ATIP Foundation 2016 Regional Bioeconomy …...Agricultural Technology Innovation Partnership ATIP...

Agricultural Technology Innovation Partnership

ATIP Foundation, 712 West Abram Street, Arlington, TX 76013 www.ATIPFoundation.com

ATIP Foundation 2016 Regional Bioeconomy Forums: “Addressing the Challenges & Opportunities of

Advancing the Billion Ton Bioeconomy”

A Comprehensive Report on Five Regional Bioeconomy Forums

Submitted to the Biomass Research & Development Board

December 30, 2016

Wes Jurey, Foundation CEO, and Richard J. Brenner, Ph.D, Director, ATIP Foundation

Partial support for this forum series was provided by funds to the ATIP Foundation from USDA and DOE (as members of the BR&DB), as well as national sponsors POET Advanced Biofuels and New Holland Agriculture. Other in-kind contributions were provided regionally by forum co-hosts: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA; Mineral Wells, TX, Chamber of Commerce; Washington State University; University of Maine at Orono; and The Ohio State University

http://www.atipfoundation.com/


1 | P a g e

ATIP Foundation Regional Bioeconomy Forums: “Addressing the Challenges & Opportunities of Advancing the Billion Ton Bioeconomy”

An Executive Summary Report on Five Regional Bioeconomy Forums

Wes Jurey, Foundation CEO, and R.J. Brenner, Director, ATIP Foundation

Preface This Executive Summary Report is intended to provide the first “chapter” in a six-chapter document that captures both common issues across the geography of five regions as well as their unique strengths and regional priorities in advancing the bioeconomy. We strongly recommend that, in addition to reading this Executive Summary Report, members of the Biomass Research and Development Board also take the time to read each regional report to more fully understand the challenges and opportunities that each region has prioritized. From this collection of reports, we believe the case is made that the ATIP Foundation and the regional co-hosts stand ready to facilitate development of regional working groups to provide a sustainable mechanism for advancing the bioeconomy in each region. This includes the development of at least one demonstration project in each region. Background In late 2013, the seven agencies and the Office of the President that constitute the Biomass Research and Development Board1 (BR&DB) began development of a vision to promote the expansion of the bioeconomy. With the projection that this nation, by 2020, will sustainably produce a billion tons of biomass annually, the “Vision” was published as the "Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy," released by USDA Under Secretary Cathie Woteki at the 2016 Advanced Bioeconomy Leadership Conference in Washington, D.C. (February). “The goal of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy Vision is to develop and implement innovative approaches to remove barriers to expanding the sustainable use of America’s abundant biomass resources, while maximizing economic, social, and environmental outcomes.”

Separately, during the month of April, 2016 USDA and DOE co-led some informal “listening sessions” at three major conferences: 2016 International Biomass Conference and Expo in Charlotte, NC (April 11-14); World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology in San Diego, CA (April 17-20); and the Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals in Baltimore, MD (April 25-28). In addition, a webinar on the Vision was conducted jointly by USDA and DOE on May 5, 2016. Input garnered from these events helped shape a subsequent document, tentatively titled “The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities,” released in November 2017 by the BR&D Board (for a copy, go to http://www.biomassboard.gov/pdfs/the_bioeconomy_initiative.pdf).

1 The Biomass R&D Board consists of representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Transportation, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

http://www.biomassboard.gov/pdfs/the_bioeconomy_initiative.pdf


2 | P a g e

Regional Bioeconomy Stakeholder Forums The federal agencies contracted with the ATIP Foundation --- a non-profit consortium of State Economic Development organizations --- to develop and co-host with a coordinating entity, a series of regional Bioeconomy Forums in the latter part of calendar year 2016 for two purposes: first, to garner input from a broad range of stakeholders on the Challenges & Opportunities to help shape a “multiyear implementation plan,” expected to be prepared by the Biomass R&D Board during the second quarter of the fiscal year 2017, submitted to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The second purpose was to ensure that the primary stakeholders were willing to develop a demonstration project in their region as a result of the forum. Forums were convened in the SE U.S with Georgia Tech as co-host (September 16, Renewable Bioproducts Institute, Atlanta, GA), in the SW. U.S with the Mineral Wells Chamber of Commerce, Mineral Wells, TX, (September 29, Holiday Hills Country Club, 4801 Highway 180 East, Mineral Wells, TX), in PNW with Washington State University as co-host (October 3, Sea-Tac Conference center, Sea-Tac airport), in NE U.S. co-hosted by The University of Maine, Orono (October 18 ), and in the MW U.S., co-hosted by The Ohio State University (Schisler Conference Center, Wooster, OH, November 15). Co-hosts arranged for the meeting room, a modest noon meal, and a dedicated note taker with real-time display so the participants could verify their remarks, as necessary. The goal of each Bioeconomy Forum was to bring together a mix of stakeholders (about 40-60 participants) from six sectors to seek their input, relative to the initiative’s vision, strategies, and implementation. These sectors are (1) industry; (2) state and local government; (3) economic and workforce development; (4) investment & finance; (5) academia; and (6) agricultural and environmental organizations. Co-hosts, with the assistance of BR&D Operations Committee, derived the list of by-invitation-only participants. RSVP Response by Region and Sector Representation ES Table 1 describes demographic averages of invitees by sector, and the average number that participated in each forum (see Table 1 of each regional report for specifics on invitations and participation). Across the five regions, both industry and investment & finance had lowest positive response rates (or few participants) to invitations to participate.

ES Table 1: Sector demographic averages across all five regional bioeconomy forums.

Sector Name Invited % of

invited No.

Participated % RSVP to

Attend % of

Attendees Industry 46 37 10 21 21

State and local government 21 16 8 45 17 Economic and workforce

development 16 12 8 56 18 Investment & finance 5 5 2 31 4

Academia 28 22 12 53 29 Agricultural and

environmental organizations 11 9 5 54 11 Total 127 100 45 37 100


3 | P a g e

On average, 127 persons were invited to participate in each regional forum; only 5% of invitees were from the investment and finance sector. This under representation renders assessment of their priorities on challenges and opportunities for advancing the bioeconomy difficult. Agricultural and environmental organizations had a high average response rate, but they accounted for an average of less than 10% of invitees. Clearly, there is reasonable interest from this sector in addressing the bioeconomy, and perspective of environmental organizations is important in addressing land use in agriculture to accommodate multiple uses for growing food, growing feed (for food animals), producing fiber (e.g., cotton), biofuels, and wildlife habitat. The Foundation recommends that these averages be considered by regional co-hosts in making invitations to future bioeconomy forums so that balanced perspectives and buy-in can be achieved. Regional Variation in Prioritizing “Challenges” and “Opportunities” in Advancing the Bioeconomy In advance of each forum, confirmed participants were presented with a “read ahead” document, prepared by representatives of the BR&DB Operations Committee that listed seven challenges and ten opportunities in advancing the bioeconomy. Following the overview presentations by BR&DB representatives at each forum, the moderator asked participants to identify the top three priorities among the lists (3 “votes”). ES Table 2 shows the variation among regional forum participants in identifying the top 3 priorities to address on “challenges” in advancing the bioeconomy.

Challenge SE SW NW NE MW

Major technical hurdles for development and scale. T3 T3 T2 1

Steep competition from traditional petroleum-derived resources. 2 1 2

A lack of necessary infrastructure. 2

Access to capital for large financial investments. T3 1 1

Uncertainties about sustainability—understanding

environmental, social, and economic outcomes.

T3 T3 3

Growth instability and increased investment risk caused by policy

uncertainty1 2 T2

The need for a strong and capable workforce. 3

Regional forums listing Challenge as among top 3 priorities

ES Table 2: Regional variation in identifying top 3 priorities to address on "challenges" of advancing the bioeconomy.


4 | P a g e

Based on this “voting” process, regional differences in addressing challenges was evident. “Access to capital for large financial investments” was viewed as the highest priority for the SW and NE forums; other regions identified “growth instability … caused by policy uncertainty” (SE), “steep competition from petroleum-derived resources (NW) and “technical hurdles for development and scale (MW). It should be recognized that “voting” may largely be reflective of sector representation at these forums. Note that voting for the SE forum (the first of the regional forums) occurred post-forum, as this process was not refined until the second forum; only a third of SE forum participants responded to the request for voting. See the report for the SE forum for specific information on sector participation, and voting responses. These data do show that subsequent forums on the bioeconomy need to be tailored to the region and their perspectives on top priority issues. Although data are necessarily biased by the sector representation at each forum, the Foundation reinforces the recommendation to BR&DB that future forums in each region ensure adequate sector representation and that co-hosts use this table as a guide to discussing issues. ES Table 3 depicts variation in “voting” responses to identify the top three priorities to address in “opportunities” presented in advancing the bioeconomy.

Opportunities SE SW NW NE MWDevelop feedstock and

fundamental innovations that reduce cost and technology risk in

the supply chain.

T3 T2 1

Seek opportunities to utilize low-cost waste resources. T3

Quantify, communicate, and enhance beneficial effects and

minimize negative impacts.T2

Create increased public demand for biomass-derived products in a

bioeconomy.T3 1 T2 T2

Develop bioproducts that can accelerate biofuel production. 1

Enable the testing and approval of new biofuels and bioproducts.

Expand the market potential for biomass. T3 T2

Encourage private-sector financing T3 T2 T1

Support stable, long-term policies. 2 1 T1 T2Ensure a ready workforce to meet

the needs of the bioeconomy T2 T1

Regional forums listing opportunity as among top 3 priorities

ES Table 3: Regional variation in identifying top 3 priorities to address on "opportunities" of advancing the bioeconomy.


5 | P a g e

As with the “challenges” voting, priorities differed among regions. Four regions identified a different top priority. However, this can be viewed as encouraging in that each region sees opportunities to expand the bioeconomy in ways that may be unique to their region (e.g., all regions can benefit from a broad initiative to expand the bioeconomy). Again, future regional forums should consider this table --- and perhaps provide it to prospective attendees to encourage broad representation of sectors. In summary of the regional “voting,” the Foundation recommends that regional co-hosts use these tables to define specific pilot projects for their region, which all have expressed an interest in developing. Common Themes Across All Regions Discussion in each forum that followed the voting reflected their interests apparent in these tables. Again, we note that the first forum in Atlanta was convened without the voting; please see the report for the SE regional forum for further specifics. Six common themes were gleaned from the discussions at the forums. The following paragraphs identify these themes, issues, and recommendations. Financial issues

• Access to capital was an important component of this; challenges and availability of government loan guarantees was cited as an important issue, as well as high risks perceived by private sector investors.

• Public funding --- there were recommendations to incentivize public-private partnerships, to focus on scalability, and to provide a level playing field for bioenergy investments and allocations with those of fossil fuels and nuclear energy

Education and Awareness • Clear definitions for bioeconomy and sustainability are needed. • A robust orchestrated education campaign should be developed, including thoughtful articulation on

the value proposition of the bioeconomy, and the case for support (why supporting and advancing the bioeconomy matters).

Policy • Create a level playing field for the bioeconomy with incentives and tax credits that are competitive

and comparative with other energy programs. This should also address federal loan guarantees for bioenergy and bioproducts.

• Provide incentives to reduce risks using purchasing agreements. • Regulatory requirements and controls by EPA are viewed as overly burdensome, especially to small

and medium-size businesses. Supply chain

• Logistics must focus on improving the slowest node. • Integration --- many different feedstocks will be needed in the billion ton bioeconomy; processing

facilities must be able to handle these varied feedstocks. • Many biomass accumulators (biomass depots) may be needed to reduce distance from farm / forest

to pre-processing facilities (removal of water to reduce shipping costs ; grinders; pelletizers) • Research is needed to develop better ways of pre-processing biomass.


6 | P a g e

Workforce • Department of Labor and Department of Education are not members of the BR&DB (consider

expanding BR&DB); they will be important agencies to engage if we are to have robust training. • Skills development: there is a lack of technical training related to the bioeconomy • There is a need to build a talent pipeline • Awareness of the bioeconomy and job opportunities should start in 8th grade education. • Rural areas have a shortage of available employees resulting from a lack of training options and

opportunities. Federal Resources

• There is a lack of awareness / knowledge of federal research and opportunities for private sector / state administrators to partner with federal agencies or universities. These include:

o Access of relevant intellectual property through Patent License Agreements (PLA) with agencies

o Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) with federal agencies o Cooperative Research Agreements with universities o Research focus needs to address industry problems; industry needs to articulate its needs.

• Federal support for regional collaborations is needed. o Developed within economic regions o Supported by federal and state agencies o Support for co-ops also is needed (e.g., biomass accumulators)

Additionally, there were several general comments not tied to these themes. These include the need for more focus on how to utilize wastes from landfill, food wastes, and municipal wastes along with discussions on waste utilization versus purposely grown biomass (in part, this was addressing optimization of land use and the need to balance its use for food, feed, fiber, bioenergy, wildlife habitat. Also, comments were made on the need for bioeconomy discussions to have better balance of fuel versus bioproducts. Other general comments across the five forums showed unanimous desire to have annual regional conferences on biomass, and a desire to develop regional projects. Unique Regional Strengths and Issues At the presentation to the BR&DB in December, Mr. Jurey identified uniqueness of each region and to a degree, some of the specific common issues in a series of five slides --- one for each region. This provided an important, succinct summary of each region, and for the sake of brevity in this Executive Summary Report, those five slides are produced below.


7 | P a g e


8 | P a g e


9 | P a g e

Concluding Remarks The ATIP Foundation has been proud to have this opportunity from USDA and Dept. of Energy to coordinate and facilitate these five regional forums on the bioeconomy. In retrospect, we chose co-host partners well in order to provide the regional knowledge of stakeholders in the bioeconomy, and their ability --- in no small part due to their stellar reputations --- to convene thought leaders in the bioeconomy. Four of the five co-hosts were strong universities in their region, capable of leading and coordinating each region in addressing many of the issues raised at the forums, including the important role in articulating state / regional policy needs to those who can implement them. Each of the co-hosts expressed both a desire and a willingness to continue partnering with the ATIP Foundation in establishing a working group / advisory committee to begin the process of developing a viable and sustainable coordinating group that represents all sectors. The major purpose of the coordinating group is to plan subsequent forums, and shape a region-specific pilot demonstration project to address the highest priority issues identified in each forum, and to demonstrate the viability of the bioeconomy strategies, enabling job creation and economic growth.

We look forward to continuing our partnership with the BR&DB and our co-host to facilitate sustainable efforts to “advance the bioeconomy.”


1 | P a g e


A Report to Participants in the SE Regional Bioeconomy Forum

Georgia Tech co-host (Professor Valerie Thomas) Atlanta, GA

September 16, 2016 Wes Jurey, Foundation CEO, and R.J. Brenner, Director, ATIP Foundation

Background

In late 2013, the seven agencies and the Office of the President that constitute the Biomass Research and Development Board1 (BR&DB) began development of a vision to promote the expansion of the bioeconomy. With the projection that this nation, by 2020, will sustainably produce a billion tons of biomass annually, the “Vision” was published as the "Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy," released by USDA Under Secretary Cathie Woteki at the 2016 Advanced Bioeconomy Leadership Conference in Washington, D.C. (February). “The goal of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy Vision is to develop and implement innovative approaches to remove barriers to expanding the sustainable use of America’s abundant biomass resources, while maximizing economic, social, and environmental outcomes.” BR&DB engaged the ATIP Foundation in September 2015 to prepare several regional listening sessions.

Separately, during the month of April, 2016 USDA and DOE co-led some informal “listening sessions” at three major conferences: 2016 International Biomass Conference and Expo in Charlotte, NC (April 11-14); World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology in San Diego, CA (April 17-20); and the Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals in Baltimore, MD (April 25-28). In addition, a webinar on the Vision was conducted jointly by USDA and DOE on May 5, 2016. Input garnered from these events helped shape a subsequent document, tentatively titled “The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities,” released in November 2017 by the BR&D Board (for a copy, go to http://www.biomassboard.gov/pdfs/the_bioeconomy_initiative.pdf).

The rationale and strategy for these reports, and purpose for the public gatherings "USDA published a blog about the Vision and the listening sessions designed to ”… gather information and engage stakeholders on how to build and grow the “Billion Ton Bioeconomy.” (http://blogs.usda.gov/2016/04/27/growing-and-building-the-billion-ton-bioeconomy/) Regional Bioeconomy Stakeholder Forums The federal agencies contracted with the ATIP Foundation --- a non-profit consortium of State Economic Development organizations --- to develop and co-host with a coordinating entity, a series of regional Bioeconomy Forums to garner input from a broad range of stakeholders on the Challenges & Opportunities to help shape a



http://blogs.usda.gov/2016/04/27/growing-and-building-the-billion-ton-bioeconomy/



2 | P a g e

“multiyear implementation plan,” expected to be prepared by the Biomass R&D Board during the second quarter of the fiscal year 2017, submitted to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Forums were convened in the SE U.S with Georgia Tech as co-host (September 16, Renewable Bioproducts Institute, Atlanta, GA), in the SW. U.S with the Mineral Wells Chamber of Commerce, Mineral Wells, TX, (September 29, Holiday Hills Country Club, 4801 Highway 180 East, Mineral Wells, TX), in PNW with Washington State University as co-host (October 3, Sea-Tac Conference center, Sea-Tac airport), in NE U.S. co-hosted by The University of Maine, Orono (October 18 ), and in the MW U.S. , co-hosted by The Ohio State University (Schisler Conference Center, Wooster, OH, November 15). Co-hosts arranged for the meeting room, a modest noon meal, and a dedicated note taker with real-time display so the participants could verify their remarks, as necessary. The goal of each Bioeconomy Forum was to bring together a mix of stakeholders (about 40-60 participants) from six sectors to seek their input, relative to the initiative’s vision, strategies, and implementation. These sectors are (1) industry; (2) state and local government; (3) economic and workforce development; (4) investment & finance; (5) academia; and (6) agricultural and environmental organizations. Co-hosts, with the assistance of BR&D Operations Committee, derived the list of by invitation participants. Forum Structure and Role of the Foundation and Co-hosts The SE U.S. Forum was moderated by co-host Professor Valerie, Thomas, Anderson Interface Professor Industrial and Systems Engineering at Georgia Tech, assisted by Richard Brenner, Ph.D. , Director of the ATIP Foundation. Table 1 describes the demographics of invitees by sector, and the actual number able to participate on September 16.

The agenda (Attachment 1) included welcoming comments by the ATIP Foundation, BR&DB representatives, and Norman Marsolan, State Host from the Renewable Bioproducts Institute. A slide set presentation was made by the ATIP Foundation and co-host, followed by Harry Baumes, Ph.D., Director, Office of the Chief Economist, USDA with assistance by Todd Campbell (USDA; Attachment 2). In addition, a “discussion document” was provided to the participants (Attachment 3). The remainder of the day consisted exclusively of stakeholder attendees from the six sectors participating in discussions on these six questions. Notes were taken (attributed to the commenter) by Ms.

Sector Name Invited No. Participants

% RSVP to Attend

% of Attendees

Industry 60 7 12 22State and local government 12 4 33 13

Economic and workforce development 18 3 17 9Investment & finance 1 0 0 0

Academia 26 15 58 47Agricultural and environmental organizations 7 3 43 9

124 32 26 100

Table 1. Demographics (by sector) of invitees and participants, convened by co-host Georgia Tech, in SE Regional Bioeconomy Forum, Atlanta, GA, September 16, 2016 .


3 | P a g e

Marcela Moreno, who projected these so all participants could review and correct as needed. The audio was also recorded from a laptop in case it was needed to clarify comments. Participants of the forum received a link to a Google Document and a two week window of opportunity to edit their specific comments, or add additional comment. Thereafter, the document was closed by Dr. Brenner, who reviewed comments, clarified with authors as needed, redacted all names of comment contributors, and annotated with his comments and/or Wes Jurey’s from the Foundation (noted by “Comment#(RJB)”. The document is presented (Attachment 4) as a record of the event and it includes participant reviews of each “challenge” and “opportunity” --- from their perspective --- and their assessment as to whether each was in the top 3 priorities of the SE U.S. It should be noted that the list of “Challenges and Opportunities was not available for the “voting” exercise at this first of five regional forums. Therefore, a separate poll was taken post-forum using an online survey tool. Only about a third of the forum attendees responded.

Reporting of Participant Comments

Figure 1a (below) reflects their perspective on these “Challenges”.

Participants considered “growth instability and increased investment risk caused by policy uncertainty” as the dominant challenge faced by the bioeconomy industry, followed by steep competition from petroleum-derived resources. Access to capital for large financial investments, technical hurdles, and uncertainty of sustainability were tied for the 3rd priority.


4 | P a g e

Some respondents to the online poll also provided comments or some additional “challenges”:

Figure 1b (below) reflects their priorities on “Opportunities.”

Developing bioproducts that can accelerate biofuel product was seen as the top “opportunity” (75% of respondents) for the SE Region. Stable long-term policies was a close second (62% of respondents), and all other opportunities received 25% or less in prioritization. Using the survey tool, the following questions were also asked: What would success look like in 5 years? >5 years?


5 | P a g e

Seven responses were received, and are captured below:

Discussion: ATIP Foundation & Co-host Assessment of Themes, Issues, Regional Challenges & Opportunities This section illustrates highlights of actual comments, selected by the Foundation, made by forum participants. The full non-attribute comments by participants are in Attachment 4. On the issue of “what are state/local/regional opportunities for the bioeconomy,” specific comments suggested:

• Strengthening partnerships with federal agencies that were located in their region, as well as state agencies and regional stakeholders.

• Opportunity for regional production of biofuels, given the proximity of the Atlanta Hartsfield Airport, and a Gulfstream jet factory in Savannah. Currently, bioaviation fuel is trucked in from Southern California.


6 | P a g e

• Improved feedstock chains for the region utilizing many feedstocks such as those from the poultry industry, peanut industry, and woody biomass industry.

• Proximity to two oceans (Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico) meant good port facilities (infrastructure). • With good ports, export market is strong for pellets, but should be expanded to include products for

domestic markets (enhance value proposition). • Strengthen research ties with universities and federal labs for product improvement (pelletizing) for more

efficient transport. • Strengthen workforce development by engaging Department of Labor and Department of Education to

develop training programs that allow greater cross-over of skilled petroleum workers to biomass refiners; • Communication plan to address health and environmental issues; workforce development to build skill

sets, and to find niche markets that have environmental benefits. • Broaden partnership network to include Government, University, Industry, Research Roundtable (GUIRR),

perhaps suggesting a “bioeconomy initiative” to expand demand for biomass products. • Clarify and strengthen both state and federal policies on biomass to favor investment and finance of

projects to better utilize damaged woods (fire-damaged, diseased) and healthy woods for more efficient management of our SE forests. i.e., increase product demand from low value biomass and high value biomass (lumber) with incentives to use biomass.

There were some key points made on “how can we help create a regional demand for the bioeconomy”

• Enhance partnerships: Consider consortia and coops to provide value to production from small operations, serving as “biomass accumulators” locally for more efficient transport to local / regional biorefineries and processing plants.

• Strong consensus partner among industry players to maximize utilization of materials and make more bioproducts.

• Coordination / consortium to optimize supply chain (including logistics of transport) and provide stability for a bioeconomy market.

• Government should provide incentives that encourage small company growth in new / risky areas of the bioeconomy. Government policy can create new stable market opportunities.

• There was strong consensus among participants that government incentives are needed to advance the bioeconomy.

On the topic of “how can we best engage the interested public in the Southeast in the process of developing a “billion Ton Bioeconomy,” there was much discussion that focused on how best to market the bioeconomy products through some specific campaigns with industry, universities, and the Department of Education to begin getting the message to youth.

What would success look like in the coming years?

• Steadily increasing % of fuels and chemicals derived from biological sources and not fossil resources. • There has been market demand by the public (through enhanced communication efforts), such that

investments have come from outside the traditional wood industry, such as partnerships between traditional oil companies and biomaterial companies to advance these products.


7 | P a g e

• Following early government incentives, that there are operational biofuel and products plants operating without government support --- evidence that it is a viable and sustainable industry.

• Dramatic reduction or elimination of waste streams through repurposing; fully integrated resource management of forestry, waste cellulose, dual cropping --- on the path to CO2 recycling.

Can you identify other groups in the SE that support the bioeconomy?

• The participants proposed that they develop a “SE Bioeconomy Planning” organization and plan for an annual event.

What can federal agencies do to increase likelihood of private financing the SE to build the bioeconomy?

• Discussion was clear around two points: o Find ways to reduce financial risk --- if you don’t, you won’t get private financing in any

meaningful way. Aviation is starting to see a change --- have unlocked a couple $B from institutional finance. Why? In part, competitive price point for biofuel (long term off-take agreements, and a high capacity biorefinery repurposed / renovated from a defunct petroleum refinery.

o Tax incentives for longer term investment. “With bioproducts on the cusp of commercialization, it is hard to get commercial investors because they don’t know how sustainable the effort will be.”

Summary Statement from ATIP Foundation

SE Regional Bioeconomy Forum Summary Wes Jurey, CEO, ATIP Foundation

The ATIP Foundation was established in 2011 at the request of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), to serve as a third-party intermediary, engaging a variety of stakeholders with ARS research, programs, and initiatives. The initial goal of the Foundation was to enable a more collective, collaborative approach on behalf of the private sector, with each member representing one of the eight agricultural research regions in the USDA ARS infrastructure.

The fundamental premise behind this approach was the need to create greater awareness of the breadth and scope of USDA intramural research activity (and that of their federal and state partners such as Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, National Science Foundation), and possibly other collaborative agencies of USDA (e.g., Rural Development, Natural Resource Conversation Services, National Institute of Food and Agriculture), conducted in collaboration with 90 + ARS labs throughout the United States, and to foster an understanding that the federal research outcomes are available for use by business and industry, ultimately resulting in economic growth and development, in the agribusiness sector.

The Foundation was incorporated by eight state and regional technology-based economic development organizations, each individually serving as a federal partnership intermediary to USDA’s ARS, with many members also having facilitation agreements with other federal agencies, as well as their own network of-instate / regional non-federal stakeholders on many aspects of federal / private sector partnerships.


8 | P a g e

The Foundation’s approach to establishing the five “Advancing the Bioeconomy” forums was premised on identifying regions within the United States whose stakeholders were receptive to the idea that each forum would serve as a springboard to launch one or more demonstration projects within the region. These projects would utilize the scope of research and related outcomes resulting from the massive amount of federal research coordination overseen by the seven federal agencies comprising the Biomass Research & Development Board, formed by statute in 1999.

The ultimate purpose of the regional projects is to demonstrate that the federal research outcomes--- combined with other federal / state / local agencies whose scope is in “implementation” of research outcomes, can result in economic growth and development, particularly in rural areas of the country, creating new businesses and enabling existing businesses to expand, resulting in job creation.

From the Foundation's perspective, based on the response from forum participants, we believe our premise is sound. At the conclusion of the SE Regional Bioeconomy Forum, participants were unanimous in support of reconvening in a year, and working to formulate a specific demonstration project tailored to their region in the interim.

It is noteworthy to the foundation that, while each of the five regional forums offered some unique perspectives, relative to their region, six common themes resonated throughout all five forums, relative to each region’s ability to make use of the federal research to enhance the growth of regional economies.

First, the need for public awareness is considered a major challenge. At the beginning of most forums, there was significant discussion on what the bio economy actually was, beyond biofuel.

Second, the lack of knowledge of and about the federal resources within the seven agencies was cited. Throughout the discussion it became apparent that most attendees knew little, if anything, about the scope of research conducted; the number of federal labs that existed; or the significant number of research scientists employed. Additionally, there was little knowledge in terms of how to access the federal resources available, even if one were aware of them.

Third, the need to develop a talent pipeline for current and future workers was a strong concern. It was noted that although seven federal agencies were members of the BR&D Board, the Departments of Education & Labor were not engaged at the federal level. At the Southeast Regional forum, there was discussion on the need to include them in subsequent forums and pilot projects; none participated in this regional forum.

Fourth, development of the type of supply chain necessary to sustain the bio economy was expressed as a critical priority. It was noted that moving agricultural by-products and waste more than 100 miles was a significant inhibitor of the growth of this industry.

Fifth, the need to finance the growth of demonstration projects, establish new businesses, and expand existing businesses, by seeking federal, state, and private sector financial assistance is a critical concern. It was further noted that the financial community was the least represented in all forums (none in Atlanta).

Sixth, it was noted that federal policy is one of the most critical issues, and is an underlying issue to the first five cited. Policy uncertainty means high risk to institutions that provide financial assistance. It determines the


9 | P a g e

allocation of federal resources, the priorities of the public workforce system, discourages the establishment of a supply chain uncertain of the sectors future, and makes articulating a vision for the bio economy more challenging.

In our report to the BR&D Technical Advisory Committee in November 2016, and the BR&D Board in December, our findings, and particularly the six commonalities, were well received.

In conclusion, the Foundation looks forward to working with Georgia Institute of Technology, the Renewable Bioproducts Institute, and the participants in the initial forum, to expand the stakeholder base, in the development of a regional demonstration project.

We look forward to doing so in partnership with the seven member agencies of the BR&D Board, optimistic that the vision of a billion ton bioeconomy can become a reality.


10 | P a g e

Summary Statement from Co-Host

Southeast U.S. Bioeconomy ATIP Foundation Forum Summary Valerie M. Thomas

Regional Host Anderson Interface Professor

Georgia Institute of Technology

This meeting was co-sponsored by the Renewable Bioproducts Institute and the Strategic Energy Institute at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

The Southeast forum brought together representatives of the forest industry, the paper industry, the biofuel industry, the wood pellet industry, aviation, agriculture, and researchers from several southeastern states.

Key highlights and findings are summarized below.

• The pulp and paper industry is substantial and can be a springboard for growth of the bioeconomy. This industry has a basis of expertise, infrastructure, supply chains, workforce, and successful operating markets.

• The wood pellet industry is strong and could expand from its current export focused structure to also include somewhat different products for the domestic market. The wood pellet industry has developed and adapted existing wood products industry infrastructure; this approach could be successful for a wider range of products.

• A number of biofuel companies are in place in the region with potential for and interest in production activities. There have been biofuel failures in the southeast which have left many in the region cautious and negative about biofuels; however this experience also provides hard-learned lessons and a healthy skepticism in which strong programs can succeed.

• The southeast has coastline on two sides and excellent ports, rail, and air transport infrastructure. These provide a supply chain basis for domestic and international markets. The wood pellet industry is an example of successfully building industry for international markets. Other opportunities could also benefit from potential for export as well as for domestic shipping.

• Substantial progress on the bioeconomy requires either a significant policy signal or a disruptive market change. Weak policy signals have resulted in incremental change. There was discussion throughout the meeting of the need for a sustained policy, technology or economic impetus sufficient to support bioeconomy initiatives.

• There was extended discussion of a range of factors which might affect bioeconomy prospects in the southeast: current forest ownership and management patterns, workforce availability and training, competing industries, state and local policies, and others. While all of these factors have some influence, there was general consensus that these issues could be sorted out if there were sufficient impetus for bioeconomy initiatives.

• The meeting was well-received. Participants suggested that this event should become an annual meeting; this is a signal of the positive potential of engagement and commitment to the bioeconomy.


11 | P a g e

--- End of report ---

Attachment 1: Agenda

Attachment 2: Slide presentations

Attachment 3: “Discussion document”

Attachment 4: Non-attribute notes w/ comments


1 The Biomass R&D Board consists of representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Transportation, the National Science

Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

SE BIOECONOMY REGIONAL FORUM DRAFT AGENDA

“Garnering stakeholder perspectives and input to help shape the vision, strategic planning, and

implementation to promote and expand the bioeconomy”

Date: Friday, September 16, 2016

Time: 9:30 AM – 5 PM

Location: Renewable Bioproducts Institute, 500 10th Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30332

Purpose: To outline the “Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy,” introduce a synopsis of the

subsequent “Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities” report (not yet

formally released), and hear from stakeholders in (1) industry; (2) state and local government; (3)

economic and workforce development; (4) investment & finance; (5) academia; and (6) agricultural

and environmental organizations in order to accelerate the development of the bioeconomy.

8:30 AM—Registration / Check-in

9:30 AM—Welcome and Introductory Remarks

Rick Brenner, Director, ATIP Foundation

Jonathan Male, Biomass Research and Development (BR&D) Board1, Operations Committee

(Director, Bioenergy Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy)

Todd Campbell, BR&D Board, Operations Committee (Senior Energy Advisor, U.S. Department

of Agriculture)

Norman Marsolan, State Host

10:00 AM–11:00 AM—Overview of the “Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy” and the “Billion

Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities” Report

Presentation by the BR&D Board, Operations Committee, led by Dr. Harry Baumes (Director,

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Office of the Chief Economist, U.S. Department of

Agriculture)

o Establishes issues from the federal agencies and frames the topics for discussion

11:00 AM–3:45 PM—Stakeholder Comments and Discussion

12:30 PM—Working Lunch

4:00 PM–4:30 PM—Facilitator Report Out and Next Steps

Key comments, findings, and recommendations of the 6 sectors

Includes next steps (timeline to review, prepare, and disseminate report) and feedback on session

format

4:30 PM–5:00 PM—Closing Remarks / Adjournment

Attachment 1

11/5/2016

Atlanta Bioeconomy Forum, Sept 16, 2016 1

Advanced Biofuels

AgriculturalTechnologyInnovationPartnership

ATIP Foundation Regional Bioeconomy Forums:Addressing the Challenges & Opportunities of

Advancing the Billion Ton Bioeconomy

National Sponsors

Leveraging Assets: Partnership Intermediaries of USDA ARS

10/2007

6/2010

9/2009 5/2010

12/2008

3/2010

11/2010

6/20105/2010

The Agricultural Technology Innovation Partnership (ATIP) Network

Established June 2011

Advanced Biofuels


ATIP Foundation Regional Bioeconomy Forums:“Addressing the Challenges & Opportunities of


September 16, Atlanta, GA (Georgia Institute of Technology)September 29, Mineral Wells, TX (Chamber of Commerce)

October 3, Seattle‐Tacoma, WA (Washington State University)October 18, Orono, ME (University of Maine)

November 15, Wooster, OH (The Ohio State University)

Venues and Regional Co‐hosts

National Sponsors

Advanced Biofuels




SE Regional Bioeconomy ForumSeptember 16, Atlanta, GA

‐‐‐‐ Regional Co‐hosts and Sponsors ‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐ National Sponsors ‐‐‐‐

Co‐host Georgia Institute of Technology

The Bioeconomy Initiative:A National Strategy for the Billion Ton Vision

ATIP Foundation Regional Forum

5

Harry Baumes, Ph.D., DirectorOffice of the Chief Economist

September 16, 2016

• Executive Order 13134 issued in August 1999, President Clinton launched a national Bioenergy Initiative, "a national partnership...to produce power, fuels and chemicals from crops, trees and wastes." The Executive Order established a goal: to "triple the U.S. use of biobased products and bioenergy by 2010.“

• The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000, later amended by Section 9001 of the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA) and most recently reauthorized in the Agricultural Act of 2014, established the Biomass Research and Development Board (BRD). The BRD is co‐chaired by the USDA and DOE with 6 other agencies servicing on the BRD. The Biomass Research and Development Board (Board) coordinates research and development activities concerning biobased fuels, products, and power across federal agencies.

Perspectives on the Growth of the U.S. BioeconomyBackground

Attachment 2

11/5/2016


The BIOECONOMY is defined as:

The global industrial transition of sustainably utilizing renewable aquatic and terrestrial biomass resources in energy, intermediate, and final products for economic, environmental, social, and

national security benefits.

‐‐From 2014 Report commissioned by USDA BioPreferred:

Why Biobased? Opportunities in the Emerging Bioeconomy

Bioeconomy Definition Vision and Goal of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy

The vision for the Billion Ton Bioeconomy is to sustainably reach the full potential of biomass‐derived products as a way of expanding our nation’s economy. In doing so, the bioeconomy will provide multiple economic, environmental, and social benefits to the Nation.

The goal of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy is to develop and provide innovative ways to remove barriers to expanding the sustainable use of Nation’s abundant biomass resources for biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower, while maximizing economic, social, and environmental outcomes.

• Baseline scenario• $60 dry ton‐1

• 2012 & 2030

Baseline

High‐yield

Need Biomass – Sustainably Produced

Billion‐Ton Study (BTS), 2005• Technical assessment of agricultural and forestry

systems to supply low‐valued biomass for new markets

• Identified adequate supply to displace 30% of petroleum consumption; i.e. physical availability

Billion‐Ton Update (BT2), 2011• Quantified potential economic availability of

feedstocks for 20‐year projection• Publicly released county‐level supply curves for 23

candidate biomass feedstocks through Bioenergy Knowledge Discovery Framework.

2016 Billion‐Ton Report (BT16), 2016• Expansion of resource assessment to include

additional feedstocks and delivered supply• Two‐volume approach

Billion Ton Studies History and Accomplishments

The 2016 Billion Ton Report


Federal Alternative Jet Fuels Research and Development Strategy Simplified Bioeconomy Concept

12

• Revenue and economic growth

• Broad spectrum of new jobs

• Rural development

• Advanced technologiesand manufacturing

• Reduced emissions and Environmental Sustainability

• Export potential of technology and products

• Positive societal changes

• Investments and new infrastructure

11/5/2016


Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy

• In February, the Biomass R&D Board released the Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy(FARB).

• This report aims to educate the public on the wide‐ranging, federally funded activities thatare helping to bolster the bioeconomy.

• The vision for the Billion Ton Bioeconomy is to sustainably reach the full potential of biomass‐derived products as a way of expanding our nation’s economy. In doing so, the

• The goal of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy is to develop and provide innovative ways to remove barriers to expanding the sustainable use of Nation’s abundant biomass resources for biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower, while maximizingeconomic, social, and environmental outcomes.

bioeconomy will provide multiple economic, environmental, and social benefits to the Nation.

Overview of Agency Activities

The BioeconomyInitiative: Action Plan Target completion date: Dec., 2016

Bioeconomy Initiative Reports Plan

• Three reports in the series: FARB – released in February, 2016• Stakeholder engagement

– Over 400 participants involved in 5 sessions.• 4 in‐person Listening Sessions were held in conjunction with major

bioenergy industry events.• 1 public webinar (May 5th).

• This report will be the second part of a staggered release of the Initiative– An ‘Action Plan’ to follow

15

Report Outline

• Introduction– Purpose of the report– Background of the Bioeconomy Effort

• The Bioeconomy Initiative– Path to building the Initiative– Overview of the Bioeconomy Vision as stated

in the FARB– Highlights and Learnings from the FARB– Expected benefits for 2030 as defined by Analysis IWG

• Challenge Areas (as identified by Stakeholders) • Ongoing Interagency Areas of Importance and Growth for the

Initiative• Next Steps/Path Forward

– How to move from the Strategy Report to an Action/Implementation Plan

– Additional Stakeholder Involvement– Call for partners from industry/research community to ‘Join the

Initiative’• Conclusion 16

Key Challenges Identified

This report discusses seven of the high‐priority challenges recognized by the bioeconomy stakeholder community, identified below:

• Major technical hurdles for development and scale.• Steep competition from traditional petroleum‐derived resources.

• A lack of necessary infrastructure.• Access to capital for large financial investments.• Uncertainties about sustainability—understanding environmental, social, and economic outcomes.

• Growth instability and increased investment risk caused by policy uncertainty

• The need for a strong and capable workforce.17

Key Opportunities

Specific opportunities within each challenge as potential growth areas for the future of the Initiative are detailed below:

• Develop feedstock and fundamental innovations that reduce cost and technology risk in the supply chain.

• Seek opportunities to utilize low‐cost wasteresources.

• Quantify, communicate, and enhance beneficial effects and minimize negative impacts.

• Create increased public demand for biomass‐derived products in a bioeconomy.

18

11/5/2016


Key Opportunities Continued

• Develop bioproducts that can accelerate biofuel production.

• Enable the testing and approval of new biofuels and bioproducts.

• Expand the market potential for biomass.• Encourage private‐sector financing• Support stable, long‐term policies.• Ensure a ready workforce to meet the needs of the bioeconomy

19

Purpose for this meeting:

• This workshop series is intended to focus onregional issues and their specific bioeconomy‐related industries through the various statepartnerships.

• The feedback gathered from these formalworkshops will be used to solidify and supportthe Action Plan that is planned for release inDecember of 2016.

20

INFOGRAPHIC GOES HERE.

Critical Discussion Points

• What are state/local/regional challenges to thebioeconomy?

• How can the federal agencies help address theseregional challenges?

• What are state/local/regional opportunities tothe bioeconomy?

• How can the federal agencies help leverage theseregional opportunties?

• What is the value proposition of a bioeconomy?• How can you contribute to the Billion TonBioeconomy?

22

Contacts

23

• Harry S. Baumes, Director, Office of EnergyPolicy and New Uses– [email protected]

• Todd Campbell, Energy Policy Advisor, RuralDevelopment– [email protected]

• Jonathan Male, Director, BioenergyTechnologies Office, DOE– [email protected]

• Ashley Rose, support to the Board,– [email protected]

THANK YOU!

Bioeconomy Initiative:A National Strategy for the Billion Ton Vision

ot currently be displayed.


• What are state/local/regional challenges to thebioeconomy?

• How can the federal agencies help address theseregional challenges?

• What are state/local/regional opportunities tothe bioeconomy?

• How can the federal agencies help leverage theseregional opportunties?

• What is the value proposition of a bioeconomy?• How can you contribute to the Billion Ton

Bioeconomy?

1

Attachment 3


What are specific regional barriers that need to be addressed to grow a bioeconomy?


How can we help create a regional demand for the bioeconomy?


Where do you perceive, if any, a lack of workforce readiness to support the bioeconomy?


How can we best engage the interested public in the Southeast in the process of developing a Billion Ton Bioeconomy?


What would success look like? In the short term (<5 years) In the long term (>5 years)


What can federal agencies do to increase likelihood of private financing in the Southeast to build the bioeconomy?


How do biomass-derived feedstocks benefit the Southeast region?

What is the potential for these benefits to grow? Can feedstock commoditization help reach this potential?


What are the challenges faced by the biomass producers in the Southeast in growing dedicated biomass crops?

Comments from participants at SE Regional Bioeconomy Forum, Atlanta, Sept. 16, 2016 Page 1

Critical Discussion Points SE U.S. Bioeconomy Forum

Atlanta, GA September 16, 2016

Non-attribute notes, with comments by ATIP Foundation

What are state/local/regional challenges to the bioeconomy?

How can the federal agencies help address these regional challenges?

