[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW RENEWABLE FUELS STANDARD IMPLEMENTATION AND
AGRICULTURE PRODUCER ELIGIBILITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT,
ENERGY, AND RESEARCH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-44
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-221 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Ranking
Vice Chairman Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South STEVE KING, Iowa
Dakota MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
JIM COSTA, California CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado Louisiana
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana JOHN R. ``RANDY'' KUHL, Jr., New
NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas York
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee TIM WALBERG, Michigan
JOHN BARROW, Georgia BOB LATTA, Ohio
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
TIM MAHONEY, Florida
TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi
______
Professional Staff
Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff
Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel
April Slayton, Communications Director
William E. O'Conner, Jr., Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, Chairman
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Ranking
Dakota Minority Member
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM COSTA, California STEVE KING, Iowa
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado JERRY MORAN, Kansas
NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York SAM GRAVES, Missouri
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
Nona Darrell, Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia,
opening statement.............................................. 15
Graves, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from Missouri,
prepared statement............................................. 4
Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma,
opening statement.............................................. 2
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, prepared statement.................................. 3
Salazar, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from
Colorado, prepared statement................................... 3
Witnesses
Meyers, Hon. Robert J., Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator,
Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.; accompanied by William ``Bill'' Hagy
III, Deputy Administrator for Business Programs, Office of
Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture.............. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Response to submitted questions.............................. 111
Wong, Jetta L., Senior Policy Associate, Sustainable Biomass and
Energy Program, Environmental and Energy Study Institute,
Washington, D.C................................................ 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Response to submitted questions.............................. 120
Blazer, Arthur ``Butch'', Forester, State of New Mexico;
Executive Member, Council of Western State Foresters; Executive
Member, National Association of State Foresters, Santa Fe, NM.. 51
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Response to submitted questions.............................. 130
Burke III, John W., Tree Farmer, Caroline County, VA; Partner,
McGuire Woods LLP, Richmond, VA................................ 56
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Grant, Duane, Partner and General Manager, Grant 4-D Farms;
General Manager, Fall River Farms; Vice Chairman of the Board,
Snake River Sugar Company, Rupert, ID.......................... 60
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Cassman, Ph.D., Kenneth G., Director, Nebraska Center for Energy
Sciences Research; Professor, Department of Agronomy and
Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE...... 65
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Response to submitted questions.............................. 133
McDill, Ph.D., Marc E., Associate Professor of Forest Management,
School of Forest Resources, Penn State College of Agricultural
Sciences, University Park, PA.................................. 77
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Submitted Material
Consortium of Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases,
submitted letter............................................... 107
Imbergamo, William, Director, Forest Policy, American Forest &
Paper Association, submitted statement......................... 100
Jobe, Joseph, CEO, National Biodiesel Board, submitted letter and
statement...................................................... 102
Moran, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from Kansas,
submitted letter............................................... 95
Rounds, Hon. M. Michael, Governor, State of South Dakota;
Chairman, Midwestern Governors Association, submitted statement 105
Ruth, Bart, Member, 25x'25 National Steering Committee, submitted
statement...................................................... 96
HEARING TO REVIEW RENEWABLE FUELS STANDARD IMPLEMENTATION AND
AGRICULTURE PRODUCER ELIGIBILITY
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and
Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tim
Holden [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Holden, Herseth Sandlin,
Cuellar, Ellsworth, Space, Boyda, Gillibrand, Donnelly,
Peterson (ex officio), Lucas, King, Fortenberry, Moran, and
Goodlatte (ex officio).
Staff present: Nona Darrell, Adam Durand, Anne Simmons,
Kristin Sosanie, Kevin Kramp, Josh Maxwell, Rita Neznek, and
Jamie Weyer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research to Review Renewable
Fuel Standard implementation and agriculture producer
eligibility will come to order. I would like to thank the
witnesses for being here, and I look forward to their
testimony.
Today we are going to look at issues surrounding the
implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard and agricultural
eligibility.
It is often said that the Agriculture Committee is the most
bipartisan Committee, and I think the recently passed farm bill
proved that with real differences falling along regional rather
than partisan lines. Successful agricultural policy must
therefore recognize that farmers, ranchers, and foresters
throughout the country have a wide range of need. And we must
work to help each of them in their local environment.
Likewise, if the Renewable Fuel Standard is to be a
success, it must be flexible and address the realities that all
agriculture producers face throughout the country regardless of
location. In these times of record energy prices, it is
critical that we take advantage of our agricultural and natural
resources as we move towards energy independence.
The Agriculture Committee and Congress overwhelmingly
supported renewable energy programs in the 2008 Farm Bill,
making historic investments in research, development, and
production. The RFS that passed in December guarantees a market
for renewable biofuel production as our homegrown alternative
to foreign oil.
But without a clear and workable regulatory framework, it
is likely that the RFS will be unworkable for many regions and
inadvertently introduce uncertainty in the market for
investment and second generation biofuels. Uncertainty during
this pivotal time will delay and threaten the aggressive
targets set for RFS and hold us back from achieving energy
independence.
There is concern that unnecessary restrictions in the
definition of renewable biomass will severely limit the
majority of private forestland owners from participating in the
RFS. This will leave out entire regions of the country,
including my home State of Pennsylvania, where most of the
forestland is unlikely to be classified as an actively managed
tree plantation.
Responsible feedstock harvesting on public and private land
is critical for the widescale biofuel production and the rural
communities they support. Likewise, there are questions about
the processes for determining and enforcing RFS lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions regulations. It is important for the
emerging second generation biofuels industry that we get these
regulations right. I believe that farmers will continue to be
stewards of the land in addition to safely and reliably
producing food, fiber and renewable energy.
As our economy diversifies its energy supply, I strongly
believe that agriculture producers in rural communities will
play an important role during this transition. I hope this
hearing serves as an opportunity to learn about some of the
challenges and opportunities we face during the Renewable Fuel
Standard implementation.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I
call on my friend, the Ranking Member from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today's
hearing so that we can review the EPA's implementation of the
Renewable Fuel Standard.
Oklahoma has long been known for its energy production from
oil and gas fields. However, the potential for renewable energy
production from my home state is endless. In my district alone,
we provide animal and plant based corn crops for conventional
ethanol and land gross cellulosic crops from switchgrass to
help meet those RFS mandates.
During the development of the recently enacted farm bill, I
worked with Chairman Peterson and yourself, Mr. Chairman, to
craft an energy title that would help provide new markets for
agricultural crops and enhance the economic development of our
rural areas. Our energy title will help producers transition to
cellulosic crop production, incentivize the purchase of these
crops during the development stage, provide guaranteed loans to
build cellulosic ethanol plants, and provide assistance to
ethanol plants for the use of biomass for repowering.
The energy title this Committee developed will help with
the transition away from food to fuel as an energy source so
that we can meet the RFS. However, I am concerned that
provisions in the RFS restrict new lands from growing
cellulosic crops. Currently producers are seeing record prices
for the crops, and unless they can open up new land, they will
have no incentive to grow cellulosic crops.
In addition, the increase in the RFS is adversely affecting
or impacting the availability and the price of feed grains for
our livestock producers. In the 2007 first quarter of the U.S.
corn crop was directed literally--well, I should say \1/4\ of
the corn crop was directed to ethanol production. The EPA has
the authority to waive the RFS requirement when the
implementation of the requirement would adversely harm the
environment or the economy.
