in a by Rafael E. De La Torre and Robert C. Abt Understanding Biomass

Transcription

1 March.April 10 Forest Landowner:magazine master_redesigned.qxd 3/26/ :08 PM Page 24 T Forest Management Options These legislation standards require a percent of energy sales (MWh) or installed capacity (MW) to come from renewable resources. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reports that 29 states and the District of Columbia have adopted Renewable Electricity Standards. Such regulation requires a gradual, incremental production of renewable energy, including biomass/biopower, solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric generation. Mandatory state RPS targets range from a low of 10 percent to a high of 40 percent. However, most targets range from 15 to 25 percent and are scheduled to be reached between 2010 and Even with the uncertainties about future legislation, the authors see an increasing biomass demand, given subsidized pilot projects and the European market s appetite for U.S. in a he role of woody biomass harvested from managed forests may represent an important contribution in meeting the goals of the national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) or Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). biomass. How conflicts between definitions of biomass will be resolved and the ultimate portfolio of state and federal mandates will evolve, is unknown, but it is clear that this emerging market has the potential to be a significant source of new demand for forest products. This article provides an overview of current biomass policy and analysis of its potential impact on product markets in the South. Given the significant potential of price impacts, we then focus on how silviculture and genetics can be employed optimally by landowners. Specifically this analysis seeks to assess the following questions: How does a biomass market affect forest management? What is the impact of biomass pricing on returns? What is the impact of genetics on returns? Biomass Market by Rafael E. De La Torre and Robert C. Abt Understanding Biomass There are as many as 16 definitions for renewable biomass, but the Senate has yet to agree on one. Those in play are separated by fuels and electrical applications (personal communication, F. Stewart, ). The authors consider the less restrictive definition contained in the Farm Bill as the one most closely aligned with landowners interests, which includes, Planted trees and tree residue from actively managed tree plantations on nonfederal land cleared at any time prior to enactment of this sentence Slash and precommercial thinnings that are from non-federal forestlands (P.L , Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Title II, Sec. 201[1] [I]). Non-industrial private forest landowners (NIPFs) still own the vast majority of forestland and are the obvious major suppliers of woody biomass. The National Woodland Owner Survey (Butler, 2008), conducted by the U.S. Forest Service in 2006, estimated that 11 million private forest owners collec- Figure 1 North Carolina s Renewable Energy Portfolio. Figure 2 Acreage by age classes in North Carolina. 24

2 March.April 10 Forest Landowner:magazine master_redesigned.qxd 3/26/ :08 PM Page 25 The focus of this analysis is on forest management options in a biomass market. tively controlled 56 percent of the forestland (423 million acres) in the United States. Potential Market Impacts of Renewable Energy The focus of this analysis is on forest management options in a biomass market. How this market will develop will depend on the complex interaction between bioenergy (power and fuel), agriculture, and carbon policy. The recent recession has made credit more difficult to obtain, and it also has reduced the availability of residual wood products due to fewer harvests. As we look forward to the next decade of bioenergy market developments, the demand side will largely depend on policy mandates, especially the role of biomass in definitions of renewable energy, and the role of carbon policy on the harvest of trees for bioenergy. One of the reasons that energy policy with respect to roundwood harvest is uncertain is a concern that these new markets may lead to unsustainable harvest levels and that landscape level may move toward more intensive management. Empirical evidence suggests that increased demand for wood tends to increase prices more than harvest in the short-run. It is the price increases that lead to more intensive management and a long-term supply response. A study of the potential impact of North Carolina s Renewable Energy Portfolio law illustrates the potential scale and timing of impacts from bioenergy policy assuming no restrictions on woody biomass utilization. Figure 1 shows that the policy requirements increase demand in renewable energy