What are state/local/regional opportunities to the bioeconomy? ● —opportunities that they are well established industries, great infrastructure, lots of

technical knowledge and need to tap into that. Blend industries together…the env.Issues, heat, humidity affects the supply chain. Starting out at a great place

● —Another opportunity is for the federal agencies to collaborate at a regional basis aswell, be flexible to support a regional economy in a way that may be unique region toregion. DOE, USDA could somehow leverage their programs, expertise and programs tosupport the region.

● —opportunity in the SE is that the labor has high productivity which is whymanufacturers locate in the SE. Not taking the full opportunity to take the biomass toturn into a final product. Lots of opportunities there

● —An area that hasn’t been touched on is of waste…so much waste that has not beenthought about on how to bring it into feedstocks. E-waste being sent overseas…wheredoes that come into the equation

● —In Europe, lots of effort + interest to use biofuels in the cruise industry because ofsulfur…have had international agreements, is there possibility for this in U.S.?

● Maritime looking at CNG and large engineers, ferries looking at battery packs.● -- Opportunities—happening all over, all of these industries are working to reduce GHG

footprint. In airlines, looking at biofuels…looking to reduce, collectively they add up andmake an impact

● —here in support of aviation fuels, Gulfstream burning renewable fuel since May.Started 5-6 years ago…looking for the supply, wasn’t there. A small user, but customersdo and industry does. As an OPM, burn hundreds of thousands of gallons—have takenon a leadership role, invested into the industry, willing to pay a price premium to helpmove the industry along but not a huge price premium. Now down to close to priceparity—engage customer base, if the fuel was in Savannah, would you buy it? Had ahigher price point last year and customer was not too keen, now with a different pricepoint, 30% said yes which is a step forward. Have to take small measured steps to

Comment [RJB1]: Partnership should include federal agencies as well as state agencies and regional stakeholders.

Attachment 4


demonstrate proficiency in growing markets, most conversations around pulp + paper… have significant resources in GA. The fuel we buy is in California and then need to rail it across the USA. CAAFI doing great work to bring aviation community together but there is more involved. Partnerships—EFAA trying to have this conversation at a higher level across the US

● —What could have Gulfstream getting further with biofuels?● —More supply! At the right price point.● —beef tallow in California, have the same feedstocks (but chicken) here● —but how do we get the conversation going in the SE, but perceptions from the past fuel

projects in GA.● —just came from Macon from aviation biofuel workshop, person from SW here. Want to

minimize risk, technology scale up, need to continue with technology. Needs to makemoney but not specific ROIs. Have money and will finance

● —biggest opportunities is the paper industry, getting them on board/ their involvementwould be very useful and give us a jump start

● —business isn’t the logistics of getting the fuel to us, had to find someone to supply. Hadto find the right player + right willingness. Continuing to do that and looking to next steps,Gulfstream isn’t a big user, Delta is a big user. Another possible approach is…have youtalked to airports?

● —on the commercial side, airports themselves are not major players in the processbecause they do not buy fuels. Airlines buy fuels but use infrastructure at airports. Mostfuels looking at provide air quality improvements. Airports showing interest but not easyfor them to contribute tangibly—concept goes across industry. Bioeconomy can deliverenvironmental services (water quality, waste remediation, etc.), not monetized. Marketswork because x has value, when free market mechanisms aren’t working, the policy canintervene including the pursuit of R&D. All these things need to come together to makesomething work. CAAFI working on many projects, banner weeks..a large supplyagreement announcement on Monday, supply Atlanta Hartsfield directly. Things missingto have this activity be more robust is a lack of feedstock supply chain systems,inappropriate lvls of tech to take adv of available feedstocks for a reasonable price point.Lots of project development. Start with fundamentals of large # of feedstocks avail,appropriate tech, see if the business case can close and bootstrap project developmentgetting business + govt together in absence of major policy game changer. Believer inforestry based options. Certain solutions can work, leveraging these things in the SEincluding poultry fat and litter, peanuts (valuable opp, created by policies not workingvery well, price floor protection for peanut farmers), forestry. 1.2 mil tons of peanuts arewarehoused. Need large solutions that go across multiple feedstocks

● —SE has Atlantic Ocean + Gulf of Mexico, one opportunity might be is to put moreemphasis on ocean related biomass production as well as biomass to make sure waterquality in oceans are good based on strategies to use biomass to remediate. One USDAprogram—how can it be leveraged for variety of purposes- USDA facilitates peoplegetting access to capital to invest in rural enterprises—the SE regional concept into play,may be a way for state govt and private investors for a regional rural businessinvestment. Rather than burden an airline producer with risk, may be possible that this

Comment [RJB2]: Opportunity for regional production of biofuels.

Comment [RJB3]: Feedstock for SE regional biofuel production opportunity.

Comment [RJB4]: SE Regional issue.

Comment [RJB5]: Unique geography adds some potential opportunity

Comment [RJB6]: Suggested realignment of USDA RD dervices.


investment entity can take on risk that makes transactions happen that would otherwise not. Govts can benefit in more ways than stock or interest rates. Talking to the military for purchases in the region…as a govt related entity

● —viable problems to understand the big pic, on the table we don’t have the people whodirectly touch the feedstock or machinery, may not be able to afford to be here becausewhen taking their time, they’re losing money. There is a community there that has astrong tie with the success of the supply chain who is not at the table. This group is notalways very sustainable—turnover after someone is trained. Question of whether wehave the workforce and their contribution to the conversation, but what is the quality ofthe workforce? As a general rule of the supply chain, the slowest node is the speed ofthe supply chain

● —Risk is the quality of the workforce, talking about extreme rural areas. Drax workedwith SW Miss Comm College and started an internship program on our plants to workclosely and tap into quality workforce in the area. Army bases looking at renewableenergy (Fort Hood, TX, Fort Drum, NY), General Motors said they would go to 100%renewables in future, Proctor and Gamble recently announced installing a biomass boilerin Albany, GA, Just several examples of companies saying they want to unplug from gridor get into more renewable energy where biomass is a piece of that

● —Entire pellet industry has done well in the SE, newly created biomass supply chainwith a new product, new customers, talking about growing. Are there opportunities togrow different bioproducts as part of your (Pete’s) companies, aren’t you an opportunity?

● —Pellets are easy to transport by compressing and drying the moisture out of thebiomass. If there is a way to modify the supply chain for a plant up the road, could ship itwithout forming into pellet. Supply chain needs to invest in fire suppression and dustmitigation, etc. Currently millions of tons of wood chips are being shipped out of NC toTurkey for the Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) panel industry now.

● How can the federal agencies help leverage these regional opportunities?

What is the value proposition of a bioeconomy? ● —long-term, value and faster we get there, the faster we can solve problems of the

future. Eventually oil will be expensive and we will need alternatives● —short-term, we need a coproduct + biofuels● —building on [another’s] comment…talked about creating a higher energy pellet so

every boat load to Euro would be more efficient. Pellet process—grind, dry, compressonly to get ground up again. What if there was a different handling system where acompressed package the size of a shipping container dense with the dust and ship like ashipping container, attach to a utility so the dust can flow into the system and you don’tneed to put it together just to tear it apart.

● —Dept of Labor + Edu…would be great to have more incentives for workers to learnabout the jobs they’re in. DoL- people gaming the system going in and out ofunemployment—need a stable workforce.

Comment [RJB7]: Workforce development

Comment [RJB8]: Increasing market demand

Comment [RJB9]: Export market; what about domestic markets?

Comment [RJB10]: Research partnership opportunity

Comment [RJB11]: Includes suggestion that DOL and Dept. of Education should be at the table on the bioeconomy to develop a workforce training program.


● —different problem in TN, due to the regulations of workman’s comp for businesses with5+ employees, businesses would hire 4. Low rates of insurance, workmen’s comp…stilla worker related issue, but no incentive to have enough employees because you’regaming the system

● Addressing loopholes in federal/state/general policy?

How can you contribute to the Billion Ton Bioeconomy? ● —educating people on the bioeconomy. Amazing how Euro is very tapped into the green

economy. Not doing a great job educating people on the benefits of the green economyin the U.S.

What are specific regional barriers that need to be addressed to grow a bioeconomy?

● (NE U.S. participant): infrastructure problem to get natural gas to run paper mills...running on fuel. Paper industry already bioeconomy, trying to keep sustainability. Entireinfrastructure is not great. Infrastructure of nat gas stops in Manhattan—Maine @tailend. Pipelines will shut off when it’s too cold. Employ 200/8000 in local region—sinceinfrastructure can’t support industry, they leave

● —is natural gas a top issue?● --- It’s the top cost $200-300K total gas bill, Highly specialized paper company…lots of

implications for specialized technical uses● —looking at goal slide: already have 900K jobs, pulp + paper already creates tons of

products, need to include all industries related to bioeconomy. Canada/EU existing pulp+ paper industry is key to bioeconomy but in the US is forgotten

● --- Ag researcher—SE, warm temp, high humidity and more susceptible toenvironmental conditions and have more challenges especially with sugar crops

● -- Our [company] strategy is to site the pellet plants near permanently closed paper orpanel mills that no longer need the fiber. Examples include International Paper inBastrop, LA and Pineville, LA and Courtland, Alabama. GA Pacific closed panel plant inGloster, MS. There are many forested areas in the South where demand is permanentlygoing away and the logging & hauling supply chain is still hanging on.. We anticipate thatthere will be more pulp & paper mills in South US closing down in the next 10 years.

● —pulp + paper…like two distinct industries..those grades will continue to decline. Pulp +paper in the US is fairly healthy, Southern Pine will be a viable business for a long time(corrugated). Big piece of the industry that should grow in the South

● — agencies are not looking at entire bioeconomy, focus has been on pushing policy ofliquid fuels. Not opposed to liquid fuels but when designing a bioeconomy start w/ policylimitations, will have irregularities. Missing an opportunity to help them—interesting whatyou’re paying for gas versus market. Is there a biogas alternative? SE trying to reduce

Comment [RJB12]: Policy issue?

Comment [RJB13]: Communication on benefits of green economy.

Comment [RJB14]: Major infrastructure challenge for NE region.

Comment [RJB15]: Challenge

Comment [RJB16]: Opportunity


use of coal, but have not come up with mechanisms that focus on coal areas and put investment to replace the jobs that are being lost. Opportunity to cleaning up the coal areas using biomass as a mechanism to make it happen. No animosity to companies using pellets but inefficient to take a resource being made in the US and sending abroad- using biomass energy in coal systems to help wean off coal

● — I have written many proposals, but for bioproducts persons, there is hardly any funding in bioproducts because very competitive. I used to work for Louisiana Pacific…40 years of research lignin as an adhesive. Not using anymore because losing cost advantage due to variation in polymer—not saying that it’s not possible but #1 reason not using biobased polymers in wood industry

● —background in forestry (GA Pacific), what hit Drax that it was biggest carbon emitter in Northern England. Govt intervention—Drax did not need to switch to biomass renewables, we could shut down the coal plant. Govt placed carbon tax which stair stepped up over the years, along with a govt incentive to place investment in retrofitting infrastructure. Can’t be cost competitive with coal and needs an incentive mechanism to offset the cost of conversion. Drax is annually saving 80-85% in carbon emissions from burning biomass instead of burning coal. If we can take wood pellets from Louisiana over to the UK, then we can just as easily take them to Arkansas or Kentucky, etc. Why can’t the US get on board? Carbon tax, incentives, etc. can be put in…would help to grow U.S. domestic business. Drax transformed and now looking at what’s next? The opportunity is much larger than 1 power station, and we are talking to other countries that want to reduce their carbon emissions from burning coal. The domestic challenge is having access to relatively inexpensive natural gas, why convert if natural gas is so affordable for U.S. power utilities?

● —Supply chain for biomass established in past 50 years in lumber, established pecking order. If you take one piece out, then there is a void and increase cost for all players and causing risk for loggers/saw mills. Need to figure out what can be replaced when one player disappears—building paper mills, can also build other plants if you find the right product and value in marketplace. Need to build scale and find players willing to put money and take risk to build facilities that can compete against pellets/paper. Govt cannot do it alone, smaller companies are developing…if there were the right incentives, there will be players who would put forth capital

● —economically driven decisions (lumber supply chain), policies to change/shift that. When tons of bark is created and sent somewhere to be chipped, etc…when the pellet mill closes, the saw mill doesn’t have a place to put displaced material. Barrier is ignoring commercial facilities that are currently available that can convert tons of biomass, very big economic opportunity

● —getting govt out of the way, groups trying to get this commercialized, but let people do what they need to do. To create products like bulletproof glass, new types of paper, baking sheets (FDA in the way). Costing millions of $$ to go through regulatory agencies.

● --really need partnerships, horrendous questions on health +env, have seen consequences of that in 10-20 years. Really need partnerships to move forward, also need to have an educated workforce. Hear about pulp + paper being ignored, a little guilt

Comment [RJB17]: Research challenge

Comment [RJB18]: Policy issues and carbon tax drove process in UK

Comment [RJB19]: Policy issue

Comment [RJB20]: Regulatory issues


on both sides. Some companies backing away from research, think in terms of writing a grant..both sides need to come together and find opportunities to leverage each other’s skill sets. Find market niches that are good. Both sides—want people to make money in the bioeconomy but also leave the world a better place.

● —public private partnerships? This is a valuable mechanism to bring relevant federal /state agencies to the table along with the private sector. For example, the ATIPFoundation, over the past 3 years, has formed public-private partnerships (PPP) toaddress common issues of “Resilient Economic Agricultural Practices” (REAP) forsustainable land management practices for multiple land use of producing animal feed,food (crops for humans), fuel (bioenergy), fiber, and wildlife habitat / management. Theadvantage is that the 3 sectors (federal / state / private sector) have a vested interest inmanaging lands for multiple uses. Our experience is that having representativestakeholders at the table builds a network conducive of finding common ground anddeveloping actionable processes of optimizing land use.

● Would argue a federal/state with organizations that are already working with industrythat have long term tailored programs to have short term benefits to industry but benefitsyou can incorporate. One shortcoming of industry as a whole is making products that theconsumer wants..projects in pulp + paper can become daunting because of thecomplexity of issues. Needs partnership with govt to get to next stage

● —Is anyone involved in Govt Industry – consortium that might be worthwhile to seek,has a bioeconomy dock. The group is called GUIRR, that stands for GovernmentUniversity, Industry Research Roundtable. I recommend that we reach out to them toestablish a “bioeconomy initiative,” and begin the process of forging alliances among the3 sectors that can address the complexity of these sector-integrated approaches.

● —As a nation have a great capacity to team together, if someone championed and had agreat vision to ‘solve my industry and make it more dynamic’ that contributes to lowcarbon fuels and brings it further than where it would naturally evolve to…people willpartner. Fed govt, greater emphasis on justifying investments by econ dev, opportunitiesare truly there.

● —come from forest operations linkage to supply chain. Problem is that we are extremelygood at assessing resources and the final product, but not great at looking at theworkforce that will be supplying the feedstock. Looking at feedstock that wants toincrease by 2030 but depreciated equipment, there is a key note in the supply chain tomake it move seamlessly. Many countries are taking better care of their operatorswhether it's health or insurance—just published a paper out of TN discussing workerscomp and insurance and equipment…operators are way underconsidered when itcomes to their health and safety. Need to pay more attention to the workforce but thatalso means having a sustainable mech that gets them involved in long term contracts.How do you link between the forest operations, for example, and ecosystem servicesand supply chains, market. Looking at product market, and energy market frombiomass..very complex design to look at supply chain and should be careful.

● —operator cannot successfully harvest, research needed on the operators (missing linkin supply chain). Problem in VA, has had 3-4 pellet mills put in. Long term viability of

Comment [RJB21]: Partnerships to address health and environmental issues; workforce development to build skill sets; find niche markets that have environmental benefits.

Comment [RJB22]: Public Private Partnerships based on common goals of broad stakeholders

Comment [RJB23]: Recommendation: approach GUIRR on establishing a “bioeconomy initiative”

Comment [RJB24]: Comment supports notion that GUIRR may have great value as facilitator

Comment [RJB25]: Workforce development

Comment [RJB26]: Partnership / consortium of stakeholders with a vested interest in various bioeconomy products.


resource..on hardwood side, growing more than harvest but lots of public concern on the mapping. SW VA is a vertical. Growing stock not viable for harvest

● Questions —what would get in the way of the availability of the feedstock? ● IF they cannot harvest economically, they won’t harvest it ● —Bioeconomy...identified the major factors that can affect..economics, market

competition from other sectors, policy and finance related. If you look at whole supply chain, accounting for 50% of chain, to make it successful, need to see how you use the whole logistics cost. Policy and uncertainty is a major factor. Competition with natural gas…these factors are very important

● —3 barriers in the SE 1) underutilizing land resources, from the forestry side..most forestry land is under natural forest. Not saying to turn natural forests into plantations but big underutilization esp. in the SE. 2) practices of farmers in the SE—underutilization 5-6 months, where landowners manage their land in a more forestry manner to produce more wood, if have more use of farmlands. SE has a bad history of cellulose economics, go to Soperton, GA, try and sell ‘snake oil’. Historic problem in the SE US has left a bad public perception of bioenergy/economy 3) forestry main feedstock/land use..not a well established supply chain. Loggers becoming an ‘endangered species’. Do not have an idea how to harvest/transport/etc. feedstock

● —underutilization, esp of forest land. Lots of private ownership in relatively small tracts that leads to underutilization…that landowner would underutilize land (because that’s not their commercial purpose)

● ---Healthy forests are depending on healthy markets; forest lands have underutilized resources due to absence of healthy markets for product. If a landowner does not have healthy markets they may choose to sell their land and redeploy their capital elsewhere.

● —Markets have proven that…hard to sell bioeconomy in SE US (esp South GA). Pellets are successful because technology is there, new cellulose technology are still in the labs and not commercially avail. If tech is there, landowners will have confidence and use their land more productively. Problem is commercially proven technology where people can have a level of confidence

● — are there co-ops for biomass? Similar to small farmers coops for commodity production. Many local biomass production operations could feed into a biomass co-op and gain economy of scale. That might solve supply side for small land owners wanting to produce biomass, but don’t have enough to meet demands of bioproducts manufacturer.

● —extension service group at a land grant university might be helpful since they can touch every component in the supply chain

● —sugar industry has coops ● —using wood processing plants as a lab or platform in which new initiatives for biomass

use. SC have a lease of 15 acres within a lumber company, from a strategy matter, might make sense to incentivize people trying to innovate. Waiting for the plant to close and figure out what to do, but urge DOE and USDA to consider trying to encourage collaboration between wood processing and other processing plants to innovate new bioproducts

● —Example of what happened in GA and also Mississippi

Comment [RJB27]: Absence of local demand for low quality feedstocks

Comment [RJB28]: Policy and incentives

Comment [RJB29]: Barriers to advancing the bioeconomy in SE U.S.

Comment [RJB30]: Lack of healthy markets for products results in repurposing land for better ROI

Comment [RJB31]: Value of R&D on improving technologies for cellulose to create high value products.

Comment [RJB32]: Addresses idea of consortia and coops to provide value to production from small operations.

Comment [RJB33]: Suggestion that USDA and DOE develop pilot program of collaboration between biomass processing operations and product producing plants to generate profitable bioproducts.


● — The SE U.S. does not have a forest fire problem like the West Coast. Figuring out what kinds of products can be made from fire damaged trees would be a good use of time + money

● —more collaboration between state/fed/local govt. California example not well coordinated between diff govt sides

● —question about small land tracts: NE has land trusts and active management that lowers tax burden...is that something that happens in SE?

● Yes, there are land trusts in the SE ● — there are examples in other parts of the country where companies who have

plantation trees have worked with state legislature to be taxed differently to keep trees on the ground and get more value. Getting taxed as a farm instead of a forest

How can we help create a regional demand for the bioeconomy? ● —sugar industry…Louisiana/FL/TX, no incentive to make biofuels because of policy.

Don’t like researchers working on biofuels to secure the sugar price. Can make syrup which is a great source…big problem is the price of gas. Reverting to food grade syrup/whiskey because there is money there. Sorted technological problems, will be ready to create other products but all in all, biggest problem no incentive

● —double the question along with a regional supply—demand is there and subject to many market dynamics but part of the work done in forestry is that there are many different perspectives on the forestry supply. Biomass Utilization Strategies (publication) --- key outcome is that we lack an integrated management plan to tie resources into an integrated supply. So many treatment + management objectives that constrains supply of biomaterial—from the supply side

● —industries to be integrated with each other. If you have two industries working together, can create demand from existing infrastructure

● — for example, whiskey makers demanding sugar supplies are working together ● —biggest problem with company in CT, until there is a change in thinking on the

creation/use of energy...$1 to clean energy fund, end up buying light bulbs. Energy companies need to decide this is important or they won’t change. No incentive to change—want centralized power where they control the price. The govt needs to step in. When small companies creating something that is a paradigm shift, going against strong companies and lobbies that do not have an incentive to change

● —technological disruption or policy to create new economics—small niche markets can be technologic disruptors. On the policy side, in Italy, banned plastic bags but allowed plastic bags made from sugar and created an industry over night. The govt can create new industries through drastic change, not incremental. Same with tech, you need something that is significantly better like nanotechnologies that can replace traditional products with better properties and performance

● —create may not be the best verb—industries are already created…how do we enhance/change the industry or the bioeconomy

● —Shell oil + biodiesel…look at people with lots of money. Look outside traditional realms for expanding the market

Comment [RJB34]: Suggests a partnership project to focus on utilizing fire-damaged (or diseased?) trees ---- possible a research topic for funding agencies.

Comment [RJB35]: Comment supports concept of GUIRR projects

Comment [RJB36]: State & Local policy development. How can federal government construct policy to encourage such actions?

Comment [RJB37]: Lack of federal incentives

Comment [RJB38]: Coordination / consortium to optimize supply chain and provide stability for a bioeconomy market.

Comment [RJB39]: Partnerships among industry players; maximize utilization.

Comment [RJB40]: Government should provide incentives that encourages small company growth in new / risky areas.

Comment [RJB41]: Supports idea that government policy can create new stable market opportunities.


● —using the same mechanism to create biooil to produce renewable fuels, partnershipsalong those lines

● —in UK, govt put a mandate that coal would be off by 2025. The capacity margin in theUS is the margin between peak electricity demand and what capacity is available,ranges from state to state 15-25% but in the UK it’s less than 4%. The UK does not wantto see brownouts and therefore the govt realizes they are in a tight spot so they areputting in incentives to work alongside with the utility industry to come up with a solution.

● --- how does the supply relate changing from coal to wood?● --- Low capacity margin with renewable energy targets means need they need a solution

and they will not look to increasing use of fossil fuels.● --- It sounds like the answer to how we get to a better bioeconomy—govt incentives● —Georgia One: many arms of the state env, taxes, logistics, forestry to come together.

Small businesses (3-8 people) interested…small businesses do not have the capacity toask the questions on how to grow their company. Should be able to bring the resourcesof the state/fed resources and see what the limitations are. Role for that—need achampion like Jill

● —If you want a regional economy, you need to create more regional cooperation. SEeconomy is not limited to Georgia/NC, companies work across state boundaries. Not amechanism to bring together those people in the regional bioeconomy.

● —Petroleum is cheap so need expensive products or…have a big poultry, peanutsindustry. Gather low cost co-products like poultry/cow manure for biogas, even thoughthose feedstocks are small in overall flow to the ultimate capacity of the bioeconomy,could start to have a track record of many successes and initial layer of supply chain thatcould grow. Would that work, and how could we do that?

● —build biomass plant in a coal mine to get an economy of scale, port of Savannah/gulfports that could use same mindset

● —supply of energy resources is better exploited on a regional basis. SE talking to NREL,DOE to advance the efforts on a regional basis. GeorgiaTech working with partner unisaround SE, utilities may not agree on the right path forward. Have nuclear, adopt naturalgas and 2x national rate and bioenergy capability…resource location, policy location,economics to region…trying to develop that story for energy and parallel efforts arehappening in the bioeconomy. Potential for collaboration, need to think at this scope(regional). Constraint—energy effiency, if that’s the only metric..businesses thinking ateconomic efficiency.

● —figure out a way to link the complex feedstocks into one integrated plan, theoverarching problem is scale and time. To have an efficient supply chain, need to buildand provide a certain amount within certain area that makes the operation profitable forwhoever is working with it. Trying to build a seamless between crop/manure/etc industryto be able to utilize the infrastructure to get to a particular point at a certain time. Need tothink about making it socially acceptable, environmentally sustainable and economicallyefficient. W/ diff feedstock providers at the table, can create an objective on the samepage

Comment [RJB42]: Again, promoting a theme of partnerships

Comment [RJB43]: Example of UK policy to avoid brownouts – situation may not be relevant in U.S.

Comment [RJB44]: Conclusion that government incentives are needed to advance the bioeconomy.

Comment [RJB45]: http://www.onegeorgia.org/programs

Comment [RJB46]: Opportunity for regional resource development in the bioeconomy.

Comment [RJB47]: partnerships


● —supply chain is a big issue—we have enough biomass, infrastructure + cost, notgetting there. Working logistics and supply chain…very hard, in the SE, lots of residue,how can we create demand?

● —The majority of developed fuel conversion technologies are specific to a feedstock (notrobust enough to handle multiple feedstocks or types of biomasses). Fuel conversiontechnology which can use multiple feedstocks can have economic benefits from multiplesegments of bioenergy supply chains such as low cost of logistics (storage andtransportation). It improves risks related to severe weather or climate and biomasssupply availability by diversifying feedstocks.

Where do you perceive, if any, a lack of workforce readiness to support the bioeconomy?

How can we best engage the interested public in the Southeast in the process developing a Billion Ton Bioeconomy?

● —Looking at homes and the process in England, local/regional/federal, it can be at everylevel

● —Swedish students + F-150’s—culture difference between America + Europe—peoplelike being green if it doesn’t cost more

● —organic food is selling more in U.S. now, super trendy (but more expensive)● —fundamental difference in US where there’s a technological solution for everything and

Europe there’s a conservation-related solution● —in Euro, people don’t know what we do for sustainability…perception. Do not sell the

sustainability efforts in the US elsewhere.● —trying to say that American public could do a better job of explaining the bioeconomy● --Can put the facts out there, looking at organics, niche market that is not going to move

the market. Think its starts with school and education, need to teach kids to makechange. Cultural bias, not going to have 100% advocates but need to start with theyounger generation

● —oil + gas industry commercials talking about their industry, looking at successes likeDasani’s plant bottle. What is the industry doing? Marketing—isn’t that one morerevenue stream that is not being captured? Govt doesn’t do marketing—they doeducation, but could partner and help with marketing. Would be interested to see if thereare any marketing campaigns in industry—why is this the feedstock of the future?

● -- You have to start by formulating producst where performance is up to theexpectations of the consumer—once you do that you can talk about marketing andtelling people what the extra value is in being green

● —that would not be the case with Dasani...was not improved product, just a “plant”bottle.

● —but I would argue there is value for Coca Cola

Comment [RJB48]: market to increase demand


● —plant bottle for example, needed to make sure performance was good, because CocaCola needs more containers to deliver their products

● —maybe the campaign needs to start somewhere like the Dept of Education.● — marketing is because people feel good when thinking of trees, had nothing to do with

bio products of the bottle but had to do with the tree they saw in their minds● —those dealing with the feedstock is not here, and neither are the marketing people.

Don’t want to deceive the consumers but they’re good at marketing and selling things topeople by studying their reactions and preferences. Needs to be done carefully so we’reenlightening them on how the process is working

What would success look like in 5 years? >5 years?


Can you identify other groups in the SE that support the bioeconomy?

● One for biofuels and sustainability instead of smaller state orgs. Need more federalgovernment collaborating on a regional basis

● Academic institutions are into this area with multi disciplinary foci● I think we need to develop a SE Bioeconomy Planning organization● —pulp wood is less expensive to take out from forestry and have higher than any other

woody biomass. Cull trees are more expensive, unless you’re going forgasification…you’re going to wait for your wood to be high value like pulp wood. TheFARB report is good but pulp wood is the primary feedstock for emergingbiorefineries…pulp wood will be consumed first before any other woody biomass

● —can we have an annual SE U.S. Bioeconomy conference?● -- From a federal perspective—whether a national plan…regional plans that are

integrated together. Should not constrain the borders when consider the bioeconomy● —bioeconomy or energy?● -- Bioeconomy! Need both the bioeconomy + energy● —fed govt gets electric power generation capacity as a testbed for new biofuels/coal etc.

What can federal agencies do to increase likelihood of private financing in the Southeast to build the bioeconomy?

● —need to reduce risk--- if you don’t, you won’t get private financing. Aviation is startingto see a change. Last couple of weeks, unlocked a couple $B from institutional finance

● —You are saying the risk is lower?● — There is now a competitive price point..also, policy looks somewhat stabilized.

Offering long term offtake agreements to bring more pathways● Industry promotion—general, two major things paper industry is doing. Paper and

packaging board…out of USDA, running commercials and doing things to show people`how paper impacts their lives. Funded by tax that producers have agreed to pay. Paperis also using “Two Sides”, funding the advantages of print media and reading somethingon paper as compared to reading the same thing electronically.

● —Not all are motivated by carbon intensity / density..one clear benefit of wood productsis that they are renewable. Don’t see any marketing on carbon intensity of products,which should be shown as a positive societal benefit.

● —EnergyStar rating on fridge, want to talk about education, involved at VirginiaTech...much more sustainable/environmental oriented that needs to be going on at the highschool level. Can market in the future to the environmental impact of products.

● -- Agenda2020, active in cellulose nanomaterials. Key material for advancing thebioeconomy, can be thought of as a primary product or produced as a co product along

Comment [RJB49]: proposed

Comment [RJB50]: this group agreed that this would be warranted and a good idea; self organization in the SE U.S. would be recommended.

Comment [RJB51]: Recommendation for federal agencies: reduce risk


with fuels and chemical. Other applications for material are not as far along. Even as competitors, we can work together to advance the issues and perceptions.

● —Lignin will be part of the bioeconomy● —Cusp of commercialization, hard to get commercial investors to invest because they

don’t know how sustainable the effort will be, and no clarity on short term ROI. Peoplewant to invest, but it is hard to convince people to be patient. Things need to changefrom the investment side to get things off the ground.

● –Are the perceived benefits helping to unlock investor reluctance, or is it only the short term ROI?

● – unproven technology / nascent technology is the driver; risk from technology not proven (uncertainty).

How do biomass-derived feedstocks benefit the Southeast region?

What is the potential for these benefits to grow?

Can feedstock commoditization help reach this potential?

What are the challenges faced by the biomass producers in the Southeast in growing dedicated biomass crops?

Comment [RJB52]: tax incentives?


1 | P a g e


A Report to Participants in the SW Regional Bioeconomy Forum

Mineral Wells Chamber of Commerce, (co-hosts) Mineral Wells, TX

September 29, 2016 Wes Jurey, Foundation CEO and R.J. Brenner, Director, ATIP Foundation

Background

In late 2013, the seven agencies and the Office of the President that constitute the Biomass Research and Development Board1 (BR&DB) began development of a vision to promote the expansion of the bioeconomy. With the projection that this nation, by 2020, will sustainably produce a billion tons of biomass annually, the “Vision” was published as the "Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy," released by USDA Under Secretary Cathie Woteki at the 2016 Advanced Bioeconomy Leadership Conference in Washington, D.C. (February). “The goal of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy Vision is to develop and implement innovative approaches to remove barriers to expanding the sustainable use of America’s abundant biomass resources, while maximizing economic, social, and environmental outcomes.” BR&DB engaged the ATIP Foundation in September 2015 to prepare several regional listening sessions.

Separately, during the month of April, 2016 USDA and DOE co-led some informal “listening sessions” at three major conferences: 2016 International Biomass Conference and Expo in Charlotte, NC (April 11-14); World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology in San Diego, CA (April 17-20); and the Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals in Baltimore, MD (April 25-28). In addition, a webinar on the Vision was conducted jointly by USDA and DOE on May 5, 2016. Input garnered from these events helped shape a subsequent document, tentatively titled “The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities,” released in November 2017 by the BR&D Board (for a copy, go to http://www.biomassboard.gov/pdfs/the_bioeconomy_initiative.pdf ).The rationale and strategy for these reports, and purpose for the public gatherings "USDA published a blog about the Vision and the listening sessions designed to ”… gather information and engage stakeholders on how to build and grow the “Billion Ton Bioeconomy.” (http://blogs.usda.gov/2016/04/27/growing-and-building-the-billion-ton-bioeconomy/) Regional Bioeconomy Stakeholder Forums The federal agencies contracted with the ATIP Foundation --- a non-profit consortium of State Economic Development organizations --- to develop and co-host with a coordinating entity, a series of regional Bioeconomy Forums to garner input from a broad range of stakeholders on the Challenges & Opportunities to help shape a





2 | P a g e

“multiyear implementation plan,” expected to be prepared by the Biomass R&D Board during the second quarter of the fiscal year 2017, submitted to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Forums were convened in the SE U.S with Georgia Tech as co-host (September 16, Renewable Bioproducts Institute, Atlanta, GA), in the SW. U.S with the Mineral Wells Chamber of Commerce, Mineral Wells, TX, (September 29, Holiday Hills Country Club, 4801 Highway 180 East, Mineral Wells, TX), in PNW with Washington State University as co-host (October 3, Sea-Tac Conference center, Sea-Tac airport), in NE U.S. co-hosted by The University of Maine, Orono (October 18 ), and in the MW U.S. , co-hosted by The Ohio State University (Schisler Conference Center, Wooster, OH, November 15). Co-hosts arranged for the meeting room, a modest noon meal, and a dedicated note taker with real-time display so the participants could verify their remarks, as necessary. The goal of each Bioeconomy Forum was to bring together a mix of stakeholders (about 40-60 participants) from six sectors to seek their input, relative to the initiative’s vision, strategies, and implementation. These sectors are (1) industry; (2) state and local government; (3) economic and workforce development; (4) investment & finance; (5) academia; and (6) agricultural and environmental organizations. Co-hosts, with the assistance of BR&D Operations Committee, derived the list of by invitation participants. Forum Structure and Role of the Foundation and Co-hosts The SW U.S. Regional Bioeconomy Forum was moderated by Wes Jurey, CEO of the ATIP Foundation, assisted by Ryan Roach, CEO of the Mineral Wells Chamber of Commerce. Notes were taken (attributed to the commenter) by Ms. Nikki Bossaller, who projected these so all participants could review and correct as needed. The audio was also recorded from a laptop in case it was needed to clarify comments. Table 1 describes the demographics of invitees by sector, and the actual number able to participate on September 29, 2016.

Table 1. Demographics (by sector) of invitees and participants, convened by co-host Mineral Wells Chamber of Commerce, in SW Regional Bioeconomy Forum, Mineral Wells, TX , September 29, 2016 .

Sector Invited No.

Participants %RSVP to

Attend % of Attendees

Industry 41 6 15 15

State and local government 27 8 30 20

Economic and workforce development

23 15 65 37

Investment & finance 2 1 50 2

Academia 49 9 18 22

Agricultural and environmental organizations

11 2 18 5

153 41 27 100


3 | P a g e

The agenda (Attachment 1) included welcoming comments by Ryan Roach, Mineral Wells Chamber of Commerce (state co-host); Mayor Mike Allen, City of Mineral Wells; Wes Jurey, ATIP Foundation; and Todd Campbell, Biomass Research & Development Board representative. A slide set presentation was made by the ATIP Foundation and co-host, followed by Todd Campbell (USDA; Attachment 2). In addition, a “discussion document” was provided to the participants (Attachment 3). The remainder of the day consisted exclusively of stakeholder attendees from the six sectors participating in discussions on these six questions and others posed by the Foundation. Participants of the forum received a link to a Google Document of the “attributed” notes taken by Ms. Bossaller, and were given a two week window of opportunity to edit their specific comments, or add additional comment. Thereafter, the document was closed by Dr. Brenner, who reviewed comments, clarified with authors as needed, redacted all names of comment contributors, and annotated with his comments and/or Wes Jurey’s from the Foundation (noted by “Comment#(RJB)”. The document is presented (Attachment 4) as a record of the event, and it includes participant reviews of each “challenge” and “opportunity” --- from their perspective --- and their assessment as to whether each was in the top 3 priorities of the SE U.S. Reporting on Participant Comments

Figure 1a (below) reflects their perspective on these “Challenges”.

Participants considered “access to capital for large financial investments” as the dominant challenge faced by the bioeconomy industry in the region (55%), followed by “a lack of necessary infrastructure,” (42%), “the need for a strong and capable workforce,” (41%), and “growth instability and increased investment risk caused by policy uncertainty.” Of interest, only 20% of participants from this oil-rich state deemed “steep competition from traditional petroleum-derived resources” among the top 3 challenge priorities.


4 | P a g e


“Create increased public demand for biomass-derived products in a bioeconomy” was seen as the top “opportunity” (39% of respondents) for the SW Region, followed by “ensure a ready workforce to meet the needs of the bioeconomy,” and “encourage private-sector financing, both at 27% of respondents. “Stable long-term policies” was a close 4th at 22%. Discussion: ATIP Foundation & Co-host Assessment of Themes, Issues, Regional Challenges & Opportunities This section illustrates highlights of actual comments, selected by the Foundation, made by forum participants. Items appearing as [NOTE: …] are additional comments by the ATIP Foundation post-forum. The full non-attribute comments by participants are in Attachment 4. On the issue of “what are state/local/regional challenges for the bioeconomy,” specific comments suggested:

• Logistics and supply chain: Based on cotton transport not economically feasible beyond a 50 miles radius, same theory applies to biomass. Companies want a transportable product immediately.

• Education and Awareness: There is active backlash concern over bioproducts. Education component needs to be stressed so people understand the advantages [of biobased]. What is petroleum industry going to say? The represent a formidable challenge.

• Until participant got materials for forum, didn’t know what biomass was. Education needs to go back to square 1. Woody biomass is a new word to many people. Education.

• Transportation & financial components are missing. • Workforce [development]: In the future, this needs to start in 8th grade; stress “skills needs” to students

& parents to learn skills for new jobs. If not, workforce won’t be there. • Workforce development overemphasizes a college education. Support is needed for strong vocation

programs. 40% better suited to vocational programs. Education system needs to rethink priorities.


5 | P a g e

• Univ. of North Texas has no ag program. [However] we are establishing a certificate program for renewable bioproducts engineering. Lots of wood industry. Looking for engineering students to know something about agriculture so they can feed well into that job market. Bioproduct engineering.

There were some key points made on “How the federal agencies can help address these regional challenges”

• One challenge is hiring practice of agencies (USDA, etc.) for graduates. Time scale is too short for window of opportunity. Federal agencies advertise internships too late. [NOTE: this is an actionable item]

• Training and education: Oil is in biggest bust since 2008. Lots of highly skilled workers unemployed in Texas. Bio & oil are tied at hip. Demand is down dramatically. Govt. should help more (subsidies, tariffs, taxes, incentives, cost competitive). Companies aren’t going to want to make the investments b/c of risks involved in oil dropping. My company has had 3 layoffs and other energy sectors companies continue to make cuts. There are many highly skilled people still looking for jobs. [NOTE: this dovetails with other comments on training and education for cross-over training from oil refineries to biorefineries. This argues for transition training programs that Dept. of Labor, Department of Education, and State Workforce Development could do jointly. See supporting comments elsewhere in document.]

• Cross-training for transition from oil > biofuel: Half the people used to be with oil industry. Similar skills overlap. Similar industries are in bioeconomy. How do we bridge the gap to easily transition when petroleum sector has a lapse? Companies are trying to figure out that natural pivot. How do we close that gap to transition? [NOTE: All strong arguments for a pilot program to develop transition training that works in both directions oil biofuel. Again, with Department of Labor and Department of Education]

• In Waco, a large number of troops in Ft. Hood were getting ready to be released. The Federal government in conjunction with TWC provided training on how to transition skills from Army to civilian jobs. Many workers possess the needed skills just don’t have experience in specific market. HR professionals and potential applicants need training so they are both speaking the same language.

• Invest in research. Funding percentage is only 3%; lots of good ideas are being left on the table. • Produces polysaccharide. Don’t have funding to scale up. Too many orders. Gap in funding. How do you

take an entrepreneur with no funding?

Comments and suggestions from the ATIP Foundation in response to comments made:

o Opportunities for cooperative research agreements. Often at issue for industry is the high overhead structure that most universities charge.

o Perhaps a joint venture for partnerships between industry and federal scientists through CRADAs

o SBIR – each agency has mandatory funding available to prospective grantees. Check each agency for amounts and application deadlines (e.g., USDA, DOE, DOC, DOD, EPA, …)


6 | P a g e

On the topic of “What are state/local/regional opportunities to the bioeconomy?” …

• Use of marginal lands. Lots of areas that don’t have a lot of rain. Need to be able to produce vegetation specific for needs of that land.

o Curious about marginal land development & development of algae. Any way to use prickly pear cactus? [Note from ATIP Foundation: http://gizmodo.com/this-humble-cactus-could-help-power-our-drought-stricke-1715966241 ]

• Arlington Independent School District has a $663 million bond being used for partnership with Tarrant County College & their certification programs. Career and Technical Higher Education Investigations course to see if they could communicate opportunities available in areas of vocation.

• We have coastline to look at algae production. Microalgae research. Different from other regions of the US. Look further into. Marginal lands & prime lands in eastern Texas. Terraces in forests had cotton at one time. Those forest thinning could be used as biomass & then replanted as other crops for energy. Good opportunities for east Texas.

• Identify skilled workforce-College Credit for Heroes. Vets can look at their skills set & how they translate to civilian jobs. Can complete program or degree faster b/c of skills credits. Program will help cover the training costs. Helping businesses train workforce with new technologies. Better education is needed why communities are green. Career networking-anyone looking for bioeconomy job & identifying where those jobs are. Better build that data set. Tends to be clearing house for that type of information. [Note: http://www.twc.state.tx.us/jobseekers/college-credit-heroes]

• UNT is establishing labs; https://www.unt.edu/search-results?search=bioeconomy&sa=Search • Guayule is a natural rubber crop that is fits well for the southern region (southern Texas, new Mexico and

Arizona). I am currently working at Arid Land Agricultural Research Center (ALARC), Maricopa, Arizona to improve rubber production, and adaptation to grow in desert area. [Note: https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sc=0&query=Guayule&m=&affiliate=agriculturalresearchservicears&commit=Search ] As well I am working on improving the industrial oil crops, camelina and brassicas, for non-food, bioenergy purposes including biodiesel and Hydrotreated Renewable Jet Fuels to grow in stress conditions (drought and hot conditions) [Note: https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sc=0&query=hydrotreated+renewable+jet+fuel&m=&affiliate=agriculturalresearchservicears&commit=Search ] . In general we are looking for crops that can be accommodated in this area (marginal, semi-arid and arid land). We need to think out of the box for these crops. Arid lands will be good for non-food non-traditional crops. Cotton uses lots of water.