I believe the EPA needs to take a hard look at the impacts
that the mandate is having on livestock producers. We need to
place more emphasis on developing advanced biofuels, such as
cellulosic biofuels, to meet the RFS mandate. By continuing to
diversify our biofuels production, we can alleviate the
pressure that is being placed on the agricultural supply and
price concerns associated with corn ethanol.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing,
and I look forward to what we hear today.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the Ranking Member and would
request that all of the Members submit their opening statements
for the record.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Peterson, Salazar, and
Graves follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress From Minnesota
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this hearing.
Much of what we do here in the Agriculture Committee is about
finding the balance between the diverse needs and situations in
American agriculture. With so many different sectors overlapping to
create farm, food and energy policy, we're used to working carefully to
move the country forward in the best way possible--for everyone
involved.
I've said it many times before, but this is an exciting time for
American agriculture. Rural America has the opportunity to move us
toward energy independence by producing agriculturally-based bioenergy
here at home. The Renewable Fuel Standard will help ensure that we move
towards the next generation of advanced biofuels as we expand domestic
production.
I remain concerned about some of the language included in the final
RFS legislation. And throughout the implementation process, I expect
the EPA to consult with the USDA on issues that involve the production
of feedstocks and use the resources at land-grant universities and the
Department.
But that is why it's important to have hearings such as this one to
get these issues out in the open and ensure that the final result is
workable for all feedstock producers. I look forward to hearing from
the witnesses and thank you all for coming today.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John T. Salazar, a Representative in
Congress From Colorado
Good morning, I would like to thank Chairman Holden and Ranking
Member Lucas for holding this important hearing.
I also want to thank the witnesses of the two panels for coming to
testify. The information you provide is vital to continue the
conversation on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and becoming energy
independent.
We can all agree that we need more diversified and reliable sources
of energy.
The creation of the Renewable Fuel Standard helped bring other
sources to the forefront, such as corn-based ethanol and biodiesel
production.
As a rancher and a Coloradoan, I am extremely proud of both of
these resources.
In 2007, corn production was a record 13.1 billion bushels. While
this increase has helped producers, farmers across America have
received backlash regarding the food versus fuel debate.
At the same time, biofuel production remains a key component of our
energy independence.
In my district, the San Juan Bioenergy project is set to open by
this summer's end.
Biodiesel provides economic opportunities for farmers by creating a
value added crop. For example, San Juan Bioenergy will be creating
biodiesel from sunflower and canola oils.
We need to encourage more projects like the one in my district.
While considering the RFS, its definitions, and implementation, we
need to continue to look at the big picture.
The mandates set by the RFS can be costly, so consideration
regarding their execution should be taken seriously.
With that said, I am anxious to hear the thoughts of our panelists
as they discuss these issues.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
From Missouri
Thank you, Chairman Holden and Ranking Member Lucas for holding
this hearing on the implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard.
The Renewable Fuel Standard will provide our nation with an
alternative, domestically produced fuel that can help alleviate our
reliance on foreign oil. The United States needs to become more self-
sufficient in energy production, and the best way to do that is to
promote the development of alternative fuels.
The United States consumes roughly 20 million barrels of oil a day.
Relying on imported oil makes our economy and national security
vulnerable to foreign governments, some of which are hostile to U.S.
interests. The Renewable Fuel Standard not only reduces our reliance on
foreign sources of fuel, but it is also good for farmers and the
environment.
The United States should continue to promote the use of
alternative, domestically-produced fuels such as biodiesel and ethanol.
Fortunately, farmers in Missouri and across the nation have expanded
the ethanol industry at a record pace. Now it is time we see the quick
implementation of these policies and work toward developing the
infrastructure to make the Renewable Fuel Standard successful and
withstanding.
Quickly implementing and further exploring uses for alternative
fuels is good for the country, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues to achieve these goals. Again, I would like to thank the
Committee for holding this hearing.
Thank you.
The Chairman. We would like to welcome our first panelist,
the Hon. Robert Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation from the
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Meyers, you
may begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. MEYERS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND
RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON,
D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM ``BILL'' HAGY III, DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR FOR BUSINESS
PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Meyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of
Subcommittee, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today
talking about our implementation of the Energy Independence and
Security Act and its provisions regarding biofuels.
The EPA is responsible for implementing the RFS program,
which was originally established in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 as Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act. Since EISA was
enacted in December 2007, the Agency has been working very hard
to develop an effective program under the new and amended RFS
provisions which we commonly refer to as RFS2.
In this regard, Agency staff has met with more than 30
different stakeholders including renewable fuel producers,
technology companies, petroleum refiners and importers,
agricultural associations, owners associations, environmental
groups, gasoline and petroleum marketers, pipeline owners, and
fuel terminal operators.
We also continue to meet and collaborate regularly with the
Departments of Energy and Agriculture as well as the Forest
Service. EPA can and will draw from its experience in
developing the original RFS regulations. It is important to
understand that EISA has made a significant number of changes
to the RFS program.
First EISA increased the total renewable fuel volume
mandate fivefold over the 2005 Energy Bill and extended the
statutory deadline scheduled for the RFS by 10 years. Therefore
development of substantial infrastructure capable of
delivering, storing, and blending these volumes of renewable
fuels in new markets and expanding existing market capabilities
will be needed.
Second, the EISA extended the RFS program to include both
on-road and nonroad gasoline and diesel fuel volumes. Extending
the program to producers and importers of on-road and nonroad
gasoline and diesel fuel was a significant change and may
affect many new parties including some small businesses.
Third, EISA increased the number of renewable fuel category
standards to a total of four, including total renewable fuel,
and subcategories, each with its own required minimum bottoms,
advanced biofuels, biomass-based diesel and cellulosic fuels.
EISA also specifies that by 2022, cellulosic volumes should
exceed the volumes required for what might be termed as
conventional corn-based ethanol.
Fourth, new provisions are included in EISA that require
EPA to apply lifecycle greenhouse gas performance standards to
each category of renewable fuel. Lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions is a defined term under the Act and generally refers
to the aggregate quantity of greenhouse gas emissions related
to the full fuel lifecycle, including all stages of fuel and
feedstock production distribution.
There being separate elements and complexities of this
definition, EPA is presently working with our interagency
partners to develop appropriate approaches. In general, work is
necessary on lifecycle with respect to the modeling framework,
better understanding of GHG emission sources, and development
of key components for the agricultural sector, biofuel
production, and baseline petroleum fuel. While EPA has done
considerable work in this area, additional new and improved
analysis will be necessary.
Fifth, EISA adds a number of new provisions, including
changing the definition of renewable fuel feedstocks in a
fundamental manner. Developing appropriate enforceable
regulations addressing this provision will require extensive
dialogue with USDA, USDR, DOE, the agricultural community, and
the renewable fuel producers, and others.
Finally, as required by Congress, we will be assessing the
impacts of EISA Renewable Fuel Program on vehicle emissions,
air quality, greenhouse gases, water quality, land use, and
energy security. These analyses will provide important
information to the public and Congress on the effectiveness of
the new legislation.
With respect to other implementation issues, as I am sure
you are aware, Texas Governor Rick Perry sent a letter to EPA
Administrator Johnson on April 25 requesting a partial waiver
of the 2008 RFS volume obligations. The comment period for this
request closed on June 23, and we have received approximately
15,000 comments with 150 substantive comments from a wide range
of stakeholders including: individual companies and
associations; farmers, cattle, beef, and poultry industries;
the food and grain industries; and others.
