Carbon Pollution Tax and

Energy Efficiency:

An Exploration of Implications and Innovations in the Vermont Maple Industry

Middlebury College ENVS 0401 Senior Seminar May 2016

Authors: Alexander Potter Katherine Tercek Tara Seibold Thacher Wastrom

2

Abstract

This report assesses the potential impacts and opportunities of a Carbon Pollution Tax (CPT) in the Vermont maple sugaring industry. The maple sugaring industry is a crucial economic and cultural aspect of Vermont, and in order to ensure equity and fairness in the implementation of a tax, it is important that all the stakeholders’ opinions are considered. This report aims to do just that. In addition to assessing the economic impact and social reaction to the CPT, this report also discusses and examines energy efficient technologies that sugar makers have been utilizing to decrease fossil fuel usage and costs. This technology analysis aims to inform policy makers regarding subsidies and assistance program design for purchasing such technologies. The project team worked closely with the Energy Crosscutting Team of Vermont Farm-to-Plate and the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC). The Energy Crosscutting Team concentrates on energy generation on farms and energy efficiency with the farming industry (Farm to Plate). VNRC serves as a participatory and advisory organization for several energy initiatives across the state and strives to help Vermont achieve two of its important energy goals: lowering greenhouse gas emissions by 75% and generating 90% of the state’s energy needs with renewables by 2050 (Vermont Natural Resources Council).

Acknowledgements

Our project team would like to thank our community partners, JJ Vandette of Efficiency Vermont and Johanna Miller of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, for their support and guidance throughout the research and report-writing phases. Thank you to the sugar makers who hosted us for visits, responded to our survey, or talked with us during the busiest months of the year for maple sugaring. Thank you to Professor Molly Anderson and to our coordinator Diane Munroe, for supporting our project throughout the entire semester. Finally, thank you to all of our classmates for your ideas and suggestions.

3

Table of Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 5

1.1. The Process ..........................................................................................................................5 1.2. Why Sugar Maples are Common in Vermont .....................................................................5 1.3. Sugaring in Vermont: Why is the Industry Important? .......................................................5 1.4. Vermont’s Place in the Worldwide Maple Market ..............................................................6 1.5. Why a Carbon Pollution Tax? .............................................................................................6 1.6. Vermont’s Proposed Carbon Pollution Tax .........................................................................7

2. Research Objectives and Methods ..................................................................... 8 3. Climate Change and Maple Sugaring ................................................................ 10 4. Policy Proposal, Implications and Recommendations ..................................... 11

4.1. Policy Background ................................................................................................................11 4.2. Sugar Makers’ Concerns ......................................................................................................11 4.3. Policy Considerations ...........................................................................................................12

5. Energy Efficiency Technology in the Sugaring Process ................................... 14 5.1. Reverse Osmosis ..................................................................................................................14 5.2. Electric Evaporator ...............................................................................................................15 5.3. Evaporator Add-Ons: Steam-away and Pre-heaters .............................................................16 5.4. Gasification ..........................................................................................................................17 5.5. On-site Solar ........................................................................................................................18

6. Farm Visit Findings and Economic Analyses ..................................................... 19 6.1 Introduction to Analysis ........................................................................................................19 6.2 Baird Farm .............................................................................................................................20

6.2.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................20 6.2.2 Climate Perceptions ...................................................................................................20 6.2.3 Tax Perceptions ..........................................................................................................20 6.2.4 Economic Analysis .....................................................................................................21

6.3 Butternut Mountain Farm .....................................................................................................21 6.3.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................21 6.3.2 Climate Perceptions ...................................................................................................22 6.3.3 Tax Perceptions ..........................................................................................................22 6.3.4 Economic Analysis .....................................................................................................23

6.4 Morse Farm ...........................................................................................................................24 6.4.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................24 6.4.2 Climate Perceptions ...................................................................................................24 6.4.3 Tax Perceptions ..........................................................................................................24 6.4.4 Economic Analysis .....................................................................................................25

6.5 Maple Sugar Mountain .........................................................................................................25 6.5.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................25 6.5.2 Climate Perceptions ...................................................................................................26

4

6.5.3 Tax Perceptions ..........................................................................................................26 6.5.4 Economic Analysis .....................................................................................................27

6.6 Comparison Table .................................................................................................................27 7. Online Survey Findings ........................................................................................ 29

7.1 Survey Overview ..................................................................................................................29 7.2 Survey Results: Key Takeaways ...........................................................................................29

7.2.1 Evaporator Choice .....................................................................................................29 7.2.2 Electrical Costs ...........................................................................................................29 7.2.3 Seasonal and Climate Perceptions .............................................................................30 7.2.4 Operation Outlook ......................................................................................................30 7.2.5 Industry Outlook ..........................................................................................................30 7.2.6 Efficiency Technology ................................................................................................30 7.2.7 Electric Evaporators ..................................................................................................30 7.2.8 Government Programs ...............................................................................................31 7.2.9 Vermont’s Role ...........................................................................................................31

8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 32 9 Appendix ................................................................................................................. 34

Appendix A: Existing Subsidies ..................................................................................................34 Appendix B: Farm Visit Interview Questions .............................................................................35 Appendix C: Online Survey Questions ........................................................................................45 Appendix D: Online Survey Responses to Key Questions ..........................................................46

10 Works Cited .......................................................................................................... 47 10.1 Interviews ............................................................................................................................47 10.2 Other Sources ......................................................................................................................47

5

1. Introduction 1.1 The Process The maple sugaring process is a relatively simple process that in essence is the same as it has been since the 1600s. Sap is gathered from taps in trees in buckets or plastic piping and collected in tanks before being boiled in anything ranging from a stovetop pan to an evaporator. However, technology has enhanced the capacity and efficiency of the process. Plastic piping and remote monitoring systems allow 20,000+ tap operations to increase scale without walking hundreds of acres by foot. Vacuum pumps allow for as much as three times as much sap to be harvested from each tree, increasing the value proposition of each acre of an operation. Possibly the most influential technology to be introduced to the industry is the reverse osmosis (RO) process. By forcing water through a membrane that is too large for sugar molecules, RO systems can increase the sugar content of sap from ~2% to over 20%, drastically reducing boil time and fuel consumption. During the boiling process, there have been a number of technological improvements, such as pre-heaters and steam-aways, allowing for increased efficiency. Additionally, a new entrant to the market is Dominion and Grimm’s ECOVAP, an entirely electric-run evaporator, which we will discuss in depth later in this report. After the sap is boiled to 66 BRIX, or 66% sugar, through one or several of these mechanisms it is filtered again and collected in barrels to be sold on the wholesale market or bottled in a facility as a retail product. 1.2 Why Sugar Maples Are Common in Vermont Sugar maple trees are typically the most common trees tapped for maple syrup because their sap has the highest sugar content. However, some sugarers tap red maples as well (Wilmot 2010). Vermont and much of the Northeast historically has had a very hospitable climate to sugar maples, although they are found as far south in the U.S. as Tennessee. Additionally, Vermont’s soil has a relatively basic limestone bedrock foundation which provides a stabilizing effect in light of the heavy acid rain that New York and the Northeast have experienced in the past decades (Cornell University Maple Research Extension Program). Another reason for the high frequency of sugar maples in New England and the northeastern U.S. is the abundance of second-growth forests and the lack of large disturbances such as fires. 1.3 Sugaring in Vermont: Why is the Industry Important? Recently, the Center for Rural Studies (CRS) at the University of Vermont (UVM) created the first comprehensive economic contribution report on maple sugaring in Vermont. According to the study, Vermont leads the nation in maple syrup production, providing 42% of the nation’s overall output. Within the state, the industry is composed of 1,500 to 3,000 producers, depending on the source. Maple sugar producers provide 4,000 to 4,500 full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs for the state, and bring in between $317 and $330 million in sales. Additionally, the CRS study applies a $1.49 multiplier, meaning that for each dollar of sales, an additional $.49 is contributed to the state through ancillary spending (Becot et. al 2015, 1). The CRS study does not account for the less tangible benefits of sugaring in Vermont. Most notably that the industry brings in a large number of out-of-state tourists each year. This is

6

crucial for Vermont because the tourism industry brought in $1.82 billion in direct spending from visitors in 2013 (UVM Tourism 2013). Vermont sugar makers’ fierce defense of the use of the word “maple” has allowed the state to build a brand out of the word. Not only does Vermont maple syrup contain ~6% more sugar, but it is almost a stamp of authenticity, and attracts outside businesses to take advantage of that fact (Gorelick 2015). Finally, the sugaring industry provides another less obvious benefit to the state through conservation of woodlands. In other states, sugar maples on private lands are often enrolled in logging plans. For instance, under New York’s 480-A Forest Tax Law, landowners receive tax benefits for logging their lands. By contrast, Vermont sugar makers are incentivized to keep their forests healthy over the long term, sequestering carbon instead of allowing for the logging or development of their forests. 1.4 Vermont’s Place in the Worldwide Maple Market Once boiled and filtered, maple syrup makes up about 90% of maple-related products, although there are a number of added value products such as maple candy and maple cream. Of that 90%, about 40% is sold as retail to end users and about 36% is sold in bulk to distributors and packers. In terms of quantity of maple syrup produced, Canada’s production dwarfs Vermont’s 1.1 million gallons in 2011 with a staggering 10.3 million gallons the same year (Farm to Plate 2013). The majority of Canada’s production stems from Quebec, where the industry is controlled by the Federation of Quebec Maple Syrup Producers (FPAQ). Due to their control of 94% of Canadian syrup, and 77% of the world’s production, the FPAQ has the ability to set the price of maple syrup on the market, which is currently around 2.00 USD per pound. Due to this price controlling, the current strength of the USD relative to the Canadian Dollar weakens the value of maple syrup for American producers (Trichur 2012). 1.5 Why a Carbon Pollution Tax?

Vermont is a progressive state and driven to reduce its contribution to global climate change. Carbon dioxide emissions are a principal factor of global climate change and represent over 80% of the annual greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, which are primarily generated through the burning of fossil fuels (EPA). In order to minimize the state’s carbon dioxide emissions, Vermont is considering the implementation of a carbon pollution tax. Within the past few decades, U.S. environmental policy has shifted away from command and control policies towards more market-based legislative approaches, including cap-and-trade and tax programs. Two of the main benefits of a carbon pollution tax are the additional cost on emissions, which implicitly prompts a behavioral shift towards less fossil fuel intensive practices, and the new stream of revenue from the tax, some of which can be used to finance rebates, subsidies and energy efficiency research. A carbon pollution tax would significantly help Vermont achieve its goal of a 75% reduction in 1990 greenhouse gas emissions levels by 2050.

7

1.6 Vermont’s Proposed Carbon Pollution Tax

Two carbon pollution taxes were proposed in the Vermont state legislature in 2015, H.395 and H.412. All fossil fuels sold or distributed in the state will be subject to the tax, indirectly raising the price of fuel for consumers. Carbon emissions from electricity are covered by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and are thus exempted from the potential carbon pollution tax. This report will focus its analysis on H.412 because Vermont Natural Resources Council maintains that H.412 is less stringent than H.395 and therefore, a more viable model for Vermont. The tax program outlined in H.412 would begin in 2018, at $10/ton, increasing $10/year over ten years, ultimately reaching $100/ton in 2028. Additionally, rebates and other forms of tax relief will be provided to Vermont residents with 90% of the tax revenue. The other 10% of the tax revenue is allocated to create the Vermont Energy Independence Fund, which is designed to fund research and programs to help Vermont businesses and residents increase their energy efficiency.

8

2. Research Objectives and Methods

Our primary objectives for this project were first, to determine the potential impacts of a carbon pollution tax on Vermont’s maple sugaring industry; second, to better understand how maple farmers would view and adapt to such a tax; and third, to better understand how energy efficient technology could help maple farmers reduce their fossil fuel usage and carbon pollution. We developed these objectives together with our community partners JJ Vandette from Efficiency Vermont and the Vermont Farm to Plate Energy Cross-Cutting Team and Johanna Miller from the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC). As both of our community partners are working to reduce Vermont’s carbon footprint in general and also the maple industry’s footprint in particular, we designed our research objectives and project in such a way as to examine multiple aspects of these issues in the hopes that our research will be useful to all parties moving forward.