• Wild pig problem in Texas. Develop land into farms & use pigs for something other than shooting practice.

Comments on the issue of “What impact does the Texas oil industry / economy have on advancing the bioeconomy? How might that shape your implementation of expanding the bioeconomy in this region.

• They are distributing product for any fuel product we produce. Embrace as partner. • When the booms are happening in Oil & Gas, those companies are a competitor for resources (steel,

labor). • Water transportation for irrigation of bioproducts and removal of process water are large expenses. Why

not create a pipeline system to transport water. This system could help reduce long-term droughts and pump water away from flood zones along the Mississippi. Between the government and insurance

http://gizmodo.com/this-humble-cactus-could-help-power-our-drought-stricke-1715966241

http://gizmodo.com/this-humble-cactus-could-help-power-our-drought-stricke-1715966241

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/jobseekers/college-credit-heroes

https://www.unt.edu/search-results?search=bioeconomy&sa=Search

https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sc=0&query=Guayule&m=&affiliate=agriculturalresearchservicears&commit=Search

https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sc=0&query=Guayule&m=&affiliate=agriculturalresearchservicears&commit=Search

https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sc=0&query=hydrotreated+renewable+jet+fuel&m=&affiliate=agriculturalresearchservicears&commit=Search

https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sc=0&query=hydrotreated+renewable+jet+fuel&m=&affiliate=agriculturalresearchservicears&commit=Search


7 | P a g e

companies billions of dollars are spent each year on natural disasters. Money that is currently being budgeted for those disasters could be used to repay loans for the construction of the pipeline system.

• Additional note from participant post-forum: “The comments concerning produced water from active oil and gas wells and water returned to the surface after fracturing, are not correct. Pipelines and transport trucks are expensive and time consuming. Our company has developed mobile equipment that treats this water at the location so that it may be used for agricultural or other useful purposes. There are several companies working on similar technologies that will yield useable water at the wellsite. Shortly, it will no longer be necessary to move these large quantities of water. [Note from Foundation: http://www.buzzfile.com/business/Pump-and-Coil-Tubing-940-327-8189 ]

Summary of Challenges and Opportunities for SE Bioeconomy

• Education customers & stakeholders what biomass is. • Need a viable bioproduct enterprise available. Economic climate has to be available to move forward. • Needs incentive, research, financing, policy (dysfunctional energy policy). Hard to get investment if new

administration that is going to turn everything upside down. • Predictability in policy needed. Establish fed task force to establish regional bioproduct project. No red

tape. Put structure in. • Federal government can help the bioeconomy industry by providing tax credits that will create equity

needed to finance the projects. To finance any project, the lenders require 30-40% equity. If tax credits were structured similar to the New Market Tax Credit and the Renewable Energy Certificates, then the bioeconomy industry would be able to obtain the needed equity to fund the projects.

• Federal agencies must put biomass info on their websites. Can’t be advertised on TV . Very eye catching verbiage to make people aware of bioeconomy.

• DOE & requests for proposals that come out that deal with development to prove scale of what you need. Proposals need 50% match. Companies don’t have that much. That is a huge hurdle that smaller companies. Reduce or eliminate match. Actionable.

o [Note from Foundation: One approach would be to form public-private partnerships where private sector can contribute funds toward matching requirements. If done under a CRADA, then private sector contributor also has first right of refusal to negotiate an EXCLUSIVE license to any technology (intellectual property) developed under the partnership without Federal Register Notice.]

• Bring Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) in as partnerships. Bioeconomy is a new concept to those offices; however, they have the resources available to connect experts in the industry for them to be consultants in the development and growth of any project.

o [Note from Foundation: Mineral Wells participants should consider adding this dimension to a pilot. Bringing in Department of Commerce, along with Department of Labor, and Department of Education would be the most comprehensive partnership among federal agencies, given that BR&D Board includes 7 other agencies plus the Office of the White House.]

• We need to separate between the use of food & non-food (bioenergy and industrial) crops, and where we can grow each group. Southern region has the high potential to grow new non-traditional, non-food, bioenergy crops in its marginal land.

http://www.buzzfile.com/business/Pump-and-Coil-Tubing-940-327-8189


8 | P a g e

• The region is a preferential bioenergy crops (east TX to LA) & across the south. SE quad of US is best location for bioenergy crops.

Participants all agreed it would be good to reconvene in a year


SW Regional Bioeconomy Forum Summary Wes Jurey, CEO, ATIP Foundation






From the Foundation's perspective, based on the response from forum participants, we believe our premise is sound. At the conclusion of the Southwest forum, participants were unanimous in support of reconvening in a year, and working to formulate a specific demonstration project tailored to their region in the interim.


9 | P a g e


First, the need for public awareness is considered a major challenge. At the beginning of the forum, there was significant discussion on what the bio economy actually was, beyond biofuel.


Third, the need to develop a talent pipeline for current and future workers was a strong concern. It was noted that although seven federal agencies were members of the BR&D Board, the Departments of Education & Labor were not engaged at the federal level, although the US Department of Labor, the Texas Workforce Commission, and representatives of local workforce boards were active participants in the Southwest forum.

Fourth, development of the type of supply chain necessary to sustain the bio economy was expressed as a critical priority. It was noted that moving agricultural by products and waste more than 100 miles was a significant inhibitor of the growth of this industry.

Fifth, the need to finance the growth of demonstration projects, establish new businesses, and expand existing businesses, by seeking federal, state, and private sector financial assistance is a critical concern. It was further noted that the financial community was the least represented in the forum.

Sixth, it was noted that federal policy is one of the most critical issues, and is an underlying issue to the first five cited. Policy uncertainty means high risk to institutions that provide financial assistance. It determines the allocation of federal resources, the priorities of the public workforce system, discourages the establishment of a supply chain uncertain of the sectors future, and makes articulating a vision for the bio economy more challenging.


In conclusion, the Foundation looks forward to working with the Mineral Wells Chamber of Commerce and the participants in the initial forum, to expand the stakeholder base, in order to begin the development of a regional demonstration project.

We look forward to doing so in partnership with the seven member agencies of the BR&D board, optimistic that the vision of a billion ton bio economy can become a reality.


10 | P a g e


SW Regional Bioeconomy Forum Summary Ryan Roach, President

Mineral Wells Area Chamber of Commerce November 7, 2016

The Mineral Wells Area Chamber of Commerce hosted the Southwestern Regional Advancing the Bioeconomy Forum in Mineral Wells on September 29, 2016. Forty-one individuals attended the event held at the Holiday Hills Country Club that included representatives from various sectors from across the area and beyond to participate in a discussion about advancing the Bioeconomy. The Chamber along with the City of Mineral Wells is grateful for the opportunity to host the Forum and looks forward to establishing a presence related to developing and enhancing this initiative.

Much of the day focused on allowing participants the opportunity to preview the research and vision behind the Bioeconomy as well as presenting potential challenges and opportunities to be considered as the project moves forward into further development and implementation. The questions asked to the attendees focused on a variety of topics, however much of the time focused on issues related to the regional issue of relying on a qualified and reliable workforce. While this issue is highly regarded as a major issue locally, the needs for strong labor exists across the state of Texas and even the country. Skilled workers are in high demand in many areas of our region because of the focus on everyone needing a college degree. In developing a new industry, such as the bioeconomy, that the jobs created will be technical and derived from an emphasis in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math). Issues must be addressed beyond skills and education that include overcoming soft skills deficiencies.

The highest priority among attendees was that of financing and capital available to businesses who potentially would consider becoming engaged in the bioeconomy. Other considerations related to acquiring capital is identifying, what currently exists in the market, is there a demand, what is the potential for profits to commodity producers and end-product manufacturers? How static or volatile are the markets for these commodities, and will investors and/or lending institutions be willing to take a risk on supporting the development and growth of the Bioeconomy industry? These types of questions are valid concerns and should be addressed in determining the success of advancing the bioeconomy.

Another topic of discussion revolved around educating the masses on what the bioeconomy is. Most citizens are already familiar with bio-fuels and their uses, but other bio-products and the potential uses are highly unknown. Education was a major component of the groups focus and must be very strategic to include overcoming emotions related to the competition with oil and gas, educating investors, businesses, and consumers to the benefits of bio-products. Awareness will be a crucial element in overcoming doubts and skepticism related to the industry and its advancement.

While many different questions were posed to the attendees and a variety of responses were given, the event proved to be worthwhile in acquiring the needed information to continue to develop the initiatives for advancing


11 | P a g e

the bioeconomy. One of the recommendations determined was considering regional pilots as a basis for exploring and developing the markets necessary to support the bio-industry. Mineral Wells is supportive and willing to assist in implementing a pilot program to further the Bioeconomy. The area has many assets to support this industry and looks forward to being a leader in advancing the Billion Ton Bioeconomy.


Attachment 1: agenda

Attachment 2: slide presentations

Attachment 3: “discussion document”

Attachment 4: non-attribute notes w/ comments



SW Regional Bioeconomy Forum Mineral Wells, TX

“Garnering stakeholder perspectives and input to help shape the vision, strategic planning, and implementation to promote and expand the bioeconomy”

Date: September 29, 2016 Time: 9 AM – 4 PM (local time) Location: Holiday Hills Country Club, 4801 Highway 180 East

Meeting Purpose: To introduce the “Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy,” and the sub sequent “Bioeconomy Challenges and Opportunities for the Billion Ton Vision” report and to hear from stakeholders in (1) industry; (2) state and local government; (3) economic and workforce development; (4) investment & finance; (5) academia; and (6) agricultural and environmental organizations in order to accelerate the development of the bioeconomy.

8:30 AM – Registration / Check in

9:30 AM Welcome and introductory remarks

• Wes Jurey, Chairman, ATIP Foundation• Dr. Cathie Woteki, USDA Under Secretary for Research Education and Economics,

and Co-chair, Biomass Research and Development (BR&D) Board1

• TBD, State Host

10:00 AM – 11:00 AM Overview of “Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy”, and the “Billion

Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities” Report

• Presentation by Todd Campbell, BR&D Board, Operations Committee (SeniorEnergy Advisor, U.S. Department of Agriculture)

o Establishes issues from the federal agencies and frames the topics fordiscussion

11:00 AM–3:45 PM—Stakeholder Comments and Discussion • 12:30 PM—Working Lunch

4:00 PM–4:30 PM—Facilitator Report Out and Next Steps • Key comments, findings, and recommendations of the 6 sectors• Includes next steps (timeline to review, prepare, and disseminate report) and feedback on session

format


Attachment 1

Septeber 29, 2016

Mineral Wells, TX 1

Advanced Biofuels


ATIP Foundation Regional Bioeconomy Forums:Addressing the Challenges & Opportunities of Advancing the

Billion Ton Bioeconomy

National Sponsors


10/2007

6/2010

9/2009 5/2010

12/2008

3/2010

11/2010

6/20105/2010



Advanced Biofuels


ATIP Foundation Regional Bioeconomy Forums:“Addressing the Challenges & Opportunities of Advancing the

Billion Ton Bioeconomy”





National Sponsors



4

Todd Campbell, Senior Advisor for Energy and the Biobased Economy

USDA Rural Development

September 29, 2016

• Executive Order 13134 issued in August 1999, President Clinton launched a national Bioenergy Initiative, "a national partnership...to produce power, fuelsand chemicals from crops, trees and wastes." The Executive Order established a goal: to "triple the U.S. use of biobased products and bioenergy by 2010.“








Bioeconomy Definition

Attachment 2

Septeber 29j, 2016

Mineral Wells, TX 2

Vision and Goal of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy




• 2012 & 2030

Baseline

High‐yield













Federal Alternative Jet Fuels Research and Development Strategy

Simplified Bioeconomy Concept

11




• Advanced technologies and manufacturing







• This report aims to educate the public on the wide‐ranging, federally funded activities that are helping to bolster the bioeconomy.


• The goal of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy is to develop and provide innovative ways to remove barriers to expanding the sustainable use of Nation’s abundant biomass resources for biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower, while maximizing economic, social, and environmental outcomes.


Septeber 29j, 2016

Mineral Wells, TX 3








14

Report Outline








Initiative’• Conclusion

15







Key Opportunities



• Seek opportunities to utilize low‐cost waste resources.



17





18

Septeber 29j, 2016

Mineral Wells, TX 4


• This workshop series is intended to focus on regional issues and their specific bioeconomy‐related industries through the various state partnerships.

• The feedback gathered from these formal workshops will be used to solidify and support the Action Plan that is planned for release in FY2017.

19



• What are state/local/regional challenges to the bioeconomy?

• How can the federal agencies help address these regional challenges?

• What are state/local/regional opportunities to the bioeconomy?

• How can the federal agencies help leverage these regional opportunties?

• What is the value proposition of a bioeconomy?• How can you contribute to the Billion Ton Bioeconomy?

[email protected]


The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities

Overview and Outline of Topics

Purpose of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities Report:

In February 2016, the Board released the Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy (FARB) to highlight the potential for a stronger U.S. bioeconomy, specifically some of the impacts of increasing biomass utilization three-fold by 2030.1 The goal of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative (Bioeconomy Initiative) is to develop and coordinate innovative approaches to expanding the sustainable use of America’s abundant biomass resources, while maximizing economic, social, and environmental benefits.

Since the release of the FARB, the Board has engaged with the bioenergy stakeholder community to further develop the Bioeconomy Initiative. The new report, The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities, is the second in a three-part series intended to lay the foundation and serve as the publiccommunication of the Bioeconomy. This report is foundational to the Board's objective to strengthen the commitment and coordination between the U.S. Government and the bioeconomy community. Early feedback from stakeholders has underscored the importance of biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower. This report details several challenges and opportunities that stakeholders have identified as critical to the success of the Bioeconomy Initiative.

Summary of Challenges and Opportunities:

This report discusses seven of the high-priority challenges recognized by the bioeconomy stakeholder community, identified below:

• Major technical hurdles for development and scale.• Steep competition from traditional petroleum-derived resources.• A lack of necessary infrastructure.• Access to capital for large financial investments.• Uncertainties about sustainability—understanding environmental, social, and economic

outcomes.• Growth instability and increased investment risk caused by policy uncertainty• The need for a strong and capable workforce.


• Develop feedstock and fundamental innovations that reduce cost and technology risk inthe supply chain.

• Seek opportunities to utilize low-cost waste resources.• Quantify, communicate, and enhance beneficial effects and minimize negative impacts.

1 http://www. biomassboard. gov /pdfs/farb_2_18_16. pdf

Page 1

Attachment 3

http://www/

• Create increased publicdemand for biomass-derived products in a bioeconomy.• Develop bioproducts that can accelerate biofuel production.• Enable the testing and approval of new biofuels and bioproducts.• Expand the market potential for biomass.• Encourage private-sector financing• Support stable, long-term policies.• Ensure a ready workforce to meet the needs of the bioeconomy

Disclaimer:

The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities is a product of interagency collaboration under the Biomass Research and Development Board and does not establish any new or explicitly reflect United States Government policy. Some information is based on activities conducted by the Executive Agencies as of May 2016. However, some of the views expressed in this document reflect stakeholder perspectives and do not represent United States Government policy. This report is not a policy or budget document nor an action plan, and it does not commit the federal government to any new activities or funding.

Page 2

Attachment 3


(from Biomass R&D Board representatives)





• What is the value proposition of a bioeconomy?

• How can you contribute to the Billion Ton Bioeconomy?

Page 3

Attachment 3

1


Overview and Outline of Topics



Since the release of the FARB, the Board has engaged with the bioenergy stakeholder community to further develop the Bioeconomy Initiative. The new report, The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities, is the second in a three-part series intended to lay the foundation and serve as the public communication of the Bioeconomy. This report is foundational to the Board's objective to strengthen the commitment and coordination between the U.S. Government and the bioeconomy community. Early feedback from stakeholders has underscored the importance of biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower. This report details several challenges and opportunities that stakeholders have identified as critical to the success of the Bioeconomy Initiative.



· Major technical hurdles for development and scale. 5 · Steep competition from traditional petroleum-derived resources. 8 · A lack of necessary infrastructure. 18 · Access to capital for large financial investments. 23 · Uncertainties about sustainability—understanding environmental, social, and

economic outcomes. 1 · Growth instability and increased investment risk caused by policy uncertainty. 13 · The need for a strong and capable workforce. 17 Specific opportunities within each challenge as potential growth areas for the future of the Initiative are detailed below:

Attachment 4

Page 1

2

· Develop feedstock and fundamental innovations that reduce cost and technology risk in the supply chain. 4

· Seek opportunities to utilize low-cost waste resources. 3 · Quantify, communicate, and enhance beneficial effects and minimize negative impacts. 8 · Create increased public demand for biomass-derived products in a bioeconomy. 16 · Develop bioproducts that can accelerate biofuel production. 3 · Enable the testing and approval of new biofuels and bioproducts. 5 · Expand the market potential for biomass. 8 · Encourage private-sector financing. 11 · Support stable, long-term policies. 9 · Ensure a ready workforce to meet the needs of the bioeconomy. 11

Disclaimer:


Critical Discussion Points SW U.S. Bioeconomy Forum

Mineral Wells, TX September 29, 2016

1.What are state/local/regional challenges to the bioeconomy?

--- Root stock comes from rural, what strategy will keep it local?

--- USDA RD does allow urban areas to apply for loans, but give preference to rural areas. Can you add value to the field? Lower the cost of transportation. Processing

Attachment 4

Page 2

3

plant want to centered around center of feedstock. Rural job creations will be added. Farming is dying.

--- There are opportunities for farmer community ownership & how they score for loan guarantees.

--- Lot of work for companies mentioned. Based on cotton transport 50 miles radius. Same theory applies to biomass. Companies want a transportable product immediately.

--- Cotton goes to gin, baled, shipped & sold & shipped all over US. Not staying local.

--- There is active backlash concern over bioproducts. Education component needs to be stressed so people understand the advantages. What is petroleum industry going to say? The represent a formidable challenge.

--- The waste product stays local & applied to field. Trash being used to convert to electricity back to the grid. Challenge of is this an economically feasible track to take? Need to do research. Do they jump in?

---- Until participant got materials for forum, didn’t know what biomass was. Education needs to go back to square 1. Woody biomass is a new word to many people. Education.

---- USDA Research & movement has been tremendous. Best at producing & feeding world.

--- transportation & financial component missing. Our ability to move food makes it possible to feed the world.

--- regarding public circumventing objectives of bioenergy products, such as, stations selling gasoline without ethanol; this was done to resolve the damage done to small engines (chainsaws, etc.) Lesson to be learned is research needs to identify and prepare for unintended consequences of new products.

Comment [RJB1]: Could be lack of logistic infrastructure for biomass. Commenter cites issues with cotton, that should not go further than 50 miles because of high cost to transport.

Comment [RJB2]: Petroleum industry is powerful, especially in TX.

Comment [RJB3]: Need to inform the public on advantages of biobased.

Comment [RJB4]: Need for public campaign to inform on bioeconomy.

Comment [RJB5]: High degree of trust by participants that USDA research solves problems.

Comment [RJB6]: Insufficient financial structure to obtain funds for new venture (e.g., biomass )

Attachment 4

Page 3

4

--- Petroleum ---2 attitudes in big oil-how to lose as little money as possible with bio? Most oil company adopting those strategies. Importance of CO2. Big oil needs CO2 program. Big oil not enemy. Millions of dollars spent on biofuels. Ethanol not all for bio fuels. 2nd generation Isobutene possible alternative.

--- Improves air quality for urban areas. Beef tallow being used. Flew jet with 100% with biofuel. Sec of Navy went up in flight. 50% blend. Drop in replacement & can be interchanged with petroleum. Same molecules.

--- Funding for agencies come from federal govt. A lot in play going forward. Something to watch.

--- Workforce in the future starts in 8th grade. Stress skills needs to students & parents to learn skills for new jobs. If not, workforce won’t be there.

--- Pyrolysis of biomass mainly has three product streams: Solid (biochar), liquid (bio-oil), and gases (how to use them). Bio-oil needs to be higher quality. High oil price, how to justify to use the biofuel? High temperature pyrolysis, the gas is mainly CO & H2 which are good feedstocks for methanol. Use those gases for methanol.

--- Workforce development overemphasizes a college education. Support is needed for strong vocation programs. 40% better suited to vocational programs. Education system needs to rethink priorities.

--- State officials stated recently college & strong vocational skills are both important.

--- Last week 60 by 30 Summit-listened to state partners. Mayors, supers, business communities. Promoting CTE. He comes from TSTC. Personal background is in career & technology. Listening to supers. During LAR, created apprenticeship, working with school districts to identify someone who can go service area for career & technology. Someone in district that can be a counselor in field of trades. Supers need to do a better job of apprenticeships & trades. Kids don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel. Trade schools are meant to be an option, like a college or anything else. Great option would be trade school kids going to apprenticeship schools, 2-year community school & then a degree. Office focused on making college affordable for many kids.

Comment [RJB7]: Reference is to reduce CO2, and biofuels help.

Comment [RJB8]: Other liquid fuel possibility.

Comment [RJB9]: Value of biofuels is in reduction in carbon emissions, as drop in fuel for Navy, no problems on reliability.

Comment [RJB10]: Audience anticipates research opportunities.

Comment [RJB11]: Workforce development must start earlier in education process, not wait until secondary school or later.

Comment [RJB12]: Attendee favors pyrolysis of biomass because bi-products are high value as methanol feedstocks.

Comment [RJB13]: Focus on earlier ages.

Comment [RJB14]: Sent email to Julian Alvarez requesting clarification of acronyms.No response.

Attachment 4

Page 4

5

--- Texas is non-union state. There is a bias toward union terminology. Utilization of the term “apprentice” can bring out that bias. So state needs to educate HR community or use a different term for the labor training program.

--- 8 school districts on Johnson County, Texas. Only 2 have CTE (Career and Technical Education) programs.

--- UNT has no ag program. We are establishing a certificate program for renewable bioproducts engineering. Lots of wood industry. Looking for engineering students to know something about agriculture so they can feed well into that job market. Bioproduct engineering.

--- How do we make sure employees are prepared for using bio products? How do we connect with those workforce training programs? What needs to be focused on? How do we support?

2. How can the federal agencies help address these regional challenges?

---- One challenge is hiring practice of agencies (USDA, etc.) for graduates. Time scale is too short for window of opportunity. Federal agencies advertise internships too late. Lots of universities are very international culture. Students go into advanced studies. Can’t apply for federal jobs because they aren’t US citizens. Can’t even apply.

---- USDA-ARS is aware of these problems & are working on them. ARS is committed to a diverse workforce. I was not a US citizen when I started at ARS as a post-doctoral scientist, but was able to get a position after becoming a citizen. Will mention & are aware. Task force trying to work out in ARS to streamline applications etc.

---- Oil is in biggest bust since 2008. Lots of highly skilled workers unemployed in Texas. Bio & oil are tied at hip. Demand is down dramatically. Govt. should help more (subsidize, tariffs, taxes, incentives, cost competitive). Companies aren’t going to want to make the investments b/c of risks involved in oil dropping. My company has had 3 layoffs and other energy sectors companies continue to make cuts. There are many highly skilled people still looking for jobs.

---- Not all tariffs & taxes are viable solutions.

---- with requirements for Refining, producing, filtering, transporting etc. Biomass energy products, it does not appear that the job requirements are going to be any

Comment [RJB15]: Lack of attention in school system for trade school instruction.

Comment [RJB16]: University of North Texas is expanding training to create certificate program for renewable bioproducts engineering.

Comment [RJB17]: This could be better managed by federal agencies --- Actionable

Comment [RJB18]: Federal hiring authorities are not likely to change. These are driven by Office of Personnel Management.

Comment [RJB19]: This has been a common theme among forum participants.

Comment [RJB20]: This argues for transition training programs that Dept. of Labor, and State Workforce Development could do jointly. See supporting comments elsewhere in document.

Attachment 4

Page 5

6

different than those that currently exist in the energy sector. The type of energy workforce and skill sets needed now are the same or very similar that will be required for future bioenergy positions. HR has to be more open minded to see potential of workforce as it does exist and recognize the minimal training required to repurpose skilled workers. Job descriptions can frequently eliminate people that have transferable expertise in other industries, which takes qualified people out of job market.

--- Half people used to be with oil industry. Similar skills are overlap. Similar industries are in bioeconomy. How do we bridge gap to easily transition when petroleum sector has a lapse? Companies are trying to figure out that natural pivot. How do we close that gap to transition?

---- In Waco, a large number of troops in Ft. Hood were getting ready to be released . The Federal government in conjunction with TWC provided training on how to transition skills from Army to civilian jobs. Many workers possess the needed skills just don’t have experience in specific market. HR professionals and potential applicants need training so they are both speaking the same language.

---- Invest in research. Funding percentage is only 3%. Lots of good ideas being left on table.

---- No one hired in firm is coming from renewable energy. Pulling people with basic mechanical skills, programs skills, etc. Degrees are not required. They can be trained & learned. Products compete b/c consumers want them. Ikea wants bioplastics.

---- Spent $200,000 on bioenergy project that was not awarded. ROI is 1 in 100. Very frustrating. Would rather work with private sector than federal government.

---- Produces polysaccharide. Don’t have funding to scale up. Too many orders. Gap in funding. How do you take an entrepreneur with no funding?

---- Funding is available. What can you create from anything bio? Think more broadly about bioproducts.

---- Can waste product be used to replace antibiotics?

---- Likes to use the word “bioproducts” which encompasses biofuels, bioenergy, biochemical, and biomaterials. There are no profits in ethanol production right now because of low oil prices. This could change easily when oil prices go up. We plan on going into it when technology is available.

---- He is newer to system. Kids would love to stay in rural home area if possible as they become adults. Simple form is communication. Get info out & invest money.

Comment [RJB21]: Opportunity for developing a bridge program

Comment [RJB22]: All strong arguments for a pilot program to develop transition training that works in both directions oil->biofuel.

Comment [RJB23]: Perhaps a joint venture for partnerships between industry and federal scientists through CRADAs.

Comment [RJB24]: Opportunity for increased demand for products.

Comment [RJB25]: Opportunities for cooperative research agreements. Often at issue for industry is the high overhead structure that most universities charge.

Comment [RJB26]: SBIR – each agency has mandatory funding available to prospective grantees. Check each agency for amounts and application deadlines (e.g., USDA, DOE, DOC, DOD, EPA, …

Comment [RJB27]: See above comment.

Attachment 4

Page 6

7

Make it a part of the CTE curriculum. Come back, work and home. Simplify. In Texas, people love where they come from. Identifying where you can go.

---- Major market for wood industry. North America homes are made from 90-95% wood and wood based products. Thinking about agriculture fiber; ag fibers are as strong as wood. Utilize to replace veneer. Make structural panel to use in building. That is a direction that needs to be worked on.

---- Recently visited Forest Product lab (USDA, Forest Service, Madison, WI) & another using fiber from dairy renewal. No odor at all. Take what farmers grow & add value to them. Protein from cotton seed to show adhesive properties with a company in Mississippi. Better properties, no off gasses, better performances (mobile homes). Scientists are figuring out at ARS lab.

3. What are state/local/regional opportunities to the bioeconomy?

---- Use of marginal lands. Lots of areas that don’t have a lot of rain. Need to be able to produce vegetation specific for needs of that land.

---- Arlington Independent School District has a $663 million bond being used for partnership with Tarrant County College & their certification programs. Career and Technical Higher Education Investigations course to see if they could communicate opportunities available in areas of vocation.

---- We have coastline to look at algae production. Microalgae research. Different from other regions of the US. Look further into. Marginal lands & prime lands in eastern Texas. Terraces in forests had cotton at one time. Those forest thinning could be used as biomass & then replanted as other crops for energy. Good opportunities for east Texas.

---- Identify skilled workforce-College Credit for Heroes. Vets can look at their skills set & how they translate to civilian jobs. Can complete program or degree faster b/c of skills credits. Program will help cover the training costs. Helping businesses train workforce with new technologies. Lives in Austin. Better education is needed why communities are green. Not just warm & fuzzy. Career networking-anyone looking for bioecomomy job & identifying where those jobs are. Better build that data set. Tends to be clearing house for that type of information.

---- Funding activity opportunities there to address it. UNT establishing labs. Challenges still not fully functional b/c of lack of funds. Transfer info from lab to outside. Hard time finding support. Writing proposals.

---- Works directly w/ stakeholders & try it out at their facilities. Try to tag up with stakeholders. Indicate what money you are going to need --- piques industries interests.

Comment [RJB28]: www.ars.usda.gov; https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=agriculturalresearchservicears&query=fiber+research&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0&btnG=Go%21

Comment [RJB29]: This appears to be a unique opportunity to TX and the adjacent states. Contact ATIP Foundation if assistance is needed to facilitate this issue and explore opportunities.

Comment [RJB30]: http://www.twc.state.tx.us/jobseekers/college-credit-heroes

Comment [RJB31]: https://www.unt.edu/search-results?search=bioeconomy&sa=Search

Attachment 4

Page 7

http://www.ars.usda.gov/

https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=agriculturalresearchservicears&query=fiber+research&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0&btnG=Go%21




8

---- Curious about marginal land development & development of algae. Any way to use prickly pear cactus?

---- Mesquite & invasive species hard to get rid of, but not economical. Could create a market for that biomass. Doesn’t have to make a lot of money. Sorghum is drought tolerate. ARS in California is looking at desert shrub & dandelion to commercialize very low water use. Makes natural rubber required by aviation jets for high performance tires.

---- Guayule is a natural rubber crop, that is fits well for the southern region (southern Texas, new Mexico and Arizona). I am currently working at Arid Land Agricultural Research Center (ALARC), Maricopa, Arizona to improve rubber production, and adaptation to grow in desert area. As well i am working on improving the industrial oil crops, camelina and brassicas, for non-food, bioenergy purposes including biodiesel and Hydrotreated Renewable Jet Fuels. to grow in stress conditions (drought and hot conditions). In general we are looking for crops that can be accommodated in this area (marginal, semi-arid and arid land). We need to think out of the box for these crops. Arid lands will be good for non-food non-traditional crops. Cotton uses lots of water.

---- 30 million acres of mesquites in this part of Texas. How do you economically harvest it? Problem. Look at the practicality of that. Do it in a sustainable fashion. Need a return on the energy inputs we put in it.

---- Cooperative research & development encouraged.

4. How can the federal agencies help leverage these regional opportunities?

5. What is the value proposition of a bioeconomy?

6. How can you contribute to the Billion Ton Bioeconomy? Additional Regional Discussion Points for Consideration

(from ATIP Foundation)

a) From the “Challenges” section of the above document, what would you list as the 3 highest priorities to discuss and address from the SW region?

From that same list, what SHOULD be added to that list from our regional perspective? Does it change your prioritization scheme? (1=most important)

Comment [RJB32]: http://gizmodo.com/this-humble-cactus-could-help-power-our-drought-stricke-1715966241

Comment [RJB33]: https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sc=0&query=Guayule&m=&affiliate=agriculturalresearchservicears&commit=Search

Comment [RJB34]: https://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sc=0&query=hydrotreated+renewable+jet+fuel&m=&affiliate=agriculturalresearchservicears&commit=Search

Attachment 4

Page 8

9

b) From the “Opportunities” section of the above document, is anything missing from the list, and how would you prioritize these issues (1=most important)

c) What sets the Southwest / Southcentral Bioeconomy apart from other regions of the country? What inherent advantages do you have? What regulatory issues constrain success? What incentives would help advance business opportunities to advance the bioeconomy?

d) What other biomass would you like to consider in the discussion of advancing the bioeconomy? Animal wastes / carcasses / concentrated animal feeding operations? Municipal landfill biorefineries? Others?

---- Wild pig problem in Texas. Develop land into farms & use pigs for something other than shooting practice.

---- Lignocellulosic bioenergy crops & pulpwood

---- By-products of processes from, e.g.,, sweet sorghum processing for bioproducts. Many, of the by-products area rich in starch or protein, and can add value to many other products. It is very important to to add value in any part of the supply chain that is amenable.

---- Anything that leaves your house as waste should be on the list.

---- What can we do with waste that improves product?

---- Oklahoma is going to prohibit the injection of produced water from fracking b/c of seismic activity.

e) What impact does the Texas oil industry / economy have on advancing the bioeconomy? How might that shape your implementation of expanding the bioeconomy in this region.

---- They are distributing product for any fuel product we produce. Embrace as partner.

---- When the booms are happening in Oil & Gas, those companies are a competitor for resources (steel, labor).

---- This is going to have to be an incredibly inclusive approach. Have you seen ads for cars that are driving themselves? DOD has unmanned vehicles already & now it’s moving into what we’re doing. Doing concepts that general public is unaware of. Where is this research going to take us? Be an early adapter. Is what we’re doing in alignment with agencies?

Comment [RJB35]: A measure of the marketplace reality on fossil fuels and renewable carbon fuels and bioproducts.

Comment [RJB36]: Describing a role of a neutral 3rd party (non-government) intermediary to facilitate partnerships.

Attachment 4

Page 9

10

---- Every industry moves everything from point a to b. All industry clusters. Who has the pipelines & trucks to move stuff? You can make it here, but you’ve got to get it there to sell it.

---- Water transportation for irrigation of bioproducts and removal of process water are large expenses. Why not create a pipeline system to transport water. This system could help reduce long-term droughts and pump water away from flood zones along the Mississippi. Between the government and insurance companies billions of dollars are spent each year on natural disasters. Money that is currently being budgeted for those disasters could be used to repay loans for the construction of the pipeline system.

---- Has product that cleans water in place.

The comments concerning produced water from active oil and gas wells and water returned to the surface after fracturing, are not correct. Pipelines and transport trucks are expensive and time consuming. Our company has developed mobile equipment that treats this water at the location so that it may be used for agricultural or other useful purposes. There are several companies working on similar technologies that will yield useable water at the wellsite. Shortly, it will no longer be necessary to move these large quantities of water.

---- How do we access labs USDA has? How do we locate product we know there is a need for?

---- License & patents & publications are available about technology. Research outcomes.

---- The federal resources are immense, but it is a challenge.

---- Perhaps this a pilot for this region. Assemble products available. GA group decided to meet yearly. Might involve agencies that have a piece of this.

--- Valuable? Or not? Almost all in group agreed. Hopefully will bring more people back.

---- Any similarities of difference from GA?

---- Don’t want one to influence another. More economic development here. More paper & pulp industry there. Aviation biofuel was better represented there.

--- Regions are very different. Pulp & paper a major focus there. Seattle will be different. They are going to need to take advantage of the resources there.

Comment [RJB37]: http://www.buzzfile.com/business/Pump-and-Coil-Tubing-940-327-8189

Comment [RJB38]: Partnership intermediaries function to facilitate cooperative interactions toward common goals.

Comment [RJB39]: Attendees in the Mineral Wells, TX, bioeconomy forum should consider self organizing to develop an action plan for further engagement and development of functional partnerships. ATIP Foundation can assist, if Mineral Wells participants would like to purpose options for engaging federal / state entities toward advancing the bioeconomy in the SW U.S.

Comment [RJB40]: Notes from all 5 regional forums will be available to participants in all forums by end of November. www.atipfoundation.com.

Attachment 4

Page 10

http://www.atipfoundation.com/

11

---- Forum similar to “Bake to the Future”. Garbage make the car run. Chicken soup out of chicken poop.

---- Chinese companies using bamboo to make pipe. UNT is currently working on a winding process.

SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES

--- Education customers & stakeholders what biomass is.

--- Need a viable bioproduct enterprise available. Economic climate has to be available to move forward. Needs incentive, research, financing, policy (dysfunctional energy policy). Hard to get investment if new administration that is going to turn everything upside down. Predictability in policy needed. Establish fed task force to establish regional bioproduct project. No red tape. Put structure in.

--- Federal government can help the bio-economy industry by providing tax credits that will create equity needed to finance the projects. To finance any project, the lenders require 30-40% equity. If tax credits were structured similar to the New Market Tax Credit and the Renewable Energy Certificates, then the bio-economy industry would be able to obtain the needed equity to fund the projects.

--- Identify what the infrastructure will need to be. Before we have capital or workforce for that matter.

---- Federal agencies must put biomass info on their websites. Can’t be advertised on TV . Very eye catching verbiage to make people aware of bioecomomy.

--- DOE & requests for proposals that come out that deal with development to prove scale of what you need. Proposals need 50% match. Companies don’t have that much. That is a huge hurdle that smaller companies. Reduce or eliminate match. Actionable.

--- Bring Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) in as partnerships. Bio-economy is a new concept to those offices; however, they have the resources available to connect experts in the industry for them to be consultants in the development and growth of any project.

--- We’re lacking the info in the community in order to grow a business.

--- Dealing with generation that environmentally conscious. Look at where opportunities are for field they are interested in. Fed agencies think about how to convey information.

Comment [RJB41]: A primary recommendation.

Comment [RJB42]: Attendees suggest a pilot project with the White House and BR&D agencies, and adding Departments of Labor and Education to pilot a project of training / retraining oil/biofuel workers, defining incentives needed to advance the bioeconomy, and

Comment [RJB43]: 2nd specific recommendation.

Comment [RJB44]: Authorization restrictions – dissimilar from NASA authority where expenditure of federal funds to advertise are allowed.

Comment [RJB45]: One approach would be to form public-private partnerships where private sector can contribute funds toward matching requirements. If done under a CRADA, then private sector contributor also has first right of refusal to negotiate an EXCLUSIVE license to any technology (intellectual property) developed under the partnership.

Comment [RJB46]: Mineral Wells participants should consider adding this dimension to a pilot. Bringing in Department of Commerce, along with Department of Labor, and Department of Education would be the most comprehensive partnership among federal agencies, given that BR&D Board includes 7 other agencies plus the Office of the White House..

Attachment 4

Page 11

12

--- Industry that is along coast, discussed programs re: industrial waste feeding algae ponds, but co doesn’t want to open permits for research project. EPA to agree to partner with research in earlier stage.

--- Bring DOL in now. Get national office in during emerging opportunities.

--- Chief of Staff w/ DOL wasn’t aware of forums. Education & communication critical to implement this plan? Fair statement? Yes.

--- Difficult for hospitals to find staff to manage labs basically because of regulatory job experience requirements. Yet lab manager duties in other industries are very similar and the regulations eliminate otherwise qualified candidates. Bioenergy will be highly regulated industry so it will be important to get the regulators involved early on so that they do not unnecessarily restrict the labor pool for these new industries.

--- People love to see successes. Start a pilot project? You have to do more. USDA & agencies USDA has discretionary funds available. Different mechanisms are available, but leadership needs to know about it.

--- Looking for partners early on in this process.

--- Shuttered biogas facility in Stephenville. Produced lots of BTUs. Company went bankrupt. Lots of plants like that across US. What makes it a profitable business again? How to be more cost effective? Can we use infrastructure already in place?

--- Worked with a project related to biofuel, was cutting edge. Unheard of at that time. Project fell apart based on finance. $17 million plant for 1 purpose. Consumers needs to be educated. Lender going to have a hard time with viability startup of new product. Needs to be very clear education of product & value. Needs access to capital. Partners needs to understand.

SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES

--- All are important & interlinked.

This Region---

--- Level of fossil fuel (energy sector) business is greater than anywhere else.

--- We need to separate between the use of food & non-food (bioenergy and industrial) crops, and where we can grow each group. Southern region has the high potential to grow new non-traditional, non-food, bioenergy crops in its marginal land.

Comment [RJB47]: See previous comments by RJB of ATIP Foundation.

Comment [RJB48]: This highlights importance of forum series by ATIP Foundation in assisting to establish a unique pilot project with many federal agencies in the SW U.S. area.

Attachment 4

Page 12

13

--- The word south means hot & humid. Should be more careful b/c of heat. Stabilize feed stock.

--- The region is a preferential bioenergy crops (east TX to LA) & across the south. SE quad of US is best location for bioenergy crops.

NEXT STEPS

Draft summary will be sent. Input requested. Want to be as accurate as possible. Time frame to respond will be given.

Make sure we have accurately collected thoughts & comments. Coming in raw state. Please add & edit. Final report will not include names with comments.

ATIP Foundation: How many will be willing to reconvene in a year? All agreed.

Todd Campbell: Thank you for coming. Appreciate ATIP & local host to bring group together. We want this to be an honest discuss back & forth. We are trying to go through this in a deliberate back & forth. Want an honest look at different regions. Feedback has been great. Interested in seeing final report.

Comment [RJB49]: Compliments of latitude, sunshine, warmth, and precipitation.

Attachment 4

Page 13


1 | P a g e


A Report to Participants in the NE Regional Bioeconomy Forum

Wells Conference Center, University of Maine (co-hosts) Orono, ME

October 18, 2016 Wes Jurey, Foundation CEO, and R.J. Brenner, Director, ATIP Foundation

Background

In late 2013, the seven agencies and the Office of the President that constitute the Biomass Research and Development Board,1 (BR&DB) began development of a vision to promote the expansion of the bioeconomy. With the projection that this nation, by 2020, will sustainably produce a billion tons of biomass annually, the “Vision” was published as the "Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy," (known as FARB) released by USDA Under Secretary Cathie Woteki at the 2016 Advanced Bioeconomy Leadership Conference in Washington, D.C. (February). “The goal of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy Vision is to develop and implement innovative approaches to remove barriers to expanding the sustainable use of America’s abundant biomass resources, while maximizing economic, social, and environmental outcomes.” BR&DB engaged the ATIP Foundation in September 2015 to arrange and convene several regional listening sessions.

Separately, during the month of April, 2016 USDA and DOE co-led some informal “listening sessions” at three major conferences: 2016 International Biomass Conference and Expo in Charlotte, NC (April 11-14); World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology in San Diego, CA (April 17-20); and the Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals in Baltimore, MD (April 25-28). In addition, a webinar on the Vision was conducted jointly by USDA and DOE on May 5, 2016. Input garnered from these events helped shape a subsequent document, tentatively titled “The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities,” released in November 2017 by the BR&D Board (for a copy, go to http://www.biomassboard.gov/pdfs/the_bioeconomy_initiative.pdf ).