We are actively evaluating these comments and other
pertinent information. However, it is clear that some
additional time is needed to allow us to accurately review and
respond to public comments and to develop a decision document
that explains the technical, economic, and legal rationale for
our decision.
We will be using this time to continue our coordination, as
required by EISA, with USDA and DOE, and I am confident the
agency will be able to make a final determination on the waiver
request by early August of this year.
In closing, EPA is faced with many challenges with the
development of regulations to implement the RFS2. We are
attempting to utilize the successful approach we employed in
developing the regulations for the original RFS program. I look
forward to working with Members of Congress and this Committee
and many other stakeholders during this process. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to come before you today to testify on implementation of
the renewable fuel provisions of the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 (EISA). The Act's aggressive new Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS) will further our nation's goals of achieving energy security and
reducing greenhouse gases by building on the successful RFS program
established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).
Renewable fuels are a key element of a national strategy for
addressing our energy security and the challenge of global climate
change. The national Renewable Fuel Standard, in combination with the
vehicle fuel economy standards in EISA, will reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases in the transportation sector and improve our energy
security. The changes brought about by EISA are expected to prevent the
release of billions of metric tons of greenhouse gases emissions into
the atmosphere over the next several decades.
The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for implementing
the RFS program, and we are proud of our success to date in working
with stakeholders in industry, states and the environmental community
to build an effective program for increasing the volumes of renewable
fuel used by the transportation sector. In April 2007 we announced
final regulations for implementing the RFS Program under EPAct 2005.
The Agency worked very closely with both our Federal partners and
stakeholders to develop broad support for the program. This program was
officially launched in September 2007. We believe our success is
grounded on our close collaboration with stakeholders on the design and
implementation of the program.
Since EISA was signed into law on December 19, 2007, the Agency has
been working diligently to develop regulations to implement the new RFS
program established by that legislation, commonly called RFS2. Our
first and most pressing task was to issue a new renewable volume
standard for 2008. The RFS program established by EPAct 2005 required
5.4 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2008. The EISA legislation
increased the standard to 9 billion gallons in 2008, with annual
increases in mandated volumes resulting in 36 billion gallons being
required in 2022. We published a notice implementing the 2008 volume
requirement in the Federal Register on February 14 of this year.
While the RFS program established under EPAct 2005 provides a solid
foundation for the new regulations, RFS2 includes new elements which
add complexity to the program. As a result, the new EISA provisions
require careful evaluation and considerable new analysis.
In this new undertaking, the Agency is following much of the same
approach we used in developing the first RFS program. This includes
obtaining critical input from our stakeholders throughout the
rulemaking process. Since EISA was enacted less than 7 months ago, the
Agency has met with more than thirty different stakeholders, including
renewable fuel producers, technology companies, petroleum refiners and
importers, agricultural associations, environmental groups, gasoline
and petroleum marketers, pipeline owners and fuel terminal operators.
Agency technical staff have participated in numerous conferences and
workshops, which have allowed us to reach a broad range of technical,
programmatic and policy issue experts. We also continue to meet and
collaborate regularly with the Departments of Energy and Agriculture.
Through these meetings, EPA has sought input on the key RFS2 program
design elements as highlighted in this testimony.
While EPA will draw from its experience in developing the original
RFS regulations, it is important to understand that EISA made a
significant number of changes to the RFS program. First, as mentioned
previously, RFS2 increases the total renewable fuel volumes mandated to
36 billion gallons a year by 2022. This is nearly a five fold increase
over the 7.5 billion gallons a year mandated under EPAct 2005 for 2012,
and constitutes a 10 year extension of the schedule provided for in
that legislation. EPA believes that the implications of this
substantial increase are not trivial. Development of infrastructure
capable of delivering, storing and blending these volumes in new
markets and expanding existing market capabilities will be needed. In
addition, the market's absorption of increased volumes of ethanol will
ultimately require new ``outlets'' beyond E10 blends (i.e., gasoline
containing 10% ethanol by volume). A rule of thumb estimate is that E10
blends, if used nationwide, would utilize approximately 15 billion
gallons of ethanol. Accommodating approximately an additional 20
billion gallons of ethanol-blended fuel is expected to require an
expansion of the number of flexible-fuel E85 vehicles and their
utilization of E85 and/or other actions. New emerging renewable fuel
production technologies may hold potential to make gasoline and diesel-
like fuels from renewable sources. The Agency will continue to monitor
and evaluate the development of such technologies as we implement the
RFS program over the coming years.
Second, beyond the significant increase in the volume mandate, EISA
extended the RFS program to include both non-road gasoline and diesel
fuel volumes. Under the regulations implementing EPAct 2005, RFS volume
requirements were applied only to producers and importers of on-road
gasoline. The extension of this program to both non-road gasoline and
diesel fuel volumes, along with the potential for opt-in by
participants of the home heating oil and jet fuel markets is a
significant change that may affect new parties, including a number of
small businesses that have not been regulated under this program in the
past.
Third, EISA has established new categories of renewable fuel. EPAct
2005 established standards for two categories of renewable fuels: one
standard for the total volume of renewable fuel; and a second standard
for cellulosic ethanol requiring 250 million gallons beginning in 2013.
RFS2 increased the number of renewable fuel categories and standards to
a total of four, including total renewable fuel and three new
categories within that with unique volume requirements: advanced
biofuels, biomass-based diesel and cellulosic biofuels. Industry will
be required to demonstrate compliance with the four separate fuel
standards. This will likely require the obligated parties, producers
and importers, to forge new business relationships and contracts that
are necessary to guarantee their compliance with the new standards.
Establishing the necessary systems to track and verify the production
and distribution of these fuels and demonstrate compliance with four
separate standards will also require sufficient lead time to design and
implement these new tracking systems. As in the current program under
EPAct 2005, in the near term, some parties may not be able to comply by
blending the renewable fuels, and thus may need to purchase or trade
credits for the appropriate number and category of fuels to satisfy
their volume obligations. It will be very important to conduct
effective outreach with these parties to support a smooth
implementation. In addition, certain requirements in RFS2 pertain only
to renewable fuel production facilities that commence construction
after the legislation was enacted. EPA will need to carefully consider
how this new provision should be interpreted.
As part of its restructuring of the renewable fuel mandate, EISA
increased the cellulosic biofuel mandate from 250 million to 1.0
billion gallons by 2013, with additional yearly increases to 16 billion
gallons in 2022. EISA also provided a new definition of this fuel:
cellulosic biofuel must be derived from renewable biomass, which
includes requirements that place various limitations on the types of
land from which the feedstocks are taken, and a cellulosic biofuel must
also have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are at least 60
percent less than the baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for
petroleum based fuel (RFS2 established the baseline year as 2005).
Implementing these requirements will entail additional work by EPA
as it develops its upcoming regulation. For example, the Act authorizes
EPA in certain circumstances to adjust the cellulosic biofuel standard
to a level lower than that specified in the law. However it requires in
this circumstance that the Agency also make credits available for
compliance purposes and provides instructions on how to establish a
specific price for these credits. The Agency will therefore need to
address several critical issues, such as the quantity of credits to be
generated, to whom they will be available, the extent to which they can
be traded, and the life of the credit.