From the start of the project, we realized that the most important aspect of our project would be talking to maple sugar farmers and getting their perspective on energy efficient technology and a potential tax firsthand. In order to do this we conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with a range of sugar makers, whom we identified as the primary stakeholders, as well as policy and efficiency experts. We supplemented these interviews with background research and analysis of the carbon pollution tax proposals. Our first interview was with Vermont State Representative Amy Sheldon, who co-introduced H.412 in 2015. Our goal for this meeting was to gain some contextual understanding of the proposed carbon pollution tax, as well as some of the motivating factors. She explained how REMI (Regional Economic Models, Inc.) prepared a consultancy report in late 2014 that has been guiding some of the legislative discussions related to the bill. The report analyzes the economic and environmental implications of such a tax in Vermont.

We then began planning visits to maple sugaring operations in Vermont. From these visits, we hoped to first get a sense for how the Vermont maple industry works so that we could better understand the effects of a carbon pollution tax. We searched the Internet for potential farms to visit, and amassed relevant contact data in a spreadsheet. We also tried to select farms with a variety of sizes because of the different levels of energy use and different ways in which small and large farms might achieve energy efficiency.

Our next step was to devise a list of questions to guide the conversation at each visit. We started each interview with objective questions relating to equipment (i.e., number of taps, type of fuel for evaporator), production figures (how many gallons are produced per year), and financial data (how much they pay for fuel, electricity, etc.). Each farmer was eager to show off his/her equipment, and walked us step-by-step through the maple production process.

In our interviews, we ultimately tried to shift the conversation to get each farmer’s perspective on the environment. To do this, we asked about any noticeable changes they might have seen over the years that have impacted their operations. We also tactfully raised the issue of a proposed carbon pollution tax at the state government level, and asked about their opinions of such a tax. Because we recognize that climate change and increased taxes are sensitive issues for some, we put conscious effort into remaining as neutral as possible when phrasing the questions and when listening to farmers’ responses. Finally we asked what steps the state of Vermont could take to help the maple industry improve its energy efficiency. This question and the responses we received helped us to determine our policy suggestions for the state, a key component of this research project.

9

Finally we also devised and distributed an online survey asking many of the same questions that we asked in our interviews. This allowed us to reach out to and ultimately gather data and responses from more farmers than we could have interviewed in the time allotted. We emailed one hundred maple farmers listed on the VT Sugar Makers Association website, of whom 18 responded. Between the interviews and the survey we thus had information and opinions from 22 sugar makers in the state, representing a wide geographic and scale distribution.

Throughout the process, we also shared our progress with JJ Vandette and Johanna Miller and received feedback from them on our research that was useful moving forward. We also maintained open lines of communication with the farms that we visited in the event that we needed additional information for our case studies.

10

3. Climate Change and Maple Sugaring

Maple syrup has long played an important role in the northeastern United States, with production in the United States peaking around 1870 and declining ever since (Farrell and Chabot 2011; Farrell and Stedman 2013). Comparing current intensity of maple syrup production in the U.S. to historic intensity of production would seem to indicate significant room for expansion within the industry, especially when the major technological improvements are taken into consideration. This is dependent, however, on the potential long-term impacts of climate change and global warming on the health and range of sugar maple (acer saccharum) trees as well as the length and timing of the tapping season.

Being located in the northern part of the United States and also the northern part of the sugar maple’s range, Vermont will not be as strongly impacted by the predicted northward shift of sugar maple trees as other states. Even if more than 90% of sugar maple trees were to disappear, as some models forecast (Iverson and Prasad 2002), sugar maples would most likely persist in Vermont and northern New England, where traditions of maple sugaring are strongest. This does not mean, however, that climate change would not significantly affect the Vermont maple sugar industry. One of the greatest threats to maple sugar-making in Vermont is not the disappearance of sugar maple trees but rather warmer and more variable winters, which make the start of maple sugaring season less stable and harder to predict (Duchesne et al. 2009; Houle et al. 2015; Skinner et al. 2009). This poses a challenge for maple sugar makers, who generally need to install the taps and set up the sap lines weeks before the sap begins to flow. Most sugar makers in Vermont start collecting sap around the first week of March (Skinner et al. 2009). If syrup producers had begun their sugaring season on the first of March in 2016, however, they would have missed a significant portion of the season. Sugar makers believe that part of the reason for the early start of the 2016 sugaring season was El Niño, which caused a warm, dry winter in New England, but similar outcomes are forecasted under certain climate change scenarios. Climate change could also increase the likelihood of large storms that would damage maple trees, but such effects have not been extensively studied. According to Houle et al. (2015), the most recent study looking at the impacts of climate change on the timing and length of the maple sugaring season, the average length of the season will vary less than the average starting and end date of the season.

Because the proposed carbon pollution tax constitutes part of Vermont’s efforts to combat climate change and reduce fossil fuel use, it is important to understand the potential impacts of climate change on maple sugaring. Comprehending how climate change could potentially affect maple sugaring and harm maple sugar farmers is a crucial component to crafting a bill that can effectively mitigate and help maple farmers deal with the effects of global warming. Although climate change will affect the timing of the sugaring season, it will not eliminate sugaring in Vermont, making our research highly relevant for sugar makers and policy makers going forward. While the continuance of maple sugaring is beneficial to Vermont’s economy and image, it raises the issue of how a CPT would affect the maple industry. Therefore it is important to understand not only the impacts of climate change on maple sugaring but also the impacts of a CPT on maple sugaring in order to ensure the future health of the industry.

11

4. Policy Proposal, Implications and Recommendations 4.1 Policy Background

While neither H.395 nor H.412 passed during the most recent legislative session, due to Vermont’s commitment to reducing statewide fossil fuel usage, it is likely that lawmakers will propose similar legislation in the future. The specifics of the tax and its rebate mechanisms may change across iterations, but in principle the tax would apply to all fossil fuels distributed and sold in Vermont. Carbon emissions from electricity are covered by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and are thus exempted from a potential CPT.

It is important to note that the original proponents of H.395 and H.412 focused on initiating a dialogue on a CPT rather than passing either bill. The dialogue centers on minimizing costs and maximizing benefits by helping individual Vermonters and businesses, including Vermont’s iconic sugaring industry, to slowly and affordably move away from fossil fuels and implement more clean practices to ensure sustainability for the future.

According to the independent analysis produced by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) for the Vermont Public Interest Research and Education Fund (VPIREF), there are two objectives of pricing carbon emissions through a CPT. First, it is meant to push individuals and businesses away from fossil fuel usage and toward conservation, efficiency, or alternatives. Additionally, the revenues from a CPT provide funds and opportunities to reinvest in energy efficient technologies or other projects that will provide benefits to the economy, society, and the environment (REMI 2014).

As the tax is structured in H.412, the more moderate of the two bills, fossil fuel consumers would pay the tax at the point of purchase based on the fuel source’s CO2 factor. The exact calculations for the tax are outlined in this report’s economic analysis in Section VI.

The REMI report estimates that in the first year a moderate CPT will collect roughly $60 million in revenues, increasing as the base tax increases up to over $500 million in year 10 (REMI 2014). After covering administration and tax collection costs, 90% of this revenue will be used to first defray the state sales tax (Year 1: up to $31.5 million, Year 3 and on: up to $66.8 million), and from the remainder 60% will be applied to individual tax credits and rebates. REMI estimates this amount to be roughly $45 per individual over 18 in year one, escalating to $350 in year 10 (REMI 2014). 40% of the 90% will be allocated to rebates for businesses based on their number of full-time-equivalent employees. Of the other 10% of the original tax revenue, the first $8 million will be deposited into the home weatherization fund, with the remainder allocated to a new Vermont Energy Independence Fund (VEIF).

This report will calculate the rough economic impact of H.412 on several sugar making operations, but in general, operations with more fuel oil-intense operations will face a higher upfront tax payment, and those operations that are more labor intense will, on top of individual tax credits and rebates, receive a higher rebate based on the number of workers employed. 4.2 Sugar Makers’ Concerns

Ideally, a CPT in the form of H.412 is a compelling way to decrease fossil fuel usage, incentivize energy efficiency, and promote local jobs. However, some sugar makers remain opposed to an additional tax for several reasons.

12

Regardless of Vermont’s legislative actions, the maple syrup price is still inelastic, and some sugar makers are concerned about rising fuel costs cutting into their profit margins. Although fuel prices were low this winter, due to the strong U.S. Dollar, Canadian-driven maple syrup prices were also relatively low, meaning that Vermont sugar makers did not expect significantly more profit than usual. In this situation, an increase in fuel costs may decrease Vermont sugar makers’ profit margins.

Some sugaring operations with a higher employee to fuel usage ratio stand to profit from the FTE-employee rebate. However, many sugaring operations have few full time employees: only one survey respondent and only three farms visited for this report had more than one full-time employee. Of those three farms, two of which have multiple full-time employees and operate year-round and have other streams of revenue besides syrup production. Consequently, many smaller, family-owned and operated sugaring operations may not receive little to no benefits from a per-employee rebate.

Another possible concern regarding a CPT is that if the additional fuel costs become overly burdensome, potential investors interested in maple sugaring may decide to locate their operations in surrounding states without such a tax, such as Maine or New York. The development of Sweet Tree in the Northeast Kingdom demonstrates that out-of-state investors see the Vermont maple sugaring industry as a promising market with opportunity for expansion. If a CPT existed, investors would have to weigh the costs and benefits of entering a state with a CPT. Representative David Deen, a co-sponsor of H.412, has mentioned as a possibility adding a clause to the bill so that the tax would not go into effect unless surrounding states also had a carbon pollution tax (Polhamus 2015). This would allow the Vermont maple sugaring industry along with other industries with inelastic pricing, such as dairy, to maintain their competitiveness with both Canada and the surrounding U.S. states.

Finally, some sugar makers interviewed noted their opposition to a tax model that that required the redistribution of funds. These individuals were primarily concerned with “getting money back from the government” and believed it would be simpler and safer to merely lower the initial amount taxed.

With these concerns about a potential CPT in mind, it is important to stress that the tax, while burdensome to fossil fuel intensive operations, is designed to create a sustainable opportunity for sugaring to move away from traditional fuel sources and toward energy efficient practices and technologies.

Additionally, it is important for policy makers to be conscientious of any rising costs and the cost to transition equipment and practices. In this process of ensuring an affordable transition, policy makers can support the acquisition and implementation of energy efficient technologies, which will be discussed in the subsequent section, as well as increase outreach and education regarding the intentions behind and opportunities provided by the bill.

4.3 Policy Considerations

For those operations that have minimal fossil fuel usage, the rebates and tax credits may actually help them turn a profit on their fuel usage. For operations looking to transition to a more sustainable practice, the proposal for bill H.412 also outlines the creation of the Vermont Energy Independence Fund (VEIF), which would be largely contingent on the amount of taxes collected on fossil fuels.

13

This fund provides the opportunity to increase money available to maple farmers for energy efficient technology, whether through subsidies or a low-interest loan program. Although there are state and federal subsidies for energy efficient technology that already exist, they are limited both in the amount of funding and in who is eligible to receive the funding (see Appendix A for a list of existing subsidies and farmer eligibility). Some of these additional subsidies or loans could be funded through the VEIF or a similar fund. A number of sugar makers cited a lack of upfront capital as a major obstacle to implementing more energy efficient technology. Thus, a possible method for funding the adoption of energy efficient technology within the maple sugaring industry could be the implementation of a low-interest loan program. This could be particularly useful for first-time RO purchases and increasing RO capacity. There was agreement among the farmers interviewed and surveyed that RO machines pay for themselves over time because of the fuel savings, but upfront cost remained an issue for both first time buyers and those increasing capacity. A low-interest loan program might also appeal to farmers who are wary of “getting money back from the government,” a sentiment that some of our survey respondents expressed, or to farmers who are currently unaware of the existence of subsidies for energy efficiency technology, as some of our survey respondents were.