The rationale and strategy for these reports, and purpose for the public gatherings was published in a USDA a blog, including the Vision and the scope of the listening sessions designed to ”… gather information and engage stakeholders on how to build and grow the “Billion Ton Bioeconomy.” (http://blogs.usda.gov/2016/04/27/growing-and-building-the-billion-ton-bioeconomy/) Regional Bioeconomy Stakeholder Forums The federal agencies contracted with the ATIP Foundation --- a non-profit consortium of State Economic Development organizations --- to develop and co-host with a coordinating entity, a series of regional Bioeconomy Forums to garner input from a broad range of stakeholders on the Challenges & Opportunities to help shape a “multiyear implementation plan,” expected to be prepared by the Biomass R&D Board during the second quarter of the fiscal year 2017, submitted to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). 1 The Biomass R&D Board consists of representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Transportation, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Executive Office of the President of the United States.




2 | P a g e

Forums were convened in the SE U.S with Georgia Tech as co-host (September 16, Renewable Bioproducts Institute, Atlanta, GA), in the SW. U.S with the Mineral Wells Chamber of Commerce, Mineral Wells, TX, (September 29, Holiday Hills Country Club, 4801 Highway 180 East, Mineral Wells, TX), in PNW with Washington State University as co-host (October 3, Sea-Tac Conference center, Sea-Tac airport), in NE U.S. co-hosted by The University of Maine, Orono (October 18 ), and in the MW U.S. , co-hosted by The Ohio State University (Schisler Conference Center, Wooster, OH, November 15). Co-hosts arranged for the meeting room, a modest noon meal, and a dedicated note taker with real-time display so the participants could verify their remarks. The goal of each Bioeconomy Forum was to bring together a mix of stakeholders (about 40-60 participants) from six sectors to seek their input, relative to the initiative’s vision, strategies, and implementation. These sectors are (1) industry; (2) state and local government; (3) economic and workforce development; (4) investment & finance; (5) academia; and (6) agricultural and environmental organizations. Co-hosts, with the assistance of BR&D Operations Committee, derived the list of by-invitation-only participants. Forum Structure and Role of the Foundation and Co-hosts The NE U.S. Bioeconomy Forum was moderated by Wes Jurey, CEO of the ATIP Foundation. Members of the BR&DB Operations Committee made presentations that reviewed the FARB and posed questions related to advancing the bioeconomy. Table 1: Demographics by sector describe the demographics of invitees by sector, and the actual number that participated on October 18, 2016. As has been the case in the regional bioeconomy forum series, both industry and investment & finance have low positive response rates (or few participants) to invitation to participate.

The agenda (Attachment 1) included welcoming comments by the ATIP Foundation, BR&DB representatives, and Mr. Fred Jarrett, Senior Deputy Executive, King County, and representatives from the offices of Senator Susan Collins, and Senator Angus King, and introductory comments also by Dr. Carl Lucero, U.S. Forest Service. Slide set presentation was made by the ATIP Foundation followed by Alison Goss-Eng (Bioenergy Technologies Office, DOE) with assistance from Todd Campbell (USDA) (Attachment 2). In addition, a “discussion document” was provided to

Sector Designation Invited% of

invitedNo.

Participated%RSVP to

Attend% of

Attendees

Industry 42 51 12 29 24State and local government 13 16 13 100 26

Economic and workforce development 4 5 4 100 8Investment & finance 6 7 3 50 6

Academia 13 16 13 100 26Agricultural and environmental 4 5 5 125 10

Totals 82 100 50 61 100

Table 1. Demographics (by sector) of invitees and participants, convened by ATIP Foundation and co-host University of Maine for NE Regional Bioeconomy Forum, October 18, 2016.


3 | P a g e

the participants (Attachment 3). The remainder of the day consisted exclusively of stakeholder attendees from the six sectors participating in discussions on these “discussion document” questions. Notes were taken (attributed to the commenter) on the fly by Renee Kelly, Assistant Vice President for Innovation and Economic Development University of Maine, and Director of Economic Development Initiatives & Co-Director of the Foster Student Innovation Center, Orono, ME, who projected these so all participants could review and correct as needed. The audio was also recorded from a laptop in case it was needed later to clarify comments. Post forum, participants received a link to a Google Document and a two-week window to edit their specific comments, or add additional comment. Thereafter, the document was closed and the ATIP Foundation reviewed comments, clarified with authors as needed, redacted all names of comment contributors (rendering the comments “non-attribute,” and annotated with comments (RJB) from the Foundation. The document is presented (Attachment 4) as a record of the forum and it includes participant prioritizations of each “challenge” and “opportunity” --- from their perspective --- to determine whether each was in the top 3 priorities of the NE U.S. Figure 1a (below) reflects their perspective on these “Challenges”.

Having “access to capital for large financial investments” was considered to be the highest priority challenge in the NE (22.5%). Major technical hurdles for development and scale” was second (18.3%), with “growth instability & increased investment risk cause by policy uncertainty” and “steep competition from traditional petroleum-derived resources” tied for 3rd highest priority (17.5%).


4 | P a g e


The participants in Maine concluded that their top priority opportunities were a to develop pathways to (a) encourage private-sector financing, (b) support stable, long-term policies and (c) ensure a ready workforce to meet the needs of the bioeconomy; their score was 29.6%. Their other top two priorities were to “expand the market potential for biomass” and to quantify, communicate, and enhance beneficial effects and minimize negative impacts (19.8% each). Notably, participants had no interest to “seek opportunities to utilize low-cost waste resources,” ostensibly because of an abundance of woody biomass and the regional use for heat.


Preface from the ATIP Foundation:

The NE Regional Bioeconomy Forum was unique among the five regional forums in the amount of questions and discussion that followed the welcoming remarks and preceded the formal presentations on the bioeconomy by the federal agencies, and the subsequent discussion by attendees. Attachment 4 includes over 5 pages of these preliminary comments from the participants (thank you note takers!). Accordingly, the Foundation recommends careful review of these notes as a precursor to the “Critical Discussion Points” conversations that occurred subsequently and are highlighted below. Specifically, the Foundation has provided many


5 | P a g e

explanatory notes and internet URLs to address some of these comments raised in the preliminary comments.

Regarding the “Critical Discussion Point” session, there were a number of comments from the NE region that characterized regional issues, but also many comments that were fairly common issues across the 5 regional forums. Below, are non-attribute comments from participants, as well as notations by the ATIP Foundation; the latter are preceded below by “[NOTE:…],” and are also reflected in Attachment 4 as “Comment[RJB#].

“What are state/local/regional challenges to the bioeconomy and how can the federal agencies help address these regional challenges?”

• We need help scaling up from lab and bench scale – we need public private partnerships • The private portion of the public/private partnership need to have representation from both the demand

and the supply side. How can they better manage the valley of death. o Note: the ATIP Foundation can assist in either / or any of these issues described in these first 2

bullets. Email [email protected] for further assistance. • Not doing a good enough job communicating to public - difficult to find the federal dollars to do that, for

example, tall wood buildings in Boston, why and how it will benefit, public health, climate change, synthesize so we can communicate the story.

• Engineered wood products are a fine example of what we should be looking at as crucial building blocks of a bioeconomy that is not only sustainable but strengthen communities and serves such an improved profile for the region’s long term economic health.

o Note: Opportunity to partner with state PR, Chamber of Commerce, and federal agencies on successes? Communication appears to be a common theme from the Orono forum.

• 30% tax credit for biomass ends this year; continues for others, lack of certainty is difficult for investments.

o Note: Lack of stable and predictable policy and incentives have been a common theme across all 5 forums.

Comments on “What are state/local/regional opportunities to the bioeconomy and how can the federal agencies help leverage these regional opportunities?

• Consistent, identified agency point people ideally located in Maine. • Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act calls for alignment, Department of Labor and Education need

to be here. o Note: Excellent point, and both DOL and Dept. of Education are NOT part of the BR&D Board.

It makes sense to pilot their inclusion. We suggest a dialogue with USDA Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics who co-chairs the BR&D Board; ATIP Foundation can help with that.

• Educate public about value of bioeconomy to environment and rural economy led by marketing. • We need to state facts that tell the long-term story of the importance of a sound forest products

industry to the region in both economic and environmental terms. For many the use of corn for fuel is not seen as an environmental problem. However ask the same question about forest

mailto:[email protected]


6 | P a g e

products coming from natural forests managed under third party certification and the simple act of cutting a tree, regardless of the true sustainability is viewed as a negative outcome for many.

• Further the rural economies of so many Northern Forest towns once thrived on the woods and can again, especially when you consider the impact of multiple use and how that deepens the economic vitality of a town or region.

• We need to develop a more effective narrative on this based on well done research and very well developed and presented marketing. The public really has to buy in to wood and any biomass feedstock use before we can move the bioeconomy forward in my view.

• We need private public partnership to communicate benefits • Education for the workforce; there is an aging workforce in logging, equipment, operations. Need

skills training. [Commenter’s] truck drivers are all older than he is. Need to keep kids in rural areas. Community College created program for 15 wind turbines but not for logging in Aroostook.

• Maine uses natural forest management, but regulators reward plantation style management because ours is harder to quantify, agencies should look to reward natural management with higher renewable credits

How is the health of the venture capital in this region?

• No shortage of capital if we come up with deals that look good, need to work out a process to develop success stories of converting to biomass energy to show investment yields return.

• Biomass processing should be done as close to the stump as possible to reduce transportation but shifts in how we move materials to market, can DOT help us re-engineer?

• Deep water port to Europe --- we have it, but how do we take advantage of that since there is no rail line there

o Note: Infrastructure was a key discussion in Orono because of geography, lack east-west connections, and being at the “end” of the NE corridor.

• New diesel emissions standards EPA Tier 4 trucks aren’t reliable. It’s a big problem. o Note: The Foundation suggests that EPA be invited into discussions on next NE Regional

Bioeconomy Forum.

What sets the NE Bioeconomy apart from other regions of the country? What inherent advantages do you have?

• Currently supply and a well-developed infrastructure for forest management. Likely a less impactful results, at least short-term from climate change. Think fires out west and other weather and health related impacts in the southern US. The supply issue is driven as noted earlier by the decline in the pulp and paper industry leaving a large source of forest products available.

• The region has a high concentration of education institutions; • Tremendous amount of innovation and entrepreneurship; • Natural resource management and bioproducts advantage, continual need to weed, material that gets left

in the forest --- pre-commercial thinning material is an opportunity available to the bioeconomy”


7 | P a g e

What regulatory issues (or other) constrain success? • Many. Upstate NY and New England are not friendly to heavy industry like big biofuels plants. Good

reasons to let the South have those and focus on small scale distributed approaches. • Transportation, need a regional study, regional infrastructure policy to reduce costs

o Goal here is that we need both enhanced systems for trucks and rail, but also a consistent set of regulations for transportation across the 4 Northern Forest states and Quebec.

“What does success look like in the MW bioeconomy?

• Zero use of fuel oil for heating • Great silviculture and forest management, with markets • Full employment so kids can stay in rural areas • Connectivity of biomass into the [electric] grid • Every landowner participating if they want to – even a small woodlot • Double or triple enrollment in the University’s forestry school • Would like to see that a logger can get pine logs to the mill, pulp to the paper plant, and biomass to a

biomass processer. • Respect for foresters and landowners, credit for environmental and other benefits of the bioeconomy

industry in Maine.

What incentives would help you? • We need some way to provide price stability. Analogy to corn, milk, cotton, and rice supports. USDA

knows some things about these things. Throwing massive federal grants at investors, or conducting masses of unfocused basic research haven’t worked very well and won’t until we faced the price volatility problem squarely.

• Capital gains on forest land - current tax policy is a liability for maintenance of forest lands and promotes liquidation

• Federal tax policy is a disincentive to long-term stewardship as capital gains are not indexed to inflation. Further there are other elements of the tax code that reward short-term owners and penalize long-term ownerships. We need to integrate other government policies to create a better economic climate for the ownership, management and harvesting of timberland. … carrots not sticks will serve this bioeconomy project very well.

• Change definition of renewable credits to allow forest biomass from naturally regenerating forests.

Would you support a recommendation to agencies to put grants out that insists on collaborative partnerships and structures 2-3 year with outcomes then phases out?

• Group consensus: yes • More beneficial to filter money through existing community development organizations for impact. • We need industry roadmap to success, legislative support, with university

o Note: recommendation to the BRDB. • The Northeast is a mega region, 20% US population; build for a regional market as an advantage. Need

regional economic allies.


8 | P a g e

What other biomass would you like to consider in the discussion of advancing the bioeconomy? Animal wastes / carcasses / concentrated animal feeding operations / seafood industry wastes? Municipal landfill biorefineries? Others?

• Municipal wastes, dairy and forest “products” and bi-products (don’t use the word “waste” because it has a negative image). Have a broad definition, such as “anything that can be grown ….” And then work on criteria.

• Aquaculture and fisheries wastes should be considered – there are lots of these

As a region, how can you enhance your bioeconomy through new partnerships in the region, or on a more global basis?

• federal agencies through Maine Forest Products Council • Integration on both sides, across federal family and long-term commitment • Roadmap partnership with industry and university, spruce budworm task force is a model for how this

could work. Also look to benchmark what the Canadians across the border have been doing (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency;

o Note: see 3 URLs on page 14 of notes from Forum.) • We have unique situation because of the amount of privately held land. … We are an importer of woods,

but now markets have diminished (but we are still importers of certain species of the wood). When policies change in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York change, it affects them here. Are scrambling to fill some markets that we have here?

• Need rail in this area for infrastructure. No major national rail carriers in this area. Most are small lines that have high turnover. … The rail system must be enhanced to address the costs of rail transport due to multiple rail carriers and the “switching” costs from one carrier to the next.

• Ports. What are the barriers? Underutilized, from a regional standpoint. Regional transmission of electricity, northern Maine is not connected.


NE Regional Bio-Economy Forum Summary Wes Jurey, CEO, ATIP Foundation



The Foundation was incorporated by eight state and regional technology-based economic development organizations, each individually serving as a federal partnership intermediary to USDA’s ARS, with many members


9 | P a g e

also having facilitation agreements with other federal agencies, as well as their own network of-instate / regional non-federal stakeholders on many aspects of federal / private sector partnerships.



From the Foundation's perspective, based on the response from forum participants, we believe our premise is sound. At the conclusion of the Northeast forum, participants were unanimous in support of reconvening in a year, and working to formulate a specific demonstration project tailored to their region in the interim.


First, the need for public awareness is considered a major challenge. At the beginning of the forum, there was significant discussion on what the bioeconomy actually was, beyond biofuel.


Third, the need to develop a talent pipeline for current and future workers was a strong concern. It was noted that although seven federal agencies were members of the BR&D Board, the Departments of Education & Labor were not engaged at the federal level.






10 | P a g e

In conclusion, the Foundation looks forward to working with the University of Maine and the participants in the initial forum, to expand the stakeholder base, in order to begin the development of a regional demonstration project.



11 | P a g e


Northeast Bioeconomy ATIP Forum Summary Renee Kelly

Hemant Pendse Stephen Shaler

Regional Co-Hosts University of Maine

The meeting was held on October 18, 2016 at the University of Maine. Forty-five participants represented all stakeholders of the forest-based economy in Maine. Sectors represented included forest landowners, pulp and paper mills, forest and bioproducts-related trade associations, state agencies (economic development, labor), federal agencies (USDA, DOE), University researchers, consultants, biomass energy producers, sawmills, environmental and other nonprofit organizations, investment and finance organizations and federal delegation staffers. One participant was from SUNY/ESF in New York with experience in woody bioenergy crops.

This meeting was held in juxtaposition with the current Economic Development Assessment Team (EDAT) process led by the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration, which is focused on the forest-based economy in Maine. As such, the forum was timely and highly relevant with excellent representation from various stakeholder groups. The time frame of participant concerns and interests was predominantly immediate and near-term. The focus on forest-based aspects of the bioeconomy is particularly relevant for New England and northern New York - the landscape of which is predominantly forested.

Four themes emerged as consensus takeaways:

1. Maine’s (and New England) forestland is sustainably managed and harvested, relying on natural-growth rather than plantation forestry. Sustainable biomass from Maine’s forest needs to be treated fairly in federal definitions relevant to RFS2 compliance and qualification for RIN credits. This issue applies to the entire Northern Forest Region that includes Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York. Tree residue from unmerchantable trees can provide sustainable biomass complementing slash, pre-commercial thinning and chipmill or sawmill wastes. The fact that naturally regenerated forests have no GMO stigma is a competitive advantage for selected markets.

2. Wood supply logistics in Maine and New England have not been globally competitive. Investment and policy changes are needed to improve rail, port, and trucking transportation infrastructure. This infrastructure is critical to sawlog, wood fiber, as well as biomass supply chains as well as to cost-competitive export of bio-based products to domestic and international markets.

3. An industrial eco-system exists for forest-based bioproducts that is characterized by extremely high utilization rates of all materials and significant business-to-business relationships. The success of new bioproducts will require an understanding of and integration within this cluster. Significant opportunity exists for co-product portfolios that include nanocellulose and/or cellulosic sugars using biomass feed. C6 or C5 sugar monomers can be used for conversion to biofuels and/or bioplastics. Cellulose nanofibers (CNF), more commonly called nanocellulose, offer emerging opportunities for use in a wide variety of applications such as polymer reinforcement, food packaging, 3D printing resins, adhesives, biocomposites, textiles, lightweight structural components, tissue implants, and foams. Targeted programs to support technology scale-up and deployments are key to de-risk new technologies and attract capital investment required for new manufacturing infrastructure.


12 | P a g e

4. With the recent loss of several pulp mills and biomass power plants, more than 3 million green tons of biomass - with an established logistics system - is available for new products/markets. A key for establishment of new manufacturing facilities will be the attraction of capital investments.

Near-term coordination with the Maine EDAT process will be very effective in providing Maine forest communities much needed economic development assistance, while laying a foundation for continued evolution of the forest bioeconomy for the Northeast region.

---- End of report ----




Attachment 4: non-attribute notes w/ comments (RJB annotated)



NW Regional Bioeconomy Forum Orono Maine Forum Agenda

“Garnering stakeholder perspectives and input to help shape the vision, strategic planning, and implementation to promote and expand the bioeconomy”

Date: October 18, 2016 Time: 9 AM – 4 PM (local time) Location: Wells Conference Center, University of Maine, Orono

Meeting Purpose: To introduce the “Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy,” and the sub sequent “Bioeconomy Challenges and Opportunities for the Billion Ton Vision” report and to hear from stakeholders in (1) industry; (2) state and local government; (3) economic and workforce development; (4) investment & finance; (5) academia; and (6) agricultural and environmental organizations, in order to accelerate the development of the bioeconomy.

8:30 AM – Registration / Check in


• Dr. Susan Hunter, President, the University of Maine• Wes Jurey, Chairman, ATIP Foundation• Carl F. Lucero, Director, Landscape Restoration & Ecosystem Services Research, U.S.

Forest Service• Alison Goss Eng, BR&D Board, Operations Committee (Bioenergy Technologies Office, Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy)• Todd Campbell, BR&D Board, Operations Committee (Senior Energy Adviser, US Department of

Agriculture)

10:00 Overview of “Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy”, and “Bioeconomy Challenges and

Opportunities for the Billion Ton Vision” (1 hr.)

• Presentation by Todd Campbell, BR&D Board, Operations Committee (Senior Energy Advisor,U.S. Department of Agriculture), and Alison Goss Eng, Bioenergy Technologies Office, EnergyEfficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, and


11:00 AM–3:45 PM—Stakeholder Comments and Discussion

12:30 PM—Working Lunch

4:00 PM–4:30 PM—Facilitator Report Out and Next Steps • Key comments, findings, and recommendations of the 6 sectors• Includes next steps (timeline to review, prepare, and disseminate report) and feedback on session format


Attachment 1

Attachment 2 12/26/2016

NE Bioeconomy Forum Presentations (Oct. 18, 2016) 1

Advanced Biofuels




National Sponsors


10/2007

6/2010

9/2009 5/2010

12/2008

3/2010

11/2010

6/20105/2010



Advanced Biofuels








National Sponsors

Advanced Biofuels




NE Regional Bioeconomy ForumOctober 18, 2016, Wells Conference Center

‐‐‐‐ Regional Co‐hosts and Sponsors ‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐ National Sponsors ‐‐‐‐

[email protected] 410.980.1943

The Future Forest Bioeconomy

Carl F. LuceroDirector, Landscape Restoration &

Ecosystem Services Research U.S. Forest Service R&D HQ

A WORKER’S DAY IN 2050

Unfold the Future – The Forest Fiber Industry ‐ 2050 Roadmap to a Low‐Carbon Bio‐Economy, CEPI 2011

10/18/2016 Northeast Bioeconomy Forum 6



ManufacturingTechnology

ManualLabor

ManualLabor







A Forest Based Bioeconomy• Renewable polymers from

trees are performance polymers.

• There is significant use of renewable polymers based on their performance; we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

• Researchers need to demonstrate the performance of renewable polymers in order for it to become a commercial success.


Lignin as antishrinkage agent in battery

Hitachi printed circuit board using lignin epoxy resin

Before AfterLignin as stain dispersant

Countless applications for lignin

Countless applications for cellulose

Cellulose ester

Cellulose food additives

Transient Electronics


Structure

CNF Substrate

Flexible

It works!

Biodegradable

12% weight loss after 84 days

Jung et al, Nature Communications, 6:7170, 2015

Cellulose Nanofibril Foam Board Startup


Cellulose Nanofibril

CNF‐Reinforced Open‐Cell Foam

Founded Resolution Research Inc. in 2014

Received Maine Technology Institute SEED Grant in 2015

Received Maine Technology Institute Business Accelerator Award in 2015

Received National Science Foundation STTR Grant in 2015

Commercial Products Containing CNM(Japan)


CNM Protective Coating for FruitsOregon State University


Week 0 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

Uncoated

Coated



Potential Products from Cellulose


Aalto UniversityMedical Diagnosis

Uni. of QueenslandSuper‐Thin Latex

PioneerFlexible Screen

Luleå University of Technology Water Filtration

KFRI Foldable Battery

CelluTechUltra Thin Loudspeaker

ARLElectrospun Fiber

Chalmers Uni./WWSC 3‐D BioPrinting

A Tree is a Factory Making Renewable Bio‐Materials

• Trees produce renewable materials from atmospheric GHG (carbon dioxide and water) with solar energy

• Atmospheric carbon is stored in trees and woody products

• Wood based nanomaterials are recyclable.

• Net zero carbon emission on a human time scale.

• Wood based bio‐materials can displace petroleum intensive materials with lower carbon footprint.

10/18/2016 14Northeast Bioeconomy Forum

CO2 + H2O Photo Synthesis Plant Material Stores Carbon

Carbon Dioxide

Water

Oxygen

Water

Megacenters 2050

Great Lakes• Pop 18%• GDP 17%

Northeast• Pop 17%• GDP 20%

S. Calif.• Pop 8%• GDP 7%

TX Triangle• Pop 6%• GDP 7%

Piedmont• Pop 6%• GDP 4%

Florida• Pop 6%• GDP 5%

Gulf Coast• Pop 4%• GDP 4%

N. Calif.• Pop 5%• GDP 5%

Arizona• Pop 2%• GDP 2%

Cascade• Pop 3%• GDP 3%

Front Range• Pop 2%• GDP 2%

www.america2050.org


2050 Will Be a Forest Based Bioeconomy

• As long as there are humans using something from the forest there will be forest products.

• Countries with established high volume forest products industry are also countries with sustained or increasing forest area.

• In 2050, everything will be a forest product.



WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU





Cellulose Nanomaterials Development in Japan

• Inter‐Ministerial coordination

• Tied‐in to multiple national strategies– Japan’s national revitalization

strategy– National new technology

development strategy– GHG emission reduction

targets– The pulp and paper industry’s

redesign for the future• User sectors play a major

role


21 | Bioenergy Technologies Office eere.energy.gov

The Bioeconomy InitiativeOctober 18, 2016

Alison Goss Eng

U.S. Department of

Energy

22 | Bioenergy Technologies Office

What is the Bioeconomy?

The bioeconomy is a global industrial transition of sustainably utilizing renewable aquatic and terrestrial biomass resources in energy, intermediate, and final products for economic, environmental, social, and


From 2014 Report: Why Biobased? Opportunities in the Emerging Bioeconomy: Why BioPreferred

biopreferred.gov/files/WhyBiobased.pdf


The Bioeconomy Concept










The Billion‐Ton Reports and the Bioeconomy Initiative

Billion‐Ton Reports• 2005• 2011• 2016

Ensure that current demands for food, feed, industrial uses, and exports continue to be met.

Resource Assessments – biophysical, economic, and sustainable availability of biomass resources under given assumptions and modeling capabilities

Bioeconomy – expanded economy/market sector of various products under estimated feedstocks levels and given scenarios

How much biomass?

What can we do with it?






The Biomass Research & Development Board

• Created through the enactment of the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000.• The Board facilitates coordination among federal government agencies that affect the

research, development, and deployment of biofuels and bioproducts.


Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy (FARB)

• In February, the Biomass R&D Board released the Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy. This report aims to educate the public on the wide‐ranging, federally funded activities that are helping to bolster the bioeconomy.

• The vision for the Billion Ton Bioeconomy is to sustainably reach the full potential of biomass‐derived products as a way of expanding our nation’s economy. In doing so, the bioeconomy will provide multiple economic, environmental, and social benefits to the Nation.



FY16 Highlights and Accomplishments

THE BILLION TON BIOECONOMY INITIATIVE: ACTION PLAN

FARB• Released in February 2016

Challenges & Opportunities• Look for it on Bioenergy Day—October 19, 2016

Action Plan• Target release FY17 in first 100 days of next administration


FY16 Highlights and Accomplishments

ATIP Stakeholder Engagement Workshops

• Between September and November, the ATIP Foundation will co‐host five Bioeconomy Forums throughout the United States, in partnership with DOE and USDA.

Dates & Locations

September 16, 2016 Atlanta, GA

September 29, 2016 Mineral Wells, TX

October 3, 2016 Seattle‐Tacoma, WA

October 18, 2016 Orono, ME

November 15, 2016 Columbus, OH

• The goal of each Bioeconomy Forum is to bring together a mix of stakeholders from six sectors (industry; state and local government; economic and workforce development; investment and finance; academia; and agricultural and environmental organizations) to seek their input, relative to the initiative’s vision, strategies, and implementation.


The Importance of the Report

Report plays vital role in the recognition of stakeholders and the challenges they seeo No initiative and no action plan without stakeholder engagement

o Challenges identified by stakeholders may not reflect agency‐perceived challenges

Opportunities identified are flexibleo Agencies have a large degree of

freedom to tailor actions to align with agency goals




Questions?


Overview and Outline of Topics Purpose of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities Report:


Since the release of the FARB, the Board has engaged with the bioenergy stakeholder community to further develop the Bioeconomy Initiative. The new report, The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities, is the second in a three-part series intended to lay the foundation and serve as the public communication of the Bioeconomy. This report is foundational to the Board's objective to strengthen the commitment and coordination between the U.S. Government and the bioeconomy community. Early feedback from stakeholders has underscored the importance of biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower. This report details several challenges and opportunities that stakeholders have identified as critical to the success of the Bioeconomy Initiative.



• Major technical hurdles for development and scale. • Steep competition from traditional petroleum-derived resources. • A lack of necessary infrastructure. • Access to capital for large financial investments. • Uncertainties about sustainability—understanding environmental, social, and

economic outcomes. • Growth instability and increased investment risk caused by policy uncertainty • The need for a strong and capable workforce.


• Create increased public demand for biomass-derived products in a bioeconomy. • Quantify, communicate, and enhance beneficial effects and minimize negative impacts of

an enhanced bioeconomy. • Enable the testing and approval of new biofuels and bioproducts • Encourage expansion of the market potential for biomass. • Develop feedstock to meet market demands and potential • Develop bioproducts that can accelerate biofuel production.

Attachment 3

Page 1

• Support fundamental innovations that reduce cost and technology risk in the supply chain.

• Seek opportunities to utilize low-cost waste resources. • Develop pathways for:

• private-sector financing. • Support stable, long-term policies. • Ensure a ready workforce to meet the needs of the bioeconomy.

Disclaimer:


1 http://www.biomassboard.gov/pdfs/farb_2_18_16.pdf

Attachment 3

Page 2

http://www.biomassboard.gov/pdfs/farb_2_18_16.pdf



1. What are state/local/regional challenges to the bioeconomy?





6. How can you contribute to the Billion Ton Bioeconomy?

Additional Regional Discussion Points for Consideration (from ATIP Foundation)

a) From the “Challenges” section of the above document, what would you list as the 3 highest priorities to discuss and address from the NE region?

• From that same list, what SHOULD be added to that list from our regional perspective? Does it change your prioritization scheme?

b) From the “Opportunities” section of the above document, is anything missing from the list, and what would you list as the 3 highest priorities to discuss and address from the NE region?

c) What sets the NE Bioeconomy apart from other regions of the country?

• What inherent advantages do you have?

• What regulatory issues constrain success?

• What incentives would help advance business opportunities to advance the bioeconomy?

• What does success in the bioeconomy look like in NE U.S. now? In 10 years? In 20 years?

d) What other biomass would you like to consider in the discussion of advancing the bioeconomy? Animal wastes / carcasses / concentrated animal feeding operations / seafood industry wastes? Municipal landfill biorefineries? Others?

e) As a region, how can you enhance your bioeconomy through new partnerships in the region, or on a more global basis?

Attachment 3

Page 3

The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and

Opportunities

Notes from bioeconomy forum, Orono, ME

October 18, 2016

NOTE FROM THE ATIP FOUNDATION: This document has removed names of all commenters, except for moderator (Wes Jurey, ATIP Foundation), occasional comment from Rick Brenner, welcoming comments presenters, and USDA and DOE personnel who presented slides and/or served as a resource to answer specific questions posed by participants. Comments in margins label RJB# (Richard J. Brenner) reflect clarifications and comments by the ATIP Foundation, and an attempt to define common themes and unique differences among the 5 regions. The federal agencies that make up the Biomass Research and Development Board consists of representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Transportation, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Executive Office of the President of the United States. No representatives of the BR&D Board will have an opportunity to see the non-attribute comments, Foundation’s reports and recommendations ahead of the scheduled presentations by Wes Jurey in mid-November (BR&D Technical Advisory Council), and in mid-December (BR&D Board members).

General comment from a participant: Bioeconomy as defined here is so complex that trying to plan for it is really not possible. You could plan for specific components. I think this audience needs to be shown that there is actually some mechanism that could force these disparate and independent agencies to conform to such a plan. Example: in one of the backgrounders we are told that a Regional EPA office gave a southern university money to support some project or other on biomass. Ridiculous? Call this a Plan? Likely an earmark to placate some congressman, but why is a local EPA office even considering this???? Opening remarks from Dr. Susan Hunter, President U of Maine:

All of us at UMaine are happy to be hosting this forum for the northeast U.S. It demonstrates our leadership in bioproducts development, as well as forestry policy issues. Today's event will not only inform federal policymakers who are addressing the bioeconomy, but can be useful to UMaine as we continue to work with industry and other stakeholders on the future of Maine's forest economy. We are looking forward to the opportunity to connect what we learn here in this forum with the EDAT process. The Department of Commerce announcement in July was very welcome news for many folks in Maine. Everyone is eager to get started on the required work — the evaluation of new and existing economic strategies to address the challenges facing the forest-based economy. Most importantly, we appreciate the efforts of so many in this room to participate in efforts that are critically important for Maine’s future. As you know, UMaine is the state’s land grant institution and its only public research university. As a

Comment [RJB1]: See http://www.biomassboard.gov/ both for general and specific partnerships, roles, and responsibilities. The BR&D Board is issuing 3 companion publications over a 1-year period. The first – The “Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy” (FARB) was issued February 27, 2016, and is considered to be the “Vision” document signed off by the 7 agencies and Executive Office of the President. A second publication tentatively titled “Challenges and Opportunities for the Billion Ton Vision” is in final stages of multi-agency clearance and lays out the strategy for developing a billion ton bioeconomy by 2020. This series of 5 regional Forums were convened at the request of BR&D Operations Committee--- and the ATIP Foundation reports from the 5 regional forums --- will be used by BR&D Board to help shape an implementation plan. Thus, the issues and concerns expressed by the forum participants will have direct influence on the Board which transcends political election.

Comment [RJB2]: See https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa . EPA has 10 Regional Offices with research addressing the issues and needs of the respective regions.

Attachment 4

Page 1

http://www.biomassboard.gov/

https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa

land grant we have a chartered statewide mission. It really doesn’t matter what the issue is or where it is occurring — we have a responsibility to do all we can and be everyone’s best partner. Our mission for 151 years has been to prepare the state's workforce, and to partner with communities, businesses and industries to innovate and turn knowledge, often developed on campus, into solutions that benefit the people of Maine. It is incumbent on us to evolve and adapt to a changing economic reality and prepare our population to embrace new opportunities. The forest economy was a focus at UMaine that started with the historic pulp and paper industry, and forest resource management. Today, the focus on sustainable forests and the forest-based economy includes the latest research and development in biomaterials, such as nanocomposites, biofuels and other green chemicals. Based on UMaine’s nationally and internationally recognized research and academic programs, Forestry and the Environment now form one of our Signature Areas of Excellence. Research, Development and Commercialization in this arena is accomplished in unique, state of the art facilities such as the Process Development Center, the Forest Bioproducts Research Institute, the School of Forest Resources, the Advanced Manufacturing Center and the Advanced Structures and Composites Center. But, the campus does not work in a vacuum. The best work of Maine's flagship university occurs in collaboration with its public and private partners – including our federal partners - who share our long-standing dedication to moving Maine forward. That involves responding to the needs of Maine with workforce development, R&D and community outreach. That is an appropriate leadership role for Maine's land grant university. And it’s been going on here since the late 1800s. And that's why we were very pleased with the announcements of major federal investments to advance the forest products industry in Maine. Now, we look forward to the strategies that will be developed to foster robust economic growth and recovery — furthering the dialogue about UMaine's role in helping address the state's forest-based economic challenges, now and in the future.

Wes Jurey – opening remarks Federal Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) and other opportunities to partner with federal agencies. Carol Woodcock – representing Senator Susan Collins (content of letter from Senator Collins is below)

Dear Friends: I commend the efforts underway to help strengthen the bioeconomy by removing barriers to the sustainable use of the nation's biomass resources. The deployment of biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower helps to support communities, the economy, the environment, and energy security. The federal agencies participating in the Biomass Research and Development Board, co-chaired by the U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture, are helping to facilitate important coordination to advance the bioeconomy, and have set as a national goal a "Billion Ton Bioeconomy" by the year 2020. The four Bioeconomy Forums being held across the country will help to promote the innovation that can make that goal a reality. The potential of biomass and biobased products is clear here in Maine, where more than 17 million

Comment [RJB3]: Good comment. Not unlike the mission of the USDA Agricultural Research Service. Congress authorizes and allocation about $2B for research annually --- about half is through Land Grants, and about half to ARS and Forest Service. Federal laboratory partnerships with Land Grants are extraordinarily common and easy to establish. Thus, UMaine has unique opportunity to partner with ARS laboratories (there are about 90 in the U.S.) regardless of location. Look for common interests and complementary assets. RJB was former Assistant Administrator of USDA ARS, and formulated / fostered/ executed many such cooperative research agreements. Thus, the ATIP Foundation is positioned to assist Land Grants in partnering with federal labs. Additionally, because the Foundation is external to USDA and U.S. government, we can facilitate partnerships with other federal agencies (see note on FLC), as well as non-Land Grant and private research facilities.

Comment [RJB4]: ATIP Foundation’s principal member organizations are technology-based economic development organizations with workforce development / training / internship programs.

Comment [RJB5]: See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710a for a comprehensive description of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 and the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (15 U.S. Code § 3710a) et. seq. and general opportunities for private sector and non-profit organizations to tap into the vast R&D capacities (over 300 laboratories) of federal agencies. Also see the webpages of the Federal Laboratory Consortium (https://www.federallabs.org/About ) for specific access to research partnerships.

Attachment 4

Page 2

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710a

https://www.federallabs.org/About

acres of forest - 89 percent of our total area - drive our state's economy. In addition to employing a strong workforce and growing our economy, the use of forest biomass reduces fuel- oil consumption and saves money. Transitioning to an economy that is powered by sustainable and renewable energy, of which biomass is an important part, is exciting, for our forest-products industry and for our residents, as well as for our security, our economy, and our environment. Today's Forum will help to gather stakeholder perspectives to expand and accelerate the development of the nation's bioeconomy. Thank you for your willingness to share your insights and expertise.

Chris Rector -- representing Senator Angus King.senate.gov --- prepared statement Carl Lucero, USDA FS -- [see slide set – “a worker’s day in 2050”] Todd Campbell --- welcoming remarks; connecting with Land Grant universities Reviewed some of the authorities that help engage rural America, and provided the “pillars of focus” of USDA Secretary Vilsack (See attached “Factsheet_ The Four Pillars of Agriculture and Rural Economic Development _ USDA Newsroom.pdf”). Some accomplishments cited on the biobased economy during the Secretary’s tenure include:

● Great green fleet in Pacific (biofuels, U.S. Navy) ● Air transportation biofuels (LAX, United, Gulfstream) ● Washington State University – commercial flight with jet fuel made from wood (expected to occur in

about a month) ● Wooden skyscrapers (8 stories, 12 stories) from innovative panels made from small diameter wood ● $300M USDA research over past few years on biomass issues. ● Dedicated energy crops – poplars, ag residues,

Alison Goss-Eng – overview of documents and issues (slide set attached) BETO is an R&D office; goal $3 / gal biofuels; she focuses on the front end of the supply chain. Also part of BRDB Operations Committee, liaison for DOE;

● Bioeconomy definition ● “Bioeconomy concept” slide ● Billion ton reports (2005, 2011, 2016) ● Bioeconomy Initiative ● Billion tons of SUSTAINABLE BIOMASS (see slides in BR&D presentation) ● BR&DB -- table of supply chain and agency roles ● FARB release [NOTE – Alison’s presentation has some updates on the slide set]. ● Challenges and Opportunities document

Some Initial questions from the participants for representatives of USDA and Department of Energy: -- instead of reinventing the wheel, what can we take away from previous events? A: Todd described the makeup of the various stakeholders at each of the forums. ***I think the question was what did the other groups conclude? We would be interested to see how other regions ranked the issues/opportunities --- What are you defining as “biomass”? relationship of existing biomass and more to be produced rather than a shift in use of existing biomass.

Comment [RJB6]: See previous comment on trilogy of BR&D documents expected by end of year.

Comment [RJB7]: The Foundation purposely designed this series to provide regional independent thought to the very broad issues of the bioeconomy. For that reason, local co-hosts were entirely responsible for developing the invitation list, as they were in the best position to know who in their region had a vested interest in the bioeconomy. On average, each co-host issued about 125 invitations among the 6 sectors the Foundation had identified. We will prepare a total of 6 reports --- 1 specifically for each region that is co-edited with the regional co-host, and issued to each participant in the regional forum. A 6th report will be a summary of the 5 forums, highlighting common issues and uniqueness of each region. By late December 2016 (in about 6 weeks), all reports will be made publicly available through the ATIP Foundation website.

Comment [RJB8]: These are good questions. Biomass is so broad, that more refined segments of “biomass” should be developed. See response in text from World Nieh. ATIP Foundation is happy to facilitate further discussions. The second issue is critical --- does the plan intend on adding new opportunities to use biomass, or simply a redistribution of existing uses? See response in text by Alison Goss Eng.

Attachment 4

Page 3

--- You are also talking about other than woody biomass. How deep are you going on biomass? A: Alison --- woody biomass, dedicated bioenergy crops, landfills, manure, potential micro crops on algae; ag residues; food wastes -- anything like miscanthus and other residue crops? --- projects looking at regional biomass opportunities such as sorghum, poplar willows, canola, miscanthus.

---- Request by participants: PLEASE GIVE US MORE SPECIFICS ON HOW WE KNOW THAT THESE CAN BE COMPETITIVE IN NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND. SEEMS A STRETCH. --- let’s focus primarily on wood fiber feedstocks regardless of the end use. As our region far better conditions for timber growth than agricultural use. We really can’t afford to remove good ag lands form food production since it is so limited.

----- what about sustainability in this area with marginal lands --- what can be done on these? Commenter’s point here was that “marginal;” lands in this region are generally occupied by forests not agricultural uses. Therefore we can generate biomass without conflicts with other uses and certainly in a more demonstrable sustainable fashion. A: World Nieh, U.S. Forest Service --- there are a lot of challenges with definition of biomass and bioeconomy; happy to have conversations. A: Carl Lucero, U.S. Forest Service – U.S. has lost 25% of small wood market; found areas where we can expand small wood opportunities. ---- Concern that we cannot sustainably triple biomass amounts and make it usable. A: Alison -- Current use is 350M tons. New technologies making production improved as well as processing. We are not suggesting that we will use 3X the land currently producing biomass. Look at land stewardship studies the past few years. Marginal lands.

The issue is that Maine is limited in our ability to produce more tonnage. Other parts of Northeast could cut more, but availability (small owners, etc) is a limitation.

What marginal lands??? Exactly how are they to contribute? WE can’t improve productivity by hand-waving… With a dramatic drop in demand for pulpwood over the last several years there is an ample and ready supply of wood fiber in the form of round wood, chips and mill by products. These sources of feedstocks often are being produced on 3rd party certified lands that fit the model of renewable resources produced in a very sustainable and multi-use platform of forests. If the bioeconomy can generate values that fit the needs of landowners and producers then Maine and the remainder of the Northern Forest could produce a great deal of bioeconomy feedstocks.

A: other issues are water use from forests (drinking watershed); precision ag using GPS for fine granularity down to sq. yard and what is needed / not needed specifically for land management / crop production. Good for water, air, food, maximizing land value; environmental conservation; 400M tons of CO2 reductions per year (greenhouse gases); replacing fossil carbon with renewable carbon. Alison -- Creating new markets for small diameter wood, for example. I like the idea of using small diameter wood -- in the round for solid products, not to chip the stuff. --- commenter thinks DOE estimates are a bit conservative, better to look at on the state level. Serious look at sustainability issues, and real numbers might actually be higher. A: Alison – the volume 2 challenges and opportunities addresses some of these issues on sustainability that began with the FARB. --- Need to get away from energy crops and instead use residues, etc. that exist. Need markets for low-grade wood. --- commenter: I want to again emphasize that the wood fiber available for the bioeconomy is primarily

Comment [RJB9]: Missing are opportunities for marine biomass that could be profoundly important in coastal, inland rivers, and Great Lakes regions.