RFS2 also established for the first time minimum volume standards
for biomass based diesel fuel. These standards begin in 2009 at a half
billion gallons and ramp up to 1 billion gallons per year in 2012 and
thereafter. To qualify as biomass based diesel, the renewable fuel
portion of the biomass based diesel blend must result in greenhouse gas
emissions that are at least 50 percent lower than the baseline GHG
emissions for petroleum based diesel fuel (RFS2 established the
baseline year as 2005) and cannot be co-processed with a petroleum
feedstock.
Fourth, EISA requires the Agency to apply lifecycle greenhouse gas
(GHG) performance threshold standards to each category of renewable
fuel. Congress provided a specific definition of lifecycle analysis
that requires EPA to consider all stages of fuel and feedstock
production and distribution, from feedstock generation or extraction
through the distribution and use of the finished fuel to the ultimate
consumer. The Act also specifies that EPA take into account both direct
emissions and significant indirect emissions such as emissions from
land use changes.
EPA is currently developing a methodology that meets the EISA
requirements. This effort builds on a substantial amount of work the
Agency has done in this area, beginning with our analysis of the
lifecycle GHG impact of the renewable fuel volumes required by the RFS1
program. EPA has expanded the methodology to include secondary
agricultural sector impacts and land use changes. The Agency is
continuing to further refine and improve our analyses as we prepare to
implement the statute's lifecycle GHG performance thresholds.
Given the importance of lifecycle analysis to the success of the
RFS2 program and the complexity of this work, the Agency has been
working closely with stakeholders. Through multiple meetings with a
broad range of groups--including the Departments of Energy and
Agriculture, academics and lifecycle experts, environmental
organizations, renewable fuel producers, and refiners--we have shared
our approach and sought input on the key assumptions and modeling tools
necessary to conduct a complete lifecycle analysis that meets the EISA
criteria. These discussions have been extremely valuable to the Agency
and we plan to maintain this high level of stakeholder engagement
throughout the rule development process.
Fifth, RFS2 added a number of other new provisions, including
changing the definition of renewable fuel feedstocks in a fundamental
manner. The new law limits the crops and crop residues used to produce
renewable fuel to those grown on land cleared or cultivated at any time
prior to enactment of EISA, that is either actively managed or fallow,
and non-forested. EISA also requires that forest-related slash and tree
thinnings used for renewable fuel production pursuant to the Act be
harvested from non-Federal forestlands. Developing appropriate and
enforceable regulations addressing these provisions requires extensive
dialogue with USDA, USTR, the agricultural community and renewable fuel
producers to better understand current practices and changes in
practices that can be developed, implemented and enforced. The Agency
has started these discussions and plans to continue this dialogue
throughout the regulatory process.
Finally, in support of the rulemaking, we are assessing the many
impacts of the EISA renewable fuel program. Assessments are underway to
understand the impacts on emissions and air quality (greenhouse gases,
ozone, particulate matter and toxics), water impacts (including water
quality and consumption), agricultural sector impacts (including direct
and indirect land use change), energy security, and economic impacts
(such as cost of fuels and feedstocks). Detailed information will be
needed for the draft regulatory impact analysis (RIA), which we intend
to release with the proposed rules. These analyses will provide
important information to the public and Congress on the many
anticipated impacts of the new legislation.
As you are aware, Texas Governor Rick Perry sent a letter to EPA
Administrator Johnson on April 25 requesting a partial waiver of the
2008 RFS volume obligations required by EISA. Governor Perry requests
the volume requirement be reduced by 50 percent, from 9 billion gallons
in 2008 to 4.5 billion gallons. This waiver request states that the
mandate is having an ``unnecessarily negative impact on Texas'
otherwise strong economy while driving up global food prices''. Under
authority and direction provided in EPAct 2005 and EISA 2007, the
Agency has 90 days from the date of receipt of this request to issue a
decision. We issued a Federal Register notice on May 22, requesting
public comment on this request. The comment period closed on June 23.
We received over 15,000 comments, with over 150 substantive comments
from a wide range of stakeholders including individual companies and
associations representing renewable fuel producers, farmers, cattle,
beef and poultry industries, the food and grain industries and many
others. We have been evaluating these comments and other pertinent
information and conducting the analysis necessary to support a decision
by the Administrator. Of course, EPA is also consulting extensively
with our colleagues at the Departments of Agriculture and Energy.
EPA has also been closely monitoring the aftermath of the Midwest
floods to determine to what extent this natural disaster may impact the
renewable fuel program. We have had multiple discussions with the USDA,
DOE, renewable fuel producers, oil companies, petroleum marketers and
state authorities. We are evaluating both impacts on feedstock (e.g.,
corn, soybeans, etc.) availability for use in ethanol production, as
well impacts on fuel production and distribution systems. The extent of
these impacts has not yet been fully determined. If there are short
term impacts to ethanol production and distribution, the RFS program
provides certain flexibility. For example, obligated parties may comply
over the course of a 1 year period, allowing use of excess and
previously generated credits. We will continue to coordinate and
collaborate with DOE and USDA closely on these issues as directed by
the statute and provide updates on this as necessary.
In closing, the Agency is moving forward with the development of
regulations implementing the RFS2 provisions and is utilizing the
successful approach we employed in developing the regulations for the
original RFS program. We look forward to working closely with Members
of Congress and our many other stakeholders during this process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee for this
opportunity. This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Meyers. So on Governor Perry's
request for a waiver, you said by early August, you believe
that there will be decision that will be made?
Mr. Meyers. Yes.
The Chairman. Okay, thank you. Mr. Meyers, the energy bill
contained a specific definition of lifecycle analysis for
greenhouse gas emissions, and as you mentioned in your
testimony, this requires EPA to consider all stages of fuel and
feedstock production. How does EPA plan to proceed on this? Do
you think that you will have to go on the farm to measure and
monitor this? And have you been working closely with the
Department as you move forward on this?
Mr. Meyers. First of all, yes, we have been working very
closely with USDA and also Department of Energy, who has one of
the models that we utilize, the GREET model, to measure
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. This is a new task for the
agency.
It is a mandatory task under the Act, but essentially the
legislative language focuses on the aggregate quantity of
greenhouse gas emissions. So I think the intent of your
question was whether we would need to go into each individual
farm or each individual production facility to determine what
their specific greenhouse gas lifecycle profile is.
We don't anticipate doing that. I think the practicality of
the situation calls for an averaging approach in terms of
different categories of greenhouse gas. We will need to
calculate it. We will need to give full faith and credit to the
legislative language, but we believe we can use an averaging
approach so we won't be looking at individual facilities.
The Chairman. Mr. Meyers, how is EPA interpreting the
actively managed tree plantations in the immediate vicinity
language in the definition of renewable biomass? And what
issues have you encountered while trying to determine what
these terms mean?
Mr. Meyers. You are pointing out one of the challenges of
interpreting this entirely new legislative language. We are
looking at that, and we will be--obviously we are at pre-
proposal stage. At proposal stage, we will be taking comment on
those definitions, normal rules of statutory interpretation,
plain meaning of the statute. We believe we can work with our
state colleagues. We are having discussions with regard to
those terms, but we will be proposing and taking comment on all
those terms.
The Chairman. Mr. Meyers, I mentioned uncertainty in my
opening statement. What can you do to minimize the level of
regulatory uncertainty in the market with greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and the potential liability issues
surrounding ineligible feedstocks in the supply chain, so as
not to discourage the private investment needed to meet the
aggressive RFS targets?
