Cap and Trade: Impacts of H.R. 2454 on U.S. Agriculture
-
Upload
american-farmland-trust -
Category
News & Politics
-
view
1.789 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Cap and Trade: Impacts of H.R. 2454 on U.S. Agriculture
Cap-and-TradeImpacts of H.R.2454 on U.S.
Agriculture
Cap-and-TradeImpacts of H.R.2454 on U.S.
Agriculture
March2010
Presented at the Commodity Classic March 3, 2010
1
Cap-and-Trade Overview
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
GH
G E
mis
sion
s fr
om C
appe
d Se
ctor
s (M
MT
CO
2e)
Emission Reduction
Emission Projections without Cap-and-Trade (EPA)
Emissions with Cap-and-Trade = "The Cap"
Costs
3
Cost Drivers for Agriculture
BasicsCarbon Cap declines
Carbon price increases (free today)
Energy prices increase
Fuel and fertilizer prices increase = Cost of production increases
Freely distributed allowances to fertilizer industry help offsetfertilizer price increases until 2035
4
Cost DriversThree BIG Questions
1. What is the carbon price?- Future energy demand- Alternative energy supply- Offset supply
2. What is the impact on energy prices?
3. How does that impact cost of production?...
(nominal $)2020 2030 2035
Carbon Price 31.75 64.83 92.64 Diesel (cents/gallon) 32.57 78.31 122.20 Natural Gas ($/thous.ft.3) 1.47 3.81 6.81
Cap and Trade Energy Price Impact (relative to reference case)
EIA Base
5
U.S. Wheat Production Cost Impacts –(Avg. Farm)
*Does not include fuel or fertilizer efficiency increases beyond that assumed in the reference case. Source: Informa Economics, EIA and ERS
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Prod
uctio
n C
ost I
mpa
cts
(rel
ativ
e to
refe
renc
e)
($/a
cre)
Added Fertilizer Impact - (zero allowances)FertilizerTransport (Farm-Elevator/Processor)Fuel,Lube, and Electricity
$1.67 / 1.3% $2.67 / 1.6%$3.64 / 1.9%
$9.52 / 4.1%
$21.06 / 7.3%
$ per Acre / % of Reference Case Variable
Key Policy Message: Fertilizer allowances are critical.
The cost of cap-and-trade to the average wheat grower = $4/ac by 2025 and $21/ac by 2035.
6
Example: Prairie Gateway Wheat Farm Budget -2025
Nominal$
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2025 Ref 2025 C&T 2025 C&T(no fert.
allowances)
$/A
cre
Revenue
Increase due to C&T
Other
Seed
Repairs
Fuel, lube, andelectricity
Fertilizer
Net Revenue$112/acre
Costs
Net Revenue$108/acre
Net Revenue$105/acre
7
Cost Impacts Relative to Corn and Soybeans
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
Corn Wheat Soybeans Corn Wheat Soybeans Corn Wheat Soybeans
205 bu/acre= $0.03/bu
48 bu/acre =$0.08/bu
53 bu/acre =$0.05/bu
215 bu/acre= $0.09/bu
50 bu/acre =$0.19/bu
56 bu/acre =$0.1/bu
226 bu/acre= $0.22/bu
52 bu/acre =$0.4/bu
59 bu/acre =$0.19/bu
1.2% 1.9% 1.2% 3.7% 4.1% 2.1% 7.8% 7.3% 3.3%
2025 2030 2035
Cos
t of P
rodu
ctio
n Im
pact
s, $
/acr
e (c
ost a
bove
refe
renc
e ca
se)
Fuel,Lube, and Electricity Fertilizer Transport (Farm-Elevator/Processor) Added Fertilizer Impact - (no offset assumption)
w/Fert. Offset AssumptionYield Scenario/$perBu Impact
% Reference Variable Costs
8
Conclusions
Impact on wheat production costs is less than corn but more than soybeans.
Impacts are minimal in the short-term; up until 2025.
Fertilizer allowance assumptions are critical.
On a regional basis:Short-term: impacts are higher in the Prairie Gateway due to energy used for irrigation.
Long-term: regions (e.g., Prairie Gateway and Northern Great Plains) and farmers with lower nitrogen based fertilizer usage will be at a distinct advantage.
Benefits: Carbon Offset Opportunities
10
Carbon Offset Credits – What are they?
