&nbsp;We know the struggles that California&rsquo;s biomass industry has been facing (if you don&rsquo;t, read <a href="http://biomassmagazine.com/blog/article/2016/01/californiaundefineds-biomass-debacle-part-3">this</a>, <a href="http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/13059/staving-off-a-sunset">this</a>, <a href="http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/12316/californias-homeless-biomass-problem">this</a> and&hellip;<a href="http://biomassmagazine.com/blog/article/2016/07/mobile-incinerator-blues">this</a>).
Although ultimately not a panacea, a <a href="http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/13650/california-cap-and-trade-expenditure-deal-benefits-biomass">recently passed bill</a> should help.
A couple of weeks ago, we learned that Burney Forest Power, a 31&ndash;MW biomass plant in Burney, California, would be the next plant to bite the dust. Not only that, but with its idling, it would send a neighboring sawmill up the creek without a paddle. A local newspaper reported that it had learned that the sawmill had been given notice by Burney, purchaser of the mill&rsquo;s wood waste products and supplier of the steam used in its kilns, would have to close in a month. And for the same reason of demise as those before it&mdash;the inability to secure an adequate power purchase agreement with a utility.
Then, a week later, <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0851-0900/sb_859_bill_20160831_amended_asm_v94.pdf">SB 859</a> was passed. &nbsp;
What does it do? 
Well, as part of the cap-and-trade expenditure plan, the meat of the bill, electricity retailers are required to enter into five-year contracts for 125 MW of biomass power from facilities (built before 2013) that generate energy from wood harvested from high fire hazard zones. Note that is a collective 125 MW.
The California Bioenergy Association said&mdash;besides the obvious benefits of forest management and GHG reductions&mdash;it will help provide certainty to some in the biomass industry. And our friends over at the Biomass Power Association reiterated this, and said their glad to see this support for the industry.
But is it enough?
Let&rsquo;s say the average-sized plant is 25 MW&hellip;it could help five plants stay operating for five more years. And I believe five is roughly one-fifth (or less) of the plants still operating today. And, the number of plants operating today is about one-third that it was in the 1980s (63, verses less than 25).
So, on whether it is enough&mdash;it likely isn&rsquo;t, especially for the long-term. But for now, it&rsquo;s something, a good start, and perhaps it sets an example for Maine, which has an industry that&rsquo;s facing similar issues.
&nbsp;
*Note, previously I wrote the mill was Sierra Pacific Industries, which it is not. My apologies for the mix-up. 
&nbsp;

Under California's SB 859, electricity retailers are required to enter into five-year contracts for 125 MW of biomass power from facilities built before 2013 that generate energy from wood harvested from high fire hazard zones.

Throwing California Biomass a Lifeline

Related Stories

CalBio expands Mainspring Linear Generator operations to 5.3 MW across 5 California sites

US Forest Service announces funding opportunity to strengthen forest products economy, forest sector jobs

EIA predicts slight increase in biomass power capacity for 2027

Biomass innovators to pitch before investor panel at International Biomass Conference & Expo

Drax acquires asset optimization platform

Upcoming Events

2026 International Biomass Conference & Expo

Throwing California Biomass a Lifeline.css-7jxktu{position:absolute;bottom:0px;left:0px;right:0px;height:3px;border-radius:3px;background-color:var(--chakra-colors-brandBlack);}