As I looked at the table of contents for this issue of Biomass Magazine, what really stood out to me was the variety of stories. From project developers working with utilities, loggers, contractors, technology providers and regulators to get plants built, to security software developers and emissions permitting guidance and the list goes on. There are so many different components; a vast network of moving pieces that nobody thinks about when they turn on the lights. It&rsquo;s pretty remarkable. Aligning with that theme of collaboration, in June, I attended my first in-person event since before the pandemic&mdash;the Pellet Fuels Institute Annual Conference in Louisville, Kentucky. There, makers of fuel and BBQ pellets, process components such as dryers, pellet appliance manufacturers, shop owners and more, gathered to review, plan and strategize. You&rsquo;ll find a review of the event, &ldquo;Help Wanted,&rdquo; on page 18. Our second feature article, &ldquo;On Fire,&rdquo; is somewhat of a follow up on a story I wrote back in 2017, in which I discussed the BioMAT and BioRAM programs in California. They were supposed to be streamlined in response to the rampant wildfires and drought conditions that have become an awful normal for the state, but despite the governor&rsquo;s emergency order nearly eight years ago, they simply weren&rsquo;t. Perhaps &ldquo;couldn&rsquo;t be&rdquo; is more accurate,&nbsp; but I think that depends on who you ask. In short, these programs have been designed to help get high-hazard zone material out of the forests and to facilities that can make use of them. It has been a pretty painstaking progress getting steel in the ground, I have been told, but with first-of-their kind projects, particularly in regulation-heavy states like California, that&rsquo;s no surprise. What&rsquo;s exciting is that for these first projects, the end is in sight. And while it might seem like a drop in the bucket considering the severity of the situation, what&rsquo;s significant is that those involved have learned what works and what does not, and there will finally be tangible examples to point to. As Todd Sloat, a codeveloper of the Burney-Hat bioenergy project said, &ldquo;I think we&rsquo;re finally starting to see a lot of movement. There is a model that has been difficult to figure out ... &ldquo; There is a lot more packed into this issue&mdash;contributions covering topics including chip and residual prices, safeguarding against cyber-attacks, supporting women in forestry, emissions permitting tips, and technology and expert commentary on fire and explosion-related matters. We hope you enjoy the versatility&mdash;that&rsquo;s just the nature of this great industry. Author: Anna Simet Editor, Biomass Magazine asimet@bbiinternational.com

