Methane emissions not an issue for rice industry

Conversations with the governor's economic development advisers about a proposed bio-fuel plant in Colusa alarmed some city officials about what they thought could be potentially devastating air regulations coming toward the rice industry.

But Paul Buttner, environmental affairs manager for the California Rice Commission, said methane emission targets that are part of the Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32), are not an issue for the rice industry.

He said that kind of information that is circulating now is simply false.

"I think I am hearing a lot of misinformation," Buttner said. "There is no proposed regulation on the rice industry."

Buttner said some of the confusion might be the result of the rice industry working with state air regulators on pilot programs to reduce methane emissions. Even so, he insisted, those programs will be strictly voluntary and the industry has been assured no mandates will be part of the outcomes.

"Our offset program will be adopted as a regulatory action by the (state) Air Resources Control Board," Buttner said.

"But the rice industry is unaware of any regulation that would be mandatory."

The reason, Buttner said, is current rice farming practices simply do not generate enough methane for the state to worry about in its bigger greenhouse air emission targets.

Buttner said rice farming generates one-tenth of 1 percent of all greenhouse gasses.

In fact, agriculture in general is considered a voluntary sector within the Global Warning provisions.

"Agriculture as a whole is about 5 or 6 percent of greenhouse emissions, and cows are about half of that," Buttner said.

The dairy industry is certainly on the state's radar, but even then, the industry is still considered voluntary under the Air Resource's Board scoping plan.

Agriculture emissions are not capped under A.B. 32 provisions, which require certain levels of reductions by 2020, with other target dates that follow, according to state documents.

The topic about rice emissions came up as part of the discussions with city officials because the proposed bio-fuel plant would likely be using rice straw as its largest agricultural waste fuel source.

The plant would also produce ag-quality potash and sulfur powder, as well as liquid carbon dioxide, liquid ammonia, and perhaps the most valuable byproduct — steam.

Right now, rice growers incorporate the rice straw into the ground, in part by flooding the fields, which helps break down the straw.

That process, Buttner admits, generates methane.

Buttner agrees it would be great if the rice growers could find a place to take the straw and make some money at the same time.

Growers cannot, he said, afford to transport the straw and give it away or, under some proposals in the past, have to pay for the disposal.

He said the proponents of the bio-fuel plant, the Bechtel Group and Siemens, have not contacted the Rice Commission.

However, city officials have confirmed the large international firms are negotiating with local farmers about providing the ag waste it would need to run its plant.

In the meantime, Buttner said, the rice industry does have some methane-reduction pilot programs being developed.

The idea would be whatever methane levels are reduced, those could be sold as offsets to the kinds of industries in which emission caps or reductions are mandated by the Global Warming regulations.

Buttner said there are three pilot programs being developed: dry seeding, no winter flooding and bailing the rice straw.

"They are very, very modest," Buttner said, "and we are not participating in any way because we feel it will be (an economic) boon for any growers."

Buttner said before the programs are ever adopted as voluntary air regulatory actions, the state and the rice industry would have to sign off on the programs.