starting in Assuming 25 percent of the requirements is met by efficiency gains, and assuming an FOREST LANDOWNER increase in infrastructure for other renewable energy sources, up to 90 percent of renewable energy will come from forest biomass (residuals and roundwood) in the first decade, with slightly over half coming from forest biomass in the second decade. A south-wide reduction in planting since 2000 will likely continue through the recession as landowners postpone harvests. Thus, an increase in biomass demand occurs at a time when the acreage of small roundwood available from plantations will be diminished significantly in some areas. Figure 2 shows the reduction in acres in the 5 to 15 year age classes in North Carolina. With the recession, this reduced planting will continue until markets improve, which will lead to limited capacity to increase harvest from plantations in the short-run, despite higher demand. In projections based on these MARCH/APRIL

3 March.April 10 Forest Landowner:magazine master_redesigned.qxd 3/26/ :08 PM Page 26 scenarios (in press), the resulting doubling of pulpwood price increases over the next 15 years will lead to increased planting by However, higher prices for biomass will be maintained until the supply response begins to lower prices, or other renewables become price competitive. A similar analysis conducted for the South (Abt in review, Journal of Sustainable Mgt.) considered market impacts if wood provided 30 percent of the renewable energy requirements needed to meet a 25 percent renewable standard in the South (EIA, 2007, 2009, details available from the authors), assuming that all forest products are eligible to meet the demand, and the 33 percent utilization of all logging residuals lead to stumpage price increases of approximately 50 percent. The prices landowners receive in the future will depend on the interaction of agricultural and forest policy, as well as state, national, and international energy polices, including a carbon policy. The financial gains from wood supply increases will be distributed between wood producers and consumers depending both on how much demand is increased and on the relative size of the supply response from landowners. While increased wood supply does not always benefit landowners as a whole since, other things equal, it lowers prices, those landowners who have planted higher quality, faster growing genetic stock should have a comparative advantage over other landowners. In low demand futures, the landowner s advantage may be the ability to sell due to offering superior quality. In high demand futures, this advantage may manifest itself as price premiums. In both cases, higher yields will improve revenues relative to other landowners. The studies described above indicate that if policies currently being considered are implemented, the next 10 to 20 years is likely to be a period of higher prices as increases in demand exceed supply responses. Seedling Type Regimes/Costs Second Generation Varietal One Thinning, Regeneration and Mgmt. $400/acre $400/acre No Thinning, Regeneration and Mgmt. $362/acre $362/acre Seedlings (500 TPA) $25/acre $190/acre Table 1 Base case regimes: estimated costs and stocking. While this discussion speculates on unknown policy outcomes, markets are already seeing on-the-ground impacts of the emerging biomass market. Each month, additional projects are planned. As of January 2010, Forisk has analyzed the 126 wood-consuming bioenergy projects announced in the southern U.S., which represent a potential incremental wood use of more than 46.4 million tons per year by Among these projects, only those representing 18.5 million tons per year passed a basic viability screening (Wood Bioenergy, Forisk, 2010). This amount, however, remains impressive. Financial Analyses Forest Landowner Strategies and Base Regimes A forest landowner owns an x acre tract available for a reforestation project, assuming timber market with a freight distance of 50 miles from either a processing mill or bioelectricity plant. Forest management aims to supply timber to both facilities, or exclusively to the forest-based biomass plant, whichever combination will maximize economic returns. The timberland owner wants to evaluate a loblolly pine reforestation program using an intensive silvicultural regime with traditional or with the best genetic quality seedlings offered in the open market. Table 1 includes two silvicultural regimes (with and without thinning), which remove inherent site limitations Figure 3 Scenario illustration. Figure 4 Optimum rotation age. One thinning: biomass plus traditional forest products. 26