2021/07/Anna-Simet-2018_16267213533273_largethumb.jpg

2021/07/Anna-Simet-2018_16267213533273_thumb.jpg

2021/07/Anna-Simet-2018_16267213533273.jpg

It Takes a Village

February 2020 was the driest February on record in California. Just one-fifth of an inch of precipitation fell, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data. January/February were the second driest on record&mdash;in the thick of the state&rsquo;s &ldquo;rainy season&rdquo;&mdash;and it&rsquo;s no coincidence the worst wildfires in recorded history followed. Scientific consensus is that not only less precipitation is falling, but the rainy season has progressively started later each year, now about a month after it did 60 years ago. These climate trend changes, according to researchers, are exacerbating droughts, the ripple effects of which include wildfires of an unprecedented caliber, and adverse water shortage effects on the environment and economy. In mid-June of this year, the National Weather Service warned of a record-breaking and dangerous heat wave in the Pacific Northwest, spurring thunderstorms and high winds in areas already under reg flag warnings, perfect conditions to spark wildfires.
All this turmoil further emphasizes the need to treat forests and remove high-hazard material&mdash;dead and dying trees&mdash;a topic that has garnered much attention over the years, but overall seen little execution, for many reasons. A concept that seems straightforward is quite the opposite; it is a complicated, costly puzzle that foresters, project developers, state leaders, technology providers, loggers and others have been working to piece together.
One of the greatest challenges to developing bioenergy from woody biomass, particularly in this scenario, is the high cost. Current market-based pricing mechanisms for electricity, transportation and waste management do not fully cover the cost to collect and transport biomass feedstock to the site of utilization, according to Cal Fire, the organization charged with protecting the long-term health and productivity of California&rsquo;s forestlands. That hindrance, coupled with the fact that those pricing mechanisms have not adequately monetized the nonmarket benefits to local communities and the state, as well as regulatory requirements complexities inhibiting financial investments, have stymied progress. Moving Forward According to Cal Fire&rsquo;s tally, more than 4.2 million acres burned in the 9,900-plus incidents that occurred in 2020, with 33 fatalities and greater than 10,000 structures damaged or destroyed by the fires. The organization is a backer of forest biomass for energy and all the components it brings to the table: renewable energy, greenhouse gas reductions, forest health and adaptation, wildfire and habitat protection and job creation in rural economies. Justin Britton, Calfire division chief, tells Biomass Magazine that CalFire has high hopes for its new wood products and bioenergy program, which he says was initiated about a year ago.
Britton, who has a degree in forestry and masters in forest ecology, says there aren&rsquo;t many success stories to point to yet, as the program is in its infancy, but that Cal Fire is in the process of building out its program guidelines and procedures, with intentions of a solicitation later this summer.&nbsp; Britton agrees that cost is a project prohibitor, as biomass often can&rsquo;t compete with cheaper fuels like natural gas. &ldquo;Programs like BioRAM and BioMAT help adjust the rates to make it more competitive, but that gets passed to ratepayers,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;California pays more for power than anywhere else, for that reason. That&rsquo;s a challenge, but these programs are assuming that the cost of getting that material out of the woods and processing it is worth the benefits like wildfire avoidance, forest health improvement, and the economic benefits. It&rsquo;s a time to shine for biomass and other wood processing in general, because everyone has recognized the fact that we need to manage our forests. If we have markets and outlets for that material, the forest management will happen.&rdquo;
Britton highlights the difficult regulatory environment in California, which also slows down progress. &ldquo;You&rsquo;re looking at a few years, and on the investment side, you have raising capital and secure supply agreements. From what I have heard, everyone wants the supply agreements for the length of time the facility is going to be operational, but it&rsquo;s really hard to get that, to guarantee that supply. And oftentimes, they&rsquo;re relying on supply from both public and private sources. That&rsquo;s one of the biggest hurdles.&rdquo;
Britton says there are initiatives underway to include small sawmills with biomass facilities, which would not only process more material, but provide an economical source of feedstock for the biomass plant. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a win-win in that sort of campus approach, and it&rsquo;s what we would love to see,&rdquo; he says, adding that looking ahead, recent funding announcements made by the state would provide access to ample funding with low-interest financing, which will hopefully jump-start projects or get them over the finish line to begin moving material. &ldquo;What we ultimately want to see are good plans for facilities to be sustainable [after the grant period, if applicable] so they can continue to have an impact.&rdquo;
Britton says 2020 was a very impactful year in California when it comes to recognition of the urgent matter of managing the forests. &ldquo;It didn&rsquo;t matter where you were in the state, you were breathing smoke all summer long,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;The need to do something became very real for a lot of people. If we don&rsquo;t do something, we&rsquo;ll be breathing smoke. With the federal support coming out in favor of forest management across the state, even though they may not know exactly what the &lsquo;right&rsquo; something is, they have to rely on the professionals who do. We&rsquo;re being called on to make a difference, and it&rsquo;s going to be a positive difference for the state&rsquo;s forests, hopefully well past my tenure. It&rsquo;s an exciting time, and hopefully we&rsquo;ll be able to point to a lot of success stories moving forward.&rdquo;
Britton reiterates that most often, the conversation circles back to cost, which varies per acre across the state according to conditions of the landscape. Very little data has been available in terms of actual process and transportation costs, but those vested in the issue have been trying to change that. Recently, a detailed study was done on exactly that&mdash;federal forest restoration with wood utilization, costs in the northern Sierra Nevada. Looking at Cost Camille Swezy, forester, completed the study, &ldquo;Linking Federal Forest Restoration with Wood Utilization: Modeling Biomass Prices and Analyzing Forest Restoration Costs in the Northern Sierra Nevada,&rdquo; as part of her master&rsquo;s degree. She says that despite all the efforts to make biomass energy happen&mdash;BioRAM and BioMAT&mdash;as well as state and federal-level policies to treat landscapes and increase scale, nobody has numbers to show what it actually costs to get it from the land that requires treatment to the point of use. &ldquo;I hear about prices that cogens would pay for material, but there isn&rsquo;t any proof that they&rsquo;re actually sourcing material from the landscapes in need of being thinning,&rdquo; she says.
So why not simply cut it down and haul it to a power plant? &ldquo;That would be great&mdash;if we could afford it,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;Everybody knows biomass is expensive, but on top of that, there&rsquo;s the cost of logging and size reduction, and all the overhead costs a contractor has to pay. Ideally, we could get it out and to a cogen facility, but in examples such as my area&mdash;close to the Honey Lake power plant&mdash;they can&rsquo;t take that much material, even though it&rsquo;s a pretty sizeable plant. I work for a chipper operator in this area and we&rsquo;re on a monthly quota for how many loads we can do, and we&rsquo;re only working on forest restoration-type projects, so it&rsquo;s not so simple.
The objective of the Swezy&rsquo;s study was to identify costs of forest restoration treatments on federally managed land in the Northern Sierra, evaluating several harvest scenarios and transportation distances, and also to gain an understanding of what market prices for biomass have to be in order to support restoration and bioenergy efforts.
In summary, findings were that biomass harvest, chip and hauling costs were wildly ranging&mdash;from $55 per bone dry ton up to $118, depending on the scenario. For restoration activities such as mechanical fuels reduction in the Sierra Nevada region, costs can range from $300 to $1,200 per acre. The study specifically evaluates Crescent Mills Campus, an integrated product campus in Plumas County, which has a purpose of accepting biomass material and generating value-added products for bioenergy and other wood products. A 3-MW BioMAT facility is planned for development on-site. Based on this example, generalized conclusions were that for a contractor to cut, skid, chip and haul the biomass, it equates to about $71 per bone dry ton (BDT), considering necessary profit, overhead and contingency to the contractor. This price that isn&rsquo;t feasible; currently, the study finds, small-scale systems in the BioMAT program will find economics difficult at more than $40 per BDT. Higher contract prices in programs like BioMAT and BioRAM could help, Swezy says, but it may not be feasible to get them any higher without a substantial subsidy or payment. However, she emphasizes it&rsquo;s important to recognize the point isn&rsquo;t just for renewable energy, but for all the other benefits. &nbsp;
The study finds that &ldquo;the cost of harvesting, chipping, and hauling biomass (particularly in the absence of integrated harvesting) far exceeds the market prices for this material, and without proper investment in forest health, restoration work on USFS landscapes will not get done at a pace and scale that matches statewide or national goals.&rdquo; That pace has been set at treating one million acres per year by 2025.
The study&rsquo;s final conclusion is that the gap between costs of forest restoration and current market prices for delivered biomass suggest that local contractors should be further engaged in regional conversations about the need to increase the pace and scale of forest restoration on the landscape, as &ldquo;those who will be performing this work across the landscape are a critical stakeholder group.&rdquo;
For the Burney Mountain Hat-Creek Bioenergy and North Fork Community Power, time, patience, collaboration and strategy have been critical to getting off the ground. Both projects are BioMAT program participants. Todd Sloat, a wetlands ecologist by trade but leading the Burney-Hat project, agrees with Swezy&rsquo;s remarks about the cost being the crux of the issue. &ldquo;Especially if it&rsquo;s just feedstock and no saw logs associated with it ... there is a lot of fuel that needs to be removed, and having a business entity that can do that and keep that going on a regular basis is challenge, he says.
End of the Tunnel The Burney-Hat project is part of a cluster project resulting from a collaborative formed in 2009, Sloat says. &ldquo;At the time, we lost Burney Mountain Power and Big Valley Lumber Company, and it was clear that losing this infrastructure was having a negative effect on many of our partners who treated acres on the landscape&mdash;the opposite trend that should have been happening.&rdquo;
After working with partners in the Resource Conservation District, a grant allowed initial assessments to evaluate the possibility of some small-scale bioenergy facilities. &ldquo;We also looked at reviving some large-scale facilities but didn&rsquo;t have much success finding a site,&rdquo; Sloat says. &ldquo;At that time, the BioMAT program had been developed and we looked at as favorable.&rdquo;
After securing a Wood Innovation Grant from the Forest Service, the team advocated for a bioenergy cluster project that would involve the development and location of three or four systems ranging from 3 to 5 MW. The first has secured a power purchase agreement, according to Sloat, and purchased a portion of its equipment. Construction is expected to begin in the fall. &ldquo;The second entity is getting ready to submit a Conditional Use Permit,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ll continue to search for one other site, if not two. We have a couple of sites identified, but those [projects] are in earlier stages. We&rsquo;ll keep working on them as long as BioMAT is still going, and that there is allocation for forest feedstock.&rdquo;
Sloat says that while it has taken a long time for BioMAT projects to get off the ground, he believes it is a viable program. &ldquo;I think we&rsquo;re finally starting to see a lot of movement. There is a model that has been difficult to figure out&mdash;related to a public-private partnership whereby a private entity develops the facility in partnership with the Forest Service&mdash;and that might be a small sawmill and a biofuels or bioenergy facility. Until we really get that model going to scale, something that can be duplicated, we&rsquo;ll struggle to get to the pace of scale we want to treat, and the number of acres that needs to be treated. Even then, it could still be challenging because of the capital and new technology involved. To me, a small sawmill with cogeneration is still the best solution for somebody completely surrounded by federal ground.&rdquo;
For Greg Stangl, CEO of Phoenix Energy, development of its 3-MW bioenergy plant in North Fork, has been &ldquo;a crazy adventure&mdash;just mind-numbingly crazy,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;It saddens me that it took this long to get here, when seven years ago they said this is an emergency, but the hopeful tone here is that we have finally seemed to remove the structural barriers to rolling this out.&rdquo;
&nbsp;That series of hurdles included, but was not limited to, complications on the utility side of the equation, and&mdash;ironically&mdash;the exact driving force of the project: wildfires. &ldquo;During last year&rsquo;s fire season, the Forest Service ended up taking over our property to serve as the fire basis for the area,&rdquo; Stangl says. &ldquo;We were glad to do that, but I have to joke about this&mdash;I mean, you have got to be kidding me. Now we can&rsquo;t work, because we have a bunch of fire trucks on the construction site.&rdquo;
An arduous finance process and the pandemic were also factors, although the project&rsquo;s timing just slightly outpaced a potentially lengthy delay. &ldquo;I am surprised at how impactful COVID-19 has been on the whole supply chain,&rdquo; Stangl says. &ldquo;We completed financing right before covid became very real. Had it happened two or three months earlier, we never would have pulled this off. We closed financing in December.&rdquo;
Stangl says when it comes to project finance, bank debt in particular has seemed to take a promising turn, which could help projects get built more quickly. &ldquo;I had three offers for bank debt on the next project&mdash;out of the projects I have worked on, I have never had that many offers at the same time. When did our first [non-BioMAT] project, we had to use some crazy government lending program for recycling to make it happen, and now we just go to regular banks. So that is a meaningful change. To me, that is a hopeful sign that the markets are there, and that finally, we seem to have removed most of the obstacles.
In other words, the log jam seems to have broken, from Stangl&rsquo;s perspective. &ldquo;I sure hope so, because yet again, we&rsquo;re one more year in and again telling people this is going to be our year. But one challenge we have is the equity markets. We have great access to debt, but poor access to equity capital, and I think a lot of that is owing to the fact that it is so many years later, and there are still no projects. We have been doing this for years, and we are in construction on the very first one; it&rsquo;s not even running yet.&rdquo;
Stangl says his team is aiming to reach financial close on another project in a couple of months, a positive indicator of a shift in projects&rsquo; development pace. &ldquo;However, we&rsquo;re still at the rate of one project every other year,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;If you look at how we started, we built in 2011 and then 2013, and then they created the BioMAT program, and we didn&rsquo;t build again until now.&rdquo;
As for the issue of BioMAT contract prices, Stangl has a fresh perspective: they are enough, and developers need to get creative with their feedstock processing models. &ldquo;Let&rsquo;s be honest, if you can&rsquo;t make money in the power business at 19.972 cents, then you probably shouldn&rsquo;t be making power,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s a high price. I&rsquo;m not saying there isn&rsquo;t a template for higher prices, but higher prices kind of annoy citizens, which is something to cognizant of.&rdquo;
As for fuel, Stangl says wood chips in a contract equates to a facility paying $40 to $50 per ton, for a good price. However, if logs are accepted on-site, the facility itself could get paid $250 a load to take the material. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s the difference between $50 and negative $10,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;A $60 spread just for asking for it in the contract.&rdquo;
Stangl acknowledges the numbers are not entirely accurate because the facility can&rsquo;t use logs, but he&rsquo;s adamant that even with on-site processing costs, free logs are the real opportunity. &ldquo;Of course, I can&rsquo;t finance these things without a contract for fuel,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;If you figure $8 a ton to grind, $4 a ton to screen, and then throw some profit margin in there for somebody not in the fuel-making business, maybe the price is really the difference between $40 and $50 dollar a ton, verses $0 to $10 ton. That&rsquo;s still a huge difference between the prices of getting a contract or just opening my gate. It&rsquo;s an issue that seems like it should and can get fixed. If they want to pay us more for power that&rsquo;s great, but a higher price for electricity is not what&rsquo;s stopping these things from rolling out faster.&rdquo;
A way to increase profit margins, Stangl says, and perhaps make a project viable long-term, is producing value-added products&mdash;specifically, biochar. &ldquo;Biochar is coming increasingly important&mdash;it added extraordinary value to first plant, which was a surprise and helped the plant make it,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;As carbon policies become mor important, we&rsquo;re likely to see increasing value from that. I joke that I run a biochar company that makes electricity. Nobody would give me a dollar to make biochar, but they still will lend us money for a 20-year PPA.&rdquo;
In a world of six-cent solar and natural gas that has never been cheaper, Stangl adds, plants should not rely on future of 20-cent power purchase contracts to stay viable. &ldquo;The way we make this sustainable is by figuring out how to monetize other areas so that when the power prices go down, we&rsquo;re still here,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;I think that&rsquo;s something we really have to do going forward.&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp; Author: Anna Simet Editor, Biomass Magazine asimet@bbiinternational.com 701-738-4961