C&T creates a tradable market for GHG emissions
Agriculture is not a capped sector under C&T
However, by reducing carbon, agriculture can sell a carbon offset credit for every ton of GHG emissions reduced.
Sell these credits at the market carbon price to capped sectors.
Capped sectors use these credits just like allowances.
11
How do I get carbon offset credits?0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Afforestation of cropland /1Croplands shifted to perennial grasses
Conservation Buffers/2Restoration of wetlands
Conservation to No-Till /3Improved crop rotations and winter cover crops
Elimination of summer fallowImproved fertilizer manager
Use of organic manure and byproducts /4Improved irrigation management
Afforestation of pastureRangeland management
Improved use of fertilizersUse of organic manure
Planting of improved speciesGrazing management
CR
OPL
AN
D:
Land
-Use
Cha
nges
Prod
uctio
n P
ract
ice
Cha
nges
Gra
zing
Land
Past
ure
Man
agem
ent
Carbon Sequestration Rates - Mt CO2e/ac
Average High Maximun
Source: USDA, CCX, DOE, Informa Economics
Key Policy Message: Methodology used to calculate SRs can have large impact on net farm revenues and potential cropland acreage shifts.
12
What is the Revenue Potential? Practice Sequestration Rate 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Mt CO2e/ac Carbon Credit - $/Acre * Afforestation of cropland /1 1.90 25 38 62 100 160 255 Croplands shifted to perennial grasses 1.25 19 25 41 66 105 167 Conservation Buffers/2 0.70 11 14 23 37 59 93 Restoration of wetlands 0.37 6 7 12 19 31 49
Conservation to No-Till /3 0.66 10 13 22 35 56 89 Improved crop rotations and winter cover crops 0.29 4 6 10 15 25 39 Elimination of summer fallow 0.15 2 3 5 8 12 20 Improved fertilizer manager 0.15 2 3 5 8 12 20 Use of organic manure and byproducts /4 1.28 20 26 42 67 108 172 Improved irrigation management 0.15 2 3 5 8 12 20
Afforestation of pasture 1.48 23 30 48 78 125 198 Rangeland management 0.37 6 7 12 19 31 49
Improved use of fertilizers 0.55 8 11 18 29 46 74 Use of organic manure 1.28 20 26 42 67 108 172 Planting of improved species 0.73 11 15 24 39 62 98 Grazing management 1.10 17 22 36 58 92 147
Carbon Price (nominal$/CO2e) 19 25 41 66 105 167
* Sequestration rates are discounted by 20% to reflect potential reversals. Source: USDA, CXX, DOE, IEA, Informa Economics.
Key Policy Messages: (1) Limitation on # of Re-enrollment periods will significantly impact potential revenues in the out years (2) Ability to stack carbon credits could add significantly to potential revenue opportunities
13
Average No-Till Carbon Sequestration Rate by Region and Major Crop
HeartlandHeartlandHeartlandHeartlandHeartlandHeartlandHeartlandHeartlandHeartland
Northern CrescentNorthern CrescentNorthern CrescentNorthern CrescentNorthern CrescentNorthern CrescentNorthern CrescentNorthern CrescentNorthern Crescent
Northern Great PlainsNorthern Great PlainsNorthern Great PlainsNorthern Great PlainsNorthern Great PlainsNorthern Great PlainsNorthern Great PlainsNorthern Great PlainsNorthern Great Plains
Prairie GatewayPrairie GatewayPrairie GatewayPrairie GatewayPrairie GatewayPrairie GatewayPrairie GatewayPrairie GatewayPrairie Gateway
Eastern UplandsEastern UplandsEastern UplandsEastern UplandsEastern UplandsEastern UplandsEastern UplandsEastern UplandsEastern Uplands
Southern SeaboardSouthern SeaboardSouthern SeaboardSouthern SeaboardSouthern SeaboardSouthern SeaboardSouthern SeaboardSouthern SeaboardSouthern Seaboard
Fruitful RimFruitful RimFruitful RimFruitful RimFruitful RimFruitful RimFruitful RimFruitful RimFruitful Rim
Basin and RangeBasin and RangeBasin and RangeBasin and RangeBasin and RangeBasin and RangeBasin and RangeBasin and RangeBasin and Range
Mississippi PortalMississippi PortalMississippi PortalMississippi PortalMississippi PortalMississippi PortalMississippi PortalMississippi PortalMississippi Portal
© 2009 Informa Economics, Inc.