4 March.April 10 Forest Landowner:magazine master_redesigned.qxd 3/26/ :08 PM Page 27 that may affect growth potential and value. Scenarios Three scenarios, illustrated in Figure 3, using two different genotypes (varietal and 2nd Gen/ zygotic/traditional seedlings) for the Lower Coastal Plain of the southeastern U.S. were formulated: A) traditional regime with one thinning (thinning method: residual BA 70 ft2/ac, fifth row + selection); B) traditional regime without thinning; and C) dedicated biomass plantation (no thinning). Traditional regimes include conventional forest products (PW, SP/CNS, and ST) as well as forest biomass (topwood, trees less than 4.5 inches, bark, branches, and foliage). Growth and Yield A combination of two equation systems [Plantation Management Research Cooperative (PMRC) loblolly pine, 1996 Growth and Yield Equation System; and Clark and Saucier, 1990], for estimating total-tree weights and biomass yields were applied. By operating SiMS-2009, a stand simulator, the optimal regimes for maximizing returns, using bare land value (BLV) as financial criteria, were found. Figure 4 illustrates Scenario A. Products and Prices Product specification and prices for standing timber were assigned based on Timber Mart-South (TMS) reports (TMS, 5-year moving annual average prices across Southern US). The pine sawtimber (ST) price is $40 per ton, chip-n-saw (CNS) is $20 per ton, Superpulp (SP, 10 percent of thinned trees) is $12 per ton, and pulpwood (PW) is $7.5 per ton. The biomass price is $6 per ton, which was selected from a survey of sources, such as Forest2Market, TMS, Plum Creek, RISI, Fram Renewable Fuels, Forest Landowner magazine reports, and Texas Forest Service. A biomass price sensitivity analysis, from $0 per ton to $20 per ton, was performed to determine changes in financial outputs, in potential capital investments, and in optimal rotation age. When biomass stumpage prices equaled or exceeded those of conventional forest products (in this case PW or SP), the latter prices were adjusted to match the selected biomass stumpage price, while CNS and ST prices were held constant. Genotype prices are: 2nd Gen, $0.05 per seedling; and varietal, $0.38 per seedling. The price differential reflects the higher value delivered through better genetics. The first year survival rate used was 90 percent, planting density was 500 TPA, and the discount rate was 6 percent. Finally, for forest landowners, as individuals, the highest income tax brackets were assumed. Thus, the ordinary income tax rate used was 35 percent, and the capital gain tax rate was 15 percent. From an array of simulations [three volume gain levels, five site indices (SI), and two genotypes], an optimized regime for each scenario, for SI 65 and 50 percent gain in stem volume over Stand Hrvstng Age Biomass PW CNS/SP ST Total Type Type Years Tons/ac Tons/ac Tons/ac Tons/ac Tons/ac 2 nd 1 st thin Gen Clear cut Varietal 1 st thin G&Y+ Clear cut Quality Table 2 Scenario A: Stand harvest report, SI 65, one thinning, biomass plus traditional forest products. Stand Hrvstng Age Biomass PW CNS/SP ST Total Type Type Years Tons/ac Tons/ac Tons/ac Tons/ac Tons/ac 2 nd 1 st thin 14 0 Gen Clear cut Varietal 1 st thin 14 0 G&Y+ Clear cut Quality Table 3 Scenario B: Stand harvest report, SI 65, no thinning, biomass plus traditional forest products. Stand Hrvstng Age Biomass PW CNS/SP ST Total Type Type Years Tons/ac Tons/ac Tons/ac Tons/ac Tons/ac 2 nd 1 st thin 14 0 Gen Clear cut Varietal 1 st thin 14 0 G&Y+ Clear cut Quality Table 4 Scenario C: Stand harvest report, SI 65, no thinning, biomass only. FOREST LANDOWNER MARCH/APRIL

5 March.April 10 Forest Landowner:magazine master_redesigned.qxd 3/26/ :08 PM Page 28 unimproved seedlings, was selected for illustration. Positive Considerations for Varietal Forests Forest landowners have many options for planting loblolly pine with genetic improvements. By using varietal seedlings of the highest genetic quality, they can take advantage of both shortened rotations and increased returns. Quantity gain (tons of wood per acre per year) is not the only advantage of a varietal over a traditional seedling forest; enhanced quality logs (straighter and more uniform stems), and reduced and fewer diseases, and fewer defects are also typical of a varietal forest. The combination of these timber value drivers yields maximum profits to forest investors. Value Drivers: G&Y and Quality Attributes Growth rates were computed by increasing site index to reflect higher wood production. The value creation from disease and defect reductions was captured by upgrading lower product classes to higher product classes by using product allocation tables (PAT). These PATs assign a proportion of trees by DBH classes: PW, CNS/SP, and ST (Burkhart, 1989). Last, biomass volume and its appropriate value were inputted to the stand simulator software for all three scenarios to include the new product category. Results Varietal Growth vs. 2nd Gen Scenario A: the one-thin