Comment [RJB10]: This would suggest a regional team of organizers be developed to pursue further gatherings to better explore local / regional opportunities. Unfortunately, notably absent from this forum were representatives of other NE regional states (exception, NY).

Comment [RJB11]: note --- “volume 2” not yet released. See my earlier explanatory comment.

Attachment 4

Page 4

forest products not residues. Yes there are some but even sawmill wastes have become economically rewarding forest products that often contribute significantly to the facilities bottom line. We must get developers away from looking at their raw material as a very low cost by product or residue that is looking for a home to dispose of it. No it needs to be sold and sold for the right price. ------ I [another commenter] agree -- the burden of proof is on those advocating dedicated energy crops at least for N New England and upstate NY. If it can be met, show us. ---– What are the lessons learned from the ethanol issues in Midwest? A: Alison – oil prices drive a lot of this. at $100/barrel, stimulated first generation fuels (ethanol). A: Todd --- air quality benefits, multiple product streams such as DDGS from corn; ethanol plants cell CO2 and sell that; corn oil extraction; wet mill products; biochar and nanomaterials from biomass; Coca Cola spending a premium for plant bottles, but good societal benefit and marketing fact that they are using these bottles (less GRG emissions); ethanol plants becoming more efficient, high value products being made, etc. A: World Nieh --- start with biggest pieces of wood for boards, then down to fibers and their uses, then down to microfibers and nanotechnology. Key is bringing costs down --- need many products from wood, not just the simple ones. Free market will decide what products are supported – use biorefineries. Ultimately, products need to perform! A: Rick Brenner -- adding to World’s comment as an example --- LignoTech LLC is a new joint venture between Rayonier Advanced Materials and Borregaard (Norwegian) that just announced their new facility will be built in Fernandina Beach, FL (Amelia Island) adjacent to Rayonier’s biorefinery plant. Currently, lignin is a waste product of Rayonier’s plant that is used as fuel for the plant. Borregaard has proprietary technology to create advanced manufacturing of high purity, natural lignin-based products. Thus, this partnership takes advantage of low value locally-derived biomass “waste” to expand high value products for an existing market.

---- Problem here: when oil is cheap, the cost of replacing the lignin as fuel is low. When oil is expensive, the lignin has energy value. It’s not a “waste”. --- Anyway, let see how this plant actually works instead of touting it as any kind of evidence -- we’ve seen this movie before -- is there a single instance to report as an operational, unsubsidized success with a track record??? --– wants to know what the conversations were like in Atlanta, because that will have a bearing on our conversations here. Paper industry is in trouble here --- but FIBER is the new hope. But are we practicing sustainable forestry in Maine to keep up with current and projected demand. --- There is no doubt in my mind and a good deal of data that demonstrates that despite Maine’s active forest industry that its forests have been able to produce forest products in a natural and sustainable setting for centuries. It is even more sustainably managed now than at any time in the region’s history. Further the bar on sustainability is constantly being raised due to certification and the need to maintain the social license to own, manage and harvest timberland. Again due to a massive drop in demand there is available fiber to provide bioeconomy feedstocks without increasing harvest levels to any degree at all. The problem with seeing fiber as hope is that it returns little to the logger/truckers, and almost nothing for the landowner. This is not going to change. Notice that one of the scenarios we were shown has delivered fiber cost going down… how will this be achieved? Not likely if successful to make landowners or loggers any more prosperous… As a number of participants noted the value of bioproducts feedstocks must be suitable to allow for a solid economic base for the production of these forest products. Landowners must receive suitable stumpage so that these products contribute appropriately to the cost of long-term ownership and stewardship. Further the total value at the end user must cover in addition to a suitable stumpage rate all COP costs. Far too often the modelers for bio plants have utilized assumed values that are insufficient to produce the wood let along pay stumpage to the landowner.

Comment [RJB12]: Agreed. But the comment by RJB was intended to provide example of PPP partnering (2 private sector companies, one local government partner) to develop new high value products from low value usage of wastes --- in the context of World Nieh’s comment “Ultimately, products need to perform!”). We will see what / if products are developed and their value. In the meantime, there will be 50 new “permanent” jobs plus the construction jobs ---- all derived from a bioeconomy.

Comment [RJB13]: New opportunity based on new technology!

Comment [RJB14]: Any thoughts on possibility of forging partnership (e.g., coop) with landowner / producers of wood, transporters, and refineries / processors?

Attachment 4

Page 5

– Maine Forest Products Council. They look at annual harvests at about 15M tons of wood per year sustainably. Where Maine is in biomass and energy, about 20% of energy is produced from biomass --- usually at the mills, but there is also stand-alone energy production. Low oil prices hurt these efforts. Have lost about 1.8M tons of biomass markets, have 1.5M residuals from saw mills; paper went from 8.5$ industry, had dropped, now is back up a bit. Softwood pulp is 2M tons to 6M tons of wood biomass depending on size. --- seems there is a vision for biomass, and a vision for 1B ton initiative. Need overarching plan that is comprehensive for low-grade material through high-grade material. How do we solve the round wood issues? A: Alison, the biomass vision does look at all the feedstocks coming in to create the most value for all of this. Developing new technologies to take advantage of these materials. A: Todd --- biomass valuation studies are trying to get from $100/ton to $60/ton; looking for new markets for low value biomass. Please, throughout, be specific about whether costs per ton are green or dry.

In this section, how about rank the points according to votes rcvd within each section. Note: in many (most?) instances the comments recorded do not correspond to the subject of the section.



● Major technical and economic hurdles for development and scale (22). ● Steep competition from traditional petroleum-derived resources (21). ● A lack of necessary infrastructure (15). ● Access to capital for large financial investments (27). ● Uncertainties about sustainability—understanding environmental, social, and economic

outcomes (6). ● Growth instability and increased investment risk caused by policy uncertainty (21). ● The need for a strong ( what does this mean? Give them lots of exercise?) and capable workforce

(8).

Specific opportunities within each challenge as potential growth areas for the future of the Initiative are detailed below: Many of these are not in fact opportunities. Some are tasks to be done, which is a different thing.

● Create increased public demand for biomass-derived products in a bioeconomy (8). ● Quantify, communicate, and enhance beneficial effects and minimize negative impacts of an

enhanced bioeconomy (16). ● Enable the testing and approval of new biofuels and bioproducts (6). ● Encourage expansion of the market potential for biomass (16). ● Develop feedstock to meet market demands and potential (7). ● Develop bioproducts that can accelerate biofuel production (4). ● Support fundamental innovations that reduce cost and technology risk in the supply chain (20). ● Seek opportunities to utilize low-cost waste resources (0).

Comment [RJB15]: Argues for CRADAs and other cooperative research agreements to develop technologies to

Attachment 4

Page 6

● Develop pathways for (24): • private-sector financing. • Support stable, long-term policies. • Ensure a ready workforce to meet the needs of the bioeconomy.

Attachment 4

Page 7



1. What are state/local/regional challenges to the bioeconomy and how can the federal agencies help address these regional challenges?

---- EPA and FERC requirements for dams are costing millions of dollars --- we need help scaling up from lab and bench scale – we need public private partnerships --- The private portion of the public/private partnership need to have representation from both the demand and the supply side. You can they better manage the valley of death. Wes Jurey - Pilot at what scale? -- With nanocellulose development, for example, private companies should help fund pilot scale with public funds added to help with pre-competitive proof of concept -- to a 1 ton per day scale . With 20-100 tons per day scale and likely market development occurring we need to find a way for public funds to be better targeted….this is where the job creation happens. Wes - Gaps where programs are needed?

Discussion above needs, perhaps not here but somewhere, a lot more clarification. This is clearly a major issue here. Major reasons for past failures may have been the temptation to skip key steps and run to production level plants too fast (Why not, it’s Uncle Sam’s money?)

--- we need the connections for someone who is looking for our good ideas, who will buy so we can sell. --- level the playing field for biomass - EPA. Need political will, a message from collaborative group about sustainable forest practices. --- My point here is that at present we do not have a level playing field for forest products in this bioeconomy. If there was a carbon tax or even a carbon equation that reflected on the full economic and environmental costs of other fuel or feedstocks, even agricultural, wood would be valued much higher for these uses. There needs to be research and marketing done to facilitate this narrative so that forest products can be assessed on equal footing to fossil or other sources of raw materials. --- Bigger is not always better, need small scale that fits - CHP, not monster plants making liquid fuel out of federal money. If we focus on technology to pursue a distributed system, would have the following advantages:

a. Not betting on a few huge projects. b. Resilience against policy changes or volatile gas/oil markets c. likelihood for wider positive impact on rural communities d. More minds at work, more people trying to innovate, more likelihood of breakthroughs. e. So far the big breakthroughs on monster biofuels plants have been ever-more impressive success in

burning federal money. (why not just fire biomass plants with cash?) --- USDA working with private industry on sawn timber, biomass has a negative story, RECS markets loss, no consistency with sustainability story, need to provide the science to back it up, because the negative story is holding back investments

Comment [RJB16]: ATIP Foundation can assist, or refer you to others as well.

Comment [RJB17]: Wes --- I would recommend you author a reply to this, based on your years of experience.

Comment [RJB18]: How about developing a scaled multi-year partnership with milestones and deliverables to go to next step. There are some programs that may warrant further consideration. For example, SERDP is the “Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program” (https://www.serdp-estcp.org/About-SERDP-and-ESTCP) that funds R&D and demonstration projects that can develop and deliver products to the Department of Defense, EPA, and Department of Energy (identified by “statement of need” by agencies). When you consider that DoD is the 5th largest land owner in the U.S., and their needs--- and compliance to EPA --- are no different than any community, this may be a fertile partnership. After all, a DoD facility is a town/city/community --- the only difference is that they don’t elect a mayor. ATIP Foundation personnel have solid experience with SERDP. Any interested party in discussing this further should contact Rick Brenner or Wes Jurey.

Attachment 4

Page 8

https://www.serdp-estcp.org/About-SERDP-and-ESTCP

https://www.serdp-estcp.org/About-SERDP-and-ESTCP

---- We excel at managing the natural forest naturally, EPA definitions to obtain credits for RINs, how do we ensure our products qualify for credits? ---- Carbon neutrality and biomass policy that doesn’t disqualify materials with >7 year rotation age is needed. The benefits of using biomass from a sustainably managed forest “should be uncontroversial” ---- Biorefinery investment, 606 page application for funding and $50,000 cost plus attorneys. We have the feedstock supply and we can’t find investors with the money they need to apply, which is frustrating. ----– Seems like we are not learning effectively from our failures, what do we know and lessons from what we did, would like to see that from the federal agencies. If we don’t start doing this fast, this effort will be wasted. It needs to be done by tough -minded independent and qualified individuals and groups. ---- Not doing a good enough job communicating to public - difficult to find the federal dollars to do that, for example, tall wood buildings in Boston, why and how it will benefit, public health, climate change, synthesize so we can communicate the story. --- Engineered wood products are a fine example of what we should be looking at as crucial building blocks of a bioeconomy that is not only sustainable but strengthen communities and serves such an improved profile for the region’s long term economic health. Wes - What needs to be communicated? Commenter --- Good question. This needs a lot more thought. --- What’s sustainable? USDA rural development and producer payments to the wood pellet industry, price of oil/natural gas and warm winters, producers shut down, we want that industry to grow and Senator Collins work to support fuel neutrality so biomass producers get more, issue of enough money in the program 9005. ----- Foresters are more sustainable than farmers, don’t call it woody residues, call it forest product. --- --- when one considers all of the biological factors forestry and the trees landowners grown and foresters manage is the most sustainable option for the production of consumable products of all kinds from nano products up to dimension lumber, let alone sustainable space heating. But again the wood fiber landowners and managers desire to find additional markets for are critical forest products both from a management and economic perspective. To enhance overall economic sustainability while practicing the highest order long-term silviculture we need markets that can absorb large amounts of low grade forest products. This process leads to better and more sustainable outcomes that outshine all the other sources of feedstock. ---- Marketing the bioeconomy, a model to look to would be the Commodity check off Program running within the AP&PA. May find methods to better market the story of sustainable choices and biomaterials in general. --- – Naiveté about delivered feedstock costs among many people proposing projects. Get any 2 or 3 people who work in the field of fiber supply analysis and they can spend half a day telling you stories of the ridiculous ignorance of many of these people on what their feedstocks are going to cost. Few have bothered to read the BTU and similar materials. Where they get their ideas, nobody knows -- children’s books? If we could get wider recognition of the supply and cost realities it would save a lot of wasted effort and money. One so-called “biorefinery” pilot was hauling wood up to 100 miles to feed it. In some

Comment [RJB19]: Building from a community of past participants.

Comment [RJB20]: Opportunity to partner with state PR, Chamber of Commerce, and federal agencies on successes? Communication appears to be a common theme from the Orono forum.

Comment [RJB21]: See previous comment on communication.

Attachment 4

Page 9

alternative universe this might work, but not in this one. Ever. Think how far they’d be hauling if they ever reached scale? ---- Too often government picks losers and winners, need to get rid of bark, would like to see more across the board policies ---- 30% tax credit for biomass ends this year, continues for others, lack of certainty is difficult for investments

2. What are state/local/regional opportunities to the bioeconomy and how can the federal agencies help leverage these regional opportunities?

--- Consistent, identified agency point people ideally located in Maine. ---- Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act calls for alignment, Department of Labor and Education need to be here. ---- Educate public about value of bioeconomy to environment and rural economy led by marketing. --- ---We need to state facts that tell the long-term story of the importance of a sound forest products industry to the region in both economic and environmental terms. For many the use of corn for fuel is not seen as an environmental problem. However ask the same question about forest products coming from natural forests managed under third party certification and the simple act of cutting a tree, regardless of the true sustainability is viewed as a negative outcome for many. Further the rural economies of so many Northern Forest towns once thrived on the woods and can again, especially when you consider the impact of multiple use and how that deepens the economic vitality of a town or region. We need to develop a more effective narrative on this based on well done research and very well developed and presented marketing. The public really has to buy in to wood and any biomass feedstock use before we can move the bioeconomy forward in my view. ---- how can we talk about triple or sustainable without knowing what we’re using now? USFS - FIA needs to focus on measuring forest biomass production and consumption annually and keep up with the reporting. You’d be surprised how much flimflam and Kentucky windage underlies all these numbers we glibly throw around. Truth is, not a soul anywhere knows how much residential fuelwood is used in the North. Same true of all the other classes of forest biomass. --- - private public partnership to communicate benefits ---- Market to foreign investors, tell our story, connect investors and innovation with US, bring them to Maine ---- Education for the workforce, aging workforce in logging, equipment, operations. Need skills training. His truck drivers are all older than he is. Need to keep kids in rural areas. Community College created program for 15 wind turbines but not for logging in Aroostook. --- - Maine uses natural forest management, but regulators reward plantation style management because ours is harder to quantify, agencies should look to reward natural management with higher renewable credits ---- Maine forest products industry has identified priority issues in a report, which should be part of the record. For instance, one need is to project forest models into the future and resources to fund that research. Wes - Research funding should align with economic opportunity?

Comment [RJB22]: Does this argue for a regional team and pilot project to address logistics, regional / local accumulators, and processors to move intermediate products to final processing plants.

Comment [RJB23]: Important issue in terms of incentives to advance the bioeconomy. Suggest that political leaders be brought into the discussion for guidance and buyin.

Comment [RJB24]: Excellent point, and both DOL and Dept. of Education are NOT part of the BR&D Board. It makes sense to pilot their inclusion. I suggest a dialogue with USDA Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics who chairs the BR&D Board. ATIP Foundation can help with that.

Comment [RJB25]: Relevant to above 3 comments.

Attachment 4

Page 10

--- Yes --- What’s the bioproducts niche for Maine, global assessment of opportunities? Wes - Agencies should provide global connection?

--- Yes ---- Financing, difficult for contractors to get financing to expand Wes - Rural development has guaranteed loans under $10 million, relationships with lenders. ---- trend that financial institutions choose not to invest in certain industries, in South, packagers/consultants have relationships with willing banks to put together deals in these industries. Rural development can also do revolving loan funds for electric co-ops Wes – What is the health of venture capital in this region? --- No shortage of capital if we come up with deals that look good, need to work out a process to develop success stories of converting to biomass energy to show investment yields return. ---- Biomass processing as close to the stump to reduce transportation but shifts in how we move materials to market, can DOT help us re-engineer? ---- New diesel emissions standards EPA Tier 4 trucks aren’t reliable. It’s a big problem. ---- Tier 4 chippers do not work well, price has gone up and people can’t afford ---- Deep water port to Europe and how do we take advantage of that, no rail line there

3. What sets the NE Bioeconomy apart from other regions of the country?

● What inherent advantages do you have? Not many.

--- Currently supply and a well developed infrastructure for forest management. Likely a less impactful results, at least short-term from climate change. Think fires out west and other weather and health related impacts in the southern US. The supply issue is driven as noted earlier by the decline in the pulp and paper industry leaving a large source of forest products available.

• What regulatory issues constrain success? Many. How much time have you got??? Upstate NY and New England are not friendly to heavy industry like big biofuels plants. Good reasons to let the South have those and focus on small scale distributed approaches.

• What incentives would help advance business opportunities to advance the bioeconomy?

--- We need some way to provide price stability. Analogy to corn milk, cotton rice supports. USDA knows some things about these things. Throwing massive federal grants at investors, or conducting masses of unfocused basic research haven’t worked very well and won’t until we faced the price volatility problem squarely,.

• What does success in the bioeconomy look like in NE U.S. now? In 10 years? In 20 years?

Comment [RJB26]: I suggest we pull EPA into discussions on next NE Regional Bioeconomy Forum.

Comment [RJB27]: These are advantages, despite first comment (not highlighted).

Comment [RJB28]: Issue here seems to be either price supports or other incentives.

Attachment 4

Page 11

--- - Advantage of private forest, better at getting wood out sustainably, and we have a great workforce, just need more of them --- Transportation, need a regional study, regional infrastructure policy to reduce costs

---- goal here is that we need both enhanced systems for trucks and rail, but also a consistent set of regulations for transportation across the 4 Northern Forest states and Quebec. ---– The region has a high concentration of education institutions ---– Maine is a small state; we all know each other. You can call someone to get things done quickly. We have a high percentage of large ownership private forests (allows us to move quickly). --- - Tremendous amount of innovation and entrepreneurship ---- Natural resource management and bioproducts advantage, continual need to weed, material that gets left in the forest - pre-commercial thinning material is an opportunity available to the bioeconomy ---- This is a challenge: national manufacturing institutes are huge. A more regional center to focus on regional advantages, a northeast hub for the bioeconomy would be a good idea. Sappi has made investments in pilot facilities in Europe - because of hub and spoke structures with supply and demand companies participating. ---- This region has a high dependence on heating fuels and look at possibilities for small district heating with locally produced pellets. Also: Other places have deepwater ports, Better ones. Or soon will. --- For energy production through biomass, should invest in microgrids in rural areas What does success look like? --- Zero use of fuel oil for heating ---- Great silviculture and forest management, with markets ---- Full employment so kids can stay in rural areas ---- Connectivity of biomass into the grid ---- Every landowner participating if they want to – even a small woodlot --- Yes -- too much of our forest is simply lying fallow, producing very little of value. How to unlock this is a big challenge. ---- Double or triple enrollment in the University’s forestry school ---- Would like to see that a logger can get pine logs to the mill, pulp to the paper plant, and biomass to a biomass processer. ---- Respect for foresters and landowners, credit for environmental and other benefits of the bioeconomy industry in Maine.

Comment [RJB29]: A big advantage.

Comment [RJB30]: Another big plus.

Comment [RJB31]: Opportunity.

Comment [RJB32]: Expand beyond Maine for regional advantage.

Comment [RJB33]: Opportunity.

Attachment 4

Page 12

---- SFI 800 number and no complaints this year What incentives would help you? ---- Capital gains on forest land - current tax policy is a liability for maintenance of forest lands and promotes liquidation

---- MY point here was that currently Federal tax policy is a disincentive to long-term stewardship as capital gains are not indexed to inflation. Further there are other elements of the tax code that reward short-term owners and penalize long-term ownerships. We need to integrate other government policies to create a better economic climate for the ownership, management and harvesting of timberland. The key is that forests serve so many ecosystem and economic functions simultaneously and with rapid changes coming from climate change and global economic issues supporting the ability of landowners through carrots not sticks will serve this bioeconomy project very well. Forests have been managed for centuries and while we can always improve practice the reality is there is not a more sustainable land use. ---- Change definition of renewable credits to allow forest biomass from naturally regenerating forests ---– Grants and financing to put puzzle together for the supply chain to end use. Wes - Would you support a recommendation to agencies to put grants out that insists on collaborative partnerships and structures 2-3 year with outcomes then phases out?

- Yes Allison – But, it also leads to longer applications, longer process ----- Accountability, outcomes and results, meaningful partnerships are desirable but in reality here is what “partnership” means in practice: you give me money, then get out of my way, I’ll do what I want. ---- More beneficial to filter money through existing community development organizations for impact ---- For DOL grants, states receive funding based on population and unemployment and Maine is at a competitive disadvantage since it is a smaller state ---– We need industry roadmap to success, legislative support, with university ---- Need to find alternative ways for industry to participate in partnerships --- The Northeast is a mega region, 20% US population, build for a regional market as an advantage. Need regional economic allies.

d) What other biomass would you like to consider in the discussion of advancing the bioeconomy? Animal wastes / carcasses / concentrated animal feeding operations / seafood industry wastes? Municipal landfill biorefineries? Others?

--- lots of biomass definitions, but it is a problem not having one definitive definition.

---- perhaps isn’t better to have a “wall” around the definition; use broad definition but have criteria for subcomponents.

Comment [RJB34]: Policy and tax incentive opportunity to propose to BR&D.

Comment [RJB35]: Policy and tax incentive opportunity to propose to BR&D.

Comment [RJB36]: Interesting proposal. State Senators’ thoughts on this?

Comment [RJB37]: Recommendation

Comment [RJB38]: A recommendation for the report.

Attachment 4

Page 13

---- Municipal wastes, dairy and forest “products” and bi-products (don’t use “waste” because it has a negative image. Have a broad definition such as “anything that can be grown ….” And then work on criteria.

--- Reiterating my point that the words used on describing the forest products that will be considered in the bioeconomy matter. We want growers, buyers and the public to understand these are valuable resources and that there is a cost of owning land, growing trees, harvesting, trucking and processing that must be considered in this equation of growing the bioeconomy.

--- This industry is really integrated to the extent that they used to take different parts of the tree to various places. Have lost some markets, where they used to have a market for everything (sawdust, bark, chips). There is a sense of urgency - bioproducts are integral to future and trying also to fill immediate needs

---- Aquaculture and fisheries wastes should be considered – there are lots of these.


---- federal agencies through Maine Forest Products Council ---- Integration on both sides, across federal family and long-term commitment ---- Roadmap partnership with industry and university, spruce budworm task force is a model for how this could work. Also look to benchmark what the Canadians across the border have been doing (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):

● Investments in Forest Industry Transformation (IFIT): http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/federal-programs/13139

● Expanding Market Opportunities program:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/federal-programs/13133

● Maine Spruce Budworm Taskforce: http://www.sprucebudwormmaine.org/ http://www.sprucebudwormmaine.org/docs/SBW_full_report_web.pdf

---- help us learn from each other, what are they doing in other states that are a success, lessons learned ---- within industry, from competitors to partners with some competition, but federal partners still seems siloed, need a new structure going forward ----- forest products in Canada is a larger part of national GDP, so private sector should also look to partner with Canada as part of the regional bioeconomy; makes sense to include them in partnerships. ----- do we think regionally? ---- we have unique situation because of the amount of privately held land. We are new to the catastrophe issues. There have been big problems in past two years. We are an importer of woods, but now markets

Comment [RJB39]: Good example of a region-specific opportunity.

Attachment 4

Page 14



http://www.sprucebudwormmaine.org/

http://www.sprucebudwormmaine.org/docs/SBW_full_report_web.pdf

have diminished (but we are still importers of certain species of the wood. When policies change in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York change, it affects them here. Are scrambling to fill some markets that we have here? ---- Some of Canada wants certain certifications of some wood products; Quebec does a better job of collaborations. We have been siloed in part by various regulations on certain products. Need rail in this area for infrastructure. No major national rail carriers in this area. Most are small lines that have high turnover.

--- Clarification of these points. There are mills in Canada that require certification for furnish, some FSC and some SFI or both. That is growing in the US as well. There is far better collaboration in Quebec between business and government. Long-term strategic planning and financial support to maintain rural communities and a strong forest products industry. Yes a more socialistic model but one that has supported forests and forest products very well. The silo comment has to do generally with the view that the general public and until recently government had on the forest products industry. We need to develop more collaborative model so that financing is available and that the development of programs has a broader planning base that does not address a single entity but communities and regions. The rail system must be enhanced to address the costs of rail transport due to multiple rail carriers and the “switching” costs from one carrier to the next. --- ports, what are the barriers? Underutilized, from a regional standpoint. Regional transmission of electricity, northern Maine is not connected. ---- Eastport is challenged by rail, connection requires an expensive bridge, which prevents port from being fully utilized. ---- natural resource industries that can contribute biomass, are there valuable cross industry conversations? ---- improve partnerships with environmental groups to tell story ---- Sugarloaf “french fry express” is an example to look at. They fuel shuttle buses with used french fry oil. Much more sensible than hauling that stuff to some distant monster high tech plant. What new technologies and partnerships can develop on site systems at a scale that fits, distributed, rather than monster plants? ---- industry group , government, and university has all come together today (very positive) because of inclusion of various sectors. ---- Heating issue in Northeast, is a regional issue and opportunity. Need better regional coordination instead of have each state do things separately that aren’t communicated. Need some showcase examples of collaboration. ----- Northern Region Border Commission is one potential funding source with a regional focus - but does it promote collaboration?

Wrap up comments from USDA, DOE, FS, etc.

Todd – tomorrow is national bioenergy day; there are several events in NE. Montpelier is giving tour tomorrow. There should be a number of success stories that can be gleaned.

--- RFPs from agencies need to be more balanced between biomaterials & bioenergy/fuels

Alison --- Wants POC for aquaculture – Can be obtained from Maine Technology Institute.

Comment [RJB40]: Challenging issues.

Comment [RJB41]: Perhaps we should loop in DOT

Comment [RJB42]: Ditto

Attachment 4

Page 15

Todd -- USDA.gov has a lot info

Alison – BR&D B website will have a number of documents available (including this report).

Next Steps ---

Wes --- This group was selected to represent the various stakeholders and should be the first step of broadening networks, agencies, etc. How do we move forward from here? Univ. of Maine convened this group, role of ATIP Foundation is as facilitators to help as 3rd party facilitator with federal agencies, universities, industry.

------ many in this room have invested a lot of time with the EDAT process in spring. From the federal agencies, how are they willing to integrate EDAT (Dept. of Commerce) and bioeconomy initiative. THERE IS STRONG GENERAL AGREEMENT OF AUDIENCE THAT THESE NEED TO BE INTEGRATED / LINKED MORE STRONGLY.

--- What will happen with transition of administrations? This will take some time as congressional offices also transition.

Attachment 4

Page 16


1 | P a g e

ATIP Foundation Regional Bioeconomy Forums: “Addressing the Challenges & Opportunities of Advancing the Billion Ton

Bioeconomy”

A Report to Participants in the PNW Regional Bioeconomy Forum Sea-Tac Conference Center (Washington State University, co-hosts)

Seattle, WA October 3, 2016

Wes Jurey, Foundation CEO and R.J. Brenner, Director, ATIP Foundation

Background



The rationale and strategy for these reports, and purpose for the public gatherings was published in a USDA a blog, including the Vision and the scope of the listening sessions designed to ”… gather information and engage stakeholders on how to build and grow the “Billion Ton Bioeconomy.” (http://blogs.usda.gov/2016/04/27/growing-and-building-the-billion-ton-bioeconomy/)





2 | P a g e

Regional Bioeconomy Stakeholder Forums The federal agencies contracted with the ATIP Foundation --- a non-profit consortium of State Economic Development organizations --- to develop and co-host with a coordinating entity, a series of regional Bioeconomy Forums to garner input from a broad range of stakeholders on the Challenges & Opportunities to help shape a “multiyear implementation plan,” expected to be prepared by the Biomass R&D Board during the second quarter of the fiscal year 2017, submitted to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Forums were convened in the SE U.S with Georgia Tech as co-host (September 16, Renewable Bioproducts Institute, Atlanta, GA), in the SW. U.S with the Mineral Wells Chamber of Commerce, Mineral Wells, TX, (September 29, Holiday Hills Country Club, 4801 Highway 180 East, Mineral Wells, TX), in PNW with Washington State University as co-host (October 3, Sea-Tac Conference center, Sea-Tac airport), in NE U.S. co-hosted by The University of Maine, Orono (October 18 ), and in the MW U.S. , co-hosted by The Ohio State University (Schisler Conference Center, Wooster, OH, November 15). Co-hosts arranged for the meeting room, a modest noon meal, and a dedicated note taker with real-time display so the participants could verify their remarks. The goal of each Bioeconomy Forum was to bring together a mix of stakeholders (about 40-60 participants) from six sectors to seek their input, relative to the initiative’s vision, strategies, and implementation. These sectors are (1) industry; (2) state and local government; (3) economic and workforce development; (4) investment & finance; (5) academia; and (6) agricultural and environmental organizations. Co-hosts, with the assistance of BR&D Operations Committee, derived the list of by invitation participants. Forum Structure and Role of the Foundation and Co-hosts The PNW U.S. Bioeconomy Forum was moderated by Wes Jurey, CEO of the ATIP Foundation, who was assisted by a team from Washington State University (WSU) including John Gardner, CEO of the WSU Foundation. Members of the BR&DB Operations Staff made presentations that reviewed the FARB and posed questions related to advancing the bioeconomy. Real-time notes were taken by Alyssa Patrick Demographics by sector: Table 1 describes the demographics of invitees by sector, and the actual number able to participate on October 3, 2016

The agenda (Attachment 1) included welcoming comments by the ATIP Foundation, BR&DB representatives, and Beth Osborne, Deputy State Director for US Senator Patty Murray. Slide set presentations (Attachment 2) were

Sector Designation Invited % of invited

No. Participated

%RSVP to Attend % of Attendees

Industry 25 23 3 12 7State and local government 11 10 4 36 9

Economic and workforce development 17 15 11 65 25Investment & finance 9 8 4 44 9

Academia 28 25 14 50 32Agricultural and environmental

organizations 21 19 8 38 18

Total 111 100 44 40 100

Table 1. Demographics (by sector) of invitees and participants, convened by ATIP Foundation co-host Washington State University for NW Regional Bioeconomy Forum, October 3, 2016.


3 | P a g e

made by the ATIP Foundation followed by Todd Campbell (USDA) with assistance from Valerie Reed, Deputy Director, Bioenergy Technologies Office, Department of Energy. In addition, a “discussion document” was provided to the participants (Attachment 3). The remainder of the day consisted exclusively of stakeholder attendees from the six sectors participating in discussions on these “discussion document” questions. Notes were taken (attributed to the commenter) on the fly by Alyssa Patrick who projected these so all participants could review and correct as needed. The audio was also recorded from a laptop in case it was needed later to clarify comments. Participants of the forum received a link to a Google Document and a two week window of opportunity to edit their specific comments, or add additional comment. Thereafter, the document was closed by Washington State University, and ownership was transferred to Dr. Rick Brenner, ATIP Foundation, who reviewed comments, clarified with authors as needed, redacted all names of comment contributors, and annotated with ATIP Foundation comments (designated in margins as Comment [RJB#]). The document is presented (Attachment 4) as a record of the forum and it includes participant prioritizations of each “challenge” and “opportunity” --- from their perspective --- to determine whether each was considered to be in the top 3 priorities for the Pacific Northwest U.S. region. Figure 1a (below) reflects their perspective on these “Challenges”.

The top two issues for PNW participants were “steep competition from traditional petroleum-derived resources” (21.8%) and “Growth instability and increased investment risk caused by policy uncertainty” (20.5%). “Uncertainties about sustainability—understanding environmental, social, and economic outcomes,” and “major technical hurdles for development and scale” were tied for the 3rd top priority at 15.4% of respondents.


4 | P a g e


Participants clearly identified “support stable, long-term policies” as the most important opportunity for advancing the bioeconomy (21%), followed by “create increased public demand for biomass-derived products in a bioeconomy” and “develop feedstock and fundamental innovations that reduce cost and technology risk in the supply chain” (16% each). “Seek opportunities to utilize low-cost waste resources” was just behind at 13% of respondents suggesting that it was among the top 3 opportunities.


There were a number of comments from the PNW region that characterized regional issues, but also a number of comments that were fairly common issues across the 5 regional forums. Below, are non-attribute comments from participants, as well as notations by the ATIP Foundation. Regarding the latter, these are preceded by “[NOTE:…],” and are also reflected in Attachment 4 as “Comment[RJB#].

Regarding comments to the “challenges” list:

• “A lack of necessary infrastructure” --- o Commenter [1]: I would say: Need of new infrastructure and identification of synergistic

opportunities with existing infrastructure! o [other commenter] is not certain this is correct for many cellulosic sources in the PNW -

particularly woody biomass. In fact there are a number of “stranded assets” in the form of pulp


5 | P a g e

and paper mills, lumber mills, transportation assets (trucks and rail), log depots, chipping and densification equipment, etc.

• “The need for a strong and capable workforce.” o It seems that the farm digester company Regenis (www.Regenis.net ) might offer models for

building a trained, functional and profit-focused workforce in/for the bioeconomy. o It is important to highlight the experience of the Walla Walla Community college and their AAAS

degree in plant operations

Additional challenges offered by participants:

• Insufficient incentives to drive investment and markets [Note: this has been a theme heard in most forums]

General notes on “Challenges” • In reviewing the Federal Activities Report on the BioEconomy (FARB), I would like to see what the funding

levels are -- in terms of authorizations and appropriations for each program and agency described in the report. It would also be very useful to present the total federal funding directed towards BioEconomy developments over the past few years. This would provide insight into how big is the federal government effort in funding programs for the bioeconomy initiative. Although it might be controversial, providing high-level comparative funding levels for BioEconomy initiatives relative to aggregate federal funding for fossil fuel and nuclear energy resource and technology programs would contribute to a clearer policy assessment of federal government funding priorities across all major energy options.

• [another commenter] … would also recommend that the FARB include a section that highlights the BioEconomy related research being conducted at our National Laboratories (e.g. NREL, Argonne, Lawrence Livermore, Idaho, etc.). It would be useful to describe the national labs’ major programmatic leadership assignments and funding levels. This could help the private sector identify sources of technology innovation and potential public/private partnerships for further research and development. [Note: the Foundation would suggest we provide funding levels for both intramural and extramural research from the various BR&D member agencies that relate to the Bioeconomy. An obvious follow up would be an annual research report highlighting outcomes to date, available technologies, and a request for partnerships to address specific issues (e.g., CRADA or cooperative agreement. This idea is further supported by [RJB7] comment in Attachment 4, and provided attached to comment below.

• Should we revise FARB and put numbers behind programs to show size of federal funding? [RJB7] I think an annual report on bioeconomy-related R&D outcomes would be a great idea. Currently federal agencies are required to publish an annual report on Technology Transfer that covers all innovations arising from intramural R&D in all agencies. Extramural R&D funded outcomes are published by AUTM (Association of University Technology Managers) but only addresses IP licensing.

• [research] … The ability to continue to research transportation logistics is important, any region with raw material is going to need this work. Infrastructure and transportation logistics of biomass are crucial elements. Most recent cellulosic plants are in Iowa. Raw materials are found within 50 miles, but the big issue is how to transport that efficiently? How to transport with a minimal amount of costs and distance. Iowa State University and private companies doing work on this.

• We should be working with the tribes as well. Lots of opportunity as well as mutual interests. Note: Sounds like an opportunity for a Pilot Project Consortium to better utilize lands of Native Americans for creating new opportunities.

• Distance - we are very far north and we do not have volume produced here in the Pacific Northwest. We need to see a combination of infrastructure and incentives to help improve. Note: this has been a common theme among regional forums.

• Much of the inland PNW is dry with less than 14” of precipitation per year. Dryland biomass yields are too low under the dry growing conditions to contribute significantly to the Billion Ton goal. Those crop

http://www.regenis.net/


6 | P a g e

residues are needed to protect soil from wind erosion and maintain soil organic carbon. We will need to balance between biomass production and environmental stewardship. This is an important issue; as crop residues (e.g. Wheat straw, corn stover, etc.) are viewed as significant feedstocks for advanced cellulosic biofuels and bioproducts. Sustainable production of these feedstocks will require location specific and crop rotation specific residue management and allocation practices to protect against soil erosion; improve soil moisture retention and add Soil Organic Carbon. Note: These are formidable problems in PNW. Dedicated biofuel crops help wheat production, but the money crop is still the wheat. This region may want to explore other biomass feedstocks for developing biorefineries (e.g., tallow, ocean / seafood residues, etc.).

• State and local economic incentives helped spur the development of the biofuels industry in Iowa. State and local economic incentives helped spur the development of the biofuels industry in Iowa. Note: perhaps the process should be replicated in PNW.

o Don’t have the same kind of support in Washington, need more business and policy engagement and support

Responses to the “opportunities” list

• “Seek opportunities to utilize low-cost waste resources.” -- We should make opportunities for local communities to benefit from the bioeconomy, rather than strictly adapting a model that’s scaled up to a refinery miles away.

o Other commenter: We still need to be aware of the differing definitions of some common terms related to development of a bioeconomy. The term biorefinery may look very different depending on the source of biomass and the intended products. A dairy farm by itself can be reclassified to be called a biorefinery. Offsite organics and woody biomass can be brought on to the farm to be anaerobically digested or thermochemically converted; however, the radius from which to derive this biomass is relatively small and serves as an economic boost rather than a critical pillar of the process. This is as contrasted with a biodiesel biorefinery which might need to draw feedstock from a 50+ mile radius or not be viable.

• “Create increased public demand for biomass-derived products in a bioeconomy.” o We’ve done prototypes, but public isn’t seeing those - we need to increase awareness and

understanding; social cost of carbon, other ecological services and environmental benefits. Would suggest that highlighting clean air, water, and improved soil while gaining the

benefit of renewable biofuels and bioproducts is a message that would be more universally accepted.

Bluntly, highlighting climate change/global warming as a reason to change and then insisting on individual acknowledgement of a need to change to support society just will not work for nearly 50% of the US population. Instead of confrontationally dragging this group in, publicize and highlight the local benefits of these projects.

Additional opportunities suggested: • At regional level, it is challenging to bring infrastructure together; if there isn’t money going to the region

to collectively solve a problem, we shouldn’t be surprised it is not getting coordinated. How can the federal government coordinate regional efforts? Need to put at least millions into the region to coordinate the efforts

o The regional biomass economy programs were in place for decade or more, stood up by DOE, but managed by governor offices. Not big dollar, but were for meetings, convening partnerships. These are the kind of actions we can put to your observations and recommendations. Note: This comment suggests that a regional pilot project may be a recommendation from PNW attendees.

• Leveraging public entities for long term energy purchase agreements or market stability - merchant generation not possible for biofuels… EX: RNG producer needs a gas purchase agreement in order to


7 | P a g e

capitalize a new facility, not many entities have the planning horizon to purchase energy on a long term agreement, except traditional energy companies which fail to value the “green” attributes.

o Other Commenter: Look at King County (WA) separate sale of environmental attributes of landfill gas, along with "merchant gas" from their Cedar Hills landfill to Puget Sound Energy. This is a model for monetizing RNG added value.

General notes on opportunities

• The crops that qualify as specialty crops are specially designated. You have to go through a process to get that designation. Note: https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/specialty-crops-program

• When considering purposely grown crops, competition with food production (in terms of land, water and input requirements) becomes a much more sensitive issue. It entangles the price of biomass feedstocks with the larger and often volatile agricultural commodity markets. It also has the difficult challenge of convincing US farmers that they should change their farming practices in order to cultivate new types of crops (e.g. camelina, switchgrass, etc.). Unless there are long term public policies that provide incentives and reduce risks, major changes in farming systems are unlikely to be quickly adopted. As we develop opportunities and action items, we need to apply different techniques/resources to each.

o Note: Recurring theme among regional forums; however, in this region, crop rotation should be considered to get both a biofuel crop as well as improved wheat production in rotation.

• I want to make a comparison to the information revolution - in beginning they were not developing computers to do what they do today. Bill Gates and other visionaries turned the informatics revolution into what it is today. With the biomass economy we are in a similar starting phase - how it evolves depends on the “genius” that will help it take shape. We may need to produce a fuel that doesn’t look like petroleum. Right now we are looking to replace existing molecules, but since we are working with new feedstock, there may be a possibility for fuel that we haven’t seen yet.

o Other commenter: There may be opportunities for fuels and chemicals that we haven't seen yet. The technologies and knowledge that we are developing for the biomass economy could catalyze a revolution in other areas (for example in the way we handle and use our urban wastes!)

What sets the NW / PNW Bioeconomy apart from other regions of the country? What inherent advantages do you have? What regulatory issues constrain success? What incentives would help advance business opportunities to advance the bioeconomy?

• We are a gateway to the Pacific Rim; export options open towards Asia. • Demand from the aviation industry; track record working with Port of Seattle, SeaTac, WSU, Port of

Spokane, and more; all have said they would like to use aviation biofuels. We have relationships with Alaska and Horizon Airlines who are saying if you build it we will come, which says a lot about partnerships in the state.

o This is an important issue. Similar to the incentives provided to early stage photovoltaic and wind power generation through grid utility power purchase agreements with substantially higher than market prices per kwhr; initial biofuel purchase price premiums could be offered to biofuel producers, where the final blended fuel cost/price could be more competitive with conventional petroleum derived fuels. Note: government incentives

o The better we can quantify the environmental services, the better we can reflect true value of fuel provided. Offtake agreements, the small percent of blended fuel being used, if you can space that over a lot of gallons, it is a small cost to companies. Airlines are currently using 30-40% of budgets on fuel. Let’s create an alternative now while companies have money to invest. USDA Rural Development is willing to share some of the risk with standing up plants/biorefineries. We should share risk to get the first plants off the ground. Doesn’t have to be the most profitable,

https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/specialty-crops-program



8 | P a g e

just need to reduce the risk so we can move on to more developed options. Note: Start with this URL http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome

• I’m surprised the conversation hasn’t focused on bioproducts more. If we want to focus on fuel, I don’t think we will get there if we don’t talk about the high value products that will be needed to make it successful.

o Commenter: Agriculture systems did not play a large roll in this meeting; however, the focus on anaerobic digestion of animal wastes is now less on how to produce electricity from the biogas and more on how to extract usable and potentially valuable co-products. While the digester is the central component of the facility, it is the nutrient recovery and water upgrading components that are going to drive future adoption. The challenge is now to monetize those co-products for the local bioeconomy--we don't want to be shipping biofertilizers across the country unless there is some other critical need.