Mr. Meyers. Well, I think our experience with RFS1 and the
way we developed regulations there helped a lot in terms of
even before we proposed the regulations, I think outreach to
the community, the effected community, regulated community is
essential in the matter, and that is exactly what we are doing
in the RFS2.
But certainly in marketplaces, we envision that--again we
are pre-proposal, but we envision using some of the same
structures we have already put in place in RFS1. In other
words, structures such as the RIN, renewable numbers that
basically track and will identify the quantities of renewable
fuel moving to the system.
We have also used, tried to parallel the existing transfer
documents that are used in the industry, the fuel industry. In
each type, relying on existing market structures and relying on
the existing regulatory structure will help with uncertainty
while noting that we have the challenges here with the entirely
new categories of fuel that will have to be incorporated into
the system.
So I think it is a combination of outreach, and I think it
is also a combination of building on the existing regulatory
structure we already have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Meyers. Before calling the
Ranking Member, I see the Chairman of the full Committee has
arrived. Does the Chairman have an opening statement? Okay, the
gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Meyers, meeting the
new renewable fuels mandate will require a tremendous amount of
renewable feedstock from a variety of sources. It appears
unfortunately that the RFS includes some very specific
restrictions on what agriculture and forest biomass can be used
to meet the RFS. Do you believe it is possible to meet the
mandate with the restrictions as they appear to be now?
Mr. Meyers. Is the question with reference to the immediate
year or in the future?
Mr. Lucas. Where you are headed, yes.
Mr. Meyers. Well, there are going to be challenges, as I
noted in my opening statement. The cellulosic volumes
contemplated will be, by the end of the program, over the
amount of existing corn-based fuel. Cellulosic doesn't exist in
commercial quantities in the marketplace right now, so
obviously that is a huge endeavor. The Department of Energy is
investing in a lot of energy research related to cellulosic,
but in essence, you have a mandate anticipating the development
of fuel that is not available in large quantities right now.
Now, Congress obviously had a plan to incentivize that
production, but that will be a challenge.
Additionally, in terms of implementing the bill, there are
some challenges with the complexity. I think we can meet them,
but, we will--the other broad challenge--will be incorporating.
We have gone essentially--jumped up the original schedule from
2005 to 9 billion this year and 11.1 billion next year. At
about 15 billion of ethanol, you reach essentially what many
people call the blend law, which is essentially saturation of
the E10 ethanol blend to level.
So beyond that, there are going to be additional responses
required in the marketplace, either higher blend of fuels like
E85 or the availability of intermediate blends above E10 if you
are an ethanol-based system.
So there are going to be challenges. We have available
authority to address those challenges in the statute. The
various waiver mechanisms--in addition to the one that
Governor--we have a petition from Governor Perry specific to
cellulosic volumes, for example. So we feel optimistic that we
can make this system work.
Mr. Lucas. So I guess my follow-up question would be you
have looked then at the impact or tried to project or thought
about the impact that the mandate will have on the particular
markets, the food segment, the feed segment, and the livestock,
the fiber segment?
Mr. Meyers. Yes, a lot of that analysis will be contained
in the regulatory impact analysis we will do in association
with developing the proposed regulations. We are looking at a
number of impacts. The fuel distribution system is one of them
that we did quite a bit of work on RFS1, and we are continuing
that over now in the RFS2. But a lot of the economic analysis,
environmental analysis, public health analysis from air quality
standpoint, will be associated with the draft regulatory
impacts assessment and the final regulatory impact assessment
with the final regulation.
Mr. Lucas. But the key being that they will be a factor in
the equation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the Ranking Member and
recognizes the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and the
Ranking Member for holding this hearing. I want to follow up on
this. You know, in a way, is there any definition that you have
to do on this language here where there are planted crops and
crop residue, harvested from agricultural land, whether they
are cultivated any time prior to enactment? Is there some kind
of process going on where you are refining that or defining it
or whatever?
Mr. Meyers. Yes, we will essentially have to take that
legislative language and operationalize it to regulatory
language.
Mr. Peterson. Where are you in that process? Have you
started that at all?
Mr. Meyers. Yes, EISA was passed December 17 or 19 of last
year, and literally almost immediately afterwards, we started
working--our office, their office, the Office of Transportation
and Air Quality in particular has been working in association
with our legal folks and with the other departments and
agencies. So we are anticipating to have a proposed rule out
this fall, which will address those basic type of issues in the
program.
Mr. Peterson. Are you consulting with USDA on this?
Mr. Meyers. Yes, we are. I don't want to say a daily basis,
but almost a daily basis.
Mr. Peterson. And the rule is going to be out in September?
Mr. Meyers. We would hope for September, but need to go
through an interagency process. So I think our target is
certainly this fall.
Mr. Peterson. So there has been no public comment on this
yet because you haven't put anything out?
Mr. Meyers. No, there has not been official public
commentary, which, of course, will occur. But what we have
done, as we did in RFS1, is do a lot of outreach. We have done
a lot of informal meetings. We have done a lot of formal
meetings. I have sat in and talked to different producers
myself, and my staff has been available for multiple meetings.
Mr. Peterson. Well, what have you heard?
Mr. Meyers. I think, like most people looking at the law,
it took people awhile to start to read it and try and interpret
it and figure out what it meant for them. That is a natural
question if you are either a field producer or you are somebody
who is going to be an obligated party under the bill.
And once that occurs, people start thinking about how the
language could be interpreted to take the realities of their
situation into account. So we have productive discussions. I
think we have actually learned a lot through this process, but
it is ongoing. That is all I can say. And the conversations
will extend past the proposed rule.
Mr. Peterson. Well, I don't know if I fully understand
this, but--and maybe I am overreacting. But my assessment of
this is if this is implemented the way I think it might be
implemented, in my opinion, cellulosic ethanol will never
happen in this country.
It is almost as crazy as what the Europeans are doing where
they are putting sustainability ahead of anything else in terms
of developing their biofuels. And having been through the
ethanol thing for 40 years, I will guarantee you that you will
make sure this will never happen if you limit this land because
there is not a market for this stuff. It is a hell of a lot
harder to do than anybody realizes. The biggest issue with this
whole cellulosic thing is the biomass, and I don't think people
understand it.
And if you put restrictions on this, this isn't going to
happen. So I want cellulosic to happen, but there are some
people here with ideologies that are run amuck in my opinion.
And somebody better get real here if we really want to make
this happen. I don't know if anybody else has expressed that to
you, but I will now so----
Mr. Meyers. Well, I think we have an interest, as anybody
else does, in having a workable transparent system for this
fuel standard. I think we are obviously implementing
legislative language that we need to give full faith to. So
there are terms that pose challenges in the legislative
language. I think that is plain. We will do our best to make a
workable system, but we also have to live within the laws as is
passed.
Mr. Peterson. Well, yes. Well, some of us are trying to
change this. I think this is a big mistake, and if we really
want to make this happen, we are going to have to sort through
this somehow or another.
The Chairman. All right, I thank the Chairman. And
recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Meyers, I appreciate
your testimony, and just a number of subjects I would run
across. And want to ask if you have any measure, any sense of
what has happened to the migration of capital to or away from
the infrastructure investment for renewable fuels development
since this ag bill was passed and the blender's credit was cut
by 6 cents?
Mr. Meyers. I wouldn't have that specific information, but
I would be happy to provide it for the record. Obviously we
have had a period of investment in the renewable fuel industry,
and priority is in anticipation and after the passage of RFS2.