regime for varietals planted on SI 65 increases total volume by 30 percent (62 tons/ac) over the 2nd Gen base case. Similarly, varietal biomass production exceeds, by 9 tons/ac, the 2nd Gen biomass production of 41 tons per acre, as described in Table 2. Two unthinned regimes were also analyzed. Timber production for these management regimes is presented in Tables 3 and 4 along with harvesting ages. For Scenario B, biomass plus traditional forest products are integrated. Scenario C s regime indicates a regime managed exclusively for biomass production. Scenario B: the unthinned regime for varietals planted on SI 65 increases total volume by 54 tons per acre over the 2nd Gen of 176 tons per acre. Similarly, varietal biomass production exceeds, by 8 tons per acre, the 2nd Gen biomass production of 34 tons per acre, as described in Table 4. Scenario C: the biomass-only regime for varietals planted on SI 65 increases total volume by 49 tons per acre over the biomass production of 160 tons per acre for the 2nd Gen plantation (see Table 5). Show Me the Money! Scenario A (SI 65, 50 percent gain in volume over unimproved seedlings, biomass plus conventional products, thinning at age 14, and final harvest at age 24), using varietals, takes advantages of all value drivers. The varietal plantation exceeds the BLV 2nd Gen seedling plantation by 72 percent ($1,123 per acre vs. $654 per acre). The IRR for this regime is 11.3 percent, which exceeds the 2nd Gen regime by 43 basis points. The marginal IRR for varietal seedlings is 11.1 percent, when an investor pays $0.38 per seedling. The maximum price a landowner can pay for varietal seedlings and still earn a targeted rate of return of 6 percent is known as the break-even cost. For Scenario A, a forest investor could spend up to $1.07 per seedling to attain the equilibrium point. Figure 4 presents BLVs at three different levels of genetic gain over 2nd Gen for each value driver: growth and yield, rust and forking reductions, and uniformity. Sensitivity Analyses for Biomass Sensitivity analyses for Scenarios A, B, and C across biomass prices ($0, $6, $8, $10, $15, and $20 per ton), for both genetic levels of improvement (varietal or 2nd Gen), are presented in Figures 6, 7, and 8. For Scenario A, the varietal plantation surpassed all price combinations by more than $460 per acre over the BLV of the 2nd Gen seedling plantation (see Figure 6). By integrating biomass production with the financial flow, and by increas- Figure 5 Varietal value for Scenario A: Yields 72 percent increase in BLV over 2nd Gen. Figure 6 Scenario A: Effect of biomass pricing on BLV and ORA, 500 TPA; one thinning: biomass plus traditional forest products; (24/14: clear cut/thinning age). 28

6 March.April 10 Forest Landowner:magazine master_redesigned.qxd 3/26/ :08 PM Page 29 ing stumpage prices for biomass, varietal BLVs range from +$1,062 per acre to +$1,819 per acre. For the 2nd Gen seedling plantation, BLVs range from +$598 per acre to +$1,295 per acre. At the same time, the optimum rotation age ranges from 24 to 20 and 19 respectively, and the thinning age, from 14 to 12 years, through the range of biomass prices. For Scenario B, the varietal plantation surpassed all price combinations by at least $265 per acre over the BLV of the 2nd Gen seedling plantation (see Figure 7). By integrating biomass production with the financial flow, and by increasing stumpage prices for biomass, varietal BLVs range from +$810 per acre to +$1,523 per acre, and for the 2nd Gen seedling plantation, they range from +$430 per acre to +$1,258 per acre. At the same time, the optimum rotation age ranges from 20 and 19, to 13 years respectively, through the range of biomass prices. For Scenario C, the varietal plantation surpassed the 2nd Gen BLV until biomass price reaches $10.1 per ton, a yield of $336 per acre BLV, at which point the landowner becomes indifferent regarding genetic seedling selection. At lower biomass prices, 2nd Gen seedlings are more attractive, but higher biomass prices render superior returns from varietal seedlings (see Figure 8). By increasing stumpage prices for biomass, from $6 per ton up to $20 per ton, varietal BLVs range from -$122 per acre to +$1508 per acre, and for the 2nd Gen seedling plantations, BLVs range from -$17 per acre to +$1,258 per acre. At the same time, the optimum rotation age decreases as biomass prices increase, ranging for varietals from 16 to 13 years and for 2nd Gen from 17 to 12 years, through the range of biomass prices. Conclusions By participating in the emerging forest biomass/bioenergy market, along with traditional markets, forest landowners have the opportunity to take advantage of seedling improvements (growth/quality), which appears to be well worth the cost. Significant economic benefits should be expected when