Firefighters work the Bobcat Wildfire, which started in September 2020. Contained in December, it burned 115,796 acres, one of the largest fires on record in Los Angeles County. 

2021/07/F1-FirefightersBobcatWildfire_16267208155469_largethumb.jpg

2021/07/F1-FirefightersBobcatWildfire_16267208155469_thumb.jpg

2021/07/F1-FirefightersBobcatWildfire_16267208155469.jpg

2021/07/BioMAT-BioRAM101_16267208155769.jpg

2021/07/Emissions_16267208156165.jpg

Seven years after California's emergency proclamation to expedite the use of high-hazard forest material at bioenergy facilities, some progress is imminent—but why has it taken so long?

On Fire

Hicks named CEO of Bioenergy Infrastructure Group Bioenergy Infrastructure Group, an independent power producer specializing in energy-from-waste and biomass, has appointed Simon Hicks as its new CEO. Hicks will replace Hamish McPherson, who will depart in September after nine years.&nbsp; Simon brings a wealth of industry leadership experience, most recently serving as managing director for recycling at Viridor. McPherson will remain with the company in an advisory capacity until September 30 to ensure a smooth transition. Vanguard Renewables onboards Gay as CEO Vanguard Renewables, a food and dairy waste-to-renewable energy project developer, has named Joel Gay as CEO. Prior joining Vanguard Renewables, Gay was president and CEO of Energy Recovery, a global manufacturing and technology company. Under his leadership, Energy Recovery more than quadrupled its equity value. At 37, Gay became one of the youngest CEOs of a Russell 2000 company, the youngest Black CEO of a publicly traded company, and was named one of Fortune&rsquo;s 40 under 40 in 2016.&nbsp; Gay holds a Master of Business Administration from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a bachelor&rsquo;s degree from St. Thomas University. Moore to serve as USDA Forest Service chief U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced that Randy Moore will serve as the 20th chief of the USDA Forest Service. Moore has been serving as regional forester in the Pacific Southwest Region in California since 2007, where he has responsibility for 18 national forests, covering one-fifth of the state on 20 million acres of land. Additionally, he oversees state and private forestry programs in Hawaii and the U.S.-affiliated Pacific Islands.
Previously, Moore served as regional forester for the Eastern Region headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for five years. Moore earned a bachelor&rsquo;s degree in plant and soil science from Southern University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. West Salem Machinery redesigns Super Screener West Salem Machinery&rsquo;s Super Screener has been redesigned and manufactured for reduced maintenance, increased production and longer operating life. New rugged features include longer machine life due to a 15% lighter basket and increased durability with oversize hangers. A steeper slope allows material to move up to four times faster, and the stainless steel pan bottom is ideal for wet material such as compost and bark mulch. The relocated drive enables an unobstructed flow of material. Optional features include wire mesh or perforated screens, ball deck for increased material agitation to help prevent buildup and blinding on the screens, multiple material classifications, top covers, access platforms and infeed chutes. BE&amp;E to supply Drax plants&rsquo; material handling systems Drax Group plc has selected Biomass Engineering &amp; Equipment to supply material handling, layout engineering and mechanical installation for its three recently announced pellet plants in Arkansas. Systems BE&amp;E will manufacture for the projects include bulk receiving bins, disc screeners, SMART Conveyors, SMART Containers and covered pellet load-out stations. Also included in BE&amp;E&rsquo;s scope is the procurement of dust control systems and pellet silos. The three plants are expected to produce around 120,000 metric tons of wood pellets per year from sawmill residues. Construction has begun on the first of the plants and commissioning is expected in October. ReGenerate Energy acquires Albany Green Energy ReGenerate Energy Holdings LLC, the recently formed joint venture between Ember Infrastructure and ReEnergy Biomass Operations LLC, has completed the acquisition of Albany Green Energy, a biomass heat-and-power facility located in Albany, Georgia, from a subsidiary of Exelon Generation Company LLC. The facility, also known as AGE, uses woody biomass from mill residue, forestry waste, recycling and agricultural waste to provide 50 MW of electricity to Georgia Power, process steam to the nearby Procter &amp; Gamble paper products facility, and process steam that is used to generate electricity for the nearby U.S. Marine Corps Logistics Base. The facility&rsquo;s 25 employees will join the ReEnergy team. With the acquisition, ReGenerate owns 137 MW of operating biomass power generation across three facilities, including ReEnergy Stratton and ReEnergy Livermore Falls, both located in Maine. Brightmark breaks ground on 3 RNG projects in Michigan Brightmark, a global waste solutions provider, in late June broke ground on three renewable natural gas (RNG) projects in Michigan. The projects are owned by and will be operated through subsidiaries of Brightmark RNG Holdings LLC, a partnership with Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Brightmark currently owns and operates 27 RNG projects in eight states and will operate six RNG projects in Michigan upon completion of these three new projects, which is expected in the first half of 2022. Of this portfolio of RNG projects, 17 are owned by subsidiaries of the joint venture with Chevron.

2021/07/BrightmarkLogoNew_16267210231337.jpg

2021/07/McPherson_16267210231556.jpg

2021/07/Albany-Green-Energy_16267210231939.jpg

2021/07/BE&E_16267210232235.jpg

2021/07/Joel-Gay_16267210232411.jpg

2021/07/Hicks_16267210232658.jpg

2021/07/Moore_16267210233127.jpg

West Salemâ€™s redesigned Super Screener

2021/07/West-Salem_16267210233502.jpg

A rendering of a satellite mill Drax Biomass is to build in the U.S. Southeast. 

2021/07/BE-AND-E_16267211235095.jpg

Business Briefs

&ldquo;It&rsquo;s infrastructure week!&rdquo; has become something of a punchline in Washington, D.C. This is because with some regularity, Congress or the White House announces that they are pursuing massive funding for improvements to roads, bridges, powerlines and other energy necessities, airports and many other aspects of American life that we often take for granted. But all too often, the push for infrastructure improvements is stymied by political arguments over what needs fixing, how much money it will cost, and how it will be paid for. The Biden Administration is currently working with a bipartisan group of Senators in the hopes of making &ldquo;Infrastructure Week&rdquo; a reality, rather than a punchline. Recently, President Biden hosted ten Senators&mdash;five from each side of the aisle&mdash;in the Oval Office for a meeting to discuss whether the Senate could come to an agreement on an infrastructure package. Afterward, the meeting&rsquo;s participants announced victoriously that they had, in fact, come to an agreement, but it&rsquo;s still not clear what&mdash;if anything&mdash;will happen. Sen. Manchin, chair of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, introduced a draft infrastructure bill that has a promising section for biomass. The bill allots $400 million for sawmills and other &ldquo;wood processing facilities&rdquo; to take on materials cleared from lands at highest risk for wildfire. If the elusive infrastructure deal does move forward, there are a few bills that could be included that would benefit biomass: &bull; A bill introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, which would extend the eligibility of new biomass facilities to qualify for the Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit for 10 years&mdash;longer than any past extension. It would also equalize the value of the tax credits across the board for all renewable energy producers. The Clean Energy for America Act has already passed the Senate Finance Committee. &bull; A bill reintroduced earlier this year from last Congress by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-New Hampshire, and Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, that would require the U.S. EPA to take action on eRINs and other long outstanding qualifying Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) fuels. &bull; Incentives for carbon capture deployment that would raise the value of capturing, utilizing and storing carbon for all energy sources. In addition to keeping an eye on how the infrastructure deal unfolds, we are anxiously awaiting the EPA&rsquo;s release of its RFS volume targets for 2021 and 2022. The annual renewable volume obligation determines how much of each type of fuel obligated parties will be required to buy, either by blending renewable fuels into gasoline and other fossil fuels or by purchasing credits. The Biden administration is expected to come out with these proposed volume obligations sometime in July.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; We are hopeful that these rules will address the EPA&rsquo;s omission so far of electricity from RFS volumes. In June, a group of six Senators, led by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-New Hampshire, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, sent a bipartisan letter to the EPA urging the inclusion of electricity as soon as possible. In summary, there are many promising developments in D.C. that could benefit biomass in short order. We are keeping tabs on them and welcome any companies that would like to learn more to please reach out. Author: Carrie Annand Executive Director, Biomass Power Association www.usabiomass.org carrie@usabiomass.org