No Till Sequestration Rates(CO2e Tonnes per Acre)
0.61
CornSoybeansWheatCotton
14
Distinction between Continuous and Rotational No-Till
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Mississippi Portal
Prairie Gateway
Southern Seaboard
Eastern Uplands
Fruitful Rim
Basin and Range
Heartland
Northern Crescent
Northern Great Plains
US
Rice
Cotton
Wheat
Soybeans
Corn
Key Policy Message: Addressing additionality - Distinction btw continuous and rotational
15
WheatNet Impact: Benefits of no-till – Costs
(30)
(20)
(10)
-
10
20
30
40
50
6020
12
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
Net
Rev
enue
Impa
ct ($
/acr
e)
Net Impact for Adopters (no adoption costs)
Net Impact for Non-Adopters
Cost for non-adopter (no offset revenue): $4/ac by 2025 and $21/ac by 2035.
Net Gain for no-till adopter (no adoption costs): $25/ac by 2025 and $51/ac by 2035.
16
WheatNet Impact: Benefits of no-till – Costs
(30)
(20)
(10)
-
10
20
30
40
50
6020
12
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
Net
Rev
enue
Impa
ct ($
/acr
e)
Net Impact for Adopters (no adoption costs)
Net Impact for Non-Adopters
Net Impact for Adopters (w/ est. no-till costs)
Adopting no-till does not come without a cost (e.g., yield drag, equipment investment, risk).Net Gain for no-till adopter (with/ est. adoption costs): $17/ac by 2025 and $47/ac by 2035.
17
WheatNet Impact: Benefits of no-till – Costs
(30)
(20)
(10)
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
Net
Rev
enue
Impa
ct ($
/acr
e)
Net Impact for Adopters (no adoption costs)Net Impact for Non-AdoptersNet Impact for Adopters (w/ est. no-till costs)Net Impact for All Wheat (w/ est. no-till costs)
Not every wheat farmer will be able to practice no-till.
Net Industry Gain (w/ no-till as only offset): $4/ac by 2025 and $35/ac by 2035.
18
Example: Prairie Gateway Wheat Farm Budget
Nominal$
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2025 Ref 2025 C&T 2025 C&T(no fert.
allowances)
$/A
cre
Carbon Credit
Revenue
No-till Costs
Increase due to C&T
Production Costs
Net Revenue$112/acre
Costs
Net Revenue$121/acre
Net Revenue$118/acre
19
WheatNet Impact: Benefits of no-till – Costs
Conclusions (no-till)
Wheat has a larger potential gain than corn but smaller than soybeans.
On average, U.S. wheat producers could benefit by approximately $35/acre from cap-and-trade by 2035.
Some farmers/regions will not benefit to the same degree as others --- benefit will primarily be driven by the carbon SR.
20
There are opportunities other than no-till Practice Sequestration Rate 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Mt CO2e/ac Carbon Credit - $/Acre * Afforestation of cropland /1 1.90 25 38 62 100 160 255 Croplands shifted to perennial grasses 1.25 19 25 41 66 105 167 Conservation Buffers/2 0.70 11 14 23 37 59 93 Restoration of wetlands 0.37 6 7 12 19 31 49
Conservation to No-Till /3 0.66 10 13 22 35 56 89 Improved crop rotations and winter cover crops 0.29 4 6 10 15 25 39 Elimination of summer fallow 0.15 2 3 5 8 12 20 Improved fertilizer manager 0.15 2 3 5 8 12 20 Use of organic manure and byproducts /4 1.28 20 26 42 67 108 172 Improved irrigation management 0.15 2 3 5 8 12 20
Afforestation of pasture 1.48 23 30 48 78 125 198 Rangeland management 0.37 6 7 12 19 31 49
Improved use of fertilizers 0.55 8 11 18 29 46 74 Use of organic manure 1.28 20 26 42 67 108 172 Planting of improved species 0.73 11 15 24 39 62 98 Grazing management 1.10 17 22 36 58 92 147
Carbon Price (nominal$/CO2e) 19 25 41 66 105 167
* Sequestration rates are discounted by 20% to reflect potential reversals. Source: USDA, CXX, DOE, IEA, Informa Economics.