Another important consideration is the service that maple trees provide by sequestering carbon. One possibility to reduce negative financial impacts on sugaring would be to factor in this ecosystem services provided by the maple trees themselves. The U.S. Energy Information Administration published a report in 1998 stating that a 40-year-old sugar maple tree will sequester 23.4 pounds of carbon in a year (U.S. EIA 1998). By this calculation, Butternut Mountain Farm’s roughly 17,000-tap operation spread over about 600 acres will amount to 280,080 pounds of carbon taken out of the atmosphere a year (assuming 12,000 trees because some will have multiple taps). Butternut Mountain Farm reports that for each gallon of their syrup, roughly 255 pounds of carbon are sequestered. The Tufts University Office of Sustainability states that one-acre of 25-year-old Northeast, maple-beech-birch forests will sequester approximately 1,760 pounds of carbon dioxide in a year (Tufts Office of Sustainability). Other researchers are trying to analyze and quantify the value of various ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, which could provide a foundation upon which to explore ways to calculate the ecosystem value of maple trees so that such values could be included in calculating an industry’s or a business’ carbon pollution. This would prove beneficial for other industries besides maple sugaring that provide ecosystem services and could also act as an incentive to maintain or increase the range of Vermont’s forests.

14

5. Energy Efficiency Technology in the Sugaring Process

It is clear that the maple industry is receptive to technological innovations, particularly those that lower costs and increase energy efficiency. As this report has discussed, the CPT poses a potential cost increase to operations depending heavily on oil, but also presents an interesting and compelling opportunity for energy efficient technology. Operations that decrease their fossil fuel usage may face little to no cost after rebates or may even make a profit based on individual and employee-based rebates. This section will outline some of the more prevalent energy efficient technologies currently implemented as well as discuss less well-known technologies like the new electric evaporator. Ideally, this section will serve as a guide for policymakers to better understand which technologies to subsidize with the Vermont Energy Independence Fund. 5.1 Reverse Osmosis

Reverse osmosis (RO) technology was first adopted in the 1970s (University of Vermont Libraries and the Agriculture Network 2016). The RO works by pumping sap at around 2% sugar content through a membrane large enough to let water escape but not large enough to allow sugar out. As a result, the RO typically can remove about 75% of the water content from sap. This process normally reduces the amount of fuel costs required for the evaporation stage by 65-75%, with some operations interviewed reporting 80% reduced fuel costs (Mass Best Practices 2012, 19). It is possible to have additional membranes or pass the sap through the RO multiple times, which can remove even more water and further reduce energy use.

Every sugar maker interviewed for this report has at least one RO unit, including even the smallest operation, Bread Loaf View Farm. The reverse osmosis systems have quickly taken over the sugaring industry because the fuel savings help to pay for the installation cost in a matter of seasons.

One important factor to note in the discussion of RO systems is that sugar makers have a commonly-held concern that increasing Brix content too much can reduce the amount of caramelization that happens in the evaporator, which is what creates the maple flavor in the syrup. A 2015 UVM Proctor Maple Research Center study compared the flavors of sap boiled from 2%, 8%, 12%, and 15% Brix content and found no significant differences in flavor. (Van Den Berg 2015) With this in mind, there is little evidence beyond anecdotal experience to support flavor as a barrier to increasing RO capacity.

There is varying opinion in the industry regarding what role the state has in supporting the installation of RO systems. Some sugar makers, especially those feeling the burden of Vermont’s already high taxes, believe that because RO units are so effective at reducing fuel costs is so high and the payback period is therefore relatively short, the state does not need to subsidize this technology. On the other hand, there are sugar makers who do have difficulty with the upfront investment required to purchase such a unit. Many of the sugar makers interviewed or surveyed stated that their next investment would be an increase in RO capacity, suggesting that the upfront cost is something that they need to seriously consider and underscores the possible benefit of a low-interest loan.

15

5.2 Electric Evaporator

The electric evaporator is a relatively new technology in the sugaring industry. Currently, the only major player in this area is Dominion & Grimm’s ECOVAP. This evaporator runs by boiling syrup and then recirculating the steam in a number of high-pressure tubes that run through the sap. This unit is designed to release almost no waste heat, instead converting it to useful energy to boil sap into syrup. The Montreal-based sugaring equipment distributor and manufacturer has sold one unit in the U.S. to Maple Sugar Mountain in Belvedere, VT. The only other unit in the U.S. is operated by the owners of D&G (Maple News 2014). The remaining eleven ECOVAPS are found in New Brunswick and Quebec.

In Quebec, producers acknowledge the large upfront initial financial investment associated with the electric evaporator, but continue to explore its use because of the lower energy usage and the hope that a market for environmentally friendly maple syrup will emerge (Pelletier 2013). There is strong data supporting the energy efficiency of electric evaporators in Quebec. It takes less than a kilowatt to produce a liter of syrup, which is fifteen to twenty times less energy than the conventional fuel-based evaporator (Pellerin 2013). There is a possibility that the electric evaporators are more common in Quebec because electricity is cheap and readily available due to the immense amounts of hydropower generated in the region.

The owners of Maple Sugar Mountain invested in the ECOVAP in 2015 because they believed it was the cheapest in terms of input costs to gallons produced. For their operation, they did not have to retrofit their sugarhouse with a smokestack. Furthermore, there is no labor cost for chopping wood and compared to the volatility of oil prices, the operation’s electricity rates are far more reasonable.

In terms of price per gallon produced, Maple Sugar Mountain reports about 21¢-22¢ per gallon of syrup in electricity costs, whereas the average of all oil evaporators surveyed for this report is 56¢ per gallon. Considering that most wood-fired operations source their wood from their own property and assuming a cost of $220 per cord, the average wood-fired operation surveyed would observe a cost of $1.67 per gallon of syrup. These numbers will vary based on fuel prices as well as differences from each operation, but they provide an estimate of the operational costs for each type of evaporator. These lower operational costs will hopefully in the long term provide higher margins for Maple Sugar Mountain to protect against the inelasticity of international maple syrup pricing.

One of the main concerns that sugar makers voice about the electric evaporator is its adverse effect on flavor. Some believe that the unit does not boil the sap at a hot enough temperature for a long enough period of time to achieve the desired maple flavor. This fear echoes the original concerns regarding decreased maple flavor in syrup that has been processed by a RO system, a concern that has largely been dispelled by a UVM study (Van Den Berg 26). The owners at Maple Sugar Mountain have very positive things to say about their syrup, stating that it has passed anecdotal taste tests by traditional Vermont sugar makers. Additionally, by mid-April of 2016, the operation was still producing the two top grades of maple syrup, 70-80% golden delicate and 20-30% amber rich. Due to the more stable prices of electricity and high quality of syrup, Maple Sugar Mountain is on track to pay off their ECOVAP’s upfront cost in five to seven years.

The two observed downsides to using the ECOVAP are a smaller hourly capacity and a longer warm-up period. Maple Sugar Mountain on average can boil 45-55 gallons of syrup per

16

hour, whereas an oil unit can produce as much as 60-70 gallons per hours. Additionally, the unit takes about 1½ hours to heat up to the point that it can boil sap.

Finally, it seems worth noting that while sugar makers tend to be a fairly innovative group, there is still a portion of the industry that resists this new technology on the basis of tradition. This demographic tends to be made up of smaller scale operations that are more strongly linked with tradition, as that too is an incredibly important part of the sugar making process for many Vermonters.

Based on Maple Sugar Mountain’s experience, it appears that the ECOVAP is a financially viable investment, albeit with a high upfront cost. Aside from a low-interest loan to help depreciate the upfront cost over time, it may not be necessary to subsidize this piece of technology. The Vermont Electric Coop currently has a subsidy program in its pilot stages that would incentivize farmers to switch to or add an electric evaporator, but these subsidies are available only to Vermont Electric Coop members. If this program proves successful, the VEIF could also work with the Vermont Electric Coop, Green Mountain Power, or other electricity providers in the state to develop similar programs and encourage sugar makers to switch to the ECOVAP. However, further study of the ECOVAP and its track record are necessary before any formal policy suggestions are brought forth. 5.3 Evaporator Add-Ons: Steam-away and Pre-heaters Both steam-away units and pre-heaters serve the same purpose, which is to increase the evaporation rate of the water from the syrup and to increase productivity (Mass Best Practices 2012, 7). The steam-away unit, however, yields almost four times the fuel savings as a pre-heater (Mass Best Practices 2012, 7). Pre-heaters consist of a series of pipes contained within a hood to heat the sap concentrate with steam sequestered from the evaporator. The condensation that forms during this process is collected in a pan (Mass Best Practices 2012, 8). During interviews, several sugar makers that have pre-heaters underscored the dual benefit of the system: utilization of steam exhaust from the evaporator to increase the evaporation of the sap and production of distilled water that is commonly used the scrub the equipment post-production. Steam-away units have the same benefits in addition to the fact that the units can also increase the sap’s sugar concentration (Mass Best Practices 2012, 9). Unlike the pre-heater, the pipes of the steam-away unit sit within the pan of sap. Steam and dry air are employed to reduce the water concentration of the sap (Mass Best Practices 2012, 9). Several maple sugar makers contacted during the semester pointed to the steam-away unit as their next energy efficient technological investment, while others had already invested in the technology and were satisfied with its fuel use reductions. Morse Farm qualified for a 25% grant to buy an oil-fired evaporator with a steam-away. The operators at Morse Farm estimate that the steam-away added an additional 1.5% of sweetness to the syrup.

While sugar makers’ sentiments about steam-away units are clear and all positive, further research must be conducted on the technology to determine whether rebates or subsidies are necessary. For instance, Baird Farm operators are of the opinion that “the benefit of the steam-away is so great that [one does not] need government assistance.” Table 1 below outlines the prices, maintenance needs and associated fuel use for the three main technologies utilized at maple sugaring operations. One can see that an operation with an oil-fired evaporator, an RO system, and a steam-away consumes significantly less fuel oil per gallon of syrup than an operation with only an oil-fired evaporator. Table 1 also supports farmers’ concerns with the

17

high upfront costs of RO systems and steam-aways, which can cost up to $14,000 and $12,000, respectively. Table 1. Price, Maintenance Needs, and Associated Fuel Oil Use for Different Maple Sugar Technologies

Oil-Fired Evaporator Evaporator and RO Evaporator, RO, and Steam-Away

Gallons of Fuel Oil per Gallon of Syrup*

3.4 1.2 0.7

Price** $5,000 - $6,500 $3,000 - $14,000 $4,000 - $12,000

Maintenance Needs

• Clean the evaporator pans

• Annual oil filter change

• Burner oil nozzle and insulation band on the evaporator arch replacement every 2-5 years

• RO system requires access to strong, reliable electrical power

• Membranes typically need to be replaced every 2-3 years and have cleaned to remain efficient

• To avoid freezing, there are set-up and termination actions that must be fulfilled

• Steam-away must be drained post-production

• Clean the steam-away system with “unsoftened, non-chlorinated well or spring water”

* Assume 85% evaporator efficiency, 2% sugar content in sap, 42 gallons of water must be extracted from sap ** Average price range for leading 2’x6’ and 2’x8’ evaporators. Average price range for RO systems based on gallons processed per hour. 125 gph for $2700, 600-1000 gph for $14,000+. Used RO systems readily available with price reductions. Average price range for 2’x3’ to 5’x10’ steam-away pans. Notes: Table 1 begins with the base case operation, which only has an oil-fired evaporator. One can see that while the price of a reverse osmosis machine and a steam-away can be up to $14,000 and $12,000 respectively, the maple sugaring operations with both an RO and a steam-away use almost a fifth of the fuel consumed by an operation with only an oil-fired evaporator. 5.4 Gasification Woodchip gasification systems are not common in Vermont. The woodchips that fuel the evaporator must be of uniform size and are expensive mostly because of transportation costs. The woodchip evaporator also requires significant labor to replenish the wood chip supply to fuel the system and thus, the workers are exposed to the smoke from the production for extended periods of time, which can lead to adverse health consequences. Evaporators fueled by wood pellets exist as a potential alternative to woodchip gasification and oil-fueled systems. The wood pellets are typically made of compressed sawdust or as a secondary product in a lumberyard and

18

have a high potential heat content because they are dry (Farming, the Journal of Northeast Agriculture 2009). Out of the operations surveyed and visited, only Morse Farm had a wood chip gasification system and in 2015, decided to abandon the operation for a oil-fired evaporator. The oil-evaporator was more cost efficient because oil is simply the most affordable fuel source in Vermont currently. 5.5 On-site Solar

Solar panels will not impact how a farm is affected by the proposed carbon pollution taxes. However, increasing the role of electricity and reducing the fuel consumption at maple operations appears to be a growing trend to reduce pollution and fuel use.