2021/07/Annand_Carrie-2020_16267212124242_largethumb.jpg

2021/07/Annand_Carrie-2020_16267212124242_thumb.jpg

2021/07/Annand_Carrie-2020_16267212124242.jpg

There are many promising developments in D.C. that could benefit biomass in short order.

Readying for Infrastructure Week

While becoming the biomass industry&rsquo;s premier supplier of fire and explosion protection equipment over the years, CV Technology has gleaned critical insight into best practices. The following are examples of some of the most valuable lessons learned&mdash;experience and knowledge that will help ensure customers&rsquo; plants stay safe and operating.
The process of making wood pellets is inherently aggressive. The equipment utilized during the manufacturing process is put through more stress than any other industry that may use similar equipment. In addition to the elevated stress level experienced by the equipment, production requirements are often much stricter. Plants run 24/7 and often have output requirements that must be met.&nbsp; As a result of this aggressive environment, it is critical for plants to have the appropriate spare parts to re-arm or replace wear items. While some industries may be blas&eacute; about spare parts, it is critical for a successfully managed wood pellet plant and for front-end equipment selection. Commonality of spare parts can reduce costs and lead times for parts. Through the years, CV Technology has developed techniques and relationships to ensure this critical factor is properly accounted for. &nbsp;
Drag chain conveyors are a common means of mechanically conveying process material in several industries. Within wood pellet production facilities in particular, they present a uniquely dangerous hazard. Because of the inherently volatile nature of fine, dry wood dust, the conveyors handling this material need to be properly addressed for fire and explosion protection. Historically overlooked as a lower risk, a string of events has elevated them to the same risk levels as hammermills or dust collectors. Using an assortment of products and techniques, CV Technology has developed a series of successful strategies that can be deployed, depending on the application. Whether the conveyor is installed indoors or outdoors, the type of equipment the conveyor is connected to and whether there is a mid-pan or single pan within the conveyor are all critical factors to consider while developing a solution.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;
In addition to having a critical spare parts strategy in place, it is also of utmost importance to ensure there is competent and reliable service infrastructure in place. To ensure full reliability of any fire and explosion protection equipment, it must be properly serviced and maintained.&nbsp; When the stock of spare parts is inevitably required to be installed, it is this reliable service infrastructure that will be mandatory to fulfill the task. A properly functioning service infrastructure can only be achieved through persistent and committed training from vendor to operator. Continual training, onboarding of new operators and even hands-on training at the CV Technology headquarters in Jupiter, Florida, are all techniques that the company has accomplished over the years, ensuring proper functioning of even its largest and most complex wood pellet customers&rsquo; service infrastructures.

Lessons Learned in Fire, Explosion Equipment Supply

Every facility utilizing combustible substances possesses risks unique to its operations. No two plants are quite the same, and neither should be their explosion protection solutions. That&rsquo;s what drives explosion protection and pressure relief company REMBE&mdash;challenging applications and the development of customized, outside-the-box solutions, rather than off-the-shelf products, says Jeramy Slaunwhite, senior explosion safety engineer. &ldquo;As engineers, we develop solutions to problems where our products are the applied tools,&rdquo; he says.
When it comes to explosion protection at facilities that use combustible wood dust, Slaunwhite says there are two critical aspects that should not be overlooked&mdash;the first is material assessment and testing. &ldquo;Often, combustibility data is generalized or assumed, but biomass exists in many different wood species, moisture content, particle size and geometry,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s also important to understand how these material characteristics can change due to supply, seasonal conditions or other influences, because all of these aspects influence the design of explosion protection systems.&rdquo;
The second aspect is explosion protection system reliability and maintenance, according to Slaunwhite. &ldquo;Fortunately, most explosion protection systems are never actually called to duty,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;However, it is critical that they perform as required when needed. The biomass industry can be physically demanding on industrial equipment due to material, processes and aggressive environmental conditions. Additionally, maintenance resources are often spread thin and allocated to critical process equipment. Explosion protection systems are commonly overlooked or neglected, in some cases leading to compromised function and performance reliability. Scheduled maintenance can notably increase explosion protection system reliability.&rdquo;
Recently, REMBE has debuted a new safety approach for protecting wood-grinding and coal plants&mdash;engineered rupture panels that Slaunwhite says are inherently reliable, virtually maintenance free and suitable for applications under vacuum conditions. &ldquo;Traditional explosion protection concepts rely on open venting to safe areas or venting ducts, which are challenging due to location and venting influences,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;When these engineered rupture panels are combined with certified flameless venting devices such as the Q-Box or Q-Rohr, the need for vent ducts is eliminated.&rdquo;
REMBE is continuously exploring new applications for flame-arresting technology, including the new Q-Ball: a lightweight flameless venting solution for bucket elevators and oscillating screens, as well as &ldquo;smart&rdquo; electronic sensors for early fire and explosion prevention and chemical explosion suppression systems, Slaunwhite adds. &ldquo;Promoting education and awareness of explosion hazards and solutions is an area of continuous improvement in the bulk material handling sector and a key focus at REMBE.&rdquo;

REMBE treats explosion safety as an engineering discipline guided by science, research and experience.

