Chapter 25: Northeast Regional Roadmap — 386
Chapter 25
Northeast Regional Roadmap
2030 Bioenergy vision for Northeast region
Regional overview and working hypotheses
The Northeast region includes twelve states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia), as
well as the District of Columbia. Altogether, this region accounts for ~21% of the US population, with
~6% of the nation’s total landmass (~7.5% of continental US; http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/
index.html). Petroleum consumption in 2008 for the Northeast was a little over 17% of the US total
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/state/), indicating that per capita petroleum consumption - particularly for
transportation fuel - is somewhat less than other regions. However, many Northeast states are notable
for significantly higher usage of petroleum- based home heating oil during winter months as compared
to other regions.
The six New England states and New York consumed 2.09 quadrillion BTUs of thermal energy in 2007
for space heating, hot water, and industrial heat, representing 38.7% of all energy consumed in these
states for electricity, transportation and thermal needs (BTEC 2010). Over 95% of these thermal needs
are met by fossil fuels, predominantly natural gas, heating oil, and propane. With consumption of about
5 billion gallons annually (4 billion gallons in residential systems and about 1 billion gallons in
commercial units), the Northeastern U.S. is one of the world’s largest markets for heating oil. Heating
oil represents 54 percent of total demand for #2 distillate oil in the Northeast, compared to 38 percent
for highway diesel. The northeast U.S. consumes 86% of all the distillate oil used for heating
applications in the U.S. This is one of the only regions in the U.S. and one of the few regions in the
world that depends so heavily on oil for thermal needs.
According to recent projections by the USDA (2010), the Northeast region is expected to account for
approximately 420 million gallons per year (MGY) of advanced biofuel production by 2022. This would
be equivalent to 2% of the 21 billion gallons per year (BGY) national advanced biofuel target for 2022 as
defined by the revised Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) established by the 2007 Energy Independence
and Security Act. Such a modest biofuel projection for the Northeast should be interpreted with some
caution. First, USDA’s (2010) regional boundaries were drawn according to assumed similarities in
dominant feedstocks, which resulted in the inclusion of a somewhat different set of states than those
defined here. In particular, Michigan was included by USDA (2010) in the Northeast region, while
Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania were instead placed in the Central East region. Secondly, more
local analyses have indicated that there may be the potential for significantly higher advanced biofuels
production in the Northeast than suggested by the USDA. For example, the recent renewable fuels
roadmap produced in NY indicates that between 500 - 1,449 MGY of sustainably produced
lignocellulosic advanced biofuels could be profitably produced in the State of New York alone by 2020
(Wonjar et al. 2010). The upper end of this estimate is 3.5 times the USDA estimate for the entire
Northeast U.S. A spatial overview of total available biomass estimates (including urban and landfill
waste streams) made by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for Northeast counties is shown in
Figure 1, while biomass estimates that exclude these waste streams are shown in Figure 2. (NOTE: The
authors expect that the yields indicated in Figures 1 and 2 are significantly underestimated for all
sources, particularly woody biomass from forests in the Northeast region and perennial grasses on the
coastal plain.)
387 — Sustainable Alternative Fuel Feedstock Opportunities, Challenges and Roadmaps for Six U.S. Regions
Figure 1. Data adapted from Milbrandt (2005)
Figure 2. Data adapted from Milbrandt (2005)
Because the Northeast contains both significant amounts of standing biomass suitable for advanced
biofuel production and large urban areas that have significant demands for liquid fuels, our working
hypothesis is that the regional road map should not be constrained by the assumption that the USDA
(2010) projections of modest biofuel production in the Northeast will necessarily hold true. However,
our panel largely agreed with USDA’s (2010) suggestion that two of the most promising sources for
near- term bioenergy production in the Northeast region are likely the high volumes of low value wood
found on existing forestry lands and waste biomass from urban areas. It was also noted that longer term
scale up of the bioenergy industry will undoubtedly require extensive cultivation of perennial grasses
and short rotation woody crops, particularly on marginal lands. While use of crop residues, particularly
corn stover, may also play some role in bioenergy production for the Northeast, there was consensus
among the group that the scale of residue utilization in this region is likely limited by large extant
demands for this material from both the dairy industry and well- established soil conservation
protocols. Moreover, a major increase in corn acreage for production of either grain- based ethanol or
Chapter 25: Northeast Regional Roadmap — 388
stover- based advanced cellulosic biofuels is not foreseen by our group as a likely scenario for the
Northeast. As an example of the region the NY Renewable Fuels Roadmap indicated that between 9.4
and 14.6 million oven- dry tonne (odt) per year of biomass could be sustainably produced in NY in
addition to all the current food and fiber production (Wonjar et al. 2010). About half of the biomass is
from forest resources and the next largest source is perennial energy crop. Crop residues and waste
grease contribute less than 15 percent of the total potential supply.
What this overall vision entails is continued maintenance of the diverse landscape that currently
prevails in the rural Northeast, with no one feedstock or perennial or annual energy crop becoming
dominant in the region. Such a vision further argues for the development of a biomass supply chain and
advanced biofuel production sector that is distributed across the landscape, rather than one that is
necessarily centralized into “mega- refineries” (i.e., producing in excess of 60 MGY of biofuel; Gray et al.