Three of the five maple operations visited installed solar panels. The scale of on-site solar operations at maple farms varies across the state. Solar Sweet Maple Farm’s operation runs almost entirely on solar energy, with the exception of a wood-fired evaporator. Solar Sweet Maple Farm worked with Green Mountain Power to install a net-meter solar system, which means that any energy produced and not utilized on the Solar Sweet Maple property is added back to the grid and the owners receive electricity credits. Baird Farm has solar panels on the sugarhouse roof; however, the RO at Baird Farm uses more electricity than the solar panels can supply. On an annual basis, Baird’s 7.4 kW solar panels will produce roughly 8000 kW, while the two RO units demand about 5000 kW a season. In other words, in a four-month season, solar panels cover about 40% of the RO demand, yet will continue to produce power throughout the year. Morse Farm has six solar trackers on the property, which are owned by AllEarth Renewables. Like Solar Sweet Maple Farm, Morse Farm also has a net-metered solar system. Morse Farm acquires credits in the summer and uses the credits during the winter. If the bill is greater than the credits, Morse Farm pays the difference directly to AllEarth.

It is important to note that the solar panels at both Solar Sweet Maple Farm and Baird Farm were purchased with government assistance. The sugar makers underscore that solar panel installation at maple operations is not economically viable without federal tax rebates because the upfront investment costs are too high. Additional Technologies This report is not an all-inclusive account of energy efficiency technologies in the industry. Improvements such as variable frequency drive vacuum pumps, the use of biofuels, and many more to come will allow the industry to protect itself from a future CPT or rising fuel oil prices.

19

6. Farm Visit Findings and Economic Analyses 6.1 Introduction to Analysis As mentioned, an important part of our analysis focused on talking to Vermont sugar makers and gathering their views of energy efficient practices, climate change, and the idea of a carbon pollution tax. Questions that framed our interviews can be found in Appendix B.

In addition, we conducted an economic analysis to see how the proposed legislation would impact individual operations of different sizes. To do this, we collected relevant figures such as fuel usage and number of full-time employees that feed into the equations within the documentation of H.412.

The following section details our findings from each operation, including (1) a general overview of each, (2) the farmer’s views on climate change, (3) the farmer’s thoughts on the proposed carbon pollution tax, and (4) the associated economic analysis for that operation. Note that our case studies cover a range of farm sizes in an attempt to provide a cross-section of the Vermont maple industry.

For the accompanying economic analysis, we used equations written in the body of H.412 (see below) to calculate how much each farm would pay annually in carbon pollution taxes. An equally important part of the legislation is the tax relief that comes in the form of rebates and tax breaks. To factor this into our analysis, we used information from REMI’s (Regional Economic Models, Inc.) 2014 report on the economic implications of a carbon pollution policy in Vermont. The framework for the rebates pays out revenues from the tax to businesses based on the number of employees. The values for these rebates in our analyses were computed using a confidential rebate calculator provided by VNRC. The legislation also plans to provide rebates to all adult Vermonters at an individual level, but our study focuses solely on businesses’ economic circumstances.

Tax payment equation:

Tax Payment = (CO2 Factor of Heating Oil) x (Per Ton Tax) x (0.001) x Fuel Purchase

Tax Payment = (10.21) x ($10 in year 1, escalating annually by $10 for 10 years) x (0.001) x

Fuel Purchase

For each farm, we conducted two parallel analyses. The first one assumes that the operation continues with the same fuel usage figures that they are currently reporting. The second one involves potential energy efficiency upgrades in year 4 that decrease fossil fuel consumption by 50%. Note that these upgrades can have an effect on the net payment (column 5). Also note that for Maple Sugar Mountain (the operation with an electric evaporator), we did not conduct such parallel analyses since their evaporator fossil fuel consumption is zero.

It is worth mentioning that our analysis focuses primarily on fossil fuel use for evaporators, and does not take into account other fuel usage (e.g., gasoline for transportation or chainsaws; propane for heating buildings, etc.) which was an area where we did not have robust figures. For this reason, we assumed that these expenses were equal to zero—an assumption that ended up having a small impact on the net gain or loss for each farm. Further, in addition to the tax rebates, a the proposed carbon pollution tax also feeds “total sales tax eligible expenses” into

20

tax relief for businesses, reducing the Vermont sales tax from $.06 cents to $.05 cents. This financial benefit is not reflected in our analysis. Further detailed investigations should explore other fuel usage beyond evaporators, as well as figures for eligible sales tax expenditures. 6.2 Baird Farm 6.2.1 Overview

The Baird family has owned a 560-acre area in Chittenden for four generations. Sugar maker Bob Baird maintains a strong connection to the land, which has been used for sugaring for decades. The current sugarhouse was built in 1980, and is currently undergoing renovation, largely due to changing food-safety regulations. Historically, the Baird family kept a dairy operation on this land, but sold their dairy herd in 1996 and their remaining heifers in 2014. Now, maple syrup is their primary source of income. Bob is active in Rutland County politics, and has spent time doing farmland conservation for the Vermont Land Trust. His business model centers on low costs, efficient labor, and low environmental impact. He bought his oil-fired evaporator to save on labor and because heating oil cost $0.50 at the time of purchase. 6.2.2 Climate Perceptions

When asked about the unusually warm weather of 2016, Bob cites El Niño as the source. Apparently, 2016 saw the earliest start to the sugaring season in over 40 years, although 2014 and 2015 were some of the latest starts that Bob had seen on his farm. He says that he does believe in climate change, but he hasn’t seen any of its effects impacting his business. Bob told us that he took environmental studies classes while at UVM, and his commitment to conservation is evident in his service to the Vermont Land Trust. 6.2.3 Tax Perceptions

Our conversation then shifted to the prospect of a carbon pollution tax in Vermont. His overall impression was that such a tax would “probably be a good way to reduce fossil fuel consumption,” and that it would be a much easier sell in the era of low oil prices. Bob asserted that the potential impacts would vary greatly on the size of the operation. On the subject of the rebate programs embedded in the legislation, Bob said that farmers in his circles tend to be wary of “getting money back” from the government.

He also informed us that the reception would vary based on location: Rutland County and the Northeast Kingdom tend to be more conservative than other areas of Vermont, and therefore politicians in those regions usually do not support taxes. That being said, the sugaring community would apparently be more receptive to a carbon pollution tax than the agricultural community in general because of its generally “progressive” mindset.

As for the Vermont government’s interaction with the maple industry, Bob would like to see the government helping subsidize something “cutting-edge”—such as, for instance, solar panels, which he said would not have made economic sense without the accompanying tax rebates. He feels that reverse osmosis technology is energy and cost-saving enough that people should be inclined to install them on their own accord. He offered anecdotes of people using state money intended for reverse osmosis machines on new pickup trucks. He was interested in

21

an investigation of streamlining sap transportation—many of Vermont’s maple operations exist in a patchwork of land ownership rights. He was curious if there was a way to improve the transportation redundancy that sometimes exists in this process. 6.2.4 Economic Analysis Size: 10,000 Taps Annual Evaporator Fuel Use: 1500 gallons Annual Evaporator Fuel Cost: ~ $2,000 Full-time Employees: 2 Table 2: Baird Farm, consistent fuel consumption Year Fuel Use Tax Payment Rebates Net 1 1500 $153 $54 -$100 2 1500 $306 $137 -$169 3 1500 $459 $216 -$244 4 1500 $613 $333 -$279 5 1500 $766 $449 -$317 6 1500 $919 $548 -$371 7 1500 $1,072 $647 -$425 8 1500 $1,225 $740 -$485 9 1500 $1,378 $824 -$554 10 1500 $1,532 $911 -$621 Table 3: Baird Farm, with efficiency upgrades Year Fuel Use Tax Payment Rebates Net 1 1500 $153 $54 -$100 2 1500 $306 $137 -$169 3 1500 $459 $216 -$244 4 1500 $613 $333 -$279 5 750 $383 $449 $66 6 750 $459 $548 $88 7 750 $536 $647 $111 8 750 $613 $740 $127 9 750 $689 $824 $135 10 750 $766 $911 $145 6.3 Butternut Mountain Farm 6.3.1 Overview

The Marvins’ operation started in 1940 as a sugarhouse in the woods of Johnson, VT. They are still extracting sap from those same woods, but the main business now lies in nearby Morrisville. There, in a 75,000 square foot production facility, they process more Vermont maple syrup than anywhere else in the world. They work with over 350 sugarers from around the state,

22

and receive regular shipments of syrup in drums. From there, the syrup moves down the assembly line into a modern bottling apparatus.

Butternut Mountain Farm sells its syrup to a number of large retailers and private labels. It also participates in other markets, where it provides flavoring for ice creams, cereals, and baked goods.

David Marvin, founder and owner, graduated from UVM with a degree in forestry. Afterwards he spent time as a consulting forester. According to David, he never imagined that his operation would grow to this size. When he founded Butternut Mountain Farm, the outlook for the Vermont maple industry was grim. Since then, however, his business has ridden the crest of positive growth and technological innovation. 6.3.2 Climate Perceptions

Emma Marvin of Butternut Mountain Farm underscored the two effects of climate change that their business thinks about: (1) the increased frequency of severe storms, and (2) the increased presence of introduced exotic or invasive species. When Hurricane Irene ravaged Vermont, Butternut Mountain’s lot lost between 500-700 maples. Similar maple damage was seen across the state. Emma stressed the severity of this problem—maple trees take about 40 years to grow large enough to be tapped. In terms of invasive species, she pointed to the Asian Long-horned Beetle and the Emerald Ash Borer as species that can be particularly harmful to Vermont trees. In reference to the longer-term, more severe aspects of climate change, Emma concluded that maple syrup will be a low priority when those effects take hold: “maple syrup will be the last thing on people’s minds when they are underwater.”

Emma suggested that any northward migration of the maple belt has been driven more by population growth and urban development than by rising temperatures. This sort of expansion invades the large tracts of land needed for large, healthy sugarbushes.

6.3.3 Tax Perceptions

David Marvin thought favorably about the idea carbon pricing. He said that the proposed carbon pollution tax would incentivize better behavior in the broader maple industry, although the broader reception of the CPT would be mixed. He seemed confident that his business would be able to build economic changes from the legislation into their margins.