Engineered Explosion Protection

&ldquo;If I knew then what I know now, then I would have done things much differently.&rdquo; One of the most standout observations in my past two decades of assisting clients is that project developers who ask the right questions early in the project planning process enjoy the process the most, and are the ones who are happiest with the outcomes. In this article, I will address questions that commonly occur when an air emissions permit is required for a new biomass-fired boiler.
When do I need an air emissions permit? An air permit is intended to protect human health and the environment and is a legally binding document that includes enforceable limits on air pollutant emissions (e.g., particulate matter (PM) nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide) that a facility can release to ambient air. Air permits specify how facilities must design and operate pollution control equipment, how emissions must be vented (i.e., how exhaust stacks should be designed), air pollutant limits that must be met, as well as how to monitor, record keep and report aspects of their operations related to their emissions.
Assuming an air emissions permit is required, it is important to anticipate the timeframe for when it will be issued, because very little construction is typically permitted before an air permit is issued. In my experience, air permit applications can generally take from three weeks to three months to prepare, depending on the size and complexity of the proposed project. Following application submittal to a state agency, it can typically take between two and 18 months for the agency to issue the permit, again depending on the project. Given these timeframes, it may be necessary to start work on an application up to two years before commencing construction for a complex project.
Am I subject to federal requirements? Permits are issued by state agencies, and in some cases, not all federal requirements are included in the air permit. For example, not all state agencies enforce the federal rule that many refer to as the &ldquo;Area Source Rule&rdquo; (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJJ&mdash;National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers) and therefore do not include that rule&rsquo;s requirements in the air permits they issue. Further, there are some cases in which a boiler may not trigger air permitting in a particular state, but the rule still applies, so its requirements still have to be met.
Are there new state or federal regulations on the horizon? Regulations impact the design, operation and therefore cost of facilities. Consequently, it is imperative to perform due diligence to determine if there are new regulations that could be promulgated at a time that could impact your project. For example, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recently changed Title 6, Part 227-1 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR 227-1) for stationary combustion installations, which significantly reduced the allowable PM emissions limit for biomass boilers. This change means that many small biomass boilers, or boilers with a heat input less than 10 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr), will likely have to be permitted with an advanced form of emissions control such as a high-efficiency multicyclone, electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or fabric filter baghouse in lieu of a cyclone or conventional multicyclone. This significantly increases capital and operating costs of a constructing and operating a biomass boiler. &nbsp;
Am I subject to air toxics regulations? Air toxics regulations in some states require that air permit applications for biomass boilers include an evaluation of air toxics that would be emitted from the combustion process. In my experience, this has triggered evaluating best management practices (BMP, measures that can be implemented upstream of, and within the biomass combustion chamber) and add-on pollution controls that can reduce the level of emissions released. A few BMP examples include performing regular tune-ups, periodic monitoring of carbon monoxide with a combustion analyzer, and performing visual observations of stack exhaust. Add-on controls can include conventional and high-efficiency multicyclones, ESPs or fabric filter baghouses.
What do I need for emissions control? Emissions, specifically PM, typically need to be controlled with add-on controls for biomass projects. The type of add-on control typically depends on applicable state or federal emissions limits, the expected level of annual emissions, the need to construct a shorter exhaust stack, and existing ambient (outdoor) pollutant concentrations. The capital and operating costs of pollution control equipment can vary widely (from $15,000 for a cyclone to $350,000 for an ESP), so it is imperative to identify early in the planning process which level of control is necessary (i.e., what level of reduction of a pollutant must be achieved). &nbsp;
How tall does my stack need to be? Emissions are typically vented to ambient air with a vertical stack that extends some height above the building it is associated with. Simply put, taller stacks are more expensive than shorter ones. Also, taller stacks can make facilities more visible, which may not be desirable for aesthetic reasons. Some state regulatory agencies have rule-of-thumb formulas for establishing stack heights. In some cases, air quality dispersion modeling (air quality modeling) may be required, or can be voluntarily performed to establish the stack height. The next question describes air quality modeling.
Do I need to perform air quality modeling? Air quality modeling is a computer-based technique for evaluating how emissions from biomass combustion disperse in ambient air. The triggers for modeling vary from state to state and depend on the size of a boiler, the quantity of estimated annual emissions, and state modeling requirements. Modeling is performed to determine whether a proposed emissions source will be designed to provide the dispersion needed to meet air quality standards that are intended to protect human health. Modeling is often performed even when not required, in cases where project developers want to ensure that the design (i.e., height and inside diameter) and location of a stack will be adequate to protect human health. In cases where a rule-of-thumb requirement by a state would require building a significantly tall stack, air quality dispersion modeling can be performed to demonstrate that a shorter stack will meet air quality standards.
Do I have to do anything after my permit has been issued? The party is not over when you receive your air permit. Air permits include state and federal requirements that apply after an air permit has been issued. The type and degree of requirements depend on the size of the biomass boiler, the type of biomass burned (i.e., all natural biomass and waste wood), and whether there are other emissions sources being permitted for the same project. Compliance requirements following air permit issuance can&nbsp;&nbsp; include submitting notifications (for commencing construction and commencing operation), performing source emissions testing (i.e., measuring the rate of pollutant emissions released from the stack), submitting electronic reports to state and federal agencies, preparing an air permit compliance certification, performing boiler efficiency testing, and preparing and submitting emissions fee reports. &nbsp;
Hopefully, this article has helped shed some light on what needs to be considered when planning to construct a biomass boiler. While there are many more questions that should be asked, beginning with asking the ones described in this article as soon as possible is a great start. There is no better time than the present. &nbsp; Author: John Hinckley QEP, Senior Managing Consultant, ALL4 LLC jhinckley@all4inc.com 802.359.7294

Emissions are typically vented to ambient air with a vertical stack that extends some height above the building it is associated with. Some state regulatory agencies have rule-of-thumb formulas for establishing stack heights.

2021/07/Lede-Hinkley_16267198062259_largethumb.jpg

2021/07/Lede-Hinkley_16267198062259_thumb.jpg

2021/07/Lede-Hinkley_16267198062259.jpg

Addressing major questions early on the biomass boiler development 
process can help save valuable time and money.

If I Knew Then What  I Know Now: Air Emissions Permitting Considerations for  Biomass Boilers

The forest sector is a great career choice. I feel very fortunate to have spent 15 years in forestry&mdash;every day is different, the people are amazing and I get paid to be outside. What&rsquo;s not to love? When I attended the University of New Brunswick&rsquo;s forestry program in 2006, about 25% of my classmates were women. In my first few summer forestry jobs, I worked with women and my first mentors were women upon graduation. I didn&rsquo;t realize there was a gender imbalance until I started working for industry, spending more time in the woods and attending meetings and conferences. In fact, as of 2016, just 17% of Canada&rsquo;s forestry workforce was made up of women, an increase of only 3% since 1996. While I hope that the census data more recently collected will show a dramatic increase of women in forestry, there is still progress to be made. In 2015, I cofounded Women in Wood, a network for women who work in, with and for the woods. Since then, I have learned a lot from women working in Canada&rsquo;s forests about their experiences. It seems there are challenges at all stages of their careers&mdash;but there are also solutions. &nbsp;
First jobs are tough. Difficult to secure because of a likely blank resume, and oftentimes, they can be challenging to survive because you may not have anyone to ask hard questions. This was my experience; I had difficulty getting my first forestry job, and I faced stiff competition against my male peers who came from forestry families and had experience, and more stereotypical &ldquo;field-work-ready&rdquo; statures than mine. I am still grateful to the person who took a chance on the underdog and gave me my first job&mdash;if hiring is your responsibility, perhaps you can be that person for someone else.
Once I did secure a forestry job&mdash;working in remote, isolated conditions&mdash;I spent every day being afraid I would be eaten by a bear. Imagine my surprise, 10 years later, to have that same concern raised in the WIW group by a woman in her first job. The number of women commenting with the same experience&mdash;with many solutions&mdash;was amazing. Personally, what helped was the passage of time and eventual development of confidence and knowledge (plus, a healthy amount of stubbornness that didn&rsquo;t allow me to quit from fear). I believe a better solution now exists through openness, increased training and education, and support networks like WIW to help build confidence through shared experiences.
Planning for a family can be stressful for women, whether it is planning to take time off or integrating back into the workforce. It can be difficult finding childcare with flexible or extended hours, to do camp work, or balance home and work life. Women looking for employment or working contract positions are hesitant or worried about how pregnancy could impact their ability to be hired. The key here seems to be flexibility by employers, both with hours and strategic onboarding after maternity leave. Also, an increasing number of men taking paternity leave and breaking down gender roles in the household goes a long way toward changing stereotypes associated with &ldquo;mom in the workforce.&rdquo;
As women enter the midcareer phase of their forestry careers, many hope to advance into management and leadership roles. However, many women don&rsquo;t have leadership role models to look to in their workplace. It is difficult to imagine you can be it, if you can&rsquo;t see it. The fact that we&rsquo;re only recently seeing &ldquo;firsts&rdquo;such as first female chief forester, first female mill manager, is somewhat telling. It&rsquo;s very encouraging that these occurrences are happening at an accelerated pace in recent years, and hopefully soon, we won&rsquo;t have to remark on or celebrate &ldquo;firsts&rdquo; anymore. The solution to this one is in the hands of women themselves, and employers. Women must identify the skills and experience they need to advance their careers and seek mentors or training to help them get there. Employers must ensure that women are given equal opportunities to become qualified and compete on a level playing field as their male counterparts and mentoring men and women in the same way.
Today, there are many success stories for women in Canada&rsquo;s forest sector. The number of companies and organizations engaging in diversity and inclusion initiatives is remarkable, and the fact that we&rsquo;re having this conversation is a definite win. But let&rsquo;s not take the foot off the gas&mdash;it&rsquo;s in the hands of every person working in the sector to challenge behaviors and create change that will lead to a more welcoming environment for all employees. We&rsquo;re an industry with an aging workforce primed for a continued post-pandemic boom. Attracting and retaining good employees is the only way to sustain that momentum&mdash;let&rsquo;s make sure we consider 48% of the available labor force in building the future of our sector. Authors: Lacey Rose County Forester and Cofounder, Women in Wood www.womeninwood.ca @foresterLacey

Lacey Rose, forester and founder of Women in Wood

2021/07/C3-LaceyRose_16267200137876_largethumb.jpg

2021/07/C3-LaceyRose_16267200137876_thumb.jpg

2021/07/C3-LaceyRose_16267200137876.jpg

Entering the forest industry can be intimidating for women in a traditionally male-dominated workforce, but positive changes are leveling the playing field.