But I would be happy to provide it for the record, or we can
also check with the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. King. I would ask that you provide that information to
the Committee and ask you also if you could just simply give us
your judgment on what the general direction of that flow of
capital might be. And if you would be prepared to answer that
now with an internal--just your judgment, your own personal
judgment today as you look into the impact on investors and see
what has happened, what would you expect?
Mr. Meyers. I am a lawyer, not an economist so I would
probably demure on speculation on that question. Again I
apologize if I am not prepared to answer it now, but we will
provide a response for the record.
Mr. King. Thank you. I am willing to speak on the record on
what I think is happening. And that is I think capital is
migrating away from the infrastructure, development of
renewable fuels, particularly corn-based ethanol. And it may
well have put the brakes on the future development of the
industry coupled with high grain prices.
And I wanted to also make the point, and I am guessing a
little bit here, because some of this is on the fly, but I have
talked to people that have paid $7.03 cash for corn for feed.
We know that the cash market has actually got a little higher
than that, and we can talk about futures that are well above
that. But, I also saw cash corn prices down well below a dollar
under that. And that is going in the right direction for
stability in these markets.
And I wanted to raise this caution. I know in your
testimony, you say that you are monitoring the aftermath of the
Midwest floods. I encourage you strongly to hold out and wait
for this August crop report, which will be our first real
picture of what we are going to be seeing in the fall. So that
RFS standards can be evaluated in light of what we are likely
to see come out of the field in the fall rather than the
speculation that comes in June and July. August is when you
really know for the first time. You have a pretty good measure
anyway.
I wanted to also ask you if you are looking at the
logistics of cellulosic. One of my concerns is that we have the
infrastructure for corn-based ethanol. We know how to harvest
corn and transport that, and so all that infrastructure is in
place. All we had to do was build a plant and send it,
sometimes instead of to the elevator, to the ethanol plant.
The cellulosic is entirely different, and we don't really
even know what species we will be raising, what group of crop
species we will be raising, let alone how we might have to have
new equipment to plant and harvest and transport. And so I just
think in terms of cellulosic being anything that looks like a
big bale of hay. And I know there is a lot of air in a load of
that. It is hard to get much weight in volume, which means our
loads can't effectively be hauled much of a great distance.
That entire infrastructure that will have to be built, is that
considered as well, when you look at the cellulosic future?
Mr. Meyers. Yes, I think we are looking at issues like
that. Obviously the corn infrastructure, as you point out,
developed over time and even with the current ethanol plant,
most of the feedstock is fairly local, within 30 or 50 miles or
so of a production plant. So one might presume the same sort of
structure when you are moving a lot of feedstock will apply to
cellulosic.
But whatever crops may be used for cellulosic production,
whatever the challenges may be, those are issues, some of which
will be settled by the marketplace. In our analysis, we try to
look as best we can at the fuel distribution system and
production, but we are probably constrained by our ability to
project exactly how the market will respond to a mandate.
Mr. King. And if I can just quickly ask you on another
subject, if the EPA were to mandate blenders pumps as a means
to get past the 10 percent, and you spoke about that blenders
law, what would be the estimated capital investment there, and
how would one implement such a thing?
Mr. Meyers. You mean in terms of the retail distribution of
the----
Mr. King. Yes.
Mr. Meyers. I am not sure, outside of--I will check, and I
am always hesitant to just speculate. But I think between an
E10, an E15 and E20, I don't think--there could be some fitting
issues, but I don't think it is a major transition in terms of
the retail distribution.
Mr. King. If I could, perhaps, ask that question more
specifically in at least and perhaps several of the states,
there exist blenders pumps where you can dial the percentage of
blend.
Mr. Meyers. The--I am sorry. Excuse me.
Mr. King. Okay.
Mr. Meyers. Well, the issue for us would be in terms of--
well, there are several issues, potential issues, including
misfueling vehicles that cannot accommodate the blend above a
certain level. Right now, essentially in the marketplace, E10
is a legal fuel, and E85 is a legal fuel. Beyond that, there
are issues with intermediate blends that we are looking at
specifically in the State of Minnesota. And Minnesota is doing
some studies, and DOE is assisting in that effort.
But we have to think not only of cause, we have to think of
secondary equipment. We have to think of off-road equipment
that utilizes the fuel, and a host of issues in terms of
intermediate blends that need to be looked at from the engine
components and the fuel system and make sure safety is
preserved as well as the performance of the vehicle.
So if you are talking about dial a blend effects--your
vehicle is able to utilize that--but other equipment in the
marketplace right now, we have not made that determination.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Meyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
The Chairman. Before the chair goes to Mr. Salazar, I see
the Ranking Member has arrived and would recognize the Ranking
Member for any statement he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for holding today's hearing to review the implementation of the
Renewable Fuel Standard.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
dramatically increased the RFS to 36 billion by 2022. The
expanded RFS also creates an unrealistic mandate for
conventional corn ethanol by prohibiting the use of biomass
from new crop acres. This restriction will make it difficult,
if not impossible, for producers to meet the food and fiber
demands of our consumers while also meeting the mandates set in
the RFS.
We also face a major problem in the transition from grain-
based fuels to cellulosic biofuels if EISA is interpreted
narrowly to restrict the cellulosic feedstocks from forests and
agriculture lands that can be used to meet the RFS.
Virginia has been in the business of agriculture for over
400 years. Much of the uncropped land in the 6th District has
the potential to grow switchgrass and help meet the demands of
cellulosic ethanol if and when it becomes commercially
available. However, the unnecessary land restrictions in the
RFS will limit potential biomass to be used to meet the
mandate.
The Act also discourages the production of cellulosic fuels
from forests, one of the largest potential sources of
cellulosic feedstock. Use of forest biomass for biofuels
creates markets for byproducts of forest improvement projects.
This can help solve our nation's energy, forest health, and
wildfire problems and also help forest owners stay on the land.
Even with the advancement of cellulosic biofuels, the
expansion of the RFS would still require 15 billion gallons of
renewable fuel to come from the only current commercially
available option, grain ethanol. We have seen the impacts of
using food for fuel now, even before the mandate is reached.
This year, over 30 percent of the expected U.S. corn crop will
be used for ethanol production. That amount is expected to rise
significantly over the next few years.
Because livestock feed is used to meet our renewable fuel
initiatives, the livestock sector is facing significantly
higher feed costs. Corn and soybeans' most valuable market has
always been, and will continue to be, the livestock producers.
We must ensure that there are not unintended economic
distortions to either grain or livestock producers as a result
of these sectors prospering from other markets.
Today, we expect the Environmental Protection Agency to
rule--actually I don't think we do now. They have announced a
delay on the RFS waiver request sent by Governor Rick Perry of
Texas. However, that ruling has been delayed until mid-August
to give the EPA time to gather more information. While I
understand there are many factors that play into the rising
price of corn, a temporary reduction in the government-mandated
RFS is the only factor in our control that would give immediate
relief to livestock producers and consumers.
I am interested to hear today's testimony on how the EPA
will implement the expanded RFS. I am supportive of the
development of renewable fuels, but more importantly, I am in
favor of developing a policy that is technology neutral and
allows the market to develop new sources of renewable energy.