2010). This distributed production system would be characterized by numerous collection facilities in
which a wide diversity of raw biomass would be delivered from across local landscapes (i.e., < 10 miles
of transport distance), and then pre- processed into biomass products standardized for use in the
bioenergy sector. Following the pre- processing stage, the standardized products would then be
efficiently transported to biofuel refineries and/or other bioenergy usages by means of rail, barge, and/
or long- haul trucking. This type of distributed production system is also sometimes referred to as the
“hub and spoke” model (Figure 3). Carolan et al. (2007) proposed a hub and spoke system for cellulosic
ethanol production in Michigan and concluded it likely to result in lower minimum ethanol selling
prices because of lower feedstock and by- product transportation costs, higher returns to scale, better
capacity utilization, and cross- subsidization from other value added products. Also, they suggest the
system could reduce the number of contracts for a biorefinery with feedstock producers and improve
contracting efficiency.
The hub and spoke system could have multiple other benefits that would contribute to a local,
diversified sustainable landscape. It could encourage local investment in pre- processing facilities and
generate rural jobs and local economic development. This system would contribute to the use of
multiple feedstocks and a commoditized bioenergy feedstock development that would encourage
diverse feedstock in the landscape. Feed or other co- products could be developed as value added
product streams that could be utilized in these rural communities. Nutrients extracted from the
feedstock could be recycled to fields and forests, maintaining soil productivity and avoiding the
concentration of nutrients observed in concentrated animal feeding systems. Ideally, this system could
enhance the biodiversity already present in this region and help to stimulate economic development in
the rural areas of the northeast where it is most needed.
Figure 3: Hub and Spoke Framework for Biomass Transport and Processing
F = Forest / Farm biomass source; C = Biomass collection facility; R = Refinery
389 — Sustainable Alternative Fuel Feedstock Opportunities, Challenges and Roadmaps for Six U.S. Regions
Northeast roadmap (Summarized in Figure 4)
Phase 1 goals: 2010 - 2015
Our group identified several issues as critical for the near- term emergence of a sustainable bioenergy
and advanced biofuels sector - based upon the distributed hub and spoke model - in the Northeast
region. Perhaps most essential is the establishment of industry specifications that guide the preprocessing of biomass products for compatibility with their final intended usages, including advanced
biofuel refineries, co- firing in electrical power plant, pellets for home heating, and other applications
(see, e.g., Hess et al. 2009; Miranowski et al. in these proceedings). Such specifications are particularly
necessary for the Northeast, where a diversity of feedstock types will be utilized. The group also agreed
that a simplification and rationalization of the regulatory and policy structure is needed to provide the
appropriate signals for development of the biomass industry. This point about the need for better policy
guidance was also noted in the keynote presentation by Jody Endres, in a submitted paper by Steve
Kaffka, and by several regional break out groups during the course of the workshop.
Use of biomass products - particularly low value material from forests and perennial energy crops - as
a substitute for home heating oil is regarded as a clear near- term opportunity for developing the
transport and logistics infrastructure required for the longer term scale- up of biofuel production in the
Northeast. Reducing home heating oil use with biomass substitution is notable for having the desirable
effect of displacing the use of imported petroleum, which is a major rationale for the long- term drive
toward lignocellulosic advanced biofuels production. However, unlike lignocellulosic advanced
biofuels, conversion of biomass into thermal heat energy has the further advantage of not requiring
major technological breakthroughs for short- term implementation, although some retrofits to home
furnaces and fireplaces would be necessary (see, e.g., Biomass Thermal Energy Council [BTEC] 2010).
With the appropriate policy incentives, the home heating market could provide an immediate
opportunity for the biomass supply chain to begin taking shape, thereby promoting development of
market efficiencies required for larger scale production of advanced liquid fuels. Replacing 19% of this
heating oil demand with biomass in high efficiency furnaces produced in the U.S. would replace about
1.14 billion gallons of heating oil annually, create over 140,000 jobs in the region and reinvest about $4.5
billion into the economies of the region (BTEC 2010). This represents a unique opportunity for biomass
and will create additional markets for this material in addition the developing biofuels market.
Another near- term opportunity was identified with regard to the current practice of importing large
amounts of corn grain - for both animal feed and, increasingly, feedstock for corn- based ethanol
facilities - from the Midwest by rail. Woody biomass from the Northeast could potentially be processed
into a form that is appropriate for powering Midwest ethanol facilities, and exported by use of rail cars
that currently leave the Northeast region with little to no return cargo. Substitution of woody biomass
for fossil fuel sources that currently power many Midwest ethanol facilities would improve both the
fossil energy return and greenhouse gas profiles for first generation biofuels, and thus may be a
pathway that is worthwhile of explicit policy incentives.
