association; and

    Nisei Farmers League. Other participating agricultural groups included: Sun-Maid Growers of California, Madera County Farm Bureau, Tulare County Farm Bureau, Raisin Bargaining Association and Milk Producers Council.

    Equipment being demonstrated was provided by Shawn Sage, Cal-Line Equipment and Bandit Enterprises; Ed Martinez, Mowbray’s Tree Service; John Yergat, JFS Enterprises; and Jordan Harris, Seppi Subsoiler. Special thanks to these companies and their employees.

    Local chippers and grinders participating included: Bill Boos of William Boos and Company; Lionudakis Orchard Removal; and Myron and Ryan Liebelt.

    Special thanks go to Samir Sheikh and his staff at the SJVAPCD for helping with the demonstration, the documentation and acquiring the funding needed to make the alternatives available to growers in the San Joaquin Valley.

    Lastly, a special thanks to Daniel Hartwig and Woolf Farms for providing the vineyard site.

    Nisei Farmers League will continue seeking viable alternative to agricultural burning over the coming months.

  • Alternative to Ag Open Burning Incentive Program

    Almond Alliance of California – The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Air District) is accepting applications for the Alternative to Agricultural Open Burning Incentive Pilot Program. This program provides incentives to commercial agricultural operations located within Air District boundaries to chip or shred agricultural material from orchard and vineyard removals and use for soil incorporation or land application on agricultural land as an alternative to the open burning of the agricultural materials.

    The Almond Alliance and Almond Board of California continue to encourage almond growers to utilize this program, especially given the recent Air Resources Board (CARB) approved plan to phase out all open agricultural burning by 2025 in the San Joaquin Valley.

    Applicants must have not chipped, nor can begin chipping, any of the acres and/or orchard to be removed at the location referenced in their application until they have an executed voucher.

    Applications are processed on a first-come, first-served basis while funds are available. The review and approval process consists of an application review and site inspection.  A voucher is executed and sent to the applicant upon determination of an eligible and complete application and inspection.  The approval process typically takes 7-10 business days.

    Land conversions intended for non-agricultural purposes are not eligible for funding.

    To be eligible, farmers have to use the material for soil incorporation or land application as an alternative to the burning of the material. Eligible crop types include orchard and vineyard removals.  Applicants who will be chipping the material with soil incorporation may receive up to $600 per acre, for a maximum of $60,000 per year.  Farmers who wish to chip without soil incorporation are eligible for up to $300 per acre with a $30,000 maximum per year.

    Almond Alliance Chairman Mike Curry of Johnson Farms indicated that it was easy to apply stating “It’s very simple paperwork. It’s pretty straightforward.” Adding that growers who have applied for Air District funding to assist with the purchase of low-dust harvesting equipment or to replace diesel pumps will find the application process similar.

    For Program Guidelines, Click Here.

    For Program Application, Click Here.


    San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Contact Information:
    Phone: (559) 230-5800
    Email: grants@valleyair.org
    Website: www.valleyair.org