Changing the Face of Forestry

Whether they were built 50 years ago or fired up in the past decade, the majority of U.S.-based biomass and bioenergy power plants operate by the same fundamental principle: They burn biomass waste fuel to generate high-pressure steam, which in turn drives a turbine to create electricity and heat. &nbsp;
What has changed, however, is the widespread adoption of digital technologies that leverage artificial intelligence (AI) and the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) to drive greater operating efficiencies, higher reliability and lower maintenance costs.
At the same time, this increased reliance on digital advances to improve the reliability and predictability of power plant operations brings with it the threat of cyber-attacks. While the general public might think of cyber-attacks in the context of the information technology (IT) space solely in terms of identity theft or a virus on their home computer, cyber-attacks on physical operating technology (OT) systems represent a real&mdash;and growing&mdash;threat to the reliability and core business of the energy industry. Cyber-Attacks: Expensive Business Disruptions Real-world examples of OT-centric cyber-attacks are becoming increasingly common. In May 2021, Colonial Pipeline suffered a double ransomware attack where approximately 100 GB of internal data was stolen and significant portions of its IT systems encrypted, as reported by the Wall Street Journal on May 19. In hearing testimony, Joseph Blount, CEO of Colonial Pipeline, told the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security &amp; Government Affairs that Colonial Pipeline&rsquo;s concern was that the attack could spread to its OT network, which led it to shut down 5,500 miles of pipeline about an hour after the attack was first discovered.
Colonial Pipeline carries approximately 45% of the U.S. East Coast&rsquo;s fuel supplies. Consumer demand for gasoline surged, putting pressure on gasoline stations across the eastern U.S. At that point, Blount decided to pay the almost 75 bitcoin ransom, worth about $4.4 million at the time, according to the WSJ.
In another example from January 2021, Atlanta-based paper and packaging company WestRock reported being hit with a ransomware attack that impacted its OT and IT systems. While the company&rsquo;s security teams&mdash;with the cooperation of leading cybersecurity firms&mdash;started working immediately to remediate the incident, Westrock released a situation update reporting it had experienced an 85,000-ton shortfall in its mill system production just a week and a half later. Attacks such as these are becoming more common as power plants incorporate further automation advances. For example, many plants now include a distributed control system (DCS) that uses AI and the IIoT to automatically operate plant processes, requiring far less human interaction and fewer people on site. Such systems go beyond earlier automation technologies that merely transmit data and signals between the equipment and the operator to now include enhanced reporting functions, advanced diagnostics and intuitive process control.
While these systems are powerful tools for collecting relevant data, monitoring and controlling critical plant functions, and giving operators direct access to essential operations, they also create a larger connected surface through which threat actors can execute attacks. AI-driven Cyber Defense Siemens Energy has a long and successful history as an equipment manufacturer and service provider throughout the energy supply chain. The company&rsquo;s expertise in the cybersecurity business comes from its legacy as an integral operator and solutions provider of energy technologies that leverage digitalization and intelligent infrastructure. To solve the problem of creating a modern, industrial-grade endpoint protection solution for the energy sector, Siemens Energy partnered with SparkCognition, a leading artificial intelligence company with deep experience in cybersecurity.
Together, they developed the trademarked DeepArmor Industrial, fortified by Siemens Energy. This is an endpoint protection solution designed to protect the energy industry&rsquo;s operational technology by leveraging artificial intelligence to monitor, detect and prevent cyberattacks. SparkCognition specifically designed DeepArmor Industrial to help operators defend their current and future critical infrastructure from escalating cyber-attacks that target OT. This cybersecurity platform incorporates AI and machine learning to protect endpoint assets in the plant by recognizing and reporting new devices or behavior changes that characterize cyber threats.
DeepArmor Industrial&rsquo;s predictive analysis capabilities prevent malicious code from executing&mdash;independent of threat intelligence and without the need for signature updates. This makes it an ideal solution for operators with distributed or disconnected assets. The platform also identifies, reports and proactively blocks system changes that could characterize a digital-physical attack, either mitigating the threat or making it easier for the plant&rsquo;s operations crew to diagnose and resolve.
The chances of a biomass power plant falling prey to a cyber-attack increase substantially during an outage. Outages are ideal times to install necessary updates and new security patches to a plant&rsquo;s OT systems. Unfortunately, during these times, it is not uncommon for antimalware protections and other network security functions to be disabled, opening the door to new cyber threats.
But with this platform installed, operators have a way to always keep a pulse on the plant&rsquo;s cybersecurity, even when other functions are offline. The platform achieves this level of protection thanks to its machine-learning functionality. It is initially placed in observer mode as it learns the processes. Once the plant operator and Siemens Energy&rsquo;s engineering team are convinced that the platform understands the difference between routine operations and a cyber threat, it is taken out of observer mode to track and control normal operations, without the risk of shutting down a critical component of the plant&rsquo;s operations.
During an outage, the platform is easily placed back into observer mode, where it continues to track and report nonroutine events or potential cyber threats, but without the ability to intervene and prevent the perceived threat from entering the system. This is particularly important when a legitimate software upgrade from a vendor might be mistaken as malware simply because the upgrade is new or unfamiliar to the platform. Rather than delaying the upgrade, the platform records and reports the event to the operations team, who can investigate the situation further.
Because it is endpoint-based, the platform identifies the specific computer or system where the issue was detected. As a result, the operations team can quickly go to that location, confirm the threat, and resolve the situation before the threat spreads to other systems or becomes a more severe issue. And with DeepArmor Industrial always watching, a plant operator can be confident that their system restarts will not leave them vulnerable to a nascent cyber-attack.
The platform does not require every machine it is tracking to be running on the same version of the OS, or even a current OS; it can be deployed as far back as Windows 2000. As a result, the operator can quickly identify and review potential threats from multiple systems without piecing together and converting data from machines running different versions of the OS. Delaying Patching Outages &nbsp; A system patch installed on a Monday may be ineffective by Friday against any new attacks that emerged on Tuesday through Thursday. As a result, a power plant&rsquo;s IT department might recommend conducting small outages to install patches on a more frequent basis. However, this frequency is not cost-effective and likely does not line up with the plant&rsquo;s business model.
The platform&rsquo;s built-in, machine-learning engine uses advanced classification algorithms to predict and prevent zero-day attacks on the endpoint without frequent updates or cloud access. While not a replacement for patching, the platform serves as a bridge to the plant&rsquo;s next reasonable opportunity to perform a patching outage. The platform&rsquo;s real-time, continuous tracking of threats gives the operations team confidence to delay an outage on a critical piece of equipment by a few weeks or months, extending operations without putting plant systems at risk. New Era of Cyberspace Protection Today&rsquo;s energy landscape requires biomass plants to operate with the highest reliability and flexibility to remain competitive&mdash;without the risk of unexpected and time-consuming outages due to a cyber-attack. With its AI and machine learning capabilities, DeepArmor Industrial, fortified by Siemens Energy, provides day-to-day protections from external threats like zero-day attacks and internal threats from an unexpected USB key&mdash;ensuring greater efficiency and uptime for the entire plant.
And as cyber threats increase in their sophistication and frequency, the need for plant operators to leverage a robust, adaptable cybersecurity solution that protects their OT and IT systems will only continue to become even more critical. Author: Sam Miorelli Global Head, Cybersecurity for Industrial Applications Siemens Energy Inc. sam.miorelli@siemens-energy.com www.siemens-energy.com

2021/07/Siemens_16267201546679_largethumb.jpg

2021/07/Siemens_16267201546679_thumb.jpg

2021/07/Siemens_16267201546679.jpg

Cyber-attacks and ransomware are a threat to energy assets, but there are tools to protect plants against loss of data, time and money. 