He emphasized an interesting dichotomy related to the industry and the proposed tax. On one hand, maple farmers have a strong connection to the environment and its stewardship, so some farmers would likely support it. However, David explained that maple farmers also tend to be quite frugal. As a result, the economics of a carbon pollution tax might be difficult to pass. He said that if there were a time to implement such a policy, now would likely be a good time, keeping in mind the low oil prices of 2016. David warned, however, that Vermont’s economy is quite fragile, and is in some ways dependent on the success of the maple sugar industry. He feared that having such economic laws in Vermont and not, say, New Hampshire or New York, might cause the state to lose its competitive edge against its neighbors. Vermont’s robust history of maple puts it in a uniquely strong position in the market. External economic changes can indeed have a negative effect on that—David mentioned that over the years, they have been sometimes negatively affected by foreign exchange rates between the U.S. and Canada. He concluded by saying that, at times, the

23

image of steaming evaporators and whirring pumps may make it seem as though the maple industry is an energy intensive one. In reality, though, this equipment only runs for a portion of the year, and lies dormant for the rest of the year: his evaporator only fires for perhaps 100 hours per season. 6.3.4 Economic Analysis Note that, for this analysis, we focus solely on the sugarhouse at Butternut Mountain Farm, and do not incorporate fuel usage or employee figures from their processing and distribution facility. We also do not take into account any transportation expenditures. Size: 17,750 taps Annual Evaporator Fuel Use: 2806 gallons Annual Evaporator Fuel Cost: ~ $4,000 Full-time Employees: 4 Table 4: Butternut Mountain Farm, consistent fuel consumption Year Fuel Use Tax Payment Rebates Net 1 2806 $286 $107 -$179 2 2806 $573 $275 -$298 3 2806 $859 $431 -$428 4 2806 $1,146 $667 -$479 5 2806 $1,432 $898 -$535 6 2806 $1,719 $1,096 -$623 7 2806 $2,005 $1,294 -$712 8 2806 $2,292 $1,479 -$813 9 2806 $2,578 $1,649 -$930 10 2806 $2,865 $1,822 -$1,043 Table 5: Butternut Mountain Farm, with efficiency upgrades Year Fuel Use Tax Payment Rebates Net 1 2806 $286 $107 -$179 2 2806 $573 $275 -$298 3 2806 $859 $431 -$428 4 2806 $1,146 $667 -$479 5 1400 $715 $898 $183 6 1400 $858 $1,096 $238 7 1400 $1,001 $1,294 $293 8 1400 $1,144 $1,479 $336 9 1400 $1,286 $1,649 $362 10 1400 $1,429 $1,822 $392

24

6.4 Morse Farm 6.4.1 Overview

The Morse family has owned land in Montpelier for 150 years. Seventh-generation Vermonter Burr Morse has witnessed sugaring on the land for as long as he can remember. He has successfully developed the business beyond just a sugaring operation—the current venture includes a large gift shop, cross-country skiing trails, sugarhouse tours, and even multimedia displays in a “woodshed theater.” The building can accommodate tour buses full of people during peak season. Burr explains that he gets the most customers during foliage season. Morse Farm provided a unique perspective of an operation that historically used a wood-fired evaporator, but recently made the switch to an oil-fired one. Morse Farm’s evaporator was heated by wood chips, which they bought in truckloads for $2,300-$2,400 per shipment. Before installing a reverse osmosis mechanism, they would go through three loads per season. Seven years ago they bought an oil-fired evaporator, and attached their wood gasifier. The mechanism was crude and somewhat risky—the fuel was suspended directly over the fire. Within the past year, they have outfitted the sugarhouse to accommodate oil-firing, a conversion that cost $4,000. Burr explained that the farm qualified for a grant to finance 25% of the new system.

Burr Morse studied plants and soil at UVM. He returned to Montpelier and has been working the farm ever since. Eventually, his son Tom will carry on the family business. For now, it is a landmark to locals and visitors alike.

6.4.2 Climate Perceptions

On the switch to oil, Burr said that he cares about the earth, but installed an oil-fired evaporator because it requires less human effort to operate. He also noted the lower unit cost of heating oil in comparison to wood. Burr explained that his new system has been operating “wonderfully”—the lower amount of labor necessary has allowed him to interact more with his customers. It is also worth noting that Morse Farm uses fossil fuel to drive two trucks and a tractor to access the pump houses on their property.

6.4.3 Tax Perceptions

When the conversation moved to the idea of a proposed carbon pollution tax, Burr voiced his opposition to such legislation, and says he feels somewhat pinched by government taxes as is. Burr considered that it falls on the individual to run a successful business. He did, however, acknowledge the existence of climate change, saying that the earth originated with certain conditions in the atmosphere that have been affected by humans. Yet, the Vermont sugar industry is disinclined to “bite the hand that feeds it”; in other words, the industry acknowledges that its success hinges on the health of the natural world, and so there is an implicit respect. He emphasized the comparatively lower impact of the maple sugaring process compared to other types of the agricultural production.

25

6.4.4 Economic Analysis Size: 6,000 Annual Evaporator Fuel Use: 1200 gallons Annual Evaporator Fuel Cost: ~ $1,700 Full-time Employees: 5 Table 6: Morse Farm, consistent fuel consumption Year Fuel Use Tax Payment Rebates Net 1 1200 $123 $134 $12 2 1200 $245 $343 $98 3 1200 $368 $539 $172 4 1200 $490 $833 $343 5 1200 $613 $1,122 $509 6 1200 $735 $1,370 $635 7 1200 $858 $1,617 $760 8 1200 $980 $1,849 $869 9 1200 $1,103 $2,061 $958 10 1200 $1,225 $2,277 $1,052 Table 7: Morse Farm, with efficiency upgrades Year Fuel Use Tax Payment Rebates Net 1 1200 $123 $134 $12 2 1200 $245 $343 $98 3 1200 $368 $539 $172 4 1200 $490 $833 $343 5 600 $306 $1,122 $816 6 600 $368 $1,370 $1,002 7 600 $429 $1,617 $1,188 8 600 $490 $1,849 $1,359 9 600 $551 $2,061 $1,509 10 600 $613 $2,277 $1,665 6.5 Maple Sugar Mountain 6.5.1 Overview

Maple Sugar Mountain owns what was, until recently, the only electric evaporator in the United States. We spoke with sugar maker Bill Baker who works the farm with his two brothers-in-law. Historically, they tapped their trees and collected the sap, but sold it to a nearby sugarhouse to boil.

Two years ago, they decided it was time to close the circle, and evaporate their own sap. At the time, the electric evaporator was the most economically appealing when lined up against oil and wood-fired setups. Now in their 2nd year, these sugarers have been very happy with their system. Bill did explain, however, that perhaps a more important component in terms of energy

26

and cost savings is the reverse osmosis machine. Altogether, Bill said that they are paying back their investment due to solid energy efficiency, as well as relatively robust syrup prices. He also emphasized that customers have been pleased with the taste. 6.5.2 Climate Perceptions

As mentioned above, these sugarers’ decision to purchase an electric evaporator was not motivated by any environmental concerns, but rather financial: it simply was the most economically attractive option at the time. One of the major drivers was the fact that their building didn’t need to be retrofitted to accommodate an oil or wood-fired evaporator. They didn’t need to change the roof, add in any smokestacks, or install oil pipes or tanks. Another driver, according to Bill, was the more stable electrical rates, compared to more volatile fuel prices. Despite having the forestland to provide for an wood-fired evaporator, they don’t have readily available labor to do the necessary cutting.

Bill Baker did not readily accept climate change as reality. He chalked up any noticeable changes around here to the volatile Vermont weather, pointing specifically to noticeably warm and noticeably cold winters in the past several decades. He believed that the climate has always been cyclical, and is out of human control. 6.5.3 Tax Perceptions

When asked about the possibility of a state carbon pollution tax, Bill told us that he doesn’t tend to involve himself in politics too much, but feels that the state is spending more money that it has. He is a firm believer in having fewer, trimmer laws at the state level. When we began to discuss the rebates embedded in the legislation, as well as the proposed Energy Independence Fund, he said that such programs worry him because of the potential for excessive government spending.

It is worth noting that, according to our analysis, Maple Sugar Mountain stands to make a profit from the proposed carbon pollution legislation. Granted, our study does not look at the other fuel costs involved in their business (such as fuel for transportation). Still, because evaporators constitute a large part of energy usage within the sugaring process, and because this operation employs electricity instead of fossil fuels, they would likely see a net profit over 10 years, as seen in the table below.

27

6.5.4 Economic Analysis Size: 18,000 Annual Evaporator Fuel Use: 0 gallons Annual Evaporator Fuel Cost: $0 Full-time Employees: 3 Table 8: Maple Sugar Mountain, consistent fuel consumption Year Fuel Use Tax Payment Rebates Net 1 0 $0 $80 $80 2 0 $0 $206 $206 3 0 $0 $324 $324 4 0 $0 $500 $500 5 0 $0 $673 $673 6 0 $0 $822 $822 7 0 $0 $970 $970 8 0 $0 $1,110 $1,110 9 0 $0 $1,236 $1,236 10 0 $0 $1,366 $1,366 6.6: Case Study Comparison (Table 9)

Morse Farm Baird Farm Butternut Mtn. Farm Maple Sugar Mountain

Address 1168 County Rd Montpelier, VT

65 West Rd N Chittenden, VT

37 Industrial Park Dr Morrisville, VT

2034 VT-109 Belvidere, VT

Contact Burr Morse maplespeak@morsefarm.com (800) 242-2740

Bob Baird bairdfarm@gmail.com (802) 483-2963

David Marvin Emma Marvin emma@butternutmountainfarm.com (800) 828 2376

Bill Baker pops1722@yahoo.com (802) 644-1599

Taps 6,000 10,000 17,750 18,000

2016 Syrup Production

(gal)

2,120 5,150 9,335 7,000

Evaporator Fuel

Oil Oil Oil Electricity

Evaporator Model

Leader 4 by 12 with Maxi flue pan

5'x16' Dominion & Grimm

4X12 max pans from leader

Dominion & Grimm EcoVap

2016 Evaporator

Fuel Purchase

1200 gals 1500 gallons 2806 gallons 0 gallons

28

Evaporator Efficiency

0.5 gal oil / 1 gal syrup

.3 gal oil / 1 gal syrup 0.3-0.5 gal oil / 1 gal syrup

~1.25 kWh / 1 gal syrup $ 0.20 / 1 gal syrup

Other fuel expenditures

Trucks and tractor to transport sap

$100/yr for gasoline for ATV's and chainsaws

2 trucks for distribution, propane for heating plant, gasoline for equipment

Trucks

Brix value after RO

10% - First pass 6-8%; second pass 14-18%

6%

Number of Employees

5 full time, 15-20 part time *our syrup production does not support all these employees.

2 4 at sugarhouse; 90 at plant

3

Electricity Figs. (only

provided by two

farmers)

- About $2500 which is about $.50 per gallon of syrup. Most of this was offset by solar production so our actual payment for electricity was less than $1000

- $1620 for electric evaporator No figures for RO

Other Equipment

Solar panels Solar panels, steam-away

Solar panels, processing/bottling equipment

One of only two electric evaporators in VT

Distribution Built-in store; online Built-in store; online Bottle syrup from over 350 farms

Wholesale

29

7. Online Survey Findings 7.1 Survey Overview After visiting the farms discussed in the previous section, we created an online survey to get a more in-depth cross-section of the Vermont maple industry. Our survey consisted of 23 questions (see Appendix C). These questions were designed to add further information to our studies of energy usage, environmental perceptions, and the future of Vermont maple. We sent the online questionnaire to one hundred sugarers across the state. Respondents had the option to remain anonymous, or they could provide their contact information at the end. We compiled the answers in a large table on Google Drive so that key figures about each farm (i.e., the number of taps, type of evaporator, etc.) could remain linked to statements about climate change, energy efficiency, and so on. We received a total of 18 online responses (n=18). 7.2 Survey Results: Key Takeaways Below, we have summarized the takeaways from some of the most important questions. For a list of actual responses to these key questions, please see Appendix D. We received four survey responses from operations with oil-fired evaporators, and fourteen responses from operations with wood-fired evaporators. 7.2.1 Evaporator Choice We asked sugar makers to explain why they had chosen their current evaporator type. Of those who chose oil, several pointed to the ease of use associated with the technology: that is, the idea that it can be brought up to temperature with the flip of a switch. The human labor necessary for an oil-fired evaporator is also less than a wood-fired evaporator, which requires tending throughout the day. Sugar makers who boil sap with wood, we found, often do so because of the abundance of available trees on their properties. Others prefer using wood out of a sense of tradition. Finally, some respondents said that they did not make a conscious choice between oil and wood; but merely inherited the existing evaporator when they purchased or inherited their sugarhouses. 7.2.2 Electrical Costs In our survey, we asked farmers to report the percentage of their total costs came from consumption of electricity. Some of the lowest responses included 2% (from an operation with an oil-fired evaporator) and 3-5% (from an operation that used wood). Others attributed up to 75% of their costs to electricity. This drastic range sheds light on differing installed capacities of reverse osmosis mechanisms—typically large consumers of electricity. Farmers who cut wood from their own lots generally saw lower fuel costs and thus higher electricity costs. Finally, it is worth mentioning that 6 respondents did not know their electrical costs.