Fertilizer Management = + $20/ac by 2035
Elimination of Summer Fallow = + 20/ac by 2035
21
Examples of Other Offset Opportunities
Elimination of Summer Fallow/Cover CropBenefits $20/acre carbon payment (2035). Reduced erosion If using a cover crop,
Reduction in weed, pest and disease pressuresIf cover crop is a legume, can help fix nitrogen in the soil$39/acre carbon payment if using a cover crop (2035)
CostsReduced moisture – summer fallow is often used to store water in soil prior to seeding Planting costs if using a cover crop
22
Examples of Other Offset OpportunitiesImproved Fertilizer Management
Benefits $20/acre carbon payment (2035).
Costs
Improved fertilizer management could include:Systems to better match supply and demandSub-surface applications Use of ammonium nitrogen sources not mobile forms of nitrogen such as nitrate and urea Use of advanced fertilizers, examples:
Slow release fertilizers Stabilized nitrogen fertilizers A nitrification inhibitor
23
Conclusions – Carbon Offset Opportunities
There are a number of potential revenue opportunities available to farmers under C&T.
If structured properly, C&T could benefit a large number of wheat farmers.
However, not everyone will benefit to the same level.
Legislation is not open or closed to additional opportunities.
24
Top Policy Issues
Allowances to fertilizer industry are critical in keeping production cost impacts down
Methodology used to calculate SRs can have large impact on net farm revenues and potential cropland acreage shifts.
Clearly establish minimum set of offset practices. The Bill should establish the current list of offset practices as a minimum set – not as examples.
Limiting the number of offset credit periods in which a producer can re-enroll their offset practice will limit offset credits available to farmers in later years when the cost impact of cap-and-trade is greatest.
Renewable Electricity Standard
26
Renewable Electricity Standard (RES)
C&T creates a federal RES, which requires 20% of electricity by 2020 to be from renewable sources.
Creates increased demand for wind, solar and renewable energy crops.
Potential to increase revenues, in certain scenarios.
Currently enacted state RESs mitigate demand increase due to C&T.
27
Reference Scenario(No Cap-and-Trade)
Reference Case Renewable Electricity Generation
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Gen
erat
ion
(bill
ion
kwh)
Wind Solar Wood and Other Biomass Municipal Solid Waste Geothermal Conventional Hydropower
Source: EIA
28
Biomass Contributes Largest Share of Increase under C&T
Additional Renewable Energy Generation by Source (Basic - Reference)
0
50
100
150
200
250
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Elec
tric
ity G
ener
atio
n (b
illio
n ki
low
atth
ours
)
Wind Solar Wood and Other Biomass Municipal Solid Waste Geothermal Conventional Hydropower
Infrastructural issues limit further wind expansion. Other gov’t programs, such as BCAP improve biomass
economics
Source: EIA
29
RES Impact on Agriculture
2020 Total Renewable Electricity Increase171 billion kwh
2020 Biomass 161 billion kwh = 32 million tons;
Electricity: $15.7 billion
Additional Energy Crop Acres1.6-4.8 million
Scenario Assumptions:
Energy crops account for 50-75% of biomass increase
Energy crop yields of 5-10 dry tons/acre
30
Specific Case StudyKansas Wheat – Switchgrass Example
2011 2012 Year 3-10SWITCHGRASS CASH FLOWYield 1.50 4.59 6.70 FARMGATE COSTS (includes labor)Establishment Costs ($/acre) 52.40 13.44 -
Establishment Costs 209.62 53.76 - BCAP 157.21 40.32
Production Costs ($/acre) 65.34 164.40 283.80 Farmgate Costs ($/acre) 117.75 177.84 283.80 GROWER REVENUE Grower Payment ($/acre) 39.40 110.27 250.68
Grower Payment ($/ton)* 26.27 24.02 37.22 BCAP Payments ($/acre) 39.40 110.27 36.26
BCAP Matching Funds 39.40 110.27 BCAP Annual Payment ** 36.26
Carbon Payment ($/acre) - 20.06 31.37 Grower Revenue ($/acre) 78.80 240.61 318.31 NET RETURNSNet Return ($/acre) (38.95) 62.77 34.52 * Based on a delivered feedstock price of $50/ton** Payments distributed through 2017
31
Specific Case StudyKansas Wheat – Switchgrass Example
Average Annual Return ($/acre) NPV 2011-2020
Prairie Gateway Wheat@ Avg. Yields 56.89 409.17 @ Yields 20% below Avg. 11.94 87.70
SwitchgrassBase Scenario (Delivered Feedstock =$50/ton) 30.00 221.50 Delivered Feedstock =$60/ton 111.82 799.09 Delivered Feedstock =$40/ton (52.16) (359.27)
Acreage Shift Implications
33
Acreage Shift Assessment
1. Early on, the majority of the acreage shifts due to afforestation will likely come from pastureland.
2. Initially, the majority of cropland shifts will be to perennial crops, with the exception of certain regions where barriers to entry for forestry are lower.