Keeping Cyber-Attacks at Bay in Biomass Power Plants

The management of risk continues to dominate conversations with forest industry professionals, even as firms continue to invest capital into increasing capacity at sawmills, pulp mills and pellet plants. While North America&rsquo;s forest industry demonstrated discipline and caution when expanding mills in 2020, they also took the opportunity to strengthen balance sheets (reduce debt) with the profits from building products sales. Still, executives feel the need to put available capital to work.
In the past 12 months, North America added 1.4 billion board feet (BBFT) of sawmill capacity, with another 1.6 BBFT of coming in the second half of 2021. A significant amount of softwood sawmill capital expenditure is in the queue, including Canfor&rsquo;s recently confirmed plans for a new 250 million BF mill in Louisiana for 2022. The size and location of this capacity continues to influence the current availability and expected pricing for residual wood fiber and roundwood pulpwood by region.
Residual chip supplies in 2020 surged as sawmills worked hard to benefit from record lumber prices. This pushed prices of chips and roundwood pulpwood lower across the U.S. Meanwhile, closures of printing and writing paper and newsprint mills lowered total production capacity, and several paper mill investments and restarts are targeting increased recycled fiber usage, thus lowering potential virgin fiber demand. A cooling lumber market can quickly reorient the supply-demand balance, but over the past six years, a shrinking paper sector, using more recycled fiber, and a growing domestic lumber industry are pushing fiber prices lower (Figure 1).
Pulp and paper mills continue to evolve. Pulp mill capacity in North America declined 13% in the past 12 years. Over this time frame, East Canada lost the most capacity (32%), followed by the West and the North. The U.S. South has the largest share of pulping capacity at 55% and has been the steadiest region, shedding only 5% over this period (Figure 2).
Markets for pulpwood are strong for mills producing containerboard products, as healthy pulp mills in competitive southern markets buy available pulpwood and wood chips. Other markets, alternately, are losing mills&mdash;the Park Falls Development mill in Wisconsin shut down in March, and Paper Excellence announced the permanent closure of the idled Mackenzie mill in British Columbia due to, in part, a shortage of fiber. M&amp;A activity continues in the sector, with the announcement by Paper Excellence to acquire Domtar in a transaction valued at $3 billion.
More generally across the industry, institutional investors behind many of the larger timberland deals are changing the way they talk about the sector. This is especially true with respect to ESG (environmental, social and governance) and carbon markets (two different things in practice) and risk management. As one investor said, &ldquo;Fire and weather issues are here to stay, so we need to think about them more up front,&rdquo; than we did in the past. Another investor expressed a concern shared by others regarding the unintended consequences on forest supplies from policy and legislation. The above is data from the Forisk Wood Fiber Review, a quarterly publication tracking North America&rsquo;s major wood fiber markets, and the Forisk Market Bulletin, which tracks forest industry investments Author: Brooks Mendell and Amanda Lang Forisk Consulting LLC 770-725-8477 bmendell@forisk.com; ahlang@forisk.com

Figure 1: Recyled Fiber Consumption and Virgin Fiber Prices 

2021/07/C1-Figure1_16267202339164_largethumb.jpg

2021/07/C1-Figure1_16267202339164_thumb.jpg

2021/07/C1-Figure1_16267202339164.jpg

Figure 2. Pulping Capacity in North America 

2021/07/C1-Figure2_16267202338847.jpg

The management of risk continues to dominate conversations with forest industry professionals, even as firms continue to invest capital into increasing capacity at sawmills, pulp mills and pellet plants. 