30

7.2.3 Seasonal and Climate Perceptions In this part of the survey, we asked farmers to report when their season started and ended this year. We also asked how these dates compared to last year’s sugaring season, and what they thought might be driving these seasonal changes, if anything. This question gave us a particularly interesting range of responses given the project’s connection to climate issues. In total, five out of eighteen sugar makers specifically mention “climate change” or “global warming” as a cause for varying season lengths. Others mention “mother nature” or “natural weather variances” instead of climate change. Two respondents also pointed to El Niño as a driving force for seasonal variation in this particular season. 7.2.4 Operation Outlook We asked farmers what they thought their operation would be like five years in the future. Eleven respondents included the terms “same” or “about the same” in their answers. Others expressed interest in growing their number of taps and perhaps expanding distribution channels. Two planned to downsize gradually as they grew older. 7.2.5 Industry Outlook In the same vein, we asked farmers where they saw the Vermont maple industry in five years. Of the eighteen responses, fourteen specifically expressed that it would probably be bigger than it is today. Some looked to the future optimistically, identifying increased productivity, new markets, and stable prices as specific characteristics. Others, however, worried about “overproduction” and an “increase in mega-operations” as threats to the industry. Two farmers made an explicit connection to the dairy industry, offering “overrun with syrup, like milk” and “struggling to sell the overproduction, just like dairy farmers” as answers. 7.2.6 Efficiency Technology We asked farmers to report the next piece of energy efficiency technology that they are planning to invest in, if any. The most prevalent response was “no change”: eight respondents expressed that they are content with their current setup. After that, by far the most common response was a desire to increase the reverse osmosis capacity. Other technologies mentioned included sap line monitoring equipment, more efficient vacuum pumps, and an electricity gauge “to really watch electrical usage at the sugar house.” 7.2.7 Electric Evaporators An investigation of electric evaporators has been a significant part of our study. In our survey, we asked: would you consider investing in an electric evaporator? Why or why not? Of the eighteen responses, sixteen said no. Among the main concerns were cost (“too much money”), electrical rates (“cost of power through GMP”), loss of tradition (“it takes the fun out of making maple syrup”), boiling time (“it is very slow”), and lack of data (“needs more research and…reports”). One respondent wrote “maybe,” and the last replied: “yes if it could produce enough syrup per hour to keep up with our sap flow.” In general, survey respondents seemed to

31

be intrigued by electric evaporators, but unwilling to adopt the technology for a number of reasons. 7.2.8 Government Programs We also asked sugar makers the following questions: Are you aware of any government subsidies in place for energy efficiency equipment? If so, have you taken advantage of any? Which ones? Seventeen out of eighteen respondents had heard about existing subsidy programs, and seven had taken advantage of them. Some sugar makers voiced their opposition to these programs: “I do not believe in them…if you are not smart enough to figure out that…energy efficient equipment pays for itself, you deserve to go out of business.” Historically, farmers had used subsidies to purchase ROs, efficiency lighting, steam-away pans, pre-heaters, and vacuum pumps. 7.2.9 Vermont’s Role Lastly, our survey included the question: what can Vermont do to support adoption of energy efficiency equipment? One major issue that came up repeatedly was education. Sugar makers were interested in getting the latest and most accurate data on energy efficient practices: as one respondent said, “let us know where and how we can save energy.” Others pointed to a range of financial programs, including subsidies, rebates, grants, and low-interest loans. Respondents seemed to favor programs “for sugar makers who want to replace existing equipment with more energy efficient models…instead of just supporting first time purchases.” The idea of energy audits was also an intriguing suggestion. Others supported a more hands-off approach, in which Vermont “lets the market figure it out.”

32

8. Conclusion In light of the sugar making industry’s cultural and economic relevance to the state of Vermont, it is crucial to analyze the opinions of sugar makers and the economic impact and opportunities of a potential CPT. Although H.412 and H.395 were not passed into law in 2016, similar proposals may come forward in the future. With these in mind, this report has attempted to address how sugar makers can best transition from fossil fuel usage to implementing renewable energies and energy efficient technology. In addition to tax measures, the Vermont government, through Efficiency Vermont and the Vermont Energy Independence Fund, can play a vital role in promoting the adoption of energy efficient technologies. A combined approach of raised awareness of subsidies, an increase of available subsidies, and the potential valuation of ecosystem services will ensure the continuation of sugar making as an important commercial, historical, and environmentally friendly practice in the state.

Most farmers interviewed showed a willingness to adopt energy efficient technology; as such, it is important to determine which technologies are best suited to reducing fossil fuel use within the maple sugaring industry and then how to promote the adoption of those technologies. As this report has discussed, certain technologies, specifically the reverse osmosis machine and the electric evaporator, can significantly decrease fossil fuel usage in the sugar making process. While on-site solar generation would not decrease a given farm’s exposure to the CPT, it would increase the energy efficiency of the farm and could also offset electricity or fuel costs in the off-season. Although there are currently subsidies for purchasing a first RO unit and also a pilot subsidy program for switching from a conventional wood or oil evaporator to the ECOVAP, nevertheless there is room for the number and type of subsidies available to maple farmers to expand in the future.

One of the areas with few existing subsidies available is increasing reverse osmosis capacity. Since the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s subsidy program expired in 2014, there have been no subsidies specifically for increasing RO capacity, although a number of the sugar makers interviewed and surveyed cited this as the next piece of technology they would invest in if they had the funds. Multiple sugar makers also expressed the opinion that subsidies were unnecessary for first-time reverse osmosis machines since they decrease fuel costs so much. Because of this, one possibility moving forward would be the creation of a low-interest loan program for sugar makers purchasing a first RO unit and a subsidy program for sugar makers looking to increase their RO capacity. This could be achieved using funds from the VEIF. Additionally, the VEIF could partner with Green Mountain Power or the Vermont Electric Cooperative, both of which have limited subsidy programs for their customers, to increase the amount and type of subsidies available. This could be done as part of the Energy Transformation Projects aiming to switch consumers from fossil fuel usage to electricity usage. Another option and one that would not require a CPT or the VEIF would be to better publicize the existing subsidies for sugar makers and who is eligible to receive them, since many sugar makers surveyed were unaware of and had not taken advantage of these programs. Looking forward, there are a number of data points that should be gathered before formal recommendations are made. Due to the fact that most sugar makers were not able to quickly discern the electricity usage of their RO, vacuum pumps, and electric evaporator, additional data should be collected on the optimal balance in solar and RO capacity to offset in-season vs. out-of-season electric demand. Additionally, in order to find the true value that sugaring provides,

33

more specific studies should be conducted to ascertain the true carbon sequestration ability of maple stands, particularly those that are constantly subject to sap extraction. Regardless of how exactly a tax is implemented, however, and which technologies are supported, it is imperative that the core economic and cultural values in the maple sugaring process remain. Neither sugar makers nor policy makers want to see the state’s maple industry suffer. In order to ensure this, they must work together moving forward to protect the industry from climate change and increasing uncertainty as well as from rising fuel costs.

34

9. Appendix Appendix A: Existing Subsidies Existing Subsidies:

Program What is subsidizes/provides

Who is eligible Caveats/Details

U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Energy for America Program

Provides either loan (up to 75% of total cost), grant (up to 25% of total cost) or both (up to 75% of total cost) for more energy efficient technology

Small rural businesses; agricultural producers with at least 50% of income from agricultural operations

15 year maximum loan term for equipment; energy efficiency projects require energy audit; prioritizes operations without energy efficient technology over operations hoping to upgrade energy efficient technology

Efficiency Vermont

Offers rebates on purchasing reverse osmosis machines

Operations without reverse osmosis

Operations cannot use this subsidy to upgrade or add reverse osmosis machines

Vermont Electric Coop

Subsidizes electric evaporators

Only available to VEC members

Working in tandem with Dominion & Grimm; program announced in December 2015 and still in pilot stage; amount of subsidies unclear

Green Mountain Power

Subsidizes pre-heaters and steam-aways

Only available to GMP customers

Limited funding; limited number of operations approved; 2016 first year of program

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Subsidized upgrades to reverse osmosis machine

Stopped providing funding in 2014/15

35

Appendix B: Farm Visit Interview Questions Farm Visit Interview Questions:

1. Number of taps? 2. Number of gallons of syrup per year? 3. Collection method--lines, vacuum pump? 4. Boiling method--reverse osmosis, evaporator? 5. Kind of fuel/amount of fuel used in production and transportation? 6. Where is the syrup sold - direct, co-operative? 7. Overview of other equipment (pre-heaters, etc.) 8. Do you think this season is going to be average/better than average/worse than average? 9. Is this season longer or shorter than average? Did it start earlier or later than previous

years? Why do you think that might be? 10. What do you think this operation might look like 20 years from now? 11. Is maple syrup a primary or secondary source of income? Year-round or seasonal? 12. Have you considered or explored using electric evaporators? What are the costs to

upgrading? 13. If Vermont were to impose a Carbon Pollution Tax, how might it affect your

operation/fuel use/profits? 14. What could the state do to promote energy efficiency and reduce fossil fuel use within the

maple industry?

36

Appendix C: Online Survey Questions

1. Number of taps: 2. Amount of syrup produced this season (gallons): 3. Is that different from prior years? If so, by how much? 4. Number of full time employees (if any): 5. Equipment (check applicable boxes):

• Evaporator • Reverse Osmosis Unit • Sap Lines • Vacuum Pump • Steam Hood • Preheater • Forced Draft Unit • Tractor • Trucks

6. Brix value after RO (if applicable) 7. Evaporator model: 8. Fuel type (wood, oil, electricity): 9. Fuel consumed for sap/syrup transportation (if any): 10. Why did you choose your current evaporator (for example, wood vs. oil): 11. Fuel purchased this year (gallons, cords, etc.): 12. Is that different from prior years? If so, by how much? 13. Fuel consumed per gallon of syrup produced: 14. Approximately what percent of your total costs are due to electricity consumption? How

has that changed over the past 5 years? 15. When did you start tapping this year? How does that compare to last year? 16. When did your season end this year? How does that compare to last year? 17. What do you think may be driving these seasonal differences, if anything? 18. Where do you see your operation in 5 years? 19. Where do you see the Vermont maple industry in 5 years? 20. What is the next piece of energy efficiency technology you plan to invest in, if any? 21. Would you consider investing in an electric evaporator? Why or why not? 22. Are you aware of any government subsidies in place for energy efficiency equipment? If

so, have you taken advantage of any? Which ones? 23. What can Vermont do to support adoption of energy efficiency equipment?

37

Appendix D: Online Survey Responses to Key Questions

In the following section, please note that responses shaded in gray come from operations with oil-fired evaporators.

1. Why did you choose your current evaporator (for example, oil vs. wood)?

High-efficiency, airtight, can be shut off with a flip of a switch. Draw off is only on one side of the rig. Fuel oil is consistent in BTU output. Wood is variable in BTUs and it takes at least one extra person to fire it.

I bought the evaporator used from someone in New York in 2002 before I even had the sugarhouse built. I did not want to burn wood. I also never thought that I would have 3,145 taps in 2016

It was what the man who sold us the operation used.

Went with oil for the time saving; I work a full time job as well.

Much wood available on property

Wood because we have plenty available, and can process it ourselves. Quality of the unit and the service provided. Quality of syrup produced. Combustion efficiency.

Wood comes from trees on our property. Oil comes from the middle east. We chose wood over war.