improvements in genetics, silviculture, and proximity to biomass consuming facilities concur. Woody biomass at $6 per ton is the price floor beneath which forest landowners cannot afford to grow only pine biomass. The results of this financial analysis indicate that incorporation of woody biomass at $6 per ton with traditional forest products, either for thinned or unthinned regimes, would increase BLVs, conservatively, by 5 to 10 percent, or from $40 to $60 per acre. At the price of $6 per ton for biomass, forest landowners will fare best to grow trees for a blend of products with a thinning age of 14 and a final harvest age of 24. The deployment of varietal seedlings over 2nd Gen seedlings should increase value per acre by 72 percent (represented in Scenario A). Positive BLVs for 2nd Gen plantations dedicated solely to biomass production occur at about the $6 per ton biomass price. For dedicated varietal plantations, from the $10 per ton biomass price and up, varietal seedlings increasingly amplify BLVs over 2nd Gen seedlings. For Scenario C, planting densities of 700 and 900 TPA were also analyzed but not included in this article. In general, increasing stocking rate increased BLVs. At 700 TPA, an investor would profit more by selecting varietals over 2nd Gen after the biomass price reaches $12.5 per ton. At 900 TPA, an investor would profit more by selecting varietals over 2nd Gen after the biomass price reaches $15 per ton. Biomass prices ($6 to $20 per ton) affect optimum rotation age, which ranges consistently from 17 to 12 years with 500, 700, or 900 TPA. How renewable energy policies will eventually develop is uncertain. Figure 7 Scenario B: Effect of biomass pricing on BLV and ORA, 500 TPA; no thinning: biomass plus traditional forest products. Figure 8 Scenario C: Effect of biomass pricing on BLV and ORA, 500 TPA; no thinning: biomass only. FOREST LANDOWNER MARCH/APRIL

7 March.April 10 Forest Landowner:magazine master_redesigned.qxd Analyses of the potential effect on southern forest product markets indicate that even with significant increases in the utilization of residuals, prices for small roundwood might increase 50 to 100 percent over the next 10 to 15 years. On the demand side, this timetable is important because there are few alternative renewable energy sources in the South that will not require significant investments in infrastructure (e.g. solar, wind). On the supply side, a reduction in future pine supply of small roundwood is probable due to a reduction in planting over the last decade, which is expected to continue through the recession. This provides an opportunity for forest landowners to adapt their siliviculture to potential new demands. In the short run, this could mean building flexibility into management by considering alternative spacing options. At the first thinning, a landowner could decide whether to commit to the new bioenergy products or continue down a more traditional path. In areas where bioenergy plants have been announced, a landowner may be more comfortable committing to bioenergy today /26/ :08 PM About the Authors Rafael De La Torre, PhD, Manager of Planning and Analysis for CellFor Corporation, can be reached at (404) , ext. 5 or rdelatorre@cellfor.com. Robert C. Abt, PhD, Professor of Forestry, North Carolina State University, can be reached at (919) or bob_abt@ncsu.edu. Sources Cited Bracmort K. S., and R.W. Gorte Biomass: Comparison of Definitions in Legislation. Congressional Research Service (CRS) R p Burkhart, H.E., and B. Bredenkamp Product-Class Proportions for Thinned and Unthinned Loblolly Pine Plantations. South J. Appl. For. 13(4): Butler, Brett J Family Forest Owners of the United States, Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 72p. Clark, A., and J. R. Saucier Tables for Estimating Total-Tree Weights, Stem Weights, and Volumes of Planted and Natural Southern Page 30 Pines in the Southeast. Research Division Georgia Forestry Commission. GFRP-79, 29p. Energy Information Administration Energy and Economic Impacts of Implementing both a 25-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard and a 25-Percent Renewable Fuel Standard by Washington, DC: US Department of Energy. SR/OIAF/ p. Energy Information Administration. 2009a. Impacts of a 25-Percent Renewable Electricity Standard as Proposed in the ACESA Discussion Draft. SR/OIAF/ Washington DC: Energy Information Administration Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved from servicerpt/acesa/pdf/sroiaf (2009)04.pdf on May 17, Forisk Consulting Wood Bioenergy South: Projected Annual Wood Demand, 2020 Greene, D., S. Baker, A. Aman Integrating Biomass Harvesting into the Wood Supply System in the U.S. South. Speech delivered at the Society of American Foresters Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, Oct 3, 2009