Lawsuit challenges EPA's Tailoring Rule biomass deferment

By Lisa Gibson | August 16, 2011

A lawsuit filed recently by a number of conservation groups challenges the U.S. EPA’s three-year deferral of biogenic emissions under the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. The agency has said it will use that three-year period to further study and understand the science behind emissions from sources such as woody biomass when they are used to create energy.

The groups that filed suit—Georgia ForestWatch, Wild Virginia, the Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resources Council of Maine—argue that increased demand for wood fuel from existing and proposed biomass power plants could exceed the supply of available wood waste, leading to the cutting of standing trees. The groups also cite concerns about the more rapid release of carbon from burned wood versus decomposed.

“This is an important issue for the (biomass power) industry,” said Bob Cleaves, president and CEO of the Biomass Power Association. “As the association that represents the biomass-to-electricity sector across the country, our industry is deeply concerned about the challenge to the regulation promulgated by EPA, which we think was appropriate and responsible, that gives EPA the science that it needs to make the right regulatory decision.” The litigation filed by the conservation groups is a threat to the biomass industry, he added.

“Like the BPA, we are very disappointed to see yet another effort to use litigation to contravene in a process which we support,” said Dave Tenny, president and CEO of the National Alliance of Forest Owners. NAFO supports the scientific review EPA is conducting and will intervene in the litigation to defend EPA’s position and process, he said.

American Forest & Paper Association President and CEO Donna Harman also weighed in on the litigation, saying the treatment of biomass emissions like fossil fuel emissions threatens beneficial investments in biomass energy upgrades at paper and wood products mills throughout the country. On average, paper and wood products mills generate two-thirds of their energy from biomass, she added.

In fact, the U.S. has been using timber from its forests for a variety of uses, including renewable energy, for the past 60 years, Tenny said, removing a total of around 847 billion cubic feet. “Not withstanding that use and because of that use, today, our forests have 50 percent more carbon in them than they did 60 years ago.” That suggests a direct positive correlation between using forests for societal needs and the forests’ ability to capture and store carbon, he said.

Currently, biomass comprises 50 percent of the country’s renewable portfolio. “Because biomass has been such a successful part of our renewable energy portfolio, it’s not surprising that the U.S. would want to seek a policy that continues to build on that success,” Tenny said.




5 Responses

  1. Sandy



    You have shed a ray of susnhnie into the forum. Thanks!

  2. Paul Bunyan



  3. Dan Whiting



    For more information on the science, visit Dan Whiting National Alliance of Forest Owners

  4. Bill



    So what exactly is wrong with burning whole trees for energy? I do it all winter at my home. Whole trees are used for all sorts of products, why not energy? As long as sustainable forest management is used to produce forest products, whether the product is lumber, paper, or electricity is not that important. Alice, does your argument apply to the attorneys for the litigants? They certainly have an economic interest in the matter.

  5. Penny



    Living in Washington State we have rules against using outdoor Water stoves and it is crazy. The amount of forest fires here put out more emissions in the air than stoves would. The state has so much energy in the already fallen trees that is being wasted. I'm not so big on the cutting of healthy trees but using what is already ruined.....why not?? This is the evergreen state:-)


    Leave a Reply

    Biomass Magazine encourages encourages civil conversation and debate. However, we reserve the right to delete comments for reasons including but not limited to: any type of attack, injurious statements, profanity, business solicitations or other advertising.

    Comments are closed