Biomass and Biofuels

Background

The Northeast is home to a very significant forest products industry and an abundant supply of woody biomass and wood by-products. Next generation biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, made from...
[Read full background]

Electricity

Over the past decade, the New England states adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that require an increasing percentage of electricity to be generated from renewable sources.  Biomass is eligible as a renewable fuel in all states, with varying restrictions on the types of eligible technologies, emissions limits and fuel sources that plants must use in order to receive Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). While biomass, such as woodchips, can be a relatively cost-effective and stable source of fuel, burning biomass can generate higher levels of NOx and particulate matter than oil or natural gas. ENE believes that in order to receive support through an RPS, biomass plants must meet rigorous emissions limits. Furthermore, in order to ensure a cheap and reliable supply of fuel to keep plants running, biomass plants in the region have sought to burn construction and demolition debris, which can release other toxins, such as arsenic and lead, if contaminated materials are not sorted out. Currently, ENE is serving on a commission in Massachusetts to study the burning on construction and demolition debris in the state.

Transportation

Measuring the carbon footprint of biofuels: Recent scientific studies have cast doubt on the ability of certain liquid biofuels, such as corn ethanol, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when compared to fossil fuels. Devoting large areas of land to biofuels production can displace crop production and raise food prices. This may lead to either the clearing of forest and grassland for crops, or increased cultivation of marginal agricultural lands that would otherwise have been allowed to revert back to forest or grasslands. Because forest and grasslands store more carbon than cleared or cultivated land, these conversions result in large releases of greenhouse gases and reduce the future carbon sequestration potential of those lands.

Research shows that conventional production of corn ethanol resulting in the conversion of forests and grasslands to new cropland can increase net greenhouse gas emissions because of these indirect land use change (ILUC) impacts. However, biofuels can still be part of the shift to a clean energy economy. Research also shows that certain “advanced” biofuels can be very low carbon; for example, cellulosic ethanol can reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as 88% compared to a gallon of gasoline. The fact that biofuels can differ so substantially in their carbon intensity illustrates the importance of thorough, science-based carbon accounting that includes both direct and significant indirect impacts in the life-cycle analysis. 

Biofuels and the low carbon fuel standard:  ENE is advocating a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) in the Northeast that would require all transportation fuels sold in the region to meet declining standards for greenhouse gas emissions, measured by the carbon intensity of the fuel on a full life-cycle basis.  ENE LCFS Project. A low carbon fuel standard is important to make sure that fuels reduce their carbon impact as we reduce our reliance on petroleum – rather than replacing oil with other high carbon intensity alternatives, such as tar sands or oil shale.  The indirect land use impacts of many types of corn ethanol also disqualify them as a “low carbon fuel” because they are equal or higher carbon intensity than petroleum.  See ENE LCFS Primer.  As a result, ethanol producers are fighting hard not to have indirect land use impacts measured.

ENE submitted testimony supporting indirect land use accounting for the California LCFS, which has since successfully passed, and is working to ensure that the 11-state eastern LCFS has similar science-based carbon accounting.  ENE Summary of CA LCFS.

ENE also advocated for strong climate provisions, including robust lifecycle accounting provisions, in the Massachusetts Act Relative to Clean Energy Biofuels, signed into law in July 2008. The Act mandates biofuels will qualify under the Act only if their manufacturers or distributors can demonstrate that the fuels yield significant reductions in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to their petroleum-based equivalents.  ENE's 2-page Summary on the Act. 

Biofuels and the Renewable Fuel Standard: In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress directed EPA to design a program that requires the blending of renewable fuels into the country’s transportation fuel supply. Known as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), this program focuses exclusively on biofuels and requires increasing the percentage of biofuel content in gasoline every year. In support of this quota, Congress also subsidizes the domestic biofuels industry, which receives a $.45 tax credit for each gallon of ethanol produced (costing taxpayers about $3 billion/year), while levying tariffs on Brazilian and Caribbean ethanol.
Although the original RFS spurred the growth of domestic biofuels, it did not require reduction of GHG emissions. The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 added new GHG emission thresholds and required EPA to consider lifecycle emissions including, “direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes.”   

As the first federal law requiring greenhouse gas reductions in the transportation sector, EISA set an important precedent for biofuels. However, 2009 negotiations on the House climate bill and pressure from the biofuels lobby resulted in a moratorium on EPA’s accounting for ILUC emissions – an unfortunate victory of politics over science. If this House language is adopted in final climate legislation, EISA’s GHG reduction requirement would be superceded and the federal RFS would result in increased GHG emissions.

Ensuring the sustainability of biomass and biofuels

A large shift from other forestland uses such as saw timber or pulp and paper production to biomass production could entail significant and widespread changes on the forested landscape. Pressure to meet renewable energy requirements and otherwise increase biomass production could lead to harvesting of wood for fuel that threatens other important forest values including biodiversity, wildlife protection, recreation, watershed protection, aesthetic beauty, and forest resilience if rules are not carefully crafted and enforced. However, state Renewable Portfolio Standards, and the proposed federal Renewable Electricity Standard vary in whether eligible biomass must be “sustainable.”  Even when this provision is included, it is often vaguely defined or loosely enforced.  At the federal level, different definitions for “sustainable biomass” have been incorporated into provisions on biofuels in the most recent Farm Bill, Energy Bill, and House climate bill.  Debated issues include whether biomass from forests converted to plantations, old growth forests, or federal and state wilderness areas can appropriately be considered to be sustainable.  ENE has weighed in on this issue at the state and federal levels to ensure that biofuels production does not come unduly at the expense of other important ecosystem services.