Manufacturing Residual Supplies and Pulp Mill Capacities 

Strong pellet sales, appliances selling faster than manufacturers can make them, optimal levels of inventory and policy victories&mdash;these were many of the positive discussion topics at the 2021 Pellet Fuels Institute Annual Conference held in Louisville, Kentucky, June 8-10.
Tim Portz, executive director of the PFI, began the event with a thorough review of how 2020 stacked up to 2019 and the past five-year average. As for sales, the domestic wood pellet industry exceeded the five-year average, just missing 2019 numbers at about 2.185 million tons. Average monthly inventory equated to about 81,000 tons, compared to about 18,000 tons in 2019. The &ldquo;right&rdquo; level of inventory is a number that has been heavily contemplated, Portz said. &ldquo;But I don&rsquo;t know what the Goldilocks number is&mdash;that&rsquo;s for you to decide,&rdquo; he told a room full of pellet manufacturers and other supply chain stakeholders, many who were attending an in-person event for the first time since the pandemic began. Portz said 2020 was overall a solid year, though there were a few valleys with the peaks. While summer sales were significantly high&mdash;a buying trend the pellet industry has strongly encouraged its customers to embrace to help prevent spot shortages and help producers gauge demand&mdash;October to December saw the lowest average sales in the past five years.
Portz highlighted the fact that the wood pellet industry injected more than $478 million back into the forest products industry. &ldquo;We do great things for our partners in this sector,&rdquo; he said, pointing out the incredible amount of wood residuals the industry purchases in a year. &ldquo;About 14.5 million tons of residuals&mdash;that&rsquo;s trucks lined end-to-end from Anchorage to Orlando.
Portz also pointed to the merger and acquisition activity in the industry, underlining the fact that pellet producers are spending money in this strong, predictable market. &ldquo;The BTU Act is already having an effect&mdash;one retail member reported pellet appliances up 39%,&rdquo; Portz said. &ldquo;Efforts to expand the BTU act have already begun, but our question is: How much leaning in and work should our sector do?&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; FutureMetrics President Bill Strauss turned the discussion to carbon policy, beginning with a review of EU carbon reduction initiatives. The country has enforced policies that discourage use of fossil fuels, particularly heating oil, and it&rsquo;s working, according to Strauss. &ldquo;I think that&rsquo;s what we should be doing here,&rdquo; he said. In the U.S., there are currently 504 operating coal plants with an average size of 550 MW, and 39 that are less than 15 years old, according to Strauss. He emphasized the high number of jobs a 100% pellet-fueled plant creates: a single 550-MW coal plant converted to wood pellets generates about 3,306 jobs.
The BTU Act was one of the most-discussed topics of the conference, with the first question focused on why the commercial tax credit component of the act did not pass. Charlie Niebling, partner at Innovative Natural Resource Solutions and one of the bill&rsquo;s most significant proponents, said the consensus is that some anti-biomass NGOs may have played a roll in that provision getting yanked from the bill. Getting that provision instated, along with an extension of the tax credit to 2028, is needed so that the industry can plan and respond. &ldquo;If you look at solar&rsquo;s long-term growth, it is consistent with recognition in the tax code year after year,&rdquo; Niebling says. &ldquo;The industry responded and built on that 30%. We need it extended; it has to be consistent.&rdquo;
Moving on to a topic known to have differing views among domestic pellet producers, Strauss and Niebling agreed that it&rsquo;s time for the domestic wood pellet industry in invest in resources to combat misinformation. &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t think we can be complacent,&rdquo; Niebling said. &ldquo;We are up against some fairly formidable sources. And we have a fantastic story to tell&mdash;it&rsquo;s complex, but compelling.&rdquo;
It&rsquo;s difficult to be in business today when utilizing a forest resource, but not investing in sustainability initiatives to help people understand the industry, Niebling continued. &ldquo;I spend a lot of time on Capitol Hill defending our right to do business ... we need to focus on those who have authority and jurisdiction over our industry&mdash;they&rsquo;re in charge. We need to be super tactical and drill down on individual members and their staff, because they&rsquo;re the gateway to our issues.
&ldquo;Sustainability is a license to operate,&rdquo; Strauss added. &ldquo;It has to be there. In practical terms, who builds a sawmill in an area where they&rsquo;ll run out of woods in five years? We know it&rsquo;s built into the business model, but then comes the environmental side ... the more incentives the industry gets, the more NGO attention it will get. [If commercial BTU Act component passes] There will be an immediate mobilization of anti-biomass groups to limit the number of appliances that could qualify, and if that isn&rsquo;t a threat to your business, then I don&rsquo;t know what is.&rdquo; Appliance and Retailer Perpective Appliance retailers and manufacturers are feeling the impacts of the BTU Act, with panelist consensus being the policy has influenced store purchasing decisions&mdash;pre-ordering models that qualify&mdash;and resulting in double digit increases in consumer pellet appliance sales. &ldquo;We have those who are reinvesting because of the tax credit, as well as new customers&mdash;those who were on the fence, but now that they get a quarter of their money back, they&rsquo;re jumping in,&rdquo; said Stan Weideman, vice president of Weideman and Electric Inc. Weideman said the company sent out a flyer about the tax credit and early orders ramped up as a result. Ross Schulz, merchandise manager at Coastal Farm &amp; Ranch, said though his store wishes it had known about the BTU Act passing earlier, it promoted it on social media, and pellet appliances are up 30% year-to-date, with pellet fuel sales up 5%. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re very pleased,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;We got on top of it, but there is still more to do from a marketing standpoint.&rdquo;
Karen Smeltz, brand manager of Hearth &amp; Home Technologies, said the company &ldquo;can&rsquo;t make product fast enough. Demand is phenomenal. Wood stoves are up the highest, with pellet stoves close behind. If there&rsquo;s an extension to 2028, we could really start to innovate, introduce new production in 2023 and know it will have traction.&rdquo;
There are a few challenges right now, one of which is that the supply chain for appliance parts is facing a bottleneck as a result of the pandemic, said Weideman. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s really impacting the hearth business, particularly for steel and other parts,&rdquo; he said. Smeltz said Hearth &amp; Home has eaten some of the cost when it comes to increases in steel prices, but have had to up appliance prices by about 5.5% &ldquo;We are also having a difficult time finding team members&mdash;we have tried sign-on bonuses, max overtime&mdash;it&rsquo;s tough to find help who wants to show up every day,&rdquo; Smeltz said. Schultz added that climbing trucking prices are also becoming an issue. &nbsp; BBQ Market Momentum The BBQ pellet market explosion over the past several years is continuing, according to stakeholder panelists, and it does not look to be slowing any time soon. Panelists included Jeff Thiessen, president of Dansons; Alison Snider, vice president of sales and business development at Lignetics, and Stephen DeVoe Sr., chief operating officer at Fiber Energy Products. &nbsp;
Panelists began by discussing development of new and acquisition of existing BBQ pellet manufacturing facilities: Defoe said Fiber Energy Products&rsquo; two facilities in Missouri and Arkansas are currently expanding, Thiessen highlighted Dansons&rsquo;s purchase and conversion of a former Georgia Pacific mill in Hope, Arkansas, which will soon be the largest BBQ pellet facility in the country, and Snider said Lignetics; has purchased Great Lakes Renewable Energy&rsquo;s BBQ pellet facility in Hayward, Wisconsin. DeFoe pointed out that there is currently no way to gauge industry growth, as there aren&rsquo;t any data or numbers on BBQ pellets or customer attachment rates. &ldquo;The industry is still in its infancy&mdash;it&rsquo;s the fastest growing sector, and we need to make sure customers can get what they want,&rdquo; he said. Snider added that the domestic wood pellet industry is one to always rise to the occasion, and that she&rsquo;s confident capacity is adequate to meet rocketing customer demand. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s the raw material supply that keeps me up at night,&rdquo; she said.
So how will the industry know when it&rsquo;s out of infancy? &ldquo;Propane tanks will be gone, replaced by pellet displays at stores,&rdquo; said DeFoe. Thiessen added, &ldquo;Also, when you can ship a 40-pound bag of pellets and it&rsquo;s economical to the seller. The customers don&rsquo;t want to pay for freight, and it&rsquo;s an issue we need to solve.&rdquo;
Panelists continued to discuss the intricacies of fiber supply and expanding to different sources like roundwood, as well as lessons learned in fiber procurement. &ldquo;The complexity of fiber procurement is so much more complex with BBQ pellets than fuel pellets,&rdquo; Thiessen said. &ldquo;You need a variety; you get it from all over the country. It&rsquo;s just not easy. Input costs are all over the place, and how you handle and store it is all different. It&rsquo;s probably the most difficult aspect of being in this space.&rdquo; &nbsp;
Brand loyalty tendencies are also different than they are with heating pellets, panelists agreed. &ldquo;With heating pellets, you find what works and stick with it, but with grilling pellets it&rsquo;s fun to try new things,&rdquo; Thiessen added. &ldquo;Oils, spices, coffee grounds ... the innovation side is very positive and will continue to drive the market.&rdquo; Critical Issues The final panel of the day included five wood pellet manufacturer representatives, all of who said the pandemic brought on some challenges that include transport logistic bottlenecks, steel shortages, lumber prices and varying pandemic regulations across states. All acknowledged the biggest immediate challenge right now is labor. &ldquo;Business was good [this past heating season], but a lack of workforce is the biggest challenge,&rdquo; said Darren Winchester, plant manager at Indeck Energy Wood Pellets in Ladysmith, Wisconsin.
&ldquo;We have learned a lot of efficiencies,&rdquo; said Tom Plaugher, vice president of operations at Allegheny Wood Products in Petersburg, West Virginia.&nbsp; &ldquo;How to get more done with less people&mdash;we rolled with the punches.&rdquo;
Brett Jordan, CEO of Lignetics Inc., said labor is the biggest challenge at every facility. &ldquo;From the frontline forklift operator to accounting. We have had the worst turnover in the past 30 days. It&rsquo;s very difficult, and it&rsquo;s the same outside the industry.&rdquo;
&ldquo;Labor is really the key,&rdquo; added Stephen Faehner, president of American Wood Fibers. &ldquo;We have 400-plus employees, and have had a 30% turnover rate [in the past year]&mdash;142 new hires. That&rsquo;s a huge problem, getting them in the door and then retaining them. We&rsquo;re trying all kinds of tricks, but it&rsquo;s not working. Extra hours of PTO for full shifts completed, bonuses ... and we&rsquo;re worried about the great group of people who have continued working and made things happen [during the pandemic], because that core group of people who crushed it&mdash;they&rsquo;re tired.&rdquo;
Plaugher added that even contractors are having these problems, particularly on the logging side of the equation. &ldquo;And there aren&rsquo;t a lot of people going into that business&mdash;the average age of ours is probably 60, with nobody coming up behind them,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;The most productive logging crews are maybe only as 50% productive as before the pandemic, because they just don&rsquo;t have the men.&rdquo;
Finally, producers shared their opinions of the fight against misinformation. While the focus of NGOs and other anti-biomass groups has predominantly been on the industrial wood pellet industry, &ldquo;We&rsquo;re next,&rdquo; said Plaugher. &ldquo;They&rsquo;ll come after us, so we can&rsquo;t keep our heads down. There are lots of organizations fighting this battle, and it would save time and resources to work together to get information out.&rdquo;
Faehner acknowledged the fatigue of telling the positive stories and countering bad information time after time. &ldquo;But we need to stay ahead of it&mdash;if you&rsquo;re not doing this, you&rsquo;re falling behind,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;We just have to keep countering that narrative. We add value to waste streams, we heat houses, etcetera. I don&rsquo;t know what&rsquo;s wrong with that story, but we have to keep telling it.&rdquo;
The industry needs to challenge itself on how to do better, Jordan added. &ldquo;Ours and related industries should coordinate a methodical and strategic pushback against this opposition.&rdquo; &nbsp; Author: Anna Simet Editor, Biomass Magazine 701-738-4961 asimet@bbiinternational.com

Tim Portz, executive director of the Pellet Fuels Institute, welcomed attendees of the PFI Annual Conference, introducing Bill Strauss (center) of FutureMetrics as the first presenter of the event. Charlie Niebling, partner at Innovative Natural Reso

2021/07/PFI1_16267203903333_largethumb.jpg

2021/07/PFI1_16267203903333_thumb.jpg

2021/07/PFI1_16267203903333.jpg

Billy Hoskins, Easy Heat Wood Pellets; Tom Plaugher, Appalachian Wood Pellets Inc.; Darren Winchester, Indeck Energy Wood Pellets; Stephen Faehner, American Wood Fibers; and Brett Jordan, Lignetics

2021/07/PFI2_16267203903668.jpg

The domestic wood pellet industry met with optimism in Louisville, Kentucky, in early June. Many bright spots are bolstering business, but a nagging issue seems to be plaguing all supply chain segments: employees.

2021 BMM Quarter 3

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

It Takes a Village

Readying for Infrastructure Week

Featured

On Fire

Help Wanted

Contributions

Lessons Learned in Fire, Explosion Equipment Supply

Engineered Explosion Protection

If I Knew Then What I Know Now: Air Emissions Permitting Considerations for Biomass Boilers

Changing the Face of Forestry

Keeping Cyber-Attacks at Bay in Biomass Power Plants

Manufacturing Residual Supplies and Pulp Mill Capacities

2021 BMM Quarter 3.css-7jxktu{position:absolute;bottom:0px;left:0px;right:0px;height:3px;border-radius:3px;background-color:var(--chakra-colors-brandBlack);}

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

It Takes a Village

Readying for Infrastructure Week

Featured

On Fire

Help Wanted

Contributions

Lessons Learned in Fire, Explosion Equipment Supply

Engineered Explosion Protection

If I Knew Then What I Know Now: Air Emissions Permitting Considerations for Biomass Boilers

Changing the Face of Forestry

Keeping Cyber-Attacks at Bay in Biomass Power Plants

Manufacturing Residual Supplies and Pulp Mill Capacities

2021 BMM Quarter 3