I hope today's hearing will alleviate some of my concerns
regarding the implementation of the RFS. I appreciate the
efforts of the Chairman to hold this hearing, but equally
importantly, the Chairman of the full Committee to attempt to
address this issue. And I hope that legislation, which I was
pleased to cosponsor, offered by Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin,
The Renewable Biomass Facilitation Act of 2008, which would
replace the definition of renewable biomass in the Clean Air
Act and eliminate the crop and forestry restrictions that are
currently in the RFS. There are things that we can do if we
work together, and I hope that we have the opportunity to do
that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the Ranking Member. The
gentleman from Colorado has yielded his position to the
gentlewoman from South Dakota. The gentlewoman is recognized.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the
gentleman from Colorado. Mr. Meyers, thank you for being here.
I would like to follow up on some of the questions that the
Chairman of the Subcommittee and of the full Committee posed as
well as the issue that is addressed in legislation I have
introduced that the Ranking Member just mentioned.
And that relates to this very unfortunate provision, in my
opinion, that was added late in the process of the energy bill
that we passed in December, which would essentially, in
defining renewable biomass, eliminate materials harvested on
national forestland as well as what the Subcommittee Chairman
mentioned in terms of the definitions for private sources of
biomass that I think are overly restricted.
I am going to refer to some of the testimony, the written
testimony from our next panel, and just ask you to respond to a
point on the matter of this definition. Ms. Wong's written
testimony notes that under EESI's interpretation of the
definition of renewable biomass in the 2007 Energy Bill,
materials harvested on national forestland would not count
toward the RFS unless taken from ``the immediate vicinity'' of
building or other infrastructure in danger of wildfire. She
believes this definition is ``exceptionally vague and is
altogether unclear how it would be interpreted.''
Similarly, Mr. Blazer's written testimony is that the
current definition of renewable biomass ``creates a
bureaucratic nightmare that makes any use of woody biomass cost
prohibitive.'' Do you agree that this definition poses serious
difficulties in interpretation and implementation?
Mr. Meyers. Well, I think any new legislative definition
provides a challenge for the EPA. We have to, under principles
of interpretation, look at the statute, and we have to, of
course, look at the legislative history and the context in
which it was passed.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, in your experience----
Mr. Meyers. Yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin.--does this particular definition pose
more serious challenges in implementation and interpretation?
Mr. Meyers. Well, we have a number of terms in the Clean
Air Act, which I am very familiar with, which are broad terms.
This is another instance where we have some broad language
which we are going to have to interpret. You know, we, as an
implementing agency, really don't have a choice but to do our
best to try to work with the definition we have.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Do you anticipate problems with
analyzing the legislative history, given that this language was
never vetted through this Committee or any other Committee that
I am aware of, before that legislation, that provision was
introduced into the legislation?
Mr. Meyers. Well, if there is no legislative history, that
is--there is no legislative history.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. On another topic, it is Mr. Cassman's
understanding--he is also testifying on the next panel--that
EPA is relying on the GREET model, the Greenhouse Gases
Regulated Emissions and Energies in Transportation model from
the Argonne National Laboratory for estimating direct effects
of greenhouse gas emissions of corn ethanol systems. Is that
correct?
Mr. Meyers. Yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. And Mr. Cassman's written testimony
states that the BESS, the Biofuel Energy Systems Simulator
model, for measuring greenhouse gas emissions of corn ethanol
systems is distinguished from the GREET model in that the BESS
model ``uses more data for crop reduction, biorefinery, energy
efficiency, and coproduct use.'' Do you agree?
Mr. Meyers. I will have to get back--I am not as familiar
with the BESS model.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, Mr. Cassman also states that the
use of the GREET model means corn ethanol will be unable to
satisfy the 2007 Energy Bill's requirement of 20 percent
greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Has EPA reached a decision
on whether or not then it will consider using the BESS model?
Perhaps your earlier statement indicates that you haven't,
but----
Mr. Meyers. No, we haven't. Obviously we are at pre-
proposal stage. So that will be part of what we put forth for
public comment. We have had the GREET model for a number of
years and worked with DOE to improve that model. The issue is
the legislative definition. With regard to the 20 percent,
there is a provision that allows for that to be lowered on
certain findings.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Well, I would appreciate if you
could get back to us with further information on your views on
the BESS model----
Mr. Meyers. Sure. Be glad to do that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin.--compared to the GREET model, as Mr.
Cassman goes into that analysis. I know you may or may not have
had a chance to review some of their written testimony ahead of
time. I did want to bring that to your attention because it is
very important to use the model that uses the most up-to-date
information, particularly given the technological advancements
in many corn ethanol plants, they are improving efficiency
dramatically.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentlewoman and
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Space.
Mr. Space. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping you might
help me understand something, Mr. Meyers. The Energy
Independence and Security Act--I agree with my colleague from
South Dakota--contains some unfortunate definitional elements.
One of the provisions provides that the EISA restricts use
of lands on which to produce renewable biomass to lands that
have been cleared or cultivated prior to December 19, 2007.
What is the rationale for, as you understand it, for imposing
that restriction or limitation?
Mr. Meyers. Well, as referenced earlier, there is probably
a lack of legislative history with regard to provisions, so I
am hesitant to speculate. But I think that the issues with land
use have involved essentially clearing of land not previously
used and harvesting of stored carbon, and that there have been
some studies to indicate that that has a fairly sizable
negative GHG effect.
Mr. Space. Thank you.
The Chairman. Any follow-up questions for Mr. Meyers? Well,
I would just ask the Department then if they had any comments
about the implementation process? Are they satisfied or have
any suggestions? If anyone from the Department would--Mr.
Meyers, I said, that the cooperation between EPA and the
Department, I am sure there is substantial cooperation. I am
just curious if the department had any comment they would like
to make.
Mr. Hagy. Yes, my name is Bill Hagy. I am the Deputy
Administrator for Business Programs in Rural Development.
The Chairman. Can you state your name again, sir.
Mr. Hagy. Yes, Bill Hagy. I am the Deputy Administrator for
Business Programs in Rural Development. We have started some
dialogue with the fellow departments with regards to
implementation of the farm bill. I think you are aware that
there is a biomass board that meets. It is made up of all the
Federal departments and Federal agencies, and there has been
some dialogue within that board also on some of these issues.
So they are beginning to be addressed in comparing the farm
bill to EISA and how the two bills can work together.
The Chairman. So you are very much aware of the problem
that the Chairman of the full Committee and the Ranking Member
addressed in their comments about how we are very concerned
that there is going to be difficulty in having equity and
participation, right?
Mr. Meyers. Those concerns have been raised, and they are
being considered within the Department and working with our
fellow departments.
The Chairman. Okay, well we need your help on this. So
please stay in touch.
Mr. Meyers. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Meyers, thank you very much for your
testimony and your answering of the questions.
Mr. Meyers. Thank you.
The Chairman. We now call on panel two, and we would like
to invite to the table Ms. Jetta Wong, Senior Policy Associate,
Environmental and Energy Study Institute from Washington, D.C.
Mr. Arthur ``Butch'' Blazer, Forestry Division, New Mexico,
Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department from Santa
Fe, New Mexico. Mr. John Burke, Partner, McGuire Woods from
Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Duane Grant, farmer from Rupert, Idaho.
Dr. Kenneth Cassman, Director, Nebraska Center for Energy
Science and Research in Lincoln, Nebraska. And Dr. Mark McDill,
Associate Professor of Forest Management, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, Pennsylvania. Ms. Wong, you may
begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF JETTA L. WONG, SENIOR POLICY ASSOCIATE,
SUSTAINABLE BIOMASS AND ENERGY PROGRAM,
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY STUDY INSTITUTE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Wong. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. Let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity
to speak here today and represent my organization, the
Environmental and Energy Study Institute, or EESI.