Trying to be as green as possible. All wood is cut with a chainsaw but split and stacked by hand.

Efficiency in making syrup. Considerably less wood use, boil time use all resulting in very significant cost savings to make a gallon of syrup.

Wood was plentiful.

Prefer wood as long as I'm able to get in the woods to clean up down and dead trees to burn.

The family has always used wood.

We have the wood from thinning our sugar bush and from mother nature (trees blowing over, dying).

Very efficient. 500 gal of syrup/cord of wood at 15% Brix with a steam-away.

We chose wood to utilize a fuel source that we currently have. In addition, we chose the Vortex to be as energy efficient as possible and to reduce our wood consumption.

Oil boiling speed.

Tradition - we will use only wood.

38

2. Approximately what percent of your total costs are due to electricity consumption? How has that changed over the past five years?

Probably less than 2 percent. It has definitely increased as we have increased the size of the RO (600 to 1800 gal.) and other motors as well. My total electrical use is just less than 500 dollars in a year 400 is used in 60 days during the season.

16% of costs for electricity. Gone up a lot because in 2012 I had only 984 taps and now it is 3,145

25 percent. It is only our second year, but it is probably slightly higher this year than last year.

60 percent; it has increased 30 percent when green mountain power took over.

Elec. / gal about = $ 200. About the same

We generally spend about $1.25 - $1.50 per gallon of syrup produced for our electrical demand. So, about 5% of our cost to make 1 gallon of maple syrup. This has increased slightly recently now that we are using an electric canner to replace our propane unit.

7.50%

3-5%

75% likely because our wood cost for evaporator is very little and propane for finish pans is very little. But evaporator has blowers, the RO has big motors so we spend ~$300/yr. for electricity. So 30 cents/gallon of syrup in electricity.

10%

Don't know what percentage. Usually costs about $1200/year for electricity.

I don't know my total cost. Electricity consumption has gone down because in 2015 I put in a new vacuum pump with VFD.

Electricity costs are just under $1000/year. Not a lot of change over the past 5 years since we have had an RO and 2 vacuum pumps since 2008.

Less than 5%

I am unsure but we have added more electrical service to the sugarhouse so I know our electric consumption has increased.

Put 60 solar panels on sugar house; do not know

Probably around 5-10% of total cost. It's increased as we run vacuum pumps longer - this year spent $400 for vacuum pumps, $200 for RO, and $300 for heating RO room through the winter.

39

3. When did you start tapping this year? How does that compare to last year? When did your season end this year? How does that compare to last year? What do you think may be driving these seasonal differences, if anything?

● 29 Jan. Last year we started on 12 Feb ● Last year we finished on 11 April 15. This year was 24 Mar 16. ● Last year the Polar Vortex didn't allow sap flow to start until 23 March, it was bitterly cold. This year with El Niño and the bizarre weather swings we had to start early and fortunately got a better than average crop despite the early finish.

● Feb 8. I started Feb 10 last year ● April 1 this year. Last year, April 13 ● Different weather every single year

● We started January 12th. This is about a month earlier than last year because we had 11,000 more taps this year than last year. ● April 16th. This was a few days later than last season. ● Some seasonal differences are natural weather variances. Climate change is driving overall weather to be warmer and more bizarre.

● End of Jan. 3 weeks sooner. ● 4/16/2016 ● Weather

● Feb 15…same as last year ● Apr 5...same as last year ● Global warming?

● I started about 2/5/16. About a month earlier than 2015. First boil was 2/20/16 and in 2015 was 3/12. ● Our last boil was 3/31/16 and in 2015 was 4/16. ● A strong El Niño was certainly a factor this year, but overall the extreme variation in seasonal length and weather patterns during the season are being impacted by climate change.

● February 15th. Same ● 4/14. Earlier ● The weather is different every year.

● 2016 started tapping 1st week of Feb, 2015 last week of Feb ● 2016 Apr 16th, 2015 Apr 29th ● Earliest we have ever started, last few years have been somewhat close in start and stop dates. This year was a lot longer, lower sugar content in raw sap, and volumes were much larger.

● January 28, usually we tap ~ February 14th ● April 2, usually ends ~ April 24th ● Mother nature. Every year is completely different. No two are ever the same, but it is most interesting to me is that although every year is different, some years shorter than others,

40

warmer/ colder etc.…we seem to make the same amount of syrup. We had more taps this year but on averages I expect to make 1000 gallons and we made 994.

● Feb 12th. 1 week later but fewer taps ● April 2nd was 10 days earlier than last year. ● Mother nature

● End of January. a bit earlier than last year ● April 8. About the same as last year ● Global warming

● Mid-February, same ● April 2nd. Two weeks earlier than last two years ● Just mother nature doing her thing

● 2/9/16, Two weeks early ● 3/29/16. Earlier. ● I tapped two early, my tap holes and taps were plugging up with the warm weather.

● Feb 22nd. Same date as last year. Difference was that we had sap to boil by March 8th this year and we did not have sap until March 28th last year. ● April 18th. Same date as last year. ● No Response

● End of January. Boiled 3rd of February and done tapping by 8th of February. Last year started tapping. Started First week of February last year and finished 8th of March ● 4/15/2016. 4/17/2015 ● No Response

● Feb 15th. This was earlier than last year. ● Our season ended on April 7th. This was earlier than last year. ● Global warming.

● 2/5, same time ● 4/2, could have gone till 2/16 ans be same as last year. But price too low to make comment. ● Weather.

● February 7th - a week earlier than average ● March 23rd - 3.5 weeks earlier than last year and 2.5 weeks earlier than average ● temperatures are not consistent

4. Where do you see your operation in 5 years?

About the same as it is now. Presently my son (28) and I (59) are the labor force/ owner and operators. More than likely we will still be tapping the same number of trees as this seems to be a

41

comfortable size and works well with our diversified business.

At the same number of taps. 3,145 is all that I can handle without hiring people to do the extra work that more taps require. Besides, 3,145 taps is PLENTY.

Growing. Boiling all of our sap, and selling more retail syrup.

15,000 taps

Same...no increase

We are hoping to get to about 1000-1200 taps and to continue to grow our marketing and direct sales of high quality maple products. We retail 100% of our product.

Bigger

Will continue to grow in small increments.

About the same, maybe a few less taps. But making the same amount of syrup per tap.

About the same -- I am in the downsizing phase. I have no family interested in continuing at this time.

About the same as now.

Same

We may not be sugaring in 5 years because we will be in our seventies

We will be about the same production size, but will have expanded our retail operations so that we can retail 100% of our syrup every year.

25,000 taps

In a similar place.

Same size as this year. Add 300-400 taps a year; lose 300-400 taps a year.

Slightly larger and 30% more efficient

5. Where do you see the Vermont maple industry in 5 years?

Unfortunately I see the increase in mega operations, 100,000 plus taps. We are already seeing the decline in bulk prices due to 3 very good years in a row, 10 percent growth per year and we are not increasing our marketing at the same pace. It's easy for a producer once you have the infrastructure in place to put on more taps. Concentrate to a higher level and make more syrup.

A lot more syrup being produced

42

Growing. More large-scale operations.

Over production of syrup vs. the growth in the market.

Increasing in production

I suspect that we will continue to see an increase in total taps in production and perhaps in increase in the number of large bulk producers.

Bigger

Maple will continue to grow as people look for more natural products

More producers or in general just more taps for sure. But the cost of syrup should stay stable.

Bigger and more productive

Growing but most likely at a slower pace

?

With more marketing, in good shape

50% larger than it is today.

Growing at the steady rate it is with prices down unless Canadian dollar comes up.

I think there will be an increase in taps.

Overrun with syrup. Like milk

Struggling to sell the overproduction just like dairy farmers.

6. What is the next piece of energy efficiency technology you plan to invest in, if any?

Right now, it is a state of the art business. From LED light to the RO we are doing an incredible job. Making 35 gal/hr. on equipment designed for 9 gal/hr.

None. I have all the efficiency equipment that I can get.

Larger RO. Also, new and more powerful, energy efficient vacuum pump.

Not sure yet.

Would like to have electric gauge to really watch electricity use at sugarhouse

We are pretty well set for now with equipment. We may have to upgrade our vac. pump if we get to 1200 taps in which case we will go with a 3 phase higher cfm pump controlled by a VFD. This

43

is our current setup but we would need more CFM (cubic feet per minute) with more taps.

A bigger RO

More RO capability (due to volumes)

Maybe a bigger RO to allow for more efficient concentrating of the sap we have. We just purchased this year, likely, the most efficient evaporator on the market. It proved itself for sure.

Oil fired arch

None for the immediate future

None

At this time none

No plans.

A second RO

No we have already purchased a 3-phase vacuum pump, sealed LED lighting, RO, Steam-away, and Vortex.

VFDs on all vacuum pumps. Woods monitoring equipment

We have ordered a new evaporator to replace our 30-year-old rig. Adding a pre-heater and it will be more energy efficient with an airtight front.

7. Would you consider investing in an electric evaporator? Why or why not?

Probably not. Dominion and Grimm presently makes the ECO-VAP electric but it wouldn't be cost effective to switch. It also is a very non-traditional unit that doesn't impress me at this time.

No, too much money and too slow

Yes if it could produce enough syrup per hour to keep up with our sap flow. I know of one operation that is selling their electric evaporator because it is too slow.

No! Cost of power through GMP.

No...not looking to invest more money in operation

No. We have the wood resource and at our scale it does not make sense.

No. It takes the fun out of making maple syrup. Why would you want to stare at something that looks like a stainless steel coffin?

44

No, too expensive

No. The only complaint of I have about some of the industry is the automation of the processing of maple syrup. I am somewhat of a traditionalist and so feeding the evaporator with wood is what we will always do.

Rates for power too high

Needs more research and in the field use/reports.

Maybe. Need more info

NO because in our operation wood is the best renewable energy source.

Have not considered it.

No. My uncle owns the first one in the state and it is very slow. They have a tough time doing 1 barrel/hr. May use little electricity, but you need to factor in boiling time

No. They are expensive and we just purchased our Vortex 3 years ago.

No: not as good of a deal in Vermont as in Quebec. Power is cheaper in Quebec. Expensive in VT. Need 400 amp. service. My power company would not do. Still on #8 copper line from 1930.

Probably not, but it is sure intriguing. We do not have access to 3-phase power, and at this point it's too new age for an old sugar maker like me.

8. Are you aware of any government subsidies in place for energy efficiency equipment? If so, have you taken advantage of any? Which ones?

I have worked with Efficiency Vermont on 2 occasions. Purchasing my RO, l received a 9,000 dollar grant and update my light and cut my costs they paid about 2/3 of the 600 dollar tab.

Yes. I applied for and got approved for a grant to purchase a larger RO machine

Yes. Efficiency Vermont offers rebates for RO and other things like lighting in sugarhouses, and Vermont Electric Coop offers rebates for DG Eco-vaps I believe.

Yes and yes, anew RO and a steam-away pan.

Yes...purchased RO machine 5 years ago with grant assistance

I am aware. I did apply for an NRCS grant for an RO when we were looking to purchase one but it did not pan out. We bought a used unit. I looked into rebates (VT) for the two VFDs we are using but they are too small.

Yes. I do not believe in them. If you are not smart enough to figure out that the new more

45

efficient equipment pays for itself you deserve to go out of business.

I am aware

Yes, but they always are for people that are about to buy new equipment, never for after purchase items...They have had them for RO's, preheaters

Something for RO. Have not

I am aware but have not taken advantage

Yes. No.

Yes. No because it is for first time purchases and I had my stuff before the programs became available.

We have gotten rebates from Efficiency Vermont for lights. Could not get a grant for our RO since we purchased before the grants were available.

Vacuum pump, RO, Efficiency VT though, not sure if that is government.

No we are not aware of the subsidies and therefore haven't taken advantage of them.