• On the East Coast of NE Florida, there are two major manufacturing plants that receive about 400 log trucks a day. Six months ago Rainier Advanced Materials entered into a joint agreement with Borregard in Norway related to lignin. This joint venture called Lignotech LLC, received tax credits from the county, and a new plant is getting built there, on Amelia Island where the existing plants are. Essentially, this makes better use of a biomass (lignin) that was previously burned for energy at the plant. Once the new plant is in operation (2017), the lignin will be used to create high value products --- and the local economy benefits with more job creation, and higher value products on the market.

o Note: Example of turning low value biomass waste into high value products because of research, IP, and new partnerships that provides industry with a 20 year advantage of establishing new markets and products.

• NARA is the Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance of which Mike Walcott of Washington State University is an integral member. I thought I said that you can’t get RINs from federal lands, as is the case. The federal government owns 53% of the state of Oregon and almost 29% of Washington. I was trying to make the point that environmentalism and its inherent love of national forests is very strong in the Pacific Northwest, unlike the southeast section of the U.S. Thus, those who work in the PNW forests, especially in the public sector, generally refer to the jet fuel made from trees as a bioproducts instead of feedstock since feedstock carries with it the emotional baggage associated with clearcutting and commodity production using wood. Thanks for your opportunity to attend this interesting and valuable meeting. PNW is different because of federal land ownership. Example: we were not included in the NARA analysis because you can’t use renewable identification numbers on rural land. Here there is a deep attachment to forests, environmentalists don’t want to see activity. We refer to it as a bioproduct rather than feedstock because of sensitivity towards national forests.

o Note: Uniqueness of land ownership would suggest that a partnership of feds, state lands, and industry / key private sector players should be considered to formulate a unique pilot project for PNW.

• Policy has focused on replacement of certain molecules; instead of fixing molecule, we are going to have opportunity to develop molecules that react to the biofuel. Nature of molecule we are working on is different than petroleum molecules. We are going to find molecules that perform better than petroleum based molecules.

o Commenter: The idea here is that by focusing on petroleum replacements we may be missing opportunities in other areas where biomass derived molecules could have competitive advantages.

• We’ve been focused on large scale plans, but the smaller scale plans haven’t been provided. We have so many options, we don’t have enough resources to know where to start. How do you do one thing at a time, get it done, and move to the next thing? The process is so distributed at the moment, how can we focus?

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome


9 | P a g e

o Note: Appropriate for a public private partnership to garner federal, multi-state, and local resources to optimize novel traits of the PNW region.

• Haven’t talked about municipal solid waste, or water resources. Thinking about public perception; we need to address amount of waste, how it can be used in urban core - need to communicate that better to public.

• Other commenter: Related: Progressive companies and municipalities (SF, Portland, Seattle, Google, Microsoft...) are now moving aggressively to zero-waste strategies. These strategies involve collecting and separating large amount of materials, notably including valuable biologically-sourced types [food waste, etc.]. This is currently a burden, as was collection of quality recyclables such as glass and metal when recycling programs were initiated. But as with high-value recyclables, using digestion and other sophisticated reclaim processes, these "wastes" will be valued when and where they are produced. Again, digestion and other biologically-based waste management systems are highly amenable to down-scaling, reducing need for interconnecting infrastructures to transport these wastes to central plants, as is now the practice. This change of mode will require more trained service workers (to maintain the distributed bio-processors), which creates jobs.

• Cannot sell bioeconomy as if it is same for the whole country. Every region resonates with something different. For Iowa it’s about corn, for Washington it is about aviation industry. In years to come, resource limitation is going to be the problem that drives to technology. We can start answering that question with development we are doing today.

o Other commenter: Our bio-economy marketing efforts have to be regional and have to be well integrated with the economic needs of the region!

• USDA has business services to provide access to capital in rural areas in a myriad of ways. Water quality - recent study shows that there are 66 million dead trees in Nevada, contributes to wildfires, and our waters are filtered through our forests. The recent environmental developments from insect infestations to wildfires - which cost money and environmental health - are why a bioeconomy makes sense here. These should be drivers of why we need to make use of biowaste, and look to new options in bio-feedstocks. Job creation, economic development, environmental services - all have a benefit. How do we quantify those benefits?

o Note: This argues for local / regional “biomass accumulators” and a coop structure to produce bioproducts for both regional use (e.g., biochar for soil / water enhancement), or energy-dense pellets for markets elsewhere.

• Regional innovation centers - put out a proposal for this so region can decide what makes most sense for them to develop. Let them propose the deliverable. That combines research with the market infrastructure.

o Note: Back a proposal with a PPP with others at the table for greater likelihood of success. • We should also note that a major study (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Impact of

anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests”) has just been published that finds that more than half of all recent western US forest wildfires are directly attributable to climate change that has increased forest aridity. There was discussion in the Forum of how US Forest Service fire prevention programs should be significantly increased with funding for forest thinning operations that use smaller scale systems for harvesting and converting such thinnings into biochar.

o Note: http://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11770.full.pdf • We need to be less concerned about the relatively higher capital cost per unit of production of smaller

bioproducts operations. This is especially relevant in our current period of exceptionally low interest rates and cost of capital. This perspective would encourage smaller scale production facilities that could be distributed throughout the region; and could benefit many rural communities with increased jobs and incomes from a new, localized BioEconomy. The lead time required for such distributed development of different bioproduct production enterprises may also be shorter than for much higher capacity facilities.


10 | P a g e

• There’s not a conversation about biochar as an application of biomass. It offers opportunity of collocation of feedstock and end use. You gasify biomass, produce biochar, disposes of biomass in low cost way. Then you produce biochar that can help fertilize crops and remediate soil. It is an elegant use of biomass. There is incredible complexity of performance of biochar based on feedstock and way it has been processed - it has created a whole area of science about which much remains unknown. Our local universities are developing knowledge of biochar feedstock characteristics; production technologies; and field applications. However, our universities need much greater financial support for continued research and development of biochar materials in order to become centers of excellence that would help industry and the forestry and farming sectors to make sense of its value and open up new opportunities for economic growth.

o Note: These last two comments put forth good arguments for regional PPP that includes federal partners. Sounds like a good topic for a separate meeting on next steps in PNW.

Follow Up Question: Should we keep collaboration among this group moving forward after this meeting? If so, how?”

• What partnerships do we need to form in this region? Can we do same thing next year with 150 people from many different aspects of this topic?

o Note: Group wanted to expand and bring more players into it. • We’ve had two regional projects for 5 years; they have filled a void in conversation across these regions.

Both projects are sun setting. They have provided tremendous synergy across the states (WA, OR, MT). There are two different areas here - west and east - that span multiple states and offer different things to this conversation. Maintaining the regional collaboration will be key.

• Our PNW region has also greatly benefitted from the knowledge and capacity building that was accomplished by the major USDA-NIFA five year grant to Washington State University, Oregon State University and the University of Idaho for “Regional Approaches to Climate Change - Pacific Northwest Agriculture” (REACCH). Although the REACCH program focused on wheat farming systems, the comprehensive knowledge gained regarding crop rotation strategies; soil and water impacts of different practices; and the impact of forecast climate changes on the region’s farming sector will contribute to our understanding of sustainable agricultural strategies for both food and other biomass products.

• We have tried to address needs for aviation industry through several collaborative forums and initiatives. ATiP would be able to bring all of those things together, bring this into a forum on the larger bioeconomy conversation.

• Yes, we should follow up. Grid modernization, built environment, and biofuels are all on the radar for the state, but biofuels have fallen off the radar a bit. We can bring that back by reconvening this group. These conversations are happening all the time, some larger force to bring us all together is helpful.

• The bioeconomy initiative has been in development for several years. We have gotten to this point and our goal is an action plan that will motivate the new administration. There is another umbrella - Mission Innovation. It is a global initiative, Obama has suggested support of. All countries that came together in Paris proposed doubling spending in R&D for next five years for clean energy technologies. Working on how USDA, EPA, others will play under that umbrella. No guarantees because of admin change. The EU is part of Mission Innovation, and have finalized $320B - this could still play a role for U.S. too.

• $1B leaves country every 3 days for petroleum. Would like to keep that circulating here in rural economies.


11 | P a g e


PNW Regional Bioeconomy Forum Summary Wes Jurey, CEO, ATIP Foundation






From the Foundation's perspective, based on the response from forum participants, we believe our premise is sound. At the conclusion of the Pacific Northwest forum, participants were unanimous in support of reconvening in a year, and working to formulate a specific demonstration project tailored to their region in the interim.



12 | P a g e



Third, the need to develop a talent pipeline for current and future workers was a strong concern. It was noted that although seven federal agencies were members of the BR&D Board, the Departments of Education & Labor were not engaged at the federal level. At the Pacific Northwest Regional forum, there was discussion on the need to include them in subsequent forums and pilot projects; none participated in this regional forum.





In conclusion, the Foundation looks forward to working with the Washington State University and the participants in the initial forum, to expand the stakeholder base, in order to begin the development of a regional demonstration project.



13 | P a g e


Pacific Northwest Regional / ATIP Bioeconomy Forum Summary

John Gardner Regional Host

CEO Washington State University Foundation Professor, Crop and Soil Science, Washington State University

This meeting was co-sponsored by Washington State University under the leadership of the team including Jim Moyer, Associate Dean/Director Agricultural Research Center, College of Agriculture, Human and Natural Resources, Mike Wolcott, Regents Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director for Institute of Sustainable Design, and Ralph Cavalieri, Associate Vice President for Alternative Energy.

The Seattle meeting represented an attempt at sampling the thought leaders in the bioeconomy from mostly the state of Washington, but also Oregon, Idaho and western Montana. This ATIP regional forum brought together representatives from academia (14), economic and workforce development (11), environmental/agricultural NGOs (8), active investors (4), state and local government (4) and industry broadly (3).

The Pacific Northwest region is among the highest in biomass production capability in the US, and has both public and private forests, grazing land as well as dryland and a substantial amount of irrigated vineyards, orchards and cropland dedicated to high value products.

The production potential of biomass in the region is great (NREL, 2009), but also is tightly linked to public policy (such as the forests) and food/consumer markets (high value crops). Forest/wood waste by-products, energy crops (including perennial and annual, woody and herbaceous), industrial and food wastes thus comprise the major categories of biomass potential.


14 | P a g e

Challenges

Given Washington’s geography in the US and the presence of five petroleum refineries on the Pacific coast built for Alaskan crude (now also from Bakken) – these are among the contributors to the challenge expressed related to the competition from petroleum as a major barrier to further developing the bioeconomy in the Pacific Northwest. The region assumes a technological breakthrough in efficiency and pricing might be necessary to increase use of biomass, thus the emphasis on research/development and participation of the research universities and national laboratory.

Sustainability is another major challenge in further developing the bioeconomy in the northwest. Given public lands, forest management history, the sophistication of water use/allocation, the wide-spread development of renewable sources of energy from hydro, wind and solar, and the environmental mindset – there is a high bar to achieve an acceptable use of biomass. While it could also be considered an asset, one can’t deny the importance of federal policy, be it land and water use or forest management in this region. Thoughtful, stable, long-term federal, state and local policy was deemed a requirement at this forum.

Another challenge expressed at the forum was the importance of place related to workforce and development of the bioeconomy. From the Pacific coast, to forests, to mountains, to desert and plains, the diversity of landscapes, ecosystems and opportunities are often closely tied to education and workforce capability. While a favorable attribute if the workforce stays in place, working across locales has revealed a real vulnerability with regard to the transferability of training and experience. Much of the northwest workforce is not capable of mobility.

Opportunities

Thoughtful, stable policy change could have a large impact on the bioeconomy of the northwest. With forest management policy the single biggest example, participants at the forum suggested both environmental and economic benefits were entirely possible given the land, water and bio productivity of the region. The region has relatively large reserves of untapped and under-utilized waste streams from forests, marine and urban communities that have potential for conversion and utilization for energy, products and co-products. Biochar is but one example.

Accompanying policy change, it was suggested a ready market for sustainable products and services could come from a developing bioeconomy. The environmental ethos of the region could provide a market pull if a sustainable supply chain was put in place. The most notable example is that of the aerospace manufacturing and the commercial aviation sector. The northwest is home to national, if not international, thought leaders of research and policy to lower the environmental impact of flight. Development of a sustainable bio-based jet fuel has been among their objectives for nearly a decade, which has demonstrated considerable progress with several alternative fuels now qualified, global policy among 191 countries agreed to, and daily commercial flights on biofuel originating from Los Angeles and Oslo, Norway.

The northwest region holds a strong belief that technological progress and disruptive innovations are possible, and could enable a growing northwest, national and global bioeconomy. This no doubt comes from the region’s history but also the public and private research/development capability and a sophisticated investor community. Though most regional investors are used to shorter term, lower capitalization, and faster growth opportunities than found in most of the bioeconomy, there is a community of knowledgeable, committed investors in clean technology native to the northwest.


15 | P a g e

---- End or report ----




Attachment 4: non-attribute notes w/ comments (RJB annotated)


1The Biomass R&D Board consists of representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Transportation, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

Northwest Regional Bioeconomy Forum Seattle, WA

“Garnering stakeholder perspectives and input to help shape the vision, strategic planning, and implementation to promote and expand the bioeconomy” Date: October 3, 2016 Time: 9:30 AM – 4:30 PM (local time) Location: Conference Center at Sea-Tac Airport, 17801 International Blvd, Rm 6012M (inside Sea-Tac Airport), Seattle, WA Meeting Purpose: To introduce the “Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy,” and the sub sequent “Bioeconomy Challenges and Opportunities for the Billion Ton Vision” report and to hear from stakeholders in (1) industry; (2) state and local government; (3) economic and workforce development; (4) investment & finance; (5) academia; and (6) agricultural and environmental organizations in order to accelerate the development of the bioeconomy. 8:30 AM – Registration / Check in


• Fred Jarrett, Senior Deputy Executive, King County • Wes Jurey, Chairman, ATIP Foundation • Valerie Reed, Deputy Director, Bioenergy Technologies Office • Todd Campbell, BR&D Board, Operations Committee (Senior Energy Adviser, US

Department of Agriculture)

10:00 AM – 11:00 AM Overview of “Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy”, and the “Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities” Report

• Presentation by Todd Campbell, BR&D Board, Operations Committee (Senior Energy Advisor, U.S. Department of Agriculture)


11:00 AM–3:45 PM—Stakeholder Comments and Discussion • 12:30 PM—Working Lunch

4:00 PM–4:30 PM—Facilitator Report Out and Next Steps • Key comments, findings, and recommendations of the 6 sectors • Includes next steps (timeline to review, prepare, and disseminate report) and feedback on session

format


Attachment 1

11/5/2016

Sea‐Tac Bioeconomy Forum slide presentations, Oct 3, 2016 1

Advanced Biofuels


ATIP Foundation Regional Bioeconomy Forums:Addressing the Challenges & Opportunities of

Advancing the Billion Ton Bioeconomy

National Sponsors


10/2007

6/2010

9/2009 5/2010

12/2008

3/2010

11/2010

6/20105/2010



Advanced Biofuels








National Sponsors



4

Todd Campbell, Senior Advisor for Energy and the Biobased Economy

USDA Rural Development

October 3, 2016









Bioeconomy Definition

Attachment 2

11/5/2016


Vision and Goal of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy




• 2012 & 2030

Baseline

High‐yield













Federal Alternative Jet Fuels Research and Development Strategy

Simplified Bioeconomy Concept

11











• This report aims to educate the public on the wide‐ranging, federally funded activities that are helping to bolster the bioeconomy.




Attachment 2

11/5/2016









14

Report Outline








Initiative’• Conclusion

15







Key Opportunities






17





18

Attachment 2

11/5/2016





19








[email protected]


Attachment 2

The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative:

Challenges and Opportunities Overview and Outline of Topics


In February 2016, the Board released the Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy (FARB) to highlight the potential for a stronger U.S. bioeconomy, specifically some of the impacts of increasingbiomass utilization three‐fold by 2030.1 The goal of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative (Bioeconomy Initiative) is to develop and coordinate innovative approaches to expanding the sustainable use of America’s abundant biomass resources, while maximizing economic, social, and environmental benefits.

Since the release of the FARB, the Board has engaged with the bioenergy stakeholder community to further develop the Bioeconomy Initiative. The new report, The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities, is the second in a three‐part series intended to lay the foundation and serve as the public communication of the Bioeconomy. This report is foundational to the Board's objective to strengthen the commitment and coordination between the U.S. Governmentand the bioeconomy community. Early feedback from stakeholders has underscored the importance of biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower. This report details several challenges and opportunities that stakeholders have identified as critical to the success of the Bioeconomy Initiative.


This report discusses seven of the high‐priority challenges recognized by the bioeconomy stakeholdercommunity, identified below:

Major technical hurdles for development and scale. Steep competition from traditional petroleum‐derived resources. A lack of necessary infrastructure. Access to capital for large financial investments. Uncertainties about sustainability—understandingenvironmental, social, and economic

outcomes. Growth instability and increased investment risk caused by policy uncertainty The need for a strong and capable workforce.


Create increased public demand for biomass‐derived products in a bioeconomy. Quantify, communicate, and enhance beneficial effects and minimize negative impacts of

an enhanced bioeconomy. Enable the testing and approval of new biofuels and bioproducts Encourage expansion of the market potential for biomass. Develop feedstock to meet market demands and potential Develop bioproducts that can accelerate biofuel production.

Attachment 3

Page 1

Support fundamental innovations that reduce cost and technology risk in the supply chain.

Seek opportunities to utilize low‐cost waste resources. Develop pathways for:

• private‐sector financing. • Support stable, long‐termpolicies. • Ensure a ready workforce to meet the needs of the bioeconomy.

Disclaimer:

The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities is a product of interagency collaboration under the Biomass Research and Development Board and does not establish any new or explicitly reflect United States Governmentpolicy. Some information is based on activities conducted by the Executive Agencies as of May 2016. However, some of the views expressed in this document reflect stakeholder perspectives and do not represent United States Governmentpolicy. This report is not a policy or budget document nor an action plan, and it does not commit the federal government to any new activities or funding.

1 http://www.biomassboard.gov/pdfs/farb_2_18_16.pdf

Attachment 3

Page 2



1. What are state/local/regional challenges to the bioeconomy?





6. How can you contribute to the Billion Ton Bioeconomy?

Additional Regional Discussion Points for Consideration (from ATIP Foundation)

a) From the “Challenges” section of the above document, what would you list as the 3

highest priorities to discuss and address from the PNW region?

a) From that same list, what SHOULD be added to that list from our regional perspective? Does it change your prioritization scheme? (1=most important)

b) From the “Opportunities” section of the above document, is anything missing from the list, and how would you prioritize these issues? (1=most important)

c) What sets the NW / PNW Bioeconomy apart from other regions of the country? What inherent advantages do you have? What regulatory issues constrain success? What incentives would help advance business opportunities to advance the bioeconomy?

d) What other biomass would you like to consider in the discussion of advancing the bioeconomy? Animal wastes / carcasses / concentrated animal feeding operations? Municipal landfill biorefineries? Others?


Attachment 3

Page 3

1

Pacific Northwest Regional Bioeconomy Forum SEA-TAC Conference Center

October 3, 2016 Listening session notes

Welcome remarks from Beth Osborne, on behalf of U.S. Senator Patty Murray:

Senator Murray regrets that she is unable to attend today’s forum on the bioeconomy but asked that I share a few words on her behalf. My name is Beth Osborne and I am her Deputy State Director and Director of State Outreach.

Our nation is faced with a growing global demand for energy, a severe reliance on fossil fuels, and environmental concerns around many of our current energy supplies. Senator Murray believes it will take American innovation and smart policies that encourage conservation, energy efficiency, and increased renewable energy research, development, and deployment to address the critical issue of climate change and create a comprehensive national energy policy. Your work in renewable energy – biofuels in particular – is a critical part of the solution. And Washington State has long been at the forefront of biofuels production, research and development, and feedstock cultivation. From Boeing, Alaska Airlines, the three largest airports in the region, and Washington State University establishing the nation’s first stakeholder effort in 2010 to tackle the challenges and opportunities associated with the production of sustainable alternative aviation fuels… …to USDA awarding the Washington State University and the University of Washington two multi-year grants to research and demonstrate the use of Pacific Northwest woody biomass in biofuels.

These examples provide only a snapshot of the private and public investments being made in the State of Washington. Our premier research universities and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory have made great strides in the development of feedstock from regionally available forestry and agriculture products.

The combination of this expertise with leaders in the manufacturing, airport, airline, engineering, and environmental fields and the abundance of agriculture and forestry resources make the Pacific Northwest a key player in the bioeconomy. Continued investment and innovation will create jobs and economic growth, improve our nation’s energy security, and promote environmental stability.

Senator Murray is a proud to be your partner in Washington, D.C. as you continue your work that does so much for Washington state and our country.

Attachment 4

2

Responses to the “challenges” list


1. Major technical hurdles for development and scale. (12) 2. Steep competition from traditional petroleum-derived resources. (17) 3. A lack of necessary infrastructure. (8)

[commenter] is not certain this is correct for many cellulosic sources in the PNW - particularly woody biomass. In fact there are a number of “stranded assets” in the form of pulp and paper mills, lumber mills, transportation assets (trucks and rail), log depots, chipping and densification equipment, etc.

4. Access to capital for large financial investments. (11) 5. Uncertainties about sustainability—understanding environmental, social, and

economic outcomes. (12) 1. --- Water is a big deal in the west. Climate change will impact water availability,

which will impact biomass available 2. ---- I want to add nuance to this point; there is a lot of utility in recovering

nutrients and organic carbon from biomass residues and post-harvest wastes that are returned to the soil to ensure sustainable cultivation of biomass feedstocks from fields and forests. The long term sustainability of chosen feedstocks is dependent upon properly managed nutrient cycles at landscape scale.

6. Growth instability and increased investment risk caused by policy uncertainty (16) 7. The need for a strong and capable workforce. (2)

Additional challenges added by the group: ● --- Market for the products (1) ● --- High proportion of federal land ownership in the west, different treatment of federal

biomass sources based on definitions of “renewable” (1) ● --- State economic development programs - what is the hand off to federal programs ● --- Political polarization ● --- Distance to processing - infrastructure and scaling up ● Insufficient incentives to drive investment and markets

General notes on challenges ---- In reviewing the Federal Activities Report on the BioEconomy (FARB), I would like to see what the funding levels are -- in terms of authorizations and appropriations for each program and agency described in the report. It would also be very useful to present the total federal funding directed towards BioEconomy developments over the past few years. This would provide insight into how big is the federal government effort in funding programs for the bioeconomy initiative. Although it might be controversial, providing high-level comparative funding levels for BioEconomy initiatives relative to aggregate federal funding for fossil fuel and nuclear energy resource and technology programs would contribute to a clearer policy assessment of federal government funding priorities across all major energy options.

Comment [1]: I would say: Need of new infrastructure and identification of synergistic opportunities with existing infrastructure!

Comment [2]: It seems that the farm digester company Regenis (www.Regenis.net) might offer models for building a trained, functional and profit-focused workforce in/for the bioeconomy.

Comment [3]: It is important to highlight the experience of the Walla Walla Community college and their AAAS degree in plant operations

Comment [RJB4]: This has been a theme we’ve heard in most forums.

Comment [RJB5]: I would suggest we provide funding levels for both intramural and extramural research from the various BR&D member agencies that relate to the Bioeconomy. An obvious follow up would be an annual research report highlighting outcomes to date, available technologies, and a request for partnerships to address specific issues (e.g., CRADA or cooperative agreement. This idea is further supported by the anonymous commenter below, and by [RJB7] comment further below.

Attachment 4

3

I would also recommend that the FARB include a section that highlights the BioEconomy related research being conducted at our National Laboratories (e.g. NREL, Argonne, Lawrence Livermore, Idaho, etc.). It would be useful to describe the national labs’ major programmatic leadership assignments and funding levels. This could help the private sector identify sources of technology innovation and potential public/private partnerships for further research and development.

---- There was a consolidation of public funding information in 2012, when cellulosic fuel was determined to be viable. At that point in time it was $1B across agencies; USDA feedstocks, DOE’s investment, NSF, others – decided to make cellulosic feedstock economically competitive. ---- Should we revise FARB and put numbers behind programs to show size of federal funding?

--- The ability to continue to research transportation logistics is important, any region with raw material is going to need this work. Infrastructure and transportation logistics of biomass are crucial elements. Most recent cellulosic plants are in Iowa. Raw materials are found within 50 miles, but the big issue is how to transport that efficiently? How to transport with a minimal amount of costs and distance. Iowa State University and private companies doing work on this. ---- The BioEconomy Vision should also be looking at the potential for biomass conversion and application options in terms of their carbon sequestration values. It is clear that even if all countries were to achieve their voluntary GHG emission targets submitted under the auspices of the COP21 Paris Agreement; global warming will exceed the 2 degree C temperature ‘tipping point’ well before 2100. We are going to have to increase our investments in ‘Negative Emission Technologies’ that can draw carbon out of the atmosphere and sequester it for lengthy periods of time (e.g. 100 years or more). There are different carbon sequestration values for different bioenergy and bioproduct processes. There is growing recognition that returning organic carbon to soils (e.g. Composts and crop residue retention) and producing “Biochar” carbon for use as soil amendments and other applications offer the most cost effective and feasible methods of sequestering large amounts of carbon that can mitigate the increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. As governments (e.g. California, EU, China, Alberta and others) establish GHG emission reduction ‘Carbon markets’; verifiable carbon sequestration offset values of selected BioEconomy developments will become an important economic factor that will improve the return on investment in BioEconomy initiatives. ----- In NW we can irrigate our crops, and that causes competition for growing biomass ---- There are currently two main tracts for developing a strong, capable workforce. First, we [in higher education] are doing a good job of training scientists and engineers to go into industry and start contributing to this bioeconomy immediately. However, second, the community colleges and other two year vocational/tech schools seem to be arranged into distinct regions within the state with specific bio-related projects driving curriculum development (i.e., different courses are taught in the northwest vs. southwest), which limits

Comment [RJB6]: Anonymous commenter.

Comment [RJB7]: I think an annual report on bioeconomy-related R&D outcomes would be a great idea. Currently federal agencies are required to publish an annual report on Technology Transfer that covers all innovations arising from intramural R&D in all agencies. Extramural R&D outcomes are published by AUTM (Association of University Technology Managers) but only addresses IP licensing.

Comment [8]: Fully agree! If the biomass economy is a tool to fight global warming, we need to invest more heavily and be more active in carbon sequestration technologies.

Comment [RJB9]: Politically difficult to pull off, but seemingly important. Secretary Vilsack has supported this idea for years.

Comment [RJB10]: Increasingly important to have minimal inputs required to grow biobased crops for fuel, even better if it can be done on marginal lands. It is for these reasons that a NIFA 5-year grant is looking at impact of crop rotation of dedicated biofuel crops (minimal input) with other high value commodities (e.g., wheat). Turns out, having grown a crop of canola for jet fuel increases wheat yields the following year.

Attachment 4

4

ability to train technicians and other operators for jobs outside their immediate location. In order to best address the needs of these students (who are often anchored by location for education but then have the ability to mobilize for job opportunities), we need to develop training programs and certificates that could be obtained from any location across the entire region. ---- We should be working with the tribes as well. Lots of opportunity as well as mutual interests. ---- We should make sure that the workforce opportunities are diversified. We want everyone to be able to join in the success of solutions to these major challenges. ---- Distance - we are very far north and we do not have volume produced here in the Pacific Northwest. We need to see a combination of infrastructure and incentives to help improve rural development. ---- Much of the inland PNW is dry with less than 14” of precipitation per year. Dryland biomass yields are too low under the dry growing conditions to contribute significantly to the Billion Ton goal. Those crop residues are needed to protect soil from wind erosion and maintain soil organic carbon. We will need to balance between biomass production and environmental stewardship. This is an important issue; as crop residues (e.g. Wheat straw, corn stover, etc.) are viewed as significant feedstocks for advanced cellulosic biofuels and bioproducts. Sustainable production of these feedstocks will require location specific and crop rotation specific residue management and allocation practices to protect against soil erosion; improve soil moisture retention and add Soil Organic Carbon. ---- Five years ago there were three or four technologies in this area, now there are more than we can keep up with in terms of performing needed R&D, formalizing processes and discoveries that are made, etc. The growing research has overwhelmed the resources available, we can’t keep up. For example, DOE has a lot of focus on pyrolysis, but there are new areas that need just as many concentrated resources, but they don’t exist. ---- State and local economic incentives helped spur the development of the biofuels industry in Iowa. Iowa has provided early stage assistance to companies to establish commercial biofuels production. Production tax credits, specifically for biodiesel now, exist but are targeted and limited in time horizon. Iowa has a brand new production credit for renewable chemicals. We have supported production of higher blend ethanol, that is now gone. We are currently supporting the retail establishment as a state through certain tax credits for higher blend fuels and some support for new blender pump infrastructure. We’ve found they are beneficial to consumers and the commercial biofuel-producing companies.

---- Don’t have the same kind of support in Washington, need more business and policy engagement and support

---- We need policy parity for renewable energy - if we compare the Production Tax Credit (PTC) available for wind and solar (~$0.02/Kwhr) an equivalent PTC for cellulosic ethanol would be the equivalent of $0.75/gal.

Comment [RJB11]: Sounds like an opportunity for a Pilot Project Consortium to better utilize lands of Native Americans for creating new opportunities

Comment [RJB12]: Common theme

Comment [RJB13]: These are formidable problems in PNW. Dedicated biofuel crops help wheat production, but the money crop is still the wheat. This region may want to explore other biomass feedstocks for developing biorefineries.(tallow, ocean / seafood residues, etc.)

Comment [RJB14]: Process should be replicated in PNW.

Comment [RJB15]: Policy support; see above RJB14comment.

Attachment 4

5

---- Something unique to our region is how state agencies work together to support bioeconomy. It is important to look at how these agencies integrate. I know this is a problem in other states, but it is actually an opportunity for our region.

Responses to the “opportunities” list Specific opportunities within each challenge as potential growth areas for the future of the Initiative are detailed below:

1. Develop feedstock and fundamental innovations that reduce cost and technology risk in the supply chain. (14)

2. Seek opportunities to utilize low-cost waste resources. (11) a. --- We should make opportunities for local communities to benefit from the

bioeconomy, rather than strictly adapting a model that’s scaled up to a refinery miles away. Specifically, also consider local, on-farm conversion methods as a way to allay transportation costs and handle low density, high volume residues that are low in value.

3. Quantify, communicate, and enhance beneficial effects and minimize negative impacts (8)

4. Create increased public demand for biomass-derived products in a bioeconomy. (14) a. ---- We’ve done prototypes, but public isn’t seeing those - we need to increase

awareness and understanding; social cost of carbon, other ecological services and environmental benefits.

5. Expand the market potential for biomass. 6. Develop bioproducts that can accelerate biofuel production. (9) 7. Enable the testing and approval of new biofuels and bioproducts. (3) 8. Encourage private-sector financing (6) 9. Support stable, long-term policies. (18) 10. Ensure a ready workforce to meet the needs of the bioeconomy (2)

Additional opportunities suggested:

● ---- Conversion technologies to upgrade biomass to usable feedstock; a commoditization of biomass to usable feedstock; Need to develop technologies for the process; conversion technologies

● ---- At regional level, it is challenging to bring infrastructure together; if there isn’t money going to the region to collectively solve a problem, we shouldn’t be surprised it is not getting coordinated. How can the federal government coordinate regional efforts? Need to put at least millions into the region to coordinate the efforts

○ ---- The regional biomass economy programs were in place for decade or more, stood up by DOE, but managed by governor offices. Not big dollar, but were for meetings, convening partnerships. These are the kind of actions we can put to your observations and recommendations.

● --- Leveraging public entities for long term energy purchase agreements or market stability - merchant generation not possible for biofuels… EX: RNG producer needs a gas purchase agreement in order to capitalize a new facility, not many entities have the

Comment [16]: We still need to be aware of the differing definitions of some common terms related to development of a bioeconomy. The term biorefinery may look very different depending on the source of biomass and the intended products. A dairy farm by itself can be reclassified to be called a biorefinery. Offsite organics and woody biomass can be brought on to the farm to be anaerobically digested or thermochemically converted; however, the radius from which to derive this biomass is relatively small and serves as a economic boost rather than a critical pillar of the process. This is as contrasted with a biodiesel biorefinery which might need to draw feedstock from a 50+ mile radius or not be viable.

Comment [17]: Water/wastewater and nutrient recovery & recycling can increasingly be down-sized. Small communities suffering from years of depletion of these through large-scale extraction can benefit.

Comment [18]: Would suggest that highlighting clean air, water, and improved soil while gaining the benefit of renewable biofuels and bioproducts is a message that would be more universally accepted. Bluntly, highlighting climate change/global warming as a reason to change and then insisting on individual acknowledgement of a need to change to support society just will not work for nearly 50% of the US population. Instead of confrontationally dragging this group in, publicize and highlight the local benefits of these projects.

Comment [RJB19]: This comment suggests that a regional pilot project may be a recommendation from PNW attendees.

Attachment 4

6

planning horizon to purchase energy on a long term agreement, except traditional energy companies which fail to value the “green” attributes.

● ---- Bio-Preferred program; good way to work with government. Gives advantage in purchasing with the federal government – See link below more information about what the opportunities are related to this program (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2016/02/0047.xml)

● ---- Federal land management agencies are critically important to resource supply in short and medium term; they are interested in engaging in this process

General notes on opportunities ---- There are a lot of ideas in the federal labs, but each agency makes those accessible in different ways and through different processes. We need to increase the opportunity for federal labs to start with “yes” as we work with external entities. In addition, specialty crops allow opportunities for federal funding; some of the money available for this doesn’t get used - people going biofuels crops should pay attention to and use this opportunity. ---- The crops that qualify as specialty crops are specially designated. You have to go through a process to get that designation. ---- It is important to remember biomass feedstocks are acquired from two sources: residues from existing post-harvest and food/fiber/feed/fuel production processes; and feedstocks from purposefully grown crops of all types. Each feedstock category represents distinct attributes to work with and different challenges to overcome. Biomass residues and wastes are especially significant resources as they tend to be available as already aggregated material that have marginal market value (i.e. low cost to acquire). Many biomass wastes often have negative impacts in terms of air and water pollution that have disposal or remediation costs; these disposal costs can be avoided when the material is used for bioproduct feedstocks. When considering purposely grown crops, competition with food production (in terms of land, water and input requirements) becomes a much more sensitive issue. It entangles the price of biomass feedstocks with the larger and often volatile agricultural commodity markets. It also has the difficult challenge of convincing US farmers that they should change their farming practices in order to cultivate new types of crops (e.g. camelina, switchgrass, etc.). Unless there are long term public policies that provide incentives and reduce risks, major changes in farming systems are unlikely to be quickly adopted. As we develop opportunities and action items, we need to apply different techniques/resources to each. --- What can we do with all of this agriculture biomass and waste to make something better, to improve economies/health/etc in U.S.? Only through innovation will we stay a global leader. ---- Our experience is that biorefineries need to make a suite of aggregates products; does the biopreferred program include purchase of fuel, plastic-based materials? It’s not clear if that program will directly impact the standing up of a biorefinery.

Comment [20]: Look at King County (WA) separate sale of environmental attributes of landfill gas, along with "merchant gas" from their Cedar Hills landfill to Puget Sound Energy. This is a model for monetizing RNG added value.

Comment [RJB21]: https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/specialty-crops-program

Comment [RJB22]: Recurring theme; however, crop rotation should be considered to get both a biofuel crop as well as improved wheat production in rotation.

Comment [RJB23]: Solid argument for funding research.

Attachment 4

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2016/02/0047.xml




7

---- The program covers more of consumer products, doesn’t cover renewable energy, biofuels; different federal agencies are handling procurements for those areas. The mechanisms are there, but right now the biopreferred program isn’t in fuels.

---- I want to make a comparison to the information revolution - in beginning they were not developing computers to do what they do today. Bill Gates and other visionaries turned the informatics revolution into what it is today. With the biomass economy we are in a similar starting phase - how it evolves depends on the “genius” that will help it take shape. We may need to produce a fuel that doesn’t look like petroleum. Right now we are looking to replace existing molecules, but since we are working with new feedstock, there may be a possibility for fuel that we haven’t seen yet. ---- Improving supply chain increases market potential. It is important to address this - federal agencies - DOT ? - should be brought into conversation for supporting transportation research needs.

Follow up questions What sets the NW / PNW Bioeconomy apart from other regions of the country? What inherent advantages do you have? What regulatory issues constrain success? What incentives would help advance business opportunities to advance the bioeconomy? ---- Climate ---- We play well together here ---- We have strong research institutes, getting support and incentives for capital investment ---- We are a gateway to the Pacific Rim; export options open towards Asia ---- Second largest refinery complex is on the west coast; oil and gas. ---- Two major railroads serve the PNW and there are two major river systems for transportation and hydroelectric power generation. The Grand Coulee Dam provides an extensive system of canals for irrigating the Columbia Basin in eastern Washington. Water can be drawn from the Columbia River and its tributaries to recharge the deep basalt aquifers in the Umatilla Basin. ---- We have Weyerhaeuser, Green Diamond, Roseburg, private and well-managed timber lands. Beyond harvesting timber? It is not as production-oriented as it used to be. Roseburg is distinct from the others. They are eager to sell wood products in a variety of forms

---- I believe those comments refer more to manufacturing than production.

---- We tell different stories around the carbon impacts of woody biomass. Right now answer is “it depends.” Can people in this room get clarity around that so policy on national level is less fluid? ---- Demand from the aviation industry; track record working with Port of Seattle, SeaTac, WSU, Port of Spokane, and more; all have said they would like to use aviation biofuels. We have

Comment [RJB24]: Good suggestion for expanding biopreferred program to include more that products.

Comment [25]: There may be opportunities for fuels and chemicals that we haven't seen yet. The technologies and knowledge that we are developing for the biomass economy could catalyze a revolution in other areas (for example in the way we handle and use our urban wastes!)

Comment [RJB26]: A new suggestion from the forums. Although DOT is part of BR&D Board, they have not been noticeably active.

Comment [RJB27]: Good point

Comment [28]: Strongly agree and expand: All bio-products need "seed-to-endues" GHG statistics consistent with IPCC guidelines. This will be among the key metrics for products in the future.

Comment [29]: correction/clarification: "Seed-to-endues" = full lifecycle accounting of GHG release per average unit of biomass as currently produced.

Attachment 4

8

relationships with Alaska and Horizon Airlines who are saying if you build it we will come, which says a lot about partnerships in the state.

---- There is a market for biojetfuel - but at what price? It is difficult for DOD to procure biofuel if it is not comparably priced to compete with petroleum options. The aviation industry has same problem. At this time, it does not appear that the ‘private market’ for most biofuels (e.g. Biojet, etc.) is willing to pay a price that would match current and near-term biofuel production technologies from ‘commercial scale’ biofuel production facilities. ---- We are seeing developments in the market for aviation biofuels. R&D shows prices are competitive with petroleum fuels. Jet Blue is adopting biofuels at a price that is competitive; we’re seeing companies throughout the world saying they will make biofuel at competitive prices. There is still a long way to go, but we are seeing the scale we need to bring prices down, especially in biodiesel. ---- We are seeing a maturity in how we look at biofuels. The alternative jet/green diesel contracts made last year are at a percent blend. Biodiesel can start moving into production when it is blended with petroleum fuel. That gets production going, provides learning opportunities that can lead to wider adoption. Goal is to get the supply chain moving. This is an important issue. Similar to the incentives provided to early stage photovoltaic and wind power generation through grid utility power purchase agreements with substantially higher than market prices per kwhr; initial biofuel purchase price premiums could be offered to biofuel producers, where the final blended fuel cost/price could be more competitive with conventional petroleum derived fuels. ---- The better we can quantify the environmental services, the better we can reflect true value of fuel provided. Offtake agreements, the small percent of blended fuel being used, if you can space that over a lot of gallons, it is a small cost to companies. Airlines are currently using 30-40% of budgets on fuel. Let’s create an alternative now while companies have money to invest. USDA Rural Development is willing to share some of the risk with standing up plants/biorefineries. We should share risk to get the first plants off the ground. Doesn’t have to be the most profitable, just need to reduce the risk so we can move on to more developed options.

---- We have the cheapest electric in the country, great hydroelectric power, we have one of the largest biorefineries in Grays Harbor. It did not become as prominent as we thought it might when started it in 2005. We haven’t been supporting very basic policy; getting stable policy seems nearly impossible.

----- We need to decide how to best sell bioeconomy? The benefits are different state to state. In Washington, we want to be the best in biofuels, preserve jobs here, so we need to invest in this.

---- I’m surprised the conversation hasn’t focused on bioproducts more. If we want to focus on fuel, I don’t think we will get there if we don’t talk about the high value products that will be needed to make it successful.

Comment [RJB30]: Government incentives…

Comment [RJB31]: Start with this URL http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome

Comment [32]: Agriculture systems did not play a large roll in this meeting; however, the focus on anaerobic digestion of animal wastes is now less on how to produce electricity from the biogas and more on how to extract usable and potentially valuable co-products. While the digester is the central component of the facility, it is the nutrient recovery and water upgrading components that are going to drive future adoption. The challenge is now to monetize those co-products for the local bioeconomy--we don't want to be shipping biofertilizers across the country unless there is some other critical need.

Attachment 4

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome

9

---- Half of the revenue has to come from coproducts. Cannot get there if you are only making the fuel.

---- If biofuel solutions are approaching cost performance parity with petroleum , that’s new to me, which means you have a problem. People think if there is a subsidy available, that will make up for the economics, but it does not. I don’t want to be in it for the first one, I want to be in for the longterm. This is primarily a biofuels audience, and biomass is a much, much broader undertaking. I needed to understand the difference between residues and dedicated feedstocks. I wouldn’t seek to produce more residues, but purposely grown crop feedstocks are a different story.

---- Communication to those that don’t have the technical background is crucial. We need capital, if it is off the table because of perception, that’s a problem.

