SAFER Releases Report on Renewable Biomass Definitions

From the February 2011 Forest2Fuel newsletter.

Desipte the fact that the term biomass first appeared in legislation in the U.S. in 1978, Congress continues to disagree about its meaning. More than 30 years later, over 16 different definitions of the term can be found in current and proposed legislation. 

In January 2011, the Southeast Agricultural & Forestry Energy Resources Alliance (SAFER) released, "Implications of Legislative Woody Biomass Definitions." The report focuses on the impact of alternate woody biomass definitions on the South’s ability to meet renewable energy standards.
The report addresses issues surrounding the definition of “renewable woody biomass”:

  1. The health of the nation’s forests and potential strain, and
  2. How new markets for biomass will increase the costs of raw materials for existing wood products industries.

Key findings in the report include:

  1. When accounting for the woody biomass that is consumed by traditional industries, the South’s woody biomass inventory available for biomass to energy development 28 percent is available (see chart below and on page 2 of the briefing paper), of which 63 percent is considered underutilized (i.e. logging residues, slash & brush, plant residues and salvage.)

  1. The amount of biomass available for energy use can be significantly reduced by determination of legislative definitions. For example, when excluding naturally regenerating forests from the list of eligible woody biomass, the available biomass decreases from 28 percent to approximately 12 percent (see chart below and page 2 of briefing paper.)

  1. A phased in 15 to 20 percent standard can be met until 2031 before competing with traditional timber markets in a highly efficiency scenario of increased plant efficiency and utilization rates.
  2. In theory, the biomass market would only comprise 8 percent of the value of the sawtimber market. Although any change in the market could generate price variances, the findings suggest that it is unlikely that private landowners will shift their resources from sawtimber to biomass. On the other hand, the biomass market is estimated to only be 40 percent of the value of the pulpwood market. This indicates that some competition for fiber may lead to price increases in the future, though improved technologies and increased growth rates might mitigate this competition.
  3. States need flexibility when determining how they will comply with energy standards, as there is disparity between where the highest electricity demands exist and where woody biomass is available, as in the case of Florida and Texas.

Ultimately, the report suggests that the most efficacious approach to making wood bioenergy a viable option for meeting renewable energy needs is to make sure the definitions:

  1. Take into consideration how woody biomass is grown, procured, and harvested.
  2. Provide a single, universal applicable definition of individual categories, such as precommercial thinnings, natural stands, and artificial regeneration. In addition, the report finds that definition specifics may best be hammered out in the regulatory/implementation process versus in the legislation itself.

Note: The report was commissioned by SAFER and conducted by Larson & McGowan, Inc.

Read the Implications of Legislative Woody Biomass Definitions full report.    

 
Additional Stories from the December 2010 Forest2Fuel Newsletter:
Cellulosic Ethanol
Torrefied Biomass
Enviva Gains Traction
BCAP and the Budgeting Process

To register and read more about the Forest2Fuel e-Newsletter, click here.