New RO and steam pan

Yes aware - no haven't sucked from the government teat

9. What can Vermont do to support adoption of energy efficiency equipment?

The most important part of change is education. I do see Eff. Vt. at some trade shows not so much at the maple schools, one of which is in Middlebury at the High School. If you can convince a sugar maker that spending 20,000-30,000 dollars will make it easier and more profitable will be difficult. Especially with declining bulk prices.

Tough question with no simple answer

More subsidies, rebates. Maybe offer free sugarhouse visits to evaluate potential for improvement of bottom line and energy efficiency.

Keep giving energy efficiency grants.

Slow down...over production in effect now! Price decline for wholesale syrup warrants it.

I think the state has a pretty decent program going through Efficiency Vermont. I do think there could be more opportunities for low interest loans. And there could certainly be more outreach and education to producers regarding available programs and equipment.

Get out of subsidizing wealthy sugar makers and let the market figure it out. Also see previous

46

answer, as it is appropriate here as well. By subsidizing the purchase of new equipment you just drive up the profits of the manufacturers and make equipment prices higher in the long run. It is simple economics. Government involvement will turn maple into the dairy business and eventually everyone will need price supports. Then bad farmers stay in business. Again look at the dairy industry.

I am looking to increase my RO capacity; this would help reduce my boil times.

Allow grant money or rebate for purchases for sugarhouses that are showing they are trying to be as efficient as possible.

Grants and subsidies are usual programs

Promote energy audits

The first thing they can do is make money available to help sugar makers who want to replace existing equipment with more energy efficient models instead of just supporting first time purchases.

Get the information out to sugar makers. Let us know where and how we can save energy.

Should get more sugar makers collecting steam from their steam-away and pumping it into insulated bulk tanks. Holds heat for days

Have rebates than can happen after you have already purchased the equipment with a simple paperwork process

We pay enough taxes. And jump through hoops -- do not need VT’s help.

Educate sugar makers and support marketing efforts so the price stays at a level where we can afford to upgrade. We are standing at the crossroads - should the industry embrace production technology and promote expansion at the risk of losing our identity as a traditional craft made product? Should big operations be the norm and squeeze out little guys as demand decreases and packers contract with producers as sole suppliers? Maple Grove isn't buying, Butternut Farm isn't buying from new sources. It's not a pretty future.

47

10. Works Cited 10.1 Interviews Baker, Bill. “Interview with Maple Sugar Mountain.” Telephone Interview. 11 April 2016. Baird, Robert. “Interview with Baird Farm.” Personal interview. 5 March 2016. Gadhue, Tom. “Meeting with Solar Sweet Farm.” Field trip. 17 March 2016. Hastings, Kenn. “Interview with Breadloaf View Farm.” Personal Interview. 4 March 2016. Marvin, David and Emma Marvin. “Interview with Butternut Mountain Farm.” Personal interview. 24 March 2016. Morse, Burr. “Interview with Morse Farm.” Personal Interview. 7 April 2016. 10.2 Other Sources “Alternative Fuels for Evaporators.” Farming, the Journal of Northeast Agriculture. August 2009. Accessed April 10, 2016. https://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc/wilmot_fuels.pdf. Bascom Maple Farms. “Evaporators.” Accessed May 16, 2016. https://www.bascommaple.com/category/evaporators/. Bascom Maple Farms. “Reverse Osmosis.” Accessed May 16, 2016. https://www.bascommaple.com/category/reverse_osmosis/. Bascom Maple Farms. “Steam-Away Pans.” Accessed May 16, 2016. https://www.bascommaple.com/category/steam_away_pans/. Becot, Florence, Jane Kolodinsky and David Conner. “The Economic Contribution of the Vermont Maple Industry.” University of Vermont Center for Rural Studies. August 2015. Accessed April 12, 2016. http://vermontmaple.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Maple-Producer-Economic-Contribution-Report_final.pdf. Brown, Sarah. “Global Warming Pushes Maple Trees, Syrup to the Brink.” The Plate: National Geographic. December 2, 2015. Accessed May 16, 2016. http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/02/global-warming-pushes-maple-trees-syrup-to-the-brink/. Cornell University Maple Research Extension Program. “The Life of a Sugar Maple Tree.” Accessed April 12, 2016. http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu/pubs/trees.htm. Duchesne, Louis, Daniel Houle, Marc-André Côté, and Travis Logan. “Modelling the Effect of

48

Climate on Maple Syrup Production in Québec, Canada.” Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2015): 2683–89. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.035. Farm to Plate. “Energy.” Accessed May 16, 2016. http://www.vtfarmtoplate.com/network/energy. Farm to Plate. “Maple Syrup.” May 2013. Accessed April 13, 2016. http://www.vtfarmtoplate.com/plan/chapter/maple-syrup. Farrell, Michael L., and Brian F. Chabot. “Assessing the Growth Potential and Economic Impact of the U.S. Maple Syrup Industry.” Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 2 (2011): 11–27. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2012.022.009. Farrell, Michael L., and Richard C. Stedman. “Landowner Attitudes Toward Maple Syrup Production in the Northern Forest: A Survey of Forest Owners with [Greater-Than Or Equal To]100 Acres in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont.” Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 30 (2013): 184–87. Godman, Richard M., Harry W. Yawney, and Carl H. Tubbs. “Sugar Maple: acer saccharum.” Northeastern Area: State and Private Forestry. Accessed April 15, 2016. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/acer/saccharum.htm. Gorelick, Steven. “Branding Tradition: A Bittersweet Tale of Corporate Capitalism.” Local Futures, Economics of Happiness. February 5, 2016. Accessed April 11, 2016. http://www.localfutures.org/thank-you-vermont-a-bittersweet-tale/. Green Mountain Power. “Community Energy & Efficiency Development Fund (CEED Fund).” Accessed May 1, 2016. http://www.greenmountainpower.com/innovative/ceed_fund/. Gregg, Peter. "EcoVap Electric Evaporator Catching On." The Maple News. June 2014. May 9, 2016. https://www.themaplenews.com/story/ecovap-electric-evaporator-catching-on/64/. Houle, Daniel, Alain Paquette, Benoît Côté, Travis Logan, Hugues Power, Isabelle Charron, and Louis Duchesne. “Impacts of Climate Change on the Timing of the Production Season of Maple Syrup in Eastern Canada.” PLoS One 10 (2015). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144844. “Innovation révolutionnaire: De sirop d’érable à sirop durable.” Ecotech Quebec. March 11, 2014. Accessed March 23, 2016. http://www.ecotechquebec.com/ecominute/ article/2014/03/innovation-revolutionnaire-de-sirop-d-erable-a-sirop-durable/. Iverson, Louis R., and Anantha M. Prasad. “Potential Redistribution of Tree Species Habitat under Five Climate Change Scenarios in the Eastern U.S..” Forest Ecology and Management 155 (2002): 205–22. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00559-X.

49

Leader Evaporator. “Steam-Away.” Accessed May 16, 2016. https://www.leaderevaporator.com/pdf_files/steamaway.pdf. “L’Ecovap, un évaporateur prometteur.” Le Coopérateur agricole. December 2013. Accessed March 23, 2016. http://www.lacoop.coop/cooperateur/articles/2013/11/p58.asp. Les Equipments d’Erabiliere CDL Inc. “User’s Manual: The Furnace Deluxe Oil Evaporators.” http://www.cdlusa.net/Data/Sites/8/media/owners-manual-oil-evaporator.pdf. Massachusetts Farm Energy Program. “Massachusetts Farm Energy Best Management Practices for Maple Sugaring.” 2012. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/agr/programs/energy/energy-bmp-maple.pdf. Natural Resources Conservation Service Vermont, United States Department of Agriculture. “Vermont EQIP Information Overview.” Accessed May 1. 2016. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/vt/energy/?cid=nrcs142p2_010526. Nystrom, Scott. “The Economic, Fiscal, Emissions, and Demographic Implications from a Carbon Price Policy in Vermont.” Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI). November 13, 2014. Accessed May 1, 2016. http://www.energyindependentvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/REMI_Final.pdf. Pellerin, Catherine. “Un évaporateur électrique: une innovation payante et écologique pour les acériculteurs.” CIMT. April 18, 2013. Accessed March 23, 2016. http://cimt.teleinterrives.com/nouvelleRegional_Un_evaporateur_electrique_une_innovation_payante_et_ecologique_pour_les_acericulteurs-5226. Pelletier, Louis. “Du sirop d’érable grâce à un évaporateur électrique.” L’Express Montcalm. February 9, 2013. Accessed March 23, 2016. http://www.lexpressmontcalm.com/Actualites/2013-02-09/article-3173643/Du-sirop-derable-grace-a-un-evaporateur-electrique/1. “Rebates Available for Vermont Maple Sugar Makers to Save Energy.” Efficiency Vermont. April 7, 2016. May 1, 2016. https://www.efficiencyvermont.com/news-blog/news/rebates-available-for-vermont-maple-sugar-makers-to-save-energy. Shields, Kirk. “Proposal for: Vermont Enhanced Maple Sap Preheater Program.” Green Mountain Power. August 21, 2015. Accessed May 1, 2016. http://www.greenmountainpower.com/upload/photos/371EnSave_-_Maple_Sap_Preheater_Program_Kirk_Shields.pdf. Skinner, Christopher B., Arthur T. DeGaetano, and Brian F. Chabot. “Implications of Twenty-First Century Climate Change on Northeastern United States Maple Syrup Production: Impacts and Adaptations.” Climatic Change 100 (2009): 685–702. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9685-0.

50

Trichur, Rita. “Quebec: Maple Syrup’s Strategic Reserve.” The Globe and Mail. August 23, 2012. Accessed April 15, 2016. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/quebec-maple-syrups-strategic-reserve/article575625/. Tufts Office of Sustainability. "Carbon Sequestration." Accessed May 16, 2016. http://sustainability.tufts.edu/carbon-sequestration/. University of Vermont Libraries and the Agriculture Network Information Center. “Maple History Timeline.” Accessed April 8, 2016. http://library.uvm.edu/maple/history/timeline.php. United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development. “Rural Energy for America Program Renewable Energy Systems & Energy Efficiency Improvement Loans & Grants.” Accessed May 16, 2016. http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-energy-america-program-renewable-energy-systems-energy-efficiency. U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Method for Calculating Carbon Sequestration by Trees in Urban and Suburban Settings." 1998. May 16, 2016. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/method-calculating-carbon-sequestration-trees-urban-and-suburban-settings.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases: Carbon Dioxide.” Accessed May 16, 2016. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html. UVM Tourism. “The Vermont Travel and Tourism Industry - 2013.” Vermont Department of Tourism & Marketing. December 2014. Accessed April 13, 2016. http://www.uvm.edu/tourismresearch/publications/Tourism_Industry_Fact_Sheet_2013.pdf. Van Den Berg, Abby, Timothy Perkins, Mark Isselhardt, and University of Vermont Proctor Maple Research Center. "Effects of Sap Concentration with Reverse Osmosis on Syrup Composition and Flavor." Maple Digest 54.3 (2015): 12-33. Accessed May 16, 2016. http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc/Effects%20of%20RO%20on%20syrup%20-%20van%20den%20Berg%202015.pdf. “Vermont Electric Cooperative Launches New Program to Reduce Carbon and Reduce Costs in Maple Sugaring Operations.” Vermont Electric Cooperative. December 18, 2015. Accessed May 1, 2016. http://www.vermontelectric.coop/press-releases/617--vermont-electric-cooperative-launches-new-program-to-reduce-carbon-and-reduce-costs-in-maple-sugaring-operations. Vermont Natural Resources Council. “Energy and Climate Action.” Accessed May 16, 2016. http://vnrc.org/programs/energy-climate-action/. Wilmot, Tim. “When Tapping, Don’t Disregard Red Maple.” Northern Woodlands. March 1, 2010. Accessed April 14, 2016. http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/when-tapping-dont-disregard-red-maple. “2x8 Evaporator Prices.” MapleTrader.com. September 21, 2012. Accessed May 16, 2016. http://mapletrader.com/community/showthread.php?17699-2x8-Evaporator-Prices.