---- I’m a lawyer/investor, I want bioeconomy to be similar to software. Looks simple on the surface, but has large capital cost. Cellulosic > biogas - too focused (example). Biojet, the deal is a help and a problem. Hawaii wants biojet produced there, but will want concessions on price. There has to be rationality in how policies play out - DLA (Defense Logistics Agency) is finally realizing that. ---- DOE had first pioneering facilities, we learned that the smaller companies with good technologies could not get backing from private sector to build facilities. So those small companies failed and did not end up working. The companies that could build had deep pockets, got loans later on. Plant (rounds) 2 & 3 are looking to Europe, China, India, etc, because they’re not getting investment here. ---- On the East Coast of NE Florida, there are two major manufacturing plants, which get about 400 log trucks a day. Six months ago Rainier Advanced Materials entered joint agreement with Borregard in Norway related to lignin. Joint venture called Lignotech LLC, tax credits approved, and a new plant is getting built there, on the island where the existing plants are. Essentially, this makes better use of a biomass (lignin) that was previously burned for energy at the plant. Once the new plant is in operation, the lignin will be used to create high value products --- and the local economy benefits with more job creation, and higher value products on the market. ---- If an investment is profitable for one player, and then increases funders, that will ruin profitability. First movers have risk. ---- NARA is the Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance of which Mike Walcott of Washington State University is an integral member. I thought I said that you can’t get RINs from federal lands, as is the case. The federal government owns 53% of the state of Oregon and almost 29% of Washington. I was trying to make the point that environmentalism and its inherent love of national forests is very strong in the Pacific Northwest, unlike the southeast section of the U.S. Thus, those who work in the PNW forests, especially in the public sector, generally refer to the jet fuel made from trees as a bioproducts instead of feedstock since feedstock carries with it the emotional baggage associated with clearcutting and commodity production using wood. Thanks for your opportunity to attend this interesting and valuable meeting. PNW is different because of federal land ownership. Example: we were not included

Comment [RJB33]: Example of turning low value biomass waste into high value products because of research and IP that provides industry with a 20 year advantage of establishing new markets and products.

Comment [RJB34]: That may be true, but although increasing investors doesn’t ruin profitability (expect for very short term), it expands opportunity!!

Attachment 4

10

in the NARA analysis because you can’t use renewable identification numbers on rural land. Here there is a deep attachment to forests, environmentalists don’t want to see activity. We refer to it as a bioproduct rather than feedstock because of sensitivity towards national forests. ---- How do we articulate this so the voter says that’s good for Washington? ---- Early on, it was about developing technology that goes through process to biorefinery. Now there is another hurdle, which is getting through regulations. Scale up activity of getting to market is another investment need. The needs of capital are not the same all along the process. There is a big need for patient capital. ---- Biomass and biofuels are two sides of same coin. USDA looks at it as job and wealth creation for rural areas that comes along with feedstock. Whether it’s fuels or renewable, biobased products - making transition to renewable energy/products industry - what does this look like? It is a wholesale transition from fossil fuel based economy to biobased economy. How do we get there? Low cost will dictate what is used by first adopters. ---- Chemicals that make a lot of things can come from bioproducts. ---- Policy has focused on replacement of certain molecules; instead of fixing molecule, we are going to have opportunity to develop molecules that react to the biofuel. Nature of molecule we are working on is different than petroleum molecules. We are going to find molecules that perform better than petroleum based molecules. --- I don’t know that PNW will become chemical production hub; but we could look at a more distributed energy resources approach in PNW. If you visit a farmer with a digester, they’ll say I’m a farmer first, but transported this here so I need to use it. We need aggregators who engage with these technologies on the farm to have highest value impact. --- How do you build the infrastructure of an industry? Need to get answers to that for USDA, DOE, etc to see what their role is in the answers. --- The infrastructure piece is essential. National lab can look across infrastructure, assess it and publish a study on it, which private sector won’t do. We are trying to green field a new industry, without really looking at the assets. A lot of the national studies focus on aggregate numbers across country, but that doesn’t get you to how you make this a reality at the regional level, to see what the assets are and how they can be used, create a business plan. --- We’ve been focused on large scale plans, but the smaller scale plans haven’t been provided. We have so many options, we don’t have enough resources to know where to start. How do you do one thing at a time, get it done, and move to the next thing? The process is so distributed at the moment, how can we focus? ---- Haven’t talked about municipal solid waste, or water resources. Thinking about public perception; we need to address amount of waste, how it can be used in urban core - need to communicate that better to public.

Comment [RJB35]: Uniqueness of land ownership would suggest that a partnership of feds, state lands, and industry / key private sector players should be considered to formulate a unique pilot project for PNW.

Comment [36]: The idea here is that by focusing on petroleum replacements we may be missing opportunities in other areas where biomass derived molecules could have competitive advantages.

Comment [RJB37]: Appropriate for a public private partnership to garner federal, multi-state, and local resources to optimize novel traits of the PNW region.

Comment [38]: Related: Progressive companies and municipalities (SF, Portland, Seattle, Google, Microsoft...) are now moving aggressively to zero-waste strategies. These strategies involve collecting and separating large amount of materials, notably including valuable biologically-sourced types [food waste, etc.]. This is currently a burden, as was collection of quality recyclables such as glass and metal when recycling programs were initiated. But as with high-value recyclables, using digestion and other sophisticated reclaim processes, these "wastes" will be valued when and where they are produced. Again, digestion and other biologically-based waste management systems are highly amenable to down-scaling, reducing need for interconnecting infrastructures to transport these wastes to central plants, as is now the practice. This change of mode will require more trained service workers (to maintain the distributed bio-processors), which creates jobs.

Attachment 4

11

However, although municipal solid wastes may currently represent a large feedstock resource for bioproducts; the carbon content of these wastes may be subject to significant reductions as municipalities adopt comprehensive ‘source separation and recycling’ regulations and practices. Biorefineries that require large volumes of municipal waste may find it difficult to acquire long term waste purchase agreements with local or regional waste management operations. ---- We have a couple biorefineries in the area. I’ve been thinking about these ideas for 15 years in NW. The reason capital hasn’t entered space is because of economic risk and unstable policy. Trying to stand up biorefinery that is competing with advanced, large, heavily-subsidized petroleum economy. Need to reduce some of the incentives for that industry, or do other things to pull it back so biofuels can grow. If we don’t have stable policy framework that drives the market, we’re going to keep talking about the pieces but not actually get there. Absent of carbon tax, etc, don’t have big push towards biofuels. More effective to tax what you don’t like to incentivize what you do. It is important to recognize the enormous fiscal incentives that are in place on behalf of the entrenched fossil fuel industry; and that there has yet to be legislated any significant ‘policy parity’ with biofuels and bioproducts developers. The basic depletion allowance tax benefits for oil, natural gas and coal enable fossil fuel producers to enjoy much larger net-of-taxes revenues that reduce their total costs of capital and reduce their marginal costs of producing fuels. The BioEconomy producers require comparable tax incentives that would improve their competitiveness with fossil fuels. ---- Old saying - necessity is the mother of invention. What is the why? Absent the answer to this question it will be based on financial performance, which is why it’s not happening right now. Hydraulic fracturing, a new source of energy, has taken away $100/barrel in oil. The ‘why’ can no longer be getting away from Middle East oil. If it’s because of climate change - there are discussions we can have there. But we need to define the criteria. Otherwise we will continue to talk in circles.

---- What you're getting to is assigning a value to these things that are economic. Investment community needs that. The reason ethanol made it into market was because we eliminated MTEV. If we need to pursue putting holes in someone else's tech, we can. Petroleum is going to go away, that's inevitable. It will be too late to start development if we start at that point.

BILLION TON BIOECONOMY CREATES OPPORTUNITIES (from Valerie/Todd’s PPT I believe) Jobs Heat and power generation Biofuels (including jet) Renewable Chemicals and Biobased Products GHG emissions reductions (82 million cars)

---- Capitalism requires this. You have two choices. You can either mandate or provide a subsidy for replacement, or you can regulate - the life cycle emissions, the waste, and leave it to industry to find lowest possible cost to meet the regulations. Or make a superior product.

Comment [RJB39]: Likelihood of a new policy to tax carbon?

Comment [RJB40]: Solid points for why biobased innovations get the fuzzy end of the lollipop. The attitude of past politicians “…drill, baby, drill!” is profoundly short sighted Let alone the new problems of water injection and apparent enhanced local seismic activity.

Attachment 4

12

---- Corn ethanol economy - the govt didn't mandate MTEV, oil industry came up with it because they owned all the assets to do it and could make money. Then when there was a different problem, had to go to ethanol. At the same time, we reached tech advantage - immediately following was RFS 1 & 2 which were environmental mandate for oxygenates, there was tech advantage that industry could get behind, and there was policy to stand on. So successful, petroleum industry started suing EPA. Need tech to move it forward, need economics for private capital, and need stable and sound policy to provide policy that industry can make profit out of.

---- Cannot sell bioeconomy as if it is same for the whole country. Every region resonates with something different. For Iowa it’s about corn, for Washington it is about aviation industry. In years to come, resource limitation is going to be the problem that drives to technology. We can start answering that question with development we are doing today. ---- Additional variables - in ethanol it was corn vs oil states. This debate has to get that simple for bioeconomy. You bring costs down by doing projects in lower end cost points. Investing in it overseas can bring cost down. Have to decide which way we want to go, do we have the economic backing in the US, or do we have ability to send overseas? ---- of factors mentioned are related to driving a cost. There is a portion of the market that will buy things because it is the right thing to do, but it is not the majority. If we can create policy that drives better costs, we will get there. We need to make an impact in China and India to make an impact here. ---- Need to have flexibility in what we will allow to be used for biowaste power. We work with impact funds who want to drive innovation - they won’t invest in anything if they don’t think there is a path to profitability. They need to see policy stability. If they know what the time frame is to getting a profit on something, they’ll be willing to invest. That time frame isn’t clear at this point. ---- Stability of oil policy and instability of bioeconomy policy aspects are part of the reason it is not fully adopted. ---- Why are we pursuing this? If not for energy independence, in which we are going to have to achieve a cost competitive renewable fuel source - then the ‘why’ is if you believe in climate science and the central role played by the continued and expanding use of fossil fuels and fossil-fuel derived chemicals (e.g. petrochemicals, Haber-Bosch nitrogen fertilizers from natural gas, etc.). I believe that the primary motivation for building a BioEconomy should be to avoid climate threats. I’m an advocate of looking at biochars, where you have produced them as value-add materials (e.g. biochars blended with biofertilizers as soil amendments; as remediation media for polluted soil and water; etc.); and that also provide verifiable carbon sequestration offsets. These multiple values of biochar products should be an important factor to consider as we develop the BioEconomy. We need to identify what is driving us. We need to keep more carbon out of the atmosphere for the benefit of future generations.

Comment [RJB41]: Another solid statement supporting clarity and vision in policy

Comment [RJB42]: Leaders on West Coast

Comment [43]: Our bio-economy marketing efforts have to be regional and have to be well integrated with the economic needs of the region!

Comment [RJB44]: Only if the ROI is 3 years or less. A strong policy that favors elements of a bioeconomy --- with either regulatory actions or economic incentives that support the policy that can sunset at a defined time.

Attachment 4

13

---- Biomass can do more for water quality. There is soil quality of feed and food costs by developing landscapes that maximize energy and food products, and beefing up rural economies. ---- USDA has business services to provide access to capital in rural areas in a myriad of ways. Water quality - recent study shows that there are 66 million dead trees in Nevada, contributes to wildfires, and our waters are filtered through our forests. The recent environmental developments from insect infestations to wildfires - which cost money and environmental health - are why a bioeconomy makes sense here. These should be a drivers of why we need to make use of biowaste, and look to new options in bio-feedstocks. Job creation, economic development, environmental services - all have a benefit. How do we quantify those benefits? ---- Methane is worse than CO2 as greenhouse gas. We should take methane and convert it into something else because it is harmful. ---- People in Oregon became disenfranchised with academic, government activity. Bringing the people who worked in forest, related industries back into the conversation. ---- There is only cleaner energy, not perfect clean energy. Bioenergy has unique opportunities in economic development, especially in rural areas. The challenge for bioenergy is sustainability concerns, properly sourcing things, highly efficient process you are using, ignorance about the improvements that have been made in process technologies. The moral argument can move markets because it moves policy. But it needs to be founded in sound technological development/facts. Without a clear message and aggregated front, we won’t move the needle. I’d argue bringing together state level organizations to understand and untangle these things to provide recommendations is the way to go. If there is potential from the federal government to support that convening on the state level, that’d be great. ---- If you leave forest residual, livestock waste, garbage out, it is going to turn into methane, which is worse than CO2. Creating bioeconomy will take care of those methane sources, which is a goal policy can help make happen. ---- People don’t care about global warming - some people that do, but it is not changing government or economic conversation. That is not going to drive transition to the bioeconomy. Here in NW our environmentalists will be against policies because it isn’t perfect, not the most sustainable option. ---- Federal initiatives (e.g. DOE and USDA) to develop a BioEconomy should build much closer relationships with the EPA. As has been discussed at this Forum, public policy incentives for bio-based products should be complemented by policy disincentives that discourage inefficient use and environmentally adverse applications of fossil fuel based resources. If the non-subsidized embedded and externality costs of fossil fuels were reflected in their market price; bioproducts would have a ‘more level playing field’ to compete. It is also necessary to work with the EPA in building the evidence base for determining the ecosystem service values of properly conducted biomass production and conversion

Comment [RJB45]: Climate remediation, and use of biochar to improve environmental quality.

Comment [RJB46]: This argues for local / regional “biomass accumulators” and a coop structure to produce bioproducts for both regional use (e.g., biochar for soil / water enhancement), or energy-dense pellets for markets elsewhere.

Comment [RJB47]: Reinforces comment above.

Comment [RJB48]: A pilot project could also include education as to well-documented global warming, but also creation of opportunity to capitalize on a local/regional basis.

Attachment 4

14

operations. We are beginning to realize the financial benefits that are commonly gained with proper watershed management practices; with retaining and enriching our soils for continued productivity; with providing habitats for biodiversity that provide pollinator and pest control services; etc.). The accompanying environmental benefits of a sustainable BioEconomy need to be factored into a more inclusive ‘business case’ that would justify both public and private investments. ---- In order to make existing RFS policy effective, federal agencies should consider some form of RIN market participation. (renewable identification number). For example, a guaranteed RIN purchase agreement, would help establish a price floor for RINs on a new project which would allow the developer to include RIN revenue in their pro-forma. Would likely be structured such that they would rarely exercise their contract with government agency, and if they did, the agency would likely have the patience to retain the RINs long enough to profit from their sale, making the project effective to capitalize. ---- There needs to be more research done on environmental services that can be provided by this industry; specifically what can be offered regionally. ---- We need to frame this around something that can get national, bipartisan support. I think we should frame it around infrastructure. Congress looking at public investments in transportation, energy, water modernization. I think people might listen to these issues if framed around infrastructure as stimulus for now, and even better if forward thinking for future. ---- Encourage federal govt to continue investment in Community Land Trusts (CLT). Way to connect urban and rural populations. I think it has potential to make that connection, allows for deeper understanding of benefits. ---- Regional innovation centers - put out a proposal for this so region can decide what makes most sense for them to develop. Let them propose the deliverable. That combines research with the market infrastructure. ---- Ask that the federal agencies - USDA & DOE - keep providing the financial and technical resources they’ve already started - for feedstock, biorefinery, co-location projects. Have had a positive impact to accelerate commercialization, would like to see those efforts continue. The supply chain and infrastructure are important, maybe more focus on these front end, harvest, storage, and transportation issues addressed. ---- Follow through on Methane Opportunities Roadmap. It is a solid document with partnerships among fed agencies to bring more methane to market, with less emissions. ---- Methane road maps are essential. In WA, our feedstock and land management needs are in the forests. We are facing serious fire hazards, so there is renewed support for forestry support, forestry collaboratives. Enable forest practices on federal lands that have otherwise been held up.

Comment [RJB49]: We did get a fair amount of interest from lawmakers for these forums. Perhaps if we have an infrastructure program …

Comment [RJB50]: Back a proposal with a PPP with others at the table for greater likelihood of success.

Attachment 4

15

We should also note that a major study (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests”) has just been published that finds that more than half of all recent western US forest wildfires are directly attributable to climate change that has increased forest aridity. There was discussion in the Forum of how US Forest Service fire prevention programs should be significantly increased with funding for forest thinning operations that use smaller scale systems for harvesting and converting such thinnings into biochar. ---- Need to continue support for R&D, we have seen a decline recently. There is a lot of research going on, need to start thinking more carefully about needs of the industry. How can we best invest the R&D money, rather than reducing. ---- Flood small to medium business market, and then let the private sector come in to see what to scale up, pick what worked best. At the regional level, maybe we can get teams that help parts of process need more development and focus on that ---- We need to be less concerned about the relatively higher capital cost per unit of production of smaller bioproducts operations. This is especially relevant in our current period of exceptionally low interest rates and cost of capital. This perspective would encourage smaller scale production facilities that could be distributed throughout the region; and could benefit many rural communities with increased jobs and incomes from a new, localized BioEconomy. The lead time required for such distributed development of different bioproduct production enterprises may also be shorter than for much higher capacity facilities. ---- There’s not a conversation about biochar as an application of biomass. It offers opportunity of collocation of feedstock and end use. You gasify biomass, produce biochar, disposes of biomass in low cost way. Then you produce biochar that can help fertilize crops and remediate soil. It is an elegant use of biomass. There is incredible complexity of performance of biochar based on feedstock and way it has been processed - it has created a whole area of science about which much remains unknown. Our local universities are developing knowledge of biochar feedstock characteristics; production technologies; and field applications. However, our universities need much greater financial support for continued research and development of biochar materials in order to become centers of excellence that would help industry and the forestry and farming sectors to make sense of its value and open up new opportunities for economic growth. Follow Up Question 2: Should we keep collaboration among this group moving forward after this meeting? If so, how? ---- With NARA, etc here, we have a lot of information ---- There is a lot of information here to take forward. The food processing industry also has a lot of waste. Biochar and food processing waste are a great marriage. We have a lot of synergies here around disparate issues, makes a lot of opportunity. ---- What partnerships do we need to form in this region?

Comment [RJB51]: http://www.pnas.org/content/113/42/11770.full.pdf

Comment [RJB52]: Consistent with earlier comments in this document.

Comment [RJB53]: These comments put forth good arguments for regional PPP that includes federal partners. Sounds like a good topic for a separate meeting on next steps in PNW.

Attachment 4

16

---- Can we do same thing next year with 150 people from many different aspects of this topic? ---- Biomass industry is not new. The question is, as it grows, what are additional needs? Need to define what are the problems in our region, what our capabilities are, so we can address them. Pursue inventory of industry, need of industry, capabilities, to see how we can work together moving forward. ---- We have tried to address needs for aviation industry through several collaborative forums and initiatives. ATiP would be able to bring all of those things together, bring this into a forum on the larger bioeconomy conversation. In Georgia I had conversation about how to communicate from industry to federal government about the work that’s been done - how can we bring together several stakeholder conversations to take action? ---- Yes we should do something else with this group. There may be possible DOE money on the way to the region...bringing national labs together. CleanTech Alliance is talking to people in other states about potential coming projects that will be relevant to this conversation as well. ---- We’ve had two regional projects for 5 years, they have filled a void in conversation across these regions. Both projects are sunsetting. They have provided tremendous synergy across the states (WA, OR, MT). There are two different areas here - west and east - that span multiple states and offer different things to this conversation. Maintaining the regional collaboration will be key. Our PNW region has also greatly benefitted from the knowledge and capacity building that was accomplished by the major USDA-NIFA five year grant to Washington State University, Oregon State University and the University of Idaho for “Regional Approaches to Climate Change - Pacific Northwest Agriculture” (REACCH). Although the REACCH program focused on wheat farming systems, the comprehensive knowledge gained regarding crop rotation strategies; soil and water impacts of different practices; and the impact of forecast climate changes on the region’s farming sector will contribute to our understanding of sustainable agricultural strategies for both food and other biomass products. ---- Yes, we should follow up. Grid modernization, built environment, and biofuels are all on the radar for the state, but biofuels have fallen off the radar a bit. We can bring that back by reconvening this group. These conversations are happening all the time, some larger force to bring us all together is helpful. ---- The bioeconomy initiative has been in development for several years. We have gotten to this point and our goal is an action plan that will motivate the new administration. There is another umbrella - Mission Innovation. It is a global initiative, Obama has suggested support of. All countries that came together in Paris proposed doubling spending in R&D for next five years for clean energy technologies. Working on how USDA, EPA, others will play under that umbrella. No guarantees because of admin change. The EU is part of Mission Innovation, and have finalized $320B - this could still play a role for U.S. too.

Comment [RJB54]: Group wanted to expand and bring more players into it.

Attachment 4

17

---- $1B leaves country every 3 days for petroleum. Would like to keep that circulating here in rural economies.

Attachment 4


1 | P a g e


A Report to Participants in the Midwest (MW) Regional Bioeconomy Forum

Schisler Conference Center, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH November 15, 2016

Wes Jurey, Foundation CEO, and R.J. Brenner, Director, ATIP Foundation

Background



The rationale and strategy for these reports, and purpose for the public gatherings was published in a USDA a blog, including the Vision and the scope of the listening sessions designed to ”… gather information and engage stakeholders on how to build and grow the “Billion Ton Bioeconomy.” (http://blogs.usda.gov/2016/04/27/growing-and-building-the-billion-ton-bioeconomy/) Regional Bioeconomy Stakeholder Forums The federal agencies contracted with the ATIP Foundation --- a non-profit consortium of State Economic Development organizations --- to develop and co-host with a coordinating entity, a series of regional Bioeconomy Forums to garner input from a broad range of stakeholders on the Challenges & Opportunities to help shape a “multiyear implementation plan,” expected to be prepared by the Biomass R&D Board during the second quarter of the fiscal year 2017, submitted to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). 1 The Biomass R&D Board consists of representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Transportation, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Executive Office of the President of the United States.




2 | P a g e

Forums were convened in the SE U.S with Georgia Tech as co-host (September 16, Renewable Bioproducts Institute, Atlanta, GA), in the SW. U.S with the Mineral Wells Chamber of Commerce, Mineral Wells, TX, (September 29, Holiday Hills Country Club, 4801 Highway 180 East, Mineral Wells, TX), in PNW with Washington State University as co-host (October 3, Sea-Tac Conference center, Sea-Tac airport), in NE U.S. co-hosted by The University of Maine, Orono (October 18 ), and in the MW U.S. , co-hosted by The Ohio State University (Schisler Conference Center, Wooster, OH, November 15). Co-hosts arranged for the meeting room, a modest noon meal, and a dedicated note taker with real-time display so the participants could verify their remarks. The goal of each Bioeconomy Forum was to bring together a mix of stakeholders (about 40-60 participants) from six sectors to seek their input, relative to the initiative’s vision, strategies, and implementation. These sectors are (1) industry; (2) state and local government; (3) economic and workforce development; (4) investment & finance; (5) academia; and (6) agricultural and environmental organizations. Co-hosts, with the assistance of BR&D Operations Committee, derived the list of by-invitation-only participants. Forum Structure and Role of the Foundation and Co-hosts The Midwest U.S. Bioeconomy Forum was moderated by Wes Jurey, CEO of the ATIP Foundation. Members of the BR&DB Operations Committee made presentations that reviewed the FARB and posed questions related to advancing the bioeconomy. Table 1: Demographics by sector describe the demographics of invitees by sector, and the actual number that participated on October 18, 2016. As has been the case in the regional bioeconomy forum series, both industry and investment & finance have low positive response rates (or few participants) to invitation to participate.

Table 1. Demographics (by sector) of invitees and participants convened by ATIP Foundation and co-host The Ohio State University, Midwest Regional Bioeconomy Forum, Wooster, OH, November

15, 2016.

Sector Designation Invited

% of invited

No. Participated

%RSVP to Attend

% of Attendees

Industry 60 36 22 37 39 State and local government 42 25 11 26 20

Economic and workforce development

18 11 6 33 11

Investment & finance 9 5 1 11 2 Academia 25 15 10 40 18

Agricultural and environmental organizations

13 8 6 46 11

Totals 167 100 56 33.5 100


3 | P a g e

The agenda (Attachment 1) included welcoming comments Dennis Hall, Director, Ohio Bioproducts Innovation Center (OBIC) at Ohio State University, Tony Logan, State Director, USDA Rural Development, and Wes Jurey, Chairman, ATIP Foundation. A presentation was made by Todd Campbell (USDA) (Attachment 2). In addition, a “discussion document” was provided to the participants (Attachment 3). The remainder of the day consisted exclusively of stakeholder attendees from the six sectors participating in discussions on these “discussion document” questions. Notes were taken (attributed to the commenter) by Jennifer Brown (USDA, RD), and Shannon Ellis (OBIC, OSU). The audio was also recorded from a laptop in case it was needed later to clarify comments. Post forum, participants received a link to a Google Document (notes of Jennifer and Shannon, combined) and a two-week window to edit their specific comments, or add additional comment. Thereafter, the document was closed and the ATIP Foundation reviewed comments, clarified with authors as warranted, redacted all names of comment contributors (rendering the comments “non-attribute,” and annotated with comments (RJB) from the Foundation). The document is presented (Attachment 4) as a record of the forum and it includes participant prioritizations of each “challenge” and “opportunity” --- from their perspective --- to determine whether each was in the top 3 priorities of the Midwest U.S. Figure 1a (below) reflects their perspective on these “Challenges”.


4 | P a g e



Regarding the “Critical Discussion Point” session, there were a number of comments from the MW region that characterized regional issues, but also many comments that were fairly common issues across the 5 regional forums. Below, are non-attribute comments from participants, as well as notations by the ATIP Foundation; the latter are preceded below by “[NOTE:…],” and are also reflected in Attachment 4 as “Comment[RJB#].

“What was missed in the “challenges” and “opportunities?”

• Life cycle thinking has to be included in any definition of sustainability. Social and economic factors also have to be included in sustainability. Quantify the benefits through a Sustainability Life Cycle Assessment.

“What are state/local/regional challenges to the bioeconomy and how can the federal agencies help address these regional challenges?”

• Finance: Funding for proof of concept, prototyping, pilot-scale facilities • Finance: As to funding sources, need to engage the banking industry into the bioeconomy industry. • An education program, which would get buyers informed.

o Actionable item – focus on buyers and USDA biopreferred program. o quantify and communicate benefits and minimize negative impacts – Communication aspect of

benefits – biggest challenge


5 | P a g e

• Finance: investment in technology for scale-up. If we are introducing new technology we have to have funding to take risk off the investors.

o USDA has loan guarantees but we need gap financing. Need financial partners involved to address the gaps. Can there be an established clearing house for these products to get everyone on the same page?

• Workforce development area – Industry led internships that really make it practical. Opportunities can be very valuable --- Federal gov’t could provide some incentives to make this happen.

• Wage matching program for interns. The Andersons had 35 interns this past year. Training students engages youth in industry and jump-starts workforce development.

• How do we get to a billion tons without some type of incentive for chemical products? RECOMENDATION

Comments on “What are state/local/regional opportunities to the bioeconomy and how can the federal agencies help leverage these regional opportunities?

• To attract invest, have tax credit. Second – infrastructure related – industry not there for end of life products.

• Educate the public and the consumer [Note: increases demand] o Support cross-boundary meetings where we get people together from different industries. Need

more workshops allowing people to connect and work to solve and discuss problems and issues. o What is the benefit that we tell the American public of achieving the billion tons? We need to

educate the consumers. How do we define sustainability? Vision and clarity is needed. What does it mean at the end of the day? Suggestion – How do we define things like sustainability? Needs to be consistent definition and message of importance.

o A company that creates biobased lubricants is struggling with definition of sustainability. Their struggle is scale. The problem is they were hoping the Federal gov’t fleet would be first adopters however, the definition of sustainability is getting in the way. The Federal gov’t needs to make the definition clear that it’s biobased. Currently, if a fossil fuel based lubricant is mixed with more than 5% recycled lubricant, it can be classified as sustainable. The classification needs to be made very clear on what is considered sustainable

• Potential to connect end-users (polymer, paint, engineered products, food companies with University researchers, innovation programs and biomass producers.

• The sourcing of chemicals and materials in a sustainable and environmentally positive way. o We have to embrace sustainability and economy-wide opportunities. We are aware of current

issues in our own industry/space, but not potential solutions from other industries E.g. CO2 sequestration need for power plants, etc.; this can be used as an input to make more sustainable products (agriculture) rather than dead-end storage (mineralization or down-hole injection) options. Requires cross-cultural discussion (facilitate people to get out of their silos).

o Develop a “Circular Economy” – common in Europe, new in the U.S. Materials Exchange Initiative (cloud-based platform) – companies can list their excess materials. Need to expand this to include the bioeconomy.


6 | P a g e

• Key summary of what the federal agencies can do o (1) develop a favorable and stable policy at federal/state level that can be mirrored at state /

local level; combined permitting process; incentives for private lending or capital. Tax incentives not long term enough.

o (2) Create regulatory environment that is favorable: Fast track/ combine permitting with EPA/Building/Zoning..

o (3.) Provide / create incentives for private lenders to participate

“What sets the MW Bioeconomy apart from other regions of the country? What inherent advantages do you have? [Note from ATIP Foundation: This forum was among the most positive in clearly describing their inherent and diverse advantages.]

• We are centrally located. This is a great place to be to get things to the rest of the country. Close to Great Lakes.

o We also, have the Ohio River --- Low energy costs, Ohio River, Grain costs. • The scale of polymers and materials, and agriculture. • The strength of our universities and strength of public/private partnerships.

o R&D is fantastic in the area. o Need more support for R&D. [Recommendation] o It is important for us to own the disruptive technology to make it work here, to keep jobs

here. • Focus on 4 main disruptive technologies (Additive manufacturing, Factory Automation, Advanced

materials & Sustainability) that will affect our workforce for Ohio, because about 20% of Ohio’s GSP comes from manufacturing products, and all of the above trends are disruptive to the manufacturing industry & its workforce. If we don’t focus on attracting & nurturing innovators in these disruptive technologies, we'll lose our current edge.

o focus on polymers and fine chemicals to use biomass as feedstock. • Ag is Ohio's #1 industry and polymers is #2 • We have a large workforce in coal mine areas and steel valley. Is there a mechanism to target these

regions? Any incentive for these areas? o Development in Appalachia. POWER initiative is EDA and ARC funding to allow the coal

industry to reconfigure. This is an advantage for Ohio and the Midwest. o Mentioned targeted job areas for Ohio; match federal policy to state policy.

• From a manufacturing standpoint, we have a lot to offer. • Besides corn and grain crops, we have the largest supply of animal tallow. • Large land base with ability to not compete for food but available for other uses that are related to

non-food items. • Less weather-related variability as other places (such as droughts in western states). • The entire infrastructure is here. We are close to raw materials (i.e. corn); close to refineries, farmers

o 45% of polymers in U.S. within 500 mile drive. Lubrizol, Emery, Ashland are all located here.


7 | P a g e

“What other biomass would you like to consider in the discussion of advancing the bioeconomy? Animal wastes / carcasses / concentrated animal feeding operations / seafood industry wastes? Municipal landfill biorefineries? Others?”

• hog, poultry industry in Ohio – manure will become more of an issue; Phosphorus run-off an issue. How do you get the biomass from those farms?

• Ohio has a large food processing industry so we have large food waste. • Municipal Solid waste/sewer treatment, one of Ohio strengths is the Ag Community (i.e., good partnering

opportunity for ag sector to lend expertise to other community issues).

“As a region, how can you enhance your bioeconomy through new partnerships in the region, or on a more global ?”

• Include community colleges with the bigger universities. Even high schoolers. • Most solid waste districts that own landfills have an incentive to landfill vs. find other uses for organic

wastes that could be used as feedstocks for bioproducts and biofuels. For example a solid waste district usually receives a payment for every ton of material received at a landfill. These incentives need to be reversed so that they are disincentivized to landfill materials so that they will more actively seek opportunities to reuse and recycle them instead.

• Create formal networking that is steady and regular. Have monthly meetings/discussions to stay connected.

• What about economic agencies working with groups like JumpStart? Can they utilize federal funds to help start companies?

o In the last 50 years, startups have been creating the jobs. o Focus on job creators. o Partner with Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), JumpStart, etc.


8 | P a g e


MW Regional Bio-Economy Forum Summary Wes Jurey, CEO, ATIP Foundation






From the Foundation's perspective, based on the response from forum participants, we believe our premise is sound. At the conclusion of the Midwest forum, participants were unanimous in support of reconvening in a year, and working to formulate a specific demonstration project tailored to their region in the interim.


9 | P a g e




Third, the need to develop a talent pipeline for current and future workers was a strong concern. It was noted that although seven federal agencies were members of the BR&D Board, the Departments of Education & Labor were not engaged at the federal level. At the MW Regional forum, there was discussion on the need to include them in subsequent forums and pilot projects; none participated in this regional forum.





In conclusion, the Foundation looks forward to working with The Ohio State University and the participants in the initial forum, to expand the stakeholder base, in order to begin the development of a regional demonstration project.


10 | P a g e



Dennis Hall Summary Notes of Midwest Bioeconomy Forum

Wooster, Ohio November 15, 2016 Participants

The Midwest Forum included 55 stakeholders; including 25 representatives from industry, 10 from academia, 9 from non-governmental organizations, and 10 from governmental institutions. Only one individual attended from the finance sector. The tone of the meeting was positive and constructive with excellent participation from virtually all attendees. Many of the stakeholders have been active in the bioproduct and materials industry. There were significantly fewer representatives of the biofuel and bioenergy sectors. Also, biomass producers were under-represented for this forum.

Challenges and Opportunities

The list of suggested challenges was prioritized around the key theme of competitiveness. While there are many products that were created to compete with oil at significantly higher prices, major technical hurdles in development and scale must be addressed to be successful in the current marketplace. In addition, uncertainty about sustainability (biobased relative to today’s incumbent materials) and public policy in this economic climate limits growth. Solving these problems will generate new access to capital and infrastructure development. Workforce development is not seen as an issue at this time due to the relatively weak job market for bioeconomy employees.

Three key opportunities were identified. These opportunities relate to technology development, market demand, and policy stability. A fourth opportunity that seemed to grow in popularity throughout the day was to, “quantify, communicate, and enhance beneficial effects and minimize negative impacts”. It was suggested that the opportunity of increasing public demand for bioproducts is more accurately described as a challenge. How do bioproducts earn the premium prices necessary due to higher production costs?

Other topics suggested included many related to communications (among industry, between industry and academia, to consumers, and with future workforce). Circular economy, life cycle assessment, climate change, and other sustainability measures should be emphasized. Incentives similar to the biofuel sector such as tax benefits, streamlined permitting process, and first market assistance are needed to overcome barriers.

Example of issues shared by stakeholders:

Company went to the expense of developing a biobased polyol based on economics of that time. The price decline of petroleum made that product no longer competitive. If it is important to advance the bioeconomy, some sort of incentive will be necessary under this economic climate.


11 | P a g e

Have developed a product in which the company has significant engineering data to illustrate the benefit of their technology and price competitiveness, but still struggling with market penetration as no one wants to be the first customer.

Company has developed a biobased lubricant product and is disappointed by lack of support by federal procurement officials. Federal sustainability indicators favor recycled content over biobased content despite superior performance metrics.

A specialty chemical manufacturer interested in increasing biobased content recommends creating an “Industrial Biorefinery Council” that includes companies like ADM, Cargill, International Paper, etc. In addition, suggest that the paper industry is well suited to repurpose their assets to make chemicals instead of paper.

There is a large workforce in the steel valley. Is there a mechanism to target this region.

To facilitate collaboration, it is less helpful for academia and other technology providers to know the list of capital assets than to have a list of questions or problems experienced by the company.

The Midwest has lands that allow efficient production of crops like corn and soy. We should not abandon these feedstocks in the new bioeconomy. There are also lesser valuable lands (like strip-mined) where alternative crops may be more valuable. The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) could be helpful in making this transition.

USDA has loan guarantees, but gap financing is still needed.

A National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) is needed in the bioproducts/ biorefinery industry. Such a program should also include seed funding to support smaller bioeconomy projects.


Attachment 1: Agenda

Attachment 2: Slide presentations

Attachment 3: “Discussion document”

Attachment 4: Non-attribute notes w/ comments (RJB annotated)


1The Biomass R&D Board consists of representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Transportation, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

MIDWEST BIOECONOMY REGIONAL FORUM DRAFT AGENDA “Garnering stakeholder perspectives and input to help shape the vision, strategic planning, and implementation to promote and expand the bioeconomy” Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 Time: 9:30 AM – 5 PM Location: Shisler Center, OSU Wooster, 1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH 44691 Purpose:

• To review the “Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy,” • Introduce a synopsis of the subsequent “Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and

Opportunities” report (not yet formally released), and • Solicit input from stakeholders in (1) industry; (2) state and local government; (3) economic

and workforce development; (4) investment & finance; (5) academia; and (6) agricultural and environmental organizations in order to accelerate the development of the bioeconomy.

8:30 AM—Registration / Check-in 9:30 AM—Welcome and Introductions— Dennis Hall, OBIC Director, Ohio State University

• Tony Logan, State Director, USDA Rural Development • Wes Jurey, Chairman, ATIP Foundation • Todd Campbell, BR&D Board, Operations Committee (Senior Energy Advisor, U.S. Department

of Agriculture)

10:00 AM–11:00 AM—Stakeholder Introductions 11:00 AM–12:00 PM— Overview of the “Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy” and the “Billion Ton Bioeconomy Initiative: Challenges and Opportunities” Report

o Presentation by Todd Campbell o Establishes issues from the federal agencies and frames the topics for discussion

12:00 PM–3:45 PM—Stakeholder Comments and Discussion • 12:30 PM—Networking Lunch

4:00 PM–4:30 PM—Facilitator Report Out and Next Steps • Key comments, findings, and recommendations of the 6 sectors • Includes next steps (timeline to review, prepare, and disseminate report) and feedback on session

format



1

Advanced Biofuels




National Sponsors


10/2007

6/2010

9/2009 5/2010

12/2008

3/2010

11/2010

6/20105/2010



Advanced Biofuels








National Sponsors

Todd CampbellUSDA Rural Development

AT I P R EG I ONA L B I O E CONOMY WOR K S HO PWOO S T E R , O H

NOV EMB E R 1 5 TH , 2 0 1 6

In announcement inviting applications for 9003 Program…

"The bioeconomy is a catalyst for economic development in rural America, creating new jobs and

providing new markets for farmers and ranchers. Investing in the

businesses and technologies that support the production of biofuels and biobased products is not only good for farm incomes. The whole economy benefits from a more

balanced, diversified and consumer‐friendly energy portfolio, less dependence on foreign oil and

reduced carbon emissions." ‐‐Secretary Tom Vilsack, USDA

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2016/07/0174.xml&navid=NEWS_AUSUMS&navtype=RT&parentnav=ENERGY&edeployment_action=retrievecontent

Working Together with CAAFI/FAA, DOE, and U.S. Navy

Farm to Fly (2010, 2012 report) Navy/DPA/F2Fleet (2010, 2011, 2013) Farm to Fly 2.0 (2013, DOE 2014)


2

Biogas Opportunities Roadmap and the Food Waste Challenge

Biogas Progress Report Highlights:

• Inclusion in RFS Pathways II cellulosic advanced fuels

• DOE Resource Assessment on Renewable Hydrogen Potential from Biogas

• USDA published final Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) rule, streamlined application and scoring

• DOE’s BETO Multi‐Year Program Plan explicitly calls out “wet waste”, a key in biogas • USDA Rural Utility Services loan guarantees to distributed generations projects that

produce electricity (with Power Purchase Agreements) to serve rural areas.• USDA 9003 Program interim rule and funding notice to provide loan guarantees to

commercial, municipal, and industrial biogas plant deployment.• http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/Biogas_Opportunities_Roadmap_8‐1‐14.pdf

http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/Biogas‐Roadmap‐Progress‐Report‐v12.pdf• Will also help to support the United States’ first‐ever Food Waste Reduction Goal,

calling for total of 50‐percent reduction by 2030 (133 billion pounds of waste per year)

USDA Regional Biomass Research and Agricultural Utilization at Regional Research Centers

• Special Edition of BioEnergy Research reviews the research accomplishments of Agriculture Research Service (ARS) and Forest Service (FS) on biomass and bioenergy.

• The first 12 articles of issue encapsulate much of the research that was reported by the USDA Regional Biomass Research Centers since their inception in 2010.

• For a electronic copy of the report, use the following link: Volume 9, Issue 2, June 2016 Special Edition of BioEnergyResearch

• More on Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) and Technology Transfer to move research to marketplace

External Research supported through the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA)

– Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)• $21M available through Sustainable Bioenergy and Bioproductschallenge area, which creates or sustains jobs by enhancing existing food and fiber production systems, boosts ecosystems by reducing greenhouse gases and improving water and habitat quality, and providing renewable energy, chemical, and product options.

• Received 23 proposals for four $15M awards, ~dozen targeting aviation biofuel

• Invested ~$237 million in research, education, extension grants since ‘09

– Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI) Request for Application due out soon, Joint USDA‐NIFA and DOE‐BETO

– Joint Feedstock Genomics for Bioenergy Program solicitation due out this month, joint USDA‐NIFA and DOE‐Office of Science

– Biorefinery Optimization solicitation may be out before the end of the year, joint USDA‐NIFA and DOE‐BETO

Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) and New Risk Mitigation Tools for Producers

• BCAP incentivizing nearly 1,000 growers on 49,000 acres to establish and maintain new dedicated biomass crops for delivery to USDA‐approved conversion facilities.

• Retrieval payments are provided at a dollar for dollar match match, up to $20 per dry ton for eligible materials including corn residue, diseased or insect‐infested wood materials, or orchard waste.

• More at www.fsa.usda.gov/bcap or contact a FSA county office.• Risk Management Agency recently announced producers in

Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota can insure carinataby written agreement under canola and rapeseed plans.

• Builds on available tools that support coverage for crops such as camilina, miscanthus, switchgrass, etc.

• Learn more about crop insurance and the modern farm safety net at www.rma.usda.gov.

Pioneer Plants through the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program (9003)

• The program now provides loan guarantees of up to $250 million to develop, construct and retrofit commercial‐scale biorefineries and to develop renewable chemicals and biobased product manufacturing.

• For this announcement, USDA will seek applications in two cycles. Applications for the first funding cycle were due October 3, 2016. Applications for the second cycle are due April 3, 2017.