As these biomass markets emerge over the next five year time horizon, intensive research and
development of dedicated feedstock cultivars - such as switchgrass, hybrid poplar, shrub willow and
other high productivity species - should continue in preparation for the next phase of the bioenergy
economy. Integral parts of this research effort should include development of cultivars and cropping
strategies for increased yield, disease- resistance, improvement of in- field harvesting systems, and
defining appropriate farm- scale best management practices (BMPs) for conservation of soil and water
resources. Ongoing efforts by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to include energy
production in resource assessments are considered a crucial tool for partnering with landowners who
are poised to establish bioenergy feedstock cropping systems.
Chapter 25: Northeast Regional Roadmap — 390
Phase 2 goals: 2015 - 2020
Following the initial development phases, a major expansion of the bioenergy economy for the
Northeast is envisioned during the latter part of this decade. This expansion will include extensive
plantings of herbaceous perennials and short rotation woody crops on marginal lands, both of which
will be used as primary feedstocks for advanced biofuel refineries and combined heat and power
facilities that are distributed across the landscape.
As the bioenergy market begins entering this more intensive phase, it will be critical to continue field
monitoring of feedstock landscapes to ensure that BMPs are effectively achieving intended conservation
goals. Adaptive adjustment of BMPs to reflect the findings of monitoring studies should be anticipated
during the scale- up period. In addition, careful attention will need to be paid to the nutrient
concentration issues associated with refineries and power facilities. Efficient return of concentrated
nutrients back to the wider landscape should be considered a major sustainability priority. Such
nutrient recycling not only can help avoid eutrophication problems at refinery sites, but also is an
investment towards maintaining long- term environmental productivity while reducing the need for
imported fertilizers. Ongoing research and marketing of useful co- products associated with the
biomass production chain will also be critical for ensuring the economic sustainability of the bioenergy
system.
Phase 3 goals: 2020 - 2030
Rapid expansion of the bioenergy economy should continue through the 2020s, with the maturation of
the sector bringing increased efficiencies through all aspects of the supply chain. By 2020, it is expected
that bioenergy should be economically competitive with fossil fuel- based fuels, particularly if market
price signals are established for the purpose of reducing fossil- based carbon emissions.
Large- scale emergence of high productivity algal feedstocks could also occur during this time- frame,
bringing the potential for intensification, market up- scaling, and co- product values for biomass that
currently are difficult to bound. In the Northeast, the most obvious opportunities for algal culture are
co- siting with electric generation facilities and wastewater treatment (including biofuel refineries),
although other applications and technologies that could be suitable for the region cannot be ruled out.
Ongoing attention to sustainability criteria will remain critical as the bioenergy industry expands and
matures, particularly as new feedstocks and technologies are introduced into the market. Accurate
greenhouse gas accounting, maintenance of soil and water resources, and risk assessments for ensuring
new feedstock species do not pose high invasive threats before introduction into the landscape are
among the issues that will almost certainly remain important through 2030 and beyond.
391 — Sustainable Alternative Fuel Feedstock Opportunities, Challenges and Roadmaps for Six U.S. Regions
Figure 4: Summary of Northeast Bioenergy Roadmap for 2030
References
Biomass Thermal Energy Council (BTEC). 2010. Heating the Northeast with Renewable Biomass: A
Vision for 2025. http://www.biomassthermal.org/resource/2025vision.asp.
Carolan, J.E., S.V. Joshi, B. E. Dale. 2007. Technical and Financial Feasibility Analysis of Distributed
Bioprocessing Using Regional Biomass Pre- Processing Centers Journal of Agricultural and Food
Industrial Organization. 5(10): 1- 27 http://www.everythingbiomass.org/Portals/EB/Repository/
feasibility_of_distributed_bioprocessing_centers_jafia2007.9dba1f58- 6aa5- 4526- a07cf12f454a4137.pdf
Gray, E.E., Alsbrooks, H.L., Lindsey, C., Schmidt, A. 2010. Appendix L: Selected Future Production
Pathways in New York (ed. E.E. Gray), pp. L- 1 - L- 21. Renewable Fuels Roadmap and Sustainable
Biomass Feedstock Supply for New York. Pace Energy and Climate Center, White Plains, NY.
Hess, J.R., Kenney, K.L., Ovard, L.P., Searcy, E.M., Wright, C.T. 2009. Uniform- Format Solid Feedstock
Supply System: A Commodity- Scale Design to Produce an Infrastructure- Compatible Bulk Solid
from Lignocellulosic Biomass. INL/EXT- 08- 14752, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=95E26CBA6A2D84EC6AA847F00AC32139?
purl=/971374- Xl3GCj/.
Milbrandt, A. 2005. A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource Availability in the
United States. NREL/TP- 560- 39181, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
USDA. 2010. A USDA Regional Roadmap to Meeting the Biofuels Goals of the Renewable Fuels
Standard by 2022. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington.
Wonjar et al. 2010. Renewable Fuels Roadmap and Sustainable Biomass Feedstock Supply for New York.
Report 10- 05, NYSERDA, Albany, NY
Workshop participants for this region:
• Greg Roth, Penn State University
• Jason Evans (recorder), University of Georgia
• Richard Hess, Idaho National Lab
• Matthew Monroe, West Virginia Department of Agriculture
• Tim Volk, ESF
• Calvin Ernst, Ernst Seed
• Ross Braun (moderator), SWCS