Increased demand for forage and energy crops (RES, RFS, and pasture shift)Less riskAdditional income streamLower start-up costsCultural reasons – “Farming as a way of life”
34
Acreage Shift Assessment
3. As the carbon price increases, particularly in the years beyond 2035, more cropland can be expected to go into forestry.
4. Yet, even at higher carbon prices (up to 2035), prime cropland will not shift to forestry or perennial crop production.
5. Regions and crops with larger net returns can expect to see less acreage shifting to these alternative carbon crops than regions with lower net returns.
Wheat acreage can be expected to decline the most relative to corn and soybeans
Potential Carbon Revenue Opportunities for Livestock
36
Enteric Fermentation
Enteric fermentation emissions are twice as large a market as GHGs from manure.
Ruminant animals are the source for over 95% of enteric fermentation emissions = Greater potential to gain carbon credits for emission reductions.
GHGs must be lowered through increased efficiencies in production, changing feed rations, or adding additives to the feed ration.
Potential to reduce enteric fermentation via an additive is approx. 25% .
Feedlots that feed steers for 150 days would receive $2.24 per head revenue by adding an additive.
Cost of additive?
37
2007 CH4 Emissions from Enteric Fermentation
Sheep1%
Swine1%
Goats0%
Horses3%
Beef72%
Dairy23%
Source: USDA “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 –2007”
38
Manure Management
Dairy and swine have the greatest opportunity to reduce the GHG emissions through manure mgmt.
Most feedlots and poultry operations are dry collection systems.Limited opportunity from runoff of dry systems.
The two main methods to reduce GHG off of manure:Methane digesters
Large investment costs currently limit its adoption to large operations. Future energy prices will influence economics of methane digesters.
Burning/flaring off the methane Less capital intensive Doesn’t generate energy byproduct.
39
Industry Revenue Opportunities
Dairy has the greatest opportunity to capture carbon revenues via C&T legislation.
Poultry operations have few opportunities Swine operations will have some opportunities to
benefit via manure mgmt changes. Feedlots will have some opportunities to benefit via
reductions in enteric fermentation emissionsCow/Calf sector – landowners have more options –
reduces supply to feedlots
EPA Regulated Scenario
41
EPA Regulated Scenario Background
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), any entity that has the potential to emit more than 100 tons of a regulated pollutant must obtain a permit to operate.
In 2007, the Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, ordered the EPA to determine whether heat-trapping gases harmed the environment and public health.
On December 7, 2009, the EPA announced its determination that GHGs "threaten the public health and welfare of the American people,"
42
EPA Regulated vs. C&T Scenario
Cap-and-Trade is more efficient than direct regulation = Higher production cost impacts.
Direct Regulation does not offer agricultural producers additional revenue opportunities from carbon offsets.
EPA regulations could result in the direct regulation of agricultural producers’ GHG emissions; whereas, current cap-and-trade legislation excludes agriculture from GHG emission regulations.
43
WheatNet Impact: Benefits of no-till – Costs
(30)
(20)
(10)
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
Net
Rev
enue
Impa
ct ($
/acr
e)
Net Impact for Adopters (no adoption costs)
Net Impact for Non-Adopters
44
EPA Regulated Scenario Cost Impacts
2025 Example
At minimum – impacts presented for cap-and-trade2025 = $3.64/acre increase
Plus …No fertilizer allowances (adds $3.39/acre)
No offsets to mitigate carbon price or as a revenue opportunity
Inefficiency cost – direct reg. is less efficient than market based approach
Direct ag regulation adds a cost of compliance
Production cost impacts could potentially be multiple times morethan that of cap-and-trade, with no offset revenue opportunity.
Final Thoughts and Conclusions
For additional information, please contact :
Juan SacotoSenior Vice President; [email protected]
Crystal CarpenterConsultant; [email protected]
Cap-and-TradeImpacts of H.R.2454 on U.S.
Agriculture
Cap-and-TradeImpacts of H.R.2454 on U.S.
Agriculture
March2010
Presented at the Commodity Classic March 3, 2010
48