• Newly implemented two‐phase application process to help identify projects that have made most progress in the development stage, greatest capacity for implementation and loan closing.

• First two cycles under the new process yielded complete applications from projects producing biogas, biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, biobased lubricants and oils, lignin cake and syrup, and fertilizers.

• For more information, p. 48377 of the July 25, 2016, Federal Register.• Application materials on USDA's Rural Development website.

Expanding markets with a Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership

• USDA is partnering with 21 states through the Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership (BIP) to nearly double the number of fueling pumps nationwide that supply renewable fuels to American motorists.

• With the matching commitments by state and private entities, the BIP is investing a total of $210 million to strengthen the rural economy, with match amounts and requests outpacing the $100 million available.

• These awards are estimated to expand infrastructure by nearly 5,000 pumps at over 1,400 fueling stations.

• More information: www.fsa.usda.gov/programs‐and‐services/energy‐programs/bip/index


3

Strengthening Markets with BioPreferred

• More than 2,700 biobased products on store shelves carrying BioPreferred label, Represents companies in over 40 countries on six continents; Apply on BioPreferred.gov

• Over 100 designated product categories representing around 15,000 products included in the mandatory federal purchasing initiative Tide PurClean, recently certified

through the BioPreferred Program

BioPreferred Economic Impact Report

• To learn more about the viability of the U.S biobased industry and bioeconomyread the original published BioPreferred Economic Impact Report (2015) and Updated Economic Impact Analysis of the U.S. Biobased Product Industry (2016)

2016 report shows increase of 200,000 total jobs and $24 billion additional value‐added contribution to the U.S. Economy from 2013 to 2014






Bioeconomy Definition Simplified Bioeconomy Concept











Biobased Economy Expansion over Several AdministrationsPerspectives on the Growth of the U.S. Bioeconomy

The Biomass Research & Development Board

• Board facilitates coordination among federal government agencies that affect the research, development, and deployment of biofuels and bioproducts.


4

The Billion‐Ton Reports and Bioeconomy Initiative

Billion‐Ton Reports• 2005• 2011• 2016

Ensure that current demands for food, feed, industrial uses, and exports continue to be met.

Resource Assessments – biophysical, economic, and sustainable availability of biomass resources under given assumptions and modeling capabilities

Bioeconomy – expanded economy/market sector of various products under estimated feedstocks levels and given scenarios

How much biomass?

What can we do with it?


• 2012 & 2030

Baseline

High‐yield


Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy (FARB)

In February, the Biomass R&D Board released the Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy. This report aims to educate the public on the wide‐ranging, federally funded activities that are helping to bolster the bioeconomy.

• The vision for the Billion Ton Bioeconomy is to sustainably reach the full potential of biomass‐derived products as a way of expanding our nation’s economy. In doing so, the bioeconomy will provide multiple economic, environmental, and social benefits to the Nation.



FY16 Highlights and Accomplishments, FY 17 Goals

Q3 BR&D Board Meeting Outcomes:

• Presentations on the Great Green Fleet and the Federal Alternative Jet Fuel Strategy • Approved establishment of new Sustainability Interagency Working Group to develop sustainability framework

to be included in Action Plan, need called out in the FARB and the Challenges and Opportunities report. • Agreed upon Summary Sheet of Challenges and Opportunities for use at ATIP Regional Forums/Stakeholder

Workshops

Bioeconomy Analyses Manuscript:

• “An Assessment of the Potential Products and Economic and Environmental Impacts Resulting from a Billion Ton Bioeconomy”

• Approved for publication in Biofuels, Bioproducts, & Biorefining

Next Steps:

Launch the Bioeconomy on biomassboard.gov web page, Central website to house all Bioeconomy Initiative related materials, including workshop reports, event calendar, videos, and moreCoordinate with the Board, OpsCo, IWGs, and Writing Team to: • Develop a scoping document for the Action Plan• Host a workshop in 2017 to determine path forward for Action Plan• Develop and release the Bioeconomy Initiative Action Plan

Stakeholder Engagement Workshops with ATIP Foundation

• Agricultural Technology Innovation Partnership (ATIP) Foundation, a consortium of State Economic Development organizations, co‐host a series of regional Bioeconomy Forums with a coordinating entity to garner input from a broad range of stakeholders to seek their input, relative to the initiative’s vision, strategies, and implementation to help shape a multiyear implementation plan being prepared by the Biomass R&D Board.

Dates & Locations

September 16, 2016 Atlanta, GA

September 29, 2016 Mineral Wells, TX

October 3, 2016 Seattle‐Tacoma, WA

October 18, 2016 Orono, ME

November 15, 2016 Wooster, OH

• Builds on Billion Ton Bioeconomy listening sessions conducted by USDA and DOE, Feb‐May 2016 through webcast and at four major conferences: • Advanced Bioeconomy Leadership Conference in DC;• International Biomass Conference in Charlotte, NC; • World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology in San Diego, CA; • Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals in Baltimore, MD.

• Total consultation with ~600 people and ~3000 hours of recorded input for analysis


5

The Billion Ton Bioeconomy Vision

THE BILLION TON BIOECONOMY INITIATIVE: ACTION PLAN

FARB• Released in February 2016

Challenges & Opportunities• In Final Clearance, due out soon

Action Plan• Target release FY17, possibly in first 100 days of next administration

Report Outline








Initiative’• Conclusion 26






• The need for a strong and capable workforce.

Key Opportunities













• How can federal agencies help leverage these regional opportunties?


30


6

For more information on USDA Energy and Bioeconomy Programs, visit: www.usda.gov/energy

For Biomass R&D Board, visit: http://www.biomassboard.gov/[email protected]


OverviewandOutlineofTopicsPurposeoftheBillionTonBioeconomyInitiative:ChallengesandOpportunitiesReport:

InFebruary2016, theBoardreleasedtheFederalActivitiesReportontheBioeconomy(FARB)tohighlightthepotentialforastrongerU.S.bioeconomy,specificallysomeoftheimpactsofincreasingbiomassutilizationthree-foldby2030.1ThegoaloftheBillionTonBioeconomyInitiative(BioeconomyInitiative)istodevelopandcoordinateinnovativeapproachestoexpandingthesustainableuseofAmerica’sabundantbiomassresources,whilemaximizingeconomic,social,andenvironmentalbenefits.

SincethereleaseoftheFARB,theBoardhasengagedwiththebioenergystakeholdercommunitytofurtherdeveloptheBioeconomyInitiative.Thenewreport,TheBillionTonBioeconomyInitiative:ChallengesandOpportunities,isthesecondinathree-partseriesintendedtolaythefoundationandserveasthepubliccommunicationoftheBioeconomy.ThisreportisfoundationaltotheBoard'sobjectivetostrengthenthecommitmentandcoordinationbetweentheU.S.Governmentandthebioeconomycommunity.Earlyfeedbackfromstakeholdershasunderscoredtheimportanceofbiofuels,bioproducts,andbiopower.ThisreportdetailsseveralchallengesandopportunitiesthatstakeholdershaveidentifiedascriticaltothesuccessoftheBioeconomyInitiative.

SummaryofChallengesandOpportunities:

Thisreportdiscussessevenofthehigh-prioritychallengesrecognizedbythebioeconomystakeholdercommunity,identifiedbelow:

• Majortechnicalhurdlesfordevelopmentandscale.• Steepcompetitionfromtraditionalpetroleum-derivedresources.• Alackofnecessaryinfrastructure.• Accesstocapitalforlargefinancialinvestments.• Uncertaintiesaboutsustainability—understandingenvironmental,social,andeconomic

outcomes.• Growthinstabilityandincreasedinvestmentriskcausedbypolicyuncertainty• Theneedforastrongandcapableworkforce.

SpecificopportunitieswithineachchallengeaspotentialgrowthareasforthefutureoftheInitiativearedetailedbelow:

• Developfeedstockandfundamentalinnovationsthatreducecostandtechnologyriskinthesupplychain.

• Seekopportunitiestoutilizelow-costwasteresources.• Quantify,communicate,andenhancebeneficialeffectsandminimizenegativeimpacts.

1http://www.biomassboard.gov/pdfs/farb_2_18_16.pdf

Attachment 3

Page 1

• Createincreasedpublicdemandforbiomass-derivedproductsinabioeconomy.• Developbioproductsthatcanacceleratebiofuelproduction.• Enablethetestingandapprovalofnewbiofuelsandbioproducts.• Expandthemarketpotentialforbiomass.• Encourageprivate-sector financing• Supportstable,long-termpolicies.• Ensureareadyworkforcetomeettheneedsofthebioeconomy

Disclaimer:

TheBillionTonBioeconomyInitiative:ChallengesandOpportunitiesisaproductofinteragencycollaborationundertheBiomassResearchandDevelopmentBoardanddoesnotestablishanyneworexplicitlyreflectUnitedStatesGovernmentpolicy.SomeinformationisbasedonactivitiesconductedbytheExecutiveAgenciesasofMay2016. However,someoftheviewsexpressedinthisdocumentreflectstakeholderperspectivesanddonotrepresentUnitedStatesGovernmentpolicy.Thisreportisnotapolicyorbudgetdocumentnoranactionplan,anditdoesnotcommitthefederalgovernmenttoanynewactivitiesorfunding.

Attachment 3

Page 2

CriticalDiscussionPoints

(fromBiomassR&DBoardrepresentatives)

1. Whatarestate/local/regionalchallengestothebioeconomy?

2. Howcanthefederalagencieshelpaddresstheseregionalchallenges?

3. Whatarestate/local/regionalopportunitiestothebioeconomy?

4. Howcanthefederalagencieshelpleveragetheseregionalopportunities?

5. Whatisthevaluepropositionofabioeconomy?

6. HowcanyoucontributetotheBillionTonBioeconomy?

AdditionalRegionalDiscussionPointsforConsideration(fromATIPFoundationandOhioPlanningCommittee)

a) Fromthe“Challenges”sectionoftheabovedocument,whatwouldyoulistasthe3

highestprioritiestodiscussandaddressfromtheMidwestregion?

• Fromthatsamelist,whatSHOULDbeaddedtothatlistfromourregionalperspective? Doesitchangeyourprioritizationscheme?

b) Fromthe“Opportunities”sectionoftheabovedocument,isanythingmissingfromthelist,andwhatwouldyoulistasthe3highestprioritiestodiscussandaddressfromtheMidwestregion?

c) WhatsetstheMidwestBioeconomyapartfromotherregionsofthecountry?

• What inherentadvantagesdoyouhave?

• Whatregulatoryissuesconstrainsuccess?

• Whatincentiveswouldhelpadvancebusinessopportunitiestoadvancethebioeconomy?

• WhatdoessuccessinthebioeconomylooklikeinMidwestU.S.now?In10years?In20years?

d) Whatotherbiomasswouldyouliketoconsiderinthediscussionofadvancingthebioeconomy? Animalwastesincludingaquaculture,manureandcarcasses/municipallandfills/strip-minedlandreclamation/Others?

e) Howcanyouenhanceyourbioeconomythroughnewpartnershipsintheregion,oronamoreglobalbasis?

f) Shouldproductsmadeusingfossilcarbon,butusingabiologicalprocess,beincludedinthenationalbioeconomystrategy?Example-algaeproducedfromcoalfluegas,methanetobiopolymersviamicro-organisms

Attachment 3

Page 3

ATIP Foundation, OBIC _Ohio State, Wooster, OH, November 15, 2016 Regional Bioeconomy Forum Page 1

Critical Discussion Points Midwest Bioeconomy Forum

Wooster, Ohio November 15, 2016

Meeting Notes – Final Non-attribute

Opening Notes/Comments: ● Denny Hall – commented on key challenges list. ● Todd Campbell– quantification of benefits, what sustainability means; a lot of different

definitions; people are trying to get at what it means to be economically, socially sustainable.

● Comment: Sustainability – strongly based on LCA (Life Cycle Analysis); suggestion to reach out to American org on LCA to get input.

● Wes – how do we articulate this? ● Commenter: Argonne has been conducting analysis of economic and environmental

benefits of the Billion Ton Bioeconomy from a LCA perspective, and this work has been published a journal article. They clarified the definition of sustainability in the paper. The potential in reducing GHG emissions and fossil fuel consumption, as well as job creation from a portfolio of scenarios for production of a variety of biofuel types and bioproducts via different biomass conversion technologies was quantified.

● Wes – commented that we probably won’t redefine sustainability today. View is whether this industry is sustainable.

● Ashley Rose – extensive dialogue with stakeholders already – our chance to comment. If we expand, what does the future bioeconomy look like? What are the implications?

● Commenter: – may have voted differently before the election than today. ● Wes – frame within new administration with focus on job growth, economic development

in rural communities. Look at the 7 key challenges & how we grow in the future.

Key Challenges – Voting (only 3 votes/person): 1. Major Technical Hurdles – 28 2. Steep competition – 26 3. Lack of infrastructure – 16 4. Access to capital for investments – 18 5. Uncertainties about sustainability – 25 6. Growth instability – 21 7. Need for strong workforce – 2

Key Opportunities – Voting (only 3 votes/person): ● Develop feedstock & fundamental innovations – 27


● Seek opportunities to utilize low-cost waste resources – 11 ● Quantify, communicate… - 16 ● Create increased public demand – 20 ● Develop bioproducts … - 5 ● Enable the testing & approval – 13 ● Expand the market potential for biomass – 8 ● Encourage private sector financing – 9 ● Support stable, long-term policies – 20 ● Ensure a ready workforce – 3

WHAT WAS MISSED?

Commenter:- Life cycle thinking has to be included in any definition of sustainability. Social and economic factors also have to be included in sustainability. Quantify the benefits through a Sustainability Life Cycle Assessment.

Commenter: Using the lab cycle assessments has been utilized and supports the DOE. Agree there are uncertainties. What type of biofuels are we discussing? From Biomass R&D Board representatives:

What are state/local/regional challenges to the bioeconomy? Commenter: Funding for proof of concept, prototyping, pilot-scale facilities

How can the federal agencies help address these regional challenges?

• Commenter: – with respect to organic food production, the toolbox for certified products is slim – rather than allowing imports, why would we not allow organic growers the opportunity to have an expanded list of approved products to meet demand of organic food? Organic growers currently have 25 crop protection products versus 500 for conventional growers.

• Commenter: – to attract invest, have tax credit. Second – infrastructure related – industry not there for end of life products.

• Commenter: – there are certain products not emphasized at the moment per report --- short of plastics, need to include the use of waste as a input.

• Commenter: – He heard Navy is using biofuels, what about other branches? • Todd Campbell – that was the first solicitation. Other army, air force is open for it.

Has to be cost-competitive with traditional fuels. Biofuels is not just for research purposes, it is for tactical purposes.

• Commenter:– He suggested an education program, which would get buyers informed. Actionable item – focus on buyers and USDA biopreferred program. Comment [RJB1]: So noted.


• Commenter: – Gov’t is ignoring things we do well, i.e starch crops. Need cheap carbon to make bioproducts. The U.S. produces a lot of corn, we can use sugars from corn to make bioproducts at a cheap cost. There should be a production tax credit for bioproducts. Second, what can federal gov’t do to encourage the things we do well. If we increase the value of biomass to develop the bioeconomy with we will go further.

• Commenter:– Federal gov’t can help promote the value of bioproducts. “We can’t get a premium for bioproducts” --- government. Why is that? Standardized communication. Also, investment in technology for scale-up. If we are introducing new technology we have to have funding to take risk off the investors.

• Wes – asked about smaller scale funding streams instead of all larger scale funding – most in agreement. Also, asked if the funds should be seed vs. sustainable funding.

• Denny Hall – Workforce development area – Industry led internships that really make it practical. Opportunities can be very valuable --- Federal gov’t could provide some incentives to make this happen.

• Wes – How many would support Ohio having a platform for industry and students – workforce development? Utilizes the interns through Ohio had 35+ over the past year, bringing the students in to introduce them to the workforce.

• Commenter: – wage matching program for interns. The Andersons had 35 interns this past year. Training students engages youth in industry and jump-starts workforce development.

• Wes – Registered apprenticeship – do you equate that with unions? Not many raised their hands. DOL host forums, to foster apprenticeship programs. ---

• Wes – How many are aware of Centers of Excellence through EOL? • Commenter: – He mentioned biobased polyol they developed – product was no

longer competitive due to price of crude oil. How do we get to a billion tons without some type of incentive for chemical products? RECOMENDATION

• Commenter: – Lenders would be more open to invest if the government was offering something like the biofuels incentives. Need someone to step in to take care of the “gap financing”. Start-ups are risky.

• Commenter: – Process Intensification – from a mfg standpoint – Is Federal gov’t looking at from a manufacturing standpoint with costs of biofuels?

• Commenter: – Some biomass not as value-dense. The cost to transport limits geographic mobility. Therefore, many smaller, distributed operations are better than fewer large installations. Put many small bio refineries in the bread basket.

• Commenter: – Mentioned Velocys (sp?) to make jet fuel; We could just as easily use biofuels through those reactors. Action: are they looking at this?

• Commenter: – 3D printing is a disruptive technology. Are there any companies working on new materials for 3D printing?

• Commenter: -- new materials like PLA/ bamboo is being used 3D printing • Commenter: – 3D printing materials.

Comment [RJB2]: Noted, and passed on to agencies.


• Commenter: – Experience from Brazil – cost of connecting to the grid is a major obstacle for decentralized energy production. Facilitate selling into the “smart grid”. Recommends DOE to incentivize smart grids.

Note: The following 7 enumerated comments all support the notion of “educating the public and consumers:”

1. Commenter:– Support cross-boundary meetings where we get people together from different industries. Need more workshops allowing people to connect and work to solve and discuss problems and issues.

2. Commenter:– Mentioned OBIC led tour in France of biorefineries, biobased companies. In the middle of the (wheat) region was a biorefineries complex – 6 different companies co-located at this site; butane, sugar, all the biomass was coming in but sharing products (Steam, rail) Suggestion is to incentivize co-location of biorefineries. Second, to create an industrial advisory council on biorefineries with participation of companies such as Cargill, ADM, International Paper, POET.

3. Commenter: – What is the benefit that we tell the American public of achieving the billion tons? We need to educate the consumers. How do we define sustainability? Vision and clarity is needed. What does it mean at the end of the day? Suggestion – How do we define things like sustainability? Needs to be consistent definition and message of importance.

4. Todd Campbell referred to slide with the benefits. 5. Commenter: – need to drill down into to each of these categories in order for people

to fully understand the full meaning. For example, under the chemical section, how does reducing this through the bioeconomy really benefit a consumer? Will this reduction result in a cleaner environment, less illness, etc.

6. Ashley Rose – The board is looking to develop a sustainability framework based on the FARB released in February 2016.

7. Commenter:– A company that creates biobased lubricants is struggling with definition of sustainability. Their struggle is scale. The problem is they were hoping the Federal gov’t fleet would be first adopters however, the definition of sustainability is getting in the way. The Federal gov’t needs to make the definition clear that it’s biobased. Currently, if a fossil fuel based lubricant is mixed with more than 5% recycled lubricant, it can be classified as sustainable. The classification needs to be made very clear on what is considered sustainable.

• Commenter: – A lot of work going on in terms of what sustainability means. It involves environmental and socioeconomic indicators. Defined by life cycle --- scientifically based that must include environmental benefits.

• Commenter: – Agree with [commenter] – need to drill down so the consumers and farmers know what this means.

• Commenter: – comment on challenges by the bio lubricants; plastics have the same type of challenges, difficult to bring an innovation to the market place. Be along the same line of cellulose ethanol or create a success story, Recommendations of success story to share


• Commenter: – sustainability needs to be carefully defined; concerned with comparing sustainability to biodegradability, recycled content, etc. Need objective metrics --- there are no simple solutions.

What are state/local/regional opportunities to the bioeconomy? Commenter: Potential to connect end-users (polymer, paint, engineered products, food companies with University researchers, innovation programs and biomass producers.

How can the federal agencies help leverage these regional opportunities?

What is the value proposition of a bioeconomy? Commenter: The sourcing of chemicals and materials in a sustainable and environmentally positive way.

How can you contribute to the Billion Ton Bioeconomy?

From ATIP Foundation and Ohio Planning Committee:

From the “Challenges” section of the above document, what would you list as the 3 highest priorities to discuss and address from the Midwest region? What did we not list as a challenge?

• Commenter:– turn one of challenges into opportunities – lack of demand • Commenter – Within groups (USDA) there is disagreement on how they look at

sustainability, within some groups there are lack ambiguity between with policies especially USDA. For example, under the National Organics Standards Board (NOSB) there appears to be a very different view of sustainability than what even the USDA has even though the NOSB is part of the USDA.

• Commenter – quantify and communicate benefits and minimize negative impacts – Communication aspect of benefits – biggest challenge

• Commenter – keep in mind that the primary need for ag is to feed people; don’t lose perspective but how do we feed the people. Not to take away from bioeconomy


• Todd Campbell – corn yield increase since 2005 (first renewable fuel std); development of corn ethanol, seeing corn, soybean yields; development of seed technology an opportunity for the bioeconomy – another way of looking at it.

• Commenter – Education is key; need a platform so industry know about the amazing technologies

• Commenter – technical & cost challenges; leaving out paper industry who are looking for opportunities. Not all industries are inclusive that can benefit from the bioeconomy. Why aren’t we competitive? Looking for cellulose. Lack of certain elements/ingredients from the supply chain (Wes J).

• Commenter – industry needs incentive to switch from what they are currently doing. Even if the direction is set at the top (leadership) of the firm, folks throughout the organization need to be enabled to move towards sustainable practices. We sometimes observe disconnects between what some firms say and how they behave.

• Commenter – If our goal is to create a unified yet multi-dimensional bioeconomy we must agree on a definition of sustainability. But we should not waste time creating our own definitions when other organizations like the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) have already created standards and certifications. We cannot just rely on LCA to define sustainability we need other dimensions that address food security and labor rights. Not all biofuels/bioproducts are created equally and therefore we must adopt a unified set of sustainability standards.

• Commenter – have to embrace a sustainability and economy-wide opportunities. We are aware of current issues in our own industry/space, but not potential solutions from other industries E.g. CO2 sequestration need for power plants, etc.; this can be used as an input to make more sustainable products (agriculture) rather than dead-end storage (mineralization or down-hole injection) options. Requires cross-cultural discussion (facilitate people to get out of their silos).

o Note: really important point that has transcended all forums. • Commenter – Silos, people don’t talk to each other. Even with everyone trying hard,

there isn’t a good database with all of these technologies that is accessible. We don’t know each other – that is the problem.

o Note: PPP can be developed to address such issues. Contact [email protected] if further assistance is needed.

• Commenter – build on pulp & paper comment – have had a healthy dialogue with a pulp & paper company that it is important for them to repurpose their assets. A real opportunity; also gets away from food vs fuel debate.

o Comment- forest land could be converted into food production land as was done in most of the state of Ohio in the mid 1800s. So not sure how using wood gets away from this debate.

• Commenter – Challenge is we need to differentiate bioeconomy from the general economy. Need to make decisions based on price vs. quality.; consumers need to be made aware of advantages in bioeconomy. Defining “sustainability” and “bioeconomy” are viewed as critical first steps.

http://rsb.org/

http://rsb.org/

http://rsb.org/


• Commenter – challenge is entrepreneur working with academia. How to balance things from a business perspective?

• Denny Hall – OBIC has aspired to act as a cluster agent over the years. Initially designed as a bridge between Industry & Academia. To continue to do this, OBIC needs sponsorship. Envious of Europe – funding for this type of activity.

• Wes – economies are regional. Need to think regionally in this discussion. Regional Aggregation.

• Commenter – Circular Economy – common in Europe, new in the U.S. Materials Exchange Initiative (cloud-based platform) – companies can list their excess materials. Need to expand this to include the bioeconomy.

• Commenter – Issue: How do we bring them into our industry, next generation-(need to groom the next workforce?) -- Social media? They will support this more than anyone else.

• Commenter – BioOhio main goals connect entrepreneurs to resources, manufacturers to suppliers. Information on BioOhio’s website to help people find each other. Just visited high school (STEM) in Gahanna – doing great things, capstone classes. Need resources for educators and students. BioOhio helps connects the community, collection of 3000+ of business to connect you to resources. Need to spread the word about the resources. Where is the workforce coming from? Jr & Sr level kids at a local schools are focusing on building the yields, impressive young minds are out there looking, needs to be something in place for resources for educators and students to make the connections.

• Wes – need to make it easier to navigate. • Commenter – 22 yrs old, OSU grad; interned at Renergy. It was very exciting. Thinks

workforce is there. • Commenter – last year summer mfg camp 6th – 8th grade. We could do this for the

bioeconomy. Summer manufacturing camp: take kids around tour plants. Skills that are now required with computer 6&8 graders, excite them on what is available in the future.

• Additional Reviews/Comments for Challenges or Opportunities

• Commenter – (1) favorable policy at federal/state level that can be mirrored at state / local level; combined permitting process; incentives for private lending or capital. Tax incentives not long term enough. (2) Create regulatory environment that is favorable: Fast track/ combine permitting with EPA/Building/Zoning.. (3.) Provide / create incentives for private lenders to participate

• Commenter – some resources are available through OSU. BioHio Research Park to bring people together to move the technologies

• BiOhio Research Park offers opportunity of connecting resources and capabilities at OSU in the bioeconomy.

• Commenter – We should frame the bio-economy not just around job and economic growth but also around climate change. Yes, politically it makes sense to frame it around job creation with the new administration but the bioeconomy is positioned to last much


longer than Trump and therefore we should take a long-term approach by framing the bio-economy expansion around climate change mitigation. In the report, climate change was not mentioned once except in the annex section.

• Wes – need to be about sustainability, climate change, and economic viability – needs to be about all of the above. But goal of this initiative is to feed the world, etc.

• Commenter – Data shows people will pay a premium. Need to include climate change. Politically challenging, but need to keep the climate change in the forefront.

• Commenter – Suggest that agriculture is part of the solution. Most of us have forgotten that through photosynthesis that plants use carbon to help with root growth and give off oxygen. This process has a cooling effect and helps to regulate ambient temperatures.

• Commenter – Food, Energy and Water Environmental Engineered Systems approach – agriculture production working with community & regional energy and water resources. When local resources are focused on regional strengths leveraging geographic advantages, marketplace and production expertise, local economies thrive. clarify and demonstrate how can we have impact on regional areas ; how do we get rid of some federal programs. [RJB note: ?? – what federal programs?] How can federal programs like USDA NRCS be modified to include conservation programs that allow both soil, water and habitat conservation with agricultural product production on the NRCS funded protected lands? For example: perennial biomass crops to prevent soil erosion, nutrient runoff and enhance pollinator habitat yet can be harvested for forage, fiber or biomass feedstock on a defined interval.

• Commenter – next generation farmers coming up (only 2% farmed) – it will take work & effort to make change in the bioeconomy. How do we do this without the large capital investment, work and effort to come on and produce, it has to be profitable for them.

• Commenter – BioOhio represents all of biosciences. People are doing their jobs that are having a positive impact on lives. Benefits medical, ag production. This messaging covers it and should avoid political differences.

• Commenter – Market viability – over and above price vs performance – still have the challenge of market inertia – don’t want to be the first company to market (“show me who has used the product and proof of it”). Early adopters are critical.

• Commenter – bought into climate change, but looking at it from an investor point of view, products have to be competitive -- If I’m investing I have to be competitive. Need policies that are stable.

• Commenter – one of the challenges is early innovation & getting products to market. why don’t we have it in all/other industries for incentives? If there is no incentive it becomes difficult. Something across the line to offer to all.


From the “Opportunities” section of the above document, is anything missing from the list, and what would you list as the 3 highest priorities to discuss and address from the Midwest region?

What sets the Midwest Bioeconomy apart from other regions of the country?

● Commenter – we are centrally located. This is a great place to be to get things to the rest of the country. Close to Great Lakes.

● Commenter – the scale of polymers and materials, and agriculture. The strength of our universities. Strength of public/private partnerships.

o Ag is Ohio's #1 industry and polymers is #2 ● Commenter– we have a large workforce in coal mine areas and steel valley. Is there a

mechanism to target these regions? Any incentive for these areas? ● Commenter– Development in Appalachia. POWER initiative is EDA and ARC funding to

allow the coal industry to reconfigure. This is an advantage for Ohio and the Midwest. ● Commenter– From a mfg standpoint, we have a lot to offer. Also, have the Ohio River --

- Low energy costs, Ohio River, Grain costs. Besides corn and grain crops, we have the largest supply of animal tallow.

● Commenter – Large land base with ability to not compete for food but available for other uses that are related to non-food items.

● Commenter– not as much weather-related variability as other places (such as droughts). ● Commenter– Close to raw materials (i.e. corn); close to refineries, farmers; advantage is

we are deregulated. The entire infrastructure is here. ● Commenter– 45% of polymers in U.S. within 500 mile drive. Lubrizol, Emery, Ashland

are all located here. ● Commenter– It is important for us to own the disruptive technology to make it work here,

to keep jobs here. Opportunity to use corn and soybeans – already at an industrial scale.

● Commenter – Mentioned targeted job areas for Ohio; match federal policy to state policy. R&D is fantastic in the area. Need more support for R&D.

● Commenter – Jobs Ohio is trying to do that (Chris’ comment). Focus on 4 main disruptive technologies (Additive manufacturing, Factory Automation, Advanced materials & Sustainability) that will affect our workforce for Ohio, because about 20% of Ohio’s GSP comes from manufacturing products, and all of the above trends are disruptive to the manufacturing industry & its workforce. If we don’t focus on attracting & nurturing innovators in these disruptive technologies, we'll lose our current edge..

● Commenter – Resource stewardship (???)


● Commenter – focus on polymers and fine chemicals to use biomass as feedstock. Current technology is based on adding complexity: e.g.; hydrocarbons →

pharmaceuticals. Need to focus on general transformations of complex feedstocks.

How much research is being done on what is needed? Do businesses/universities partnership contract R&D at the local universities?

● Commenter – Mentioned MEP (Dept. of Commerce, Manufacturing Extension

Partnership, https://www.nist.gov/mep ) [note from RJB --- this was developed using model of USDA Cooperative Extension Service.]

● Commenter – A lot of people doing research; work from others on by-products’ way to transfer to our national resource base. How do we get researchers to work out ways to communicate with industry? Need a mechanism for communication --- perhaps using OSU Extension as a model on the agriculture side. RJB mentioned difficulty when calling universities to get listing of patents. Need a more centralized clearing house for Intellectual Property availability. [Note from RJB: Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) may have such a list available to industry. See http://www.autm.net/ ]

● Commenter – We need a list of problems from companies that we can take to the universities [RJB note: and to federal labs through https://www.federallabs.org/ ] to find a solution. A list of patents available for licensing is like pushing a rope.

● Commenter – On 11/17/16, the AG’s office is putting a seminar. ● Commenter – Mentioned that the Ohio 3rd Frontier program was a good example of

industry/academic research partnership. OBIC was formed by a 3rd Frontier grant and the program has was successful initiating industry/academic partnerships that have had a large impact. (see https://development.ohio.gov/bs_thirdfrontier/tvsf.htm)

● Commenter – working with Nonprofits to be successful in applying for grants; challenging for small businesses to compete in these grant programs.

● Rick Brenner – problem solving for industry through federal agencies is best through the Cooperative Research And Development Agreements (CRADA) that are fairly uniform across all federal agencies (by federal statute). Also look to gov’t university industry research roundtable (GUIRR) for partnerships between industry and university research assets.

● Commenter – On the finance side – where is the financing? USDA has loan guarantees but we need gap financing. Need financial partners involved to address the gaps. Can there be an established clearing house for these products to get everyone on the same page?

● Commenter – Educate, especially the start-ups – no clue on financial, management side. Partnerships must be in place like with AgCredit and USDA. Equity always becomes a issues with a startup.

● Commenter – Need a point person in our region to get things done. Need to know who to call for assistance. Who is a contact for ATiP foundation engagement?

● Wes – We acknowledge that it is difficult to figure out who to work with in federal gov’t. represented by 14 R&D agencies and 900 laboratories, especially when there is a need

https://www.nist.gov/mep

http://www.autm.net/

https://www.federallabs.org/


to configure industry/governments/university partnerships. That is a role that the ATIP Foundation plays as an independent “partnership intermediary” to facilitate partnerships among private sector, federal researchers, university researchers, and investment community. The Foundation can be reached most efficiently through a simple call or email to Dr. Rick Brenner, Director, ATIP Foundation, at 410.980.1943, or [email protected].

● Commenter – Ashland is a member of CBiRC (Center for Biorenewable Chemicals (CBiRC) at Iowa State) and helped fund it. A couple of years ago, CBiRC was running out of money. Ashland just joined a NNMI consortium – 130 companies, 2 federal labs, 4 universities – for the composites industry. Thinks it is a great program that fosters discussion of the bio refinery concept with the universities and industry.

● Todd Campbell – Had CBiRC funding under 2 different Presidential budget proposals and were not approved by Congress. Decision made not to put in last budget since we have been on a Continuing Resolution the entire year that does not entertain any new initiatives.. Talked about Advanced Mfg Networks and regional catalysts to help to continue to fund.

● Commenter – As to funding sources, need to engage the banking industry into the bioeconomy industry.

● Commenter – Mentioned organization regarding USDA loan programs (2 years); National Lender association member that offers Rural Business Guarantee

What other biomass would you like to consider in the discussion of advancing the bioeconomy? Animal wastes including aquaculture, manure and carcasses/municipal landfills/strip-mined land reclamation/Others?

● Commenter – hog, poultry industry in Ohio – manure will become more of an issue; Phosphorus run-off an issue. How do you get the biomass from those farms?

● Commenter – they have storm pits and have anaerobic digester (AD ) on the farm. ● Commenter – Ohio has a large food processing industry so we have large food waste. ● Commenter – AD digestate should be considered. There are many issues involved in

storing and processing AD byproducts. Especially methane emission which is a potent GHG.

● Commenter – crop rotations re: water quality; biomass harvesting – opportunity to maximize landscape and water quality.

● Commenter – forest products focus? ● Commenter – Municipal Solid waste/sewer treatment, one of Ohio strengths is the Ag

Community. Works well with local universities, FB and other organizations. Would like to hear from others before a issue arises.

● Commenter – Energy Tobacco called Solaris. USA is the #4 producer of tobacco worldwide. High yield crop can replace traditional tobacco farms which have recently

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sunchem.it/testo-il-gruppo/?lang=en


been in decline. Can produce several bioproducts including: biofuel, biodiesel, biomethane, and livestock feed.

o Solaris revenue is flexible because it has several profit channels in addition to biofuel feedstocks, these include: biomass for paper and pulp, pelletized biomass for biogas and biomethane generation, and seed cake for livestock feed.

● Byproducts of grasses and tobacco. Can the biomass be harvested in a wildlife-friendly manner?

● Todd Campbell – Double cropping; photo on camelina – plant at end of corn & soybean season. Some conservation benefits. Attracts honeybees.

● Commenter – Emery has looked at camelina as an alternate raw material but infrastructure not there; not enough volume.

● Commenter – Need to educate farmers on these new crops. ● Commenter– Weather can be an issue to incorporate camelina or other crop rotations.

A lot of risk. Need to put a biodigester facility on the farm or centralized location (don’t want to ship because feedstock is 75% water).

● Commenter – Bamboo (7 varieties can be grown in Ohio). Grows quickly and is renewable.

● Commenter – mentioned watch out for invasive species. (some bamboo species) ● Commenter – Were climate models taken into consideration on the billion ton report? ● Commenter – yes climate change models were taken into consideration – next report

stipulates this. ● Commenter – challenges in separating cellulose from corn cobs / corn stalks. ● Commenter – challenge in Ohio is high land costs. The growth of miscanthus on strip-

mined lands does really well relative to other crops. After 3 years, harvest 6-8 tons of biomass/acre but in addition creating biomass subsurface that remediates cite. Opportunity to look at strip-mined lands to develop a crop.

● Commenter – Is there a definition of marginal lands? Does it include prairies, grasslands? National Wildlife Federation - Biomass Harvesting on Marginal Lands: Cultivating and harvesting biomass on marginal lands should be done in a way that protects and enhances wildlife habitat. Biomass cultivation should be limited to non-natural habitats, such as reclaimed mining fields and brownfields, to conserve wildlife. It is critical that conversion of native prairies, wetlands, forests, and other habitats is prohibited. Harvesting of biomass in native prairies should be done in a way that protects and enhances the wildlife habitat value of the land, for instance harvesting after the nesting season. There must be rigorous criteria in place before biomass harvesting can be permitted on natural habitats: A quantifiable minimum amount of biomass necessary to ensure stable resources must be established so native wildlife can maintain and grow their populations. There also needs to be sufficient organic material left on site to guarantee the replenishment of soil nutrients. Instead of monocrop production systems which require heavy industrial processes, National Wildlife Federation suggests wildlife friendly feedstocks, such as diverse mixtures of native species, or at least, polycrop systems and the use of crops which store a majority of their biomass below ground as a means to improve carbon storage in the soil. Feedstocks should be limited to native


species or non-native species with a low risk of invasion. National Wildlife Federation understands that different intensities of harvests may be (un)acceptable depending on the parcel of land and the proposed feedstock, however, there needs to be minimum standards in place to protect the wildlife and habitats that depend on land that many producers consider marginal. Given that sustainability is contextual and varies by region, biomass producers should engage with local stakeholders, such as landowners, extension officers, insurance officials, NGOs, and academic experts. Instead of developing new certification schemes or standards, we suggest adopting existing certification programs such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials and Forest Stewardship Council.

Please see the National Wildlife Federation Biomass BMG Report for additional information.

● Commenter – failing septic tanks; how is this waste incorporated into estimated? ● Todd Campbell – mentioned marginal or underutilized lands, nutrient loss.; Nutrient

loss/lower yield on marginal land use. ● Commenter – How do you get the younger generation at the table to discuss these

issues?

How can you enhance your bioeconomy through new partnerships in the region, or on a more global basis?

● Commenter – include community colleges with the bigger universities. Even high schoolers.

● Commenter – Seed treatment is typically done on the farm as it is too expensive to have seeds brought to a treatment center. Is there some kind of partnership to learn each other’s waste materials so that you could see if one’s waste is someone else’s raw material? Some waste materials could be a raw material for someone. These might be smaller partnerships, not large ones.

● Commenter – Most solid waste districts that own landfills have an incentive to landfill vs. find other uses for organic wastes that could be used as feedstocks for bioproducts and biofuels. For example a solid waste district usually receives a payment for every ton of material received at a landfill. These incentives need to be reversed so that they are disincentivized to landfill materials so that they will more actively seek opportunities to reuse and recycle them instead.

● Commenter – Referred to establishing a local network so that everyone knows the local businesses and skills. You could create these networks on facebook.

● Commenter – Referred to Chamber of Commerce concept -- create formal networking that is steady and regularly Have monthly meetings/discussions to stay connected.

● Commenter – what about economic agencies working with groups like JumpStart? Can they utilize federal funds to help start companies?

● Commenter – In the last 50 years, startups have been creating the jobs. Focus on job creators. Partner with MEP, JumpStart, etc.

http://www.nwf.org/%7E/media/PDFs/Wildlife/BiomassBMGPPR.pdf


Should products made using fossil carbon, but using a biological process, be included in the national bioeconomy strategy? Example- algae produced from coal flue gas, methane to biopolymers via micro-organisms.

● Denny Hall – Provided context for the question. Referred to USDA’s definition of testing for biobased carbon.

● Commenter– this is a continuing conversation with his company. Same molecule regardless of the process. However, they get paid differently depending on what they derive it from (i.e. switchgrass vs. tires). This needs to be cleared up so they can talk with investors.

● Commenter – No, don’t agree --- if you take shale gas should not equate bioeconomy with biorenewable.

● Commenter – Analyze the whole system from a LCA perspective, and consider all the fossil carbon inputs and biogenic carbon inputs to determine the carbon flows and carbon intensities of products.

Wrap-up Statements by Wes Jurey for participant confirmation:

● Finance is a key issue ● Education and company awareness is a key issue ● Policy is a key issue ● Supply Chain is a key issue ● Workforce as an issue – mixed ● Easy access to federal resources is an issue – yes ● Collaboration is critical

Commenter: What is key is that we all have the same vision of where we want to be. Otherwise, it is like trying to put a puzzle together without a picture of what is suppose to look like. Commenter– need to be able to communicate to general population as well as those that provide the funding. Wes- economic case is the strongest, if we grow the economy then we can do more. Weak economy reaches from county all the way up to federal


What do you want to do next? Where do we go from here?

● Commenter – looking at other countries that take the raw materials and send it back as products. A lot of diverse product but processing is involved. Biomass, why can’t we finish the product and export food forest – diverse products, processing – For biomass, can we produce more locally and export it to China?

● Commenter – Linking buyers and sellers of biomass products is a challenge – Develop an eBay like app that utilizes GPS, google earth to id biomass resources in a field that someone wants to sell; then run an internet auction for buyers to bid on biomass.

● Wes – is everyone interested in continuing this collaboration? ● Denny Hall- Interest in having a larger forum with the expanded Midwest states

participating ● OSU will continue to work with ATIP. ● Commenter – asked the question of how this would look regional (i.e. Sun Grant)?

Regional Bioeconomy Forum, registration fee, how far will people travel. ● Commenter – at one of the first North Central Sun Grant regional forums, the focus was

on biomass although other topics along the value chain were also discussed. A future Sun Grant meeting may be held within the five regions.

● Commenter – need to present more clarity to the vision when broadcasting to a wider audience. This is a first step as a region.

● Wes – suggested that those interested to let Denny know. ● Commenter – commented on original mission of Sun Grant being to conduct regionally

relevant research. ● Commenter – many businesses don’t recognize what the bioeconomy is so how do we

get the message out to them? ● Wes- working with government, economic Development directors and chambers,

community colleges, starting with the organizations that start with the stakeholder groups you are a part of; better to link networks with other networks, rather than knocking on individual doors.

● Commenter– what will new administration think of this work? Need to develop a strategy to advocate for this.

● Commenter – Is there a regional focus; regions aren’t defined by state lines. ● Todd Campbell – Part of the billion ton assessment shows there are benefits to all areas

of the country regardless of what product you’re producing. The regions define themselves.

ATIP Foundation 2016 Regional Bioeconomy …...Agricultural Technology Innovation Partnership ATIP...

Documents

Transcript of ATIP Foundation 2016 Regional Bioeconomy …...Agricultural Technology Innovation Partnership ATIP...