We believe that global climate change is the single most
serious challenge facing the world today. At the same time, the
price of gasoline has skyrocketed due to a variety of factors,
including fundamental restrictions in supply. Congress has
begun to address these challenges in a number of pieces of
legislation, including the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. And
we applaud this Committee's leadership in this area.
EISA substantially increases the Renewable Fuel Standard,
calling for the production of 36 billion gallons of renewable
fuel by 2022 with specific targets for greenhouse gas
reductions. Within the 36 billion gallon mandate, 21 billion
gallons must come from advanced biofuels, which means renewable
fuel other than corn-based ethanol. Additionally, there is a
carve-out for cellulosic biofuels, which are derived from
renewable biomass. Unfortunately the definition of renewable
biomass included in the law deems several feedstocks
ineligible, including thinning materials and woody residues
from Federal forests, some woody feedstocks from private
forests, and a wide array of feedstocks from municipal solid
wastes.
As we read this definition, all materials harvested on
national forests and public land would be excluded with the
exception of materials removed from the immediate vicinity of
buildings and infrastructure at risk of wildfire.
This provision is exceptionally vague and is altogether
unclear how it would be interpreted. It is unlikely that any
reasonable interpretation would encompass more than a nominal
portion of the acres that could benefit from hazardous fuel
reduction. And none of the biomass that could be removed from
any other form of restoration or stewardship activity.
In addition to the public land exclusion, the renewable
biomass definition has the potential to exclude the majority of
the biomass that could be made available from private lands.
The definition allows for the usage of planted trees and tree
residue from actively managed tree plantation and non-Federal
land cleared at any time prior to enactment and slash and pre-
commercial thinning that are from non-Federal forestlands. This
language limits the use of commercial size trees to those
coming from intensively managed tree plantation and only
logging residue and pre-commercial thinnings from naturally
regenerated forests.
This provision draws an entirely arbitrary distinction
between trees that are planted and trees that grow from seeds.
This is a mistaken notion that forests composed of the latter
must somehow be more wild, pristine, or valuable.
EESI believes that this definition needs to be reexamined
for several reasons. First, renewable fuel facilities provide a
market for low value materials produced through forest
management practices. Forests have approximately \1/3\ of the
nation's land area, and much of that acreage is under some kind
of management activity.
The DOE USDA billion ton study found over 100 tons of
logging residue or thinning materials generated as a result of
hazardous fuel reduction treatments from private and Federal
lands. This could produce nearly 66 percent of the 16 billion
gallons of cellulosic fuels mandated by the RFS. And right now,
gasoline prices would be 35 cents per gallon higher if it were
not for the renewable fuels produced today.
Furthermore, abundant sources of woody biomass in the West,
which is mostly public land, can increase the distribution of
liquid transportation fuels across the country. This will help
to meet the large fuel markets in the West, while further
securing our energy supply. Additionally, some residues from
municipal solid waste are excluded from the renewable biomass
definition, yet there are low value feedstock that several
companies already are researching. Production of these fuels
from these materials reduces the pressure to develop feedstocks
on sensitive land.
Additionally confusing or varying definitions included in
public law create risk, limit intervention, and ultimately
reduce the use of feedstocks currently considered a problem.
A variety of stakeholders overwhelming support using the
feedstocks that are eligible for the Renewable Fuel Standard.
In addition to the four letters that I have already submitted
for the record, I would like to submit a fifth letter from four
prominent academics. The signatories of this letter have a
combined 130 plus years of experience dealing with forestry
issues.
The letter states, ``the definition of `renewable biomass'
that was included in the final version law, however, does not
address sustainability, best management practices, or good
stewardship of natural resources. What it does do is exclude a
wide selection of feedstocks based on ownership and broad
classification of landscapes.''In summary, cellulosic biofuels
can be produced from a highly diverse array of feedstocks,
allowing every region of the country to be a potential producer
of fuel. And we should not let these arbitrary distinctions
restrict their use or our country's innovation to turn them
into a renewable fuel.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee once again for the
opportunity to speak before you today. Let me also extend my
gratitude for your part in creating and passing this important
Renewable Fuel Standard and recognizing its role in addressing
protection and national security. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wong follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jetta L. Wong, Senior Policy Associate,
Sustainable Biomass and Energy Program, Environmental and Energy Study
Institute, Washington, D.C.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, let me
begin by thanking you for the opportunity to speak here today and
represent my organization, the Environmental and Energy Study
Institute. EESI is an independent nonprofit organization founded by a
bipartisan Congressional caucus in 1984 to provide policymakers with
reliable information on energy and environmental issues, to help
develop consensus among a broad base of constituencies, and to work for
innovative policy solutions. Our Board is interdisciplinary and is
drawn from academia as well as the public and private sectors,
including Dr. Rosina Bierbaum, Dean, School of Natural Resources and
the Environment, University of Michigan, and Ambassador Richard
Benedick, who was a lead U.S. negotiator of the Montreal Protocol. Our
Board is chaired by Richard L. Ottinger of New York, a former chair of
the House Energy & Power Subcommittee and the Dean Emeritus of Pace
University Law School.
Summary
While skepticism about the reality of climate change has waned in
light of overwhelming evidence, agreement on the policies, preferred
technologies, and time frame for taking action are still very much in
debate, and no clear consensus has yet emerged. Climate change and
energy consumption have climbed to the top of the national policy
agenda. Congress has addressed climate change in a number of pieces of
energy legislation, including the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (P.L. 110-140) and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (P.L. 110-234), and we applaud this Committee's leadership in this
area. In addition, ``green'' technology has become an important
economic driver. Multinational corporations and many others in the
private sector, including many energy companies, have emerged as
interested players in renewable energy and energy efficiency (RE/EE)
technologies, seen as a way to combat climate change and improve their
bottom lines. Biomass-to-energy technologies such as biofuels have been
recognized by the Federal Government and many state governments,
corporations and investors as a renewable energy technology that is a
critical component of a climate change mitigation strategy.
At the same time the price of fossil fuels has skyrocketed due to a
variety of factors, including fundamental restrictions in supply as
development worldwide continues to fuel demand. Our nation's dependence
on imported foreign oil poses a significant economic, energy, and
national security challenge. In 2007, the transportation sector was 96
percent dependent on petroleum and consumed 70 percent of total U.S.
petroleum demand,\1\ of which roughly 60 percent was imported.\2\ Such
a reliance on foreign oil increases the vulnerability of the United
States to higher oil prices and oil price shocks due to events such as
natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and wars; undermines our ability
to conduct foreign policy; and places us at the will of a small group
of oil producing states that can use their market power to influence
world oil prices.\3\ There are many ``hidden costs'' or externalities
associated with the consumption of imported oil including direct and
indirect costs, oil supply disruption impacts, and military
expenditures.\4\ According to the Government Accountability Office, the
United States has subsidized the oil industry by more than $130 billion
in the past 32 years.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review.
``U.S. Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector, 2007.'' June
23, 2008.
\2\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Monthly Energy Review.
``Table 3.3a Petroleum Trade Overview.'' June 25, 2008. 43.
\3\ Greene, David L., and Sanjana Ahmad. ``Costs of U.S. Oil
Dependence: 2005 Update.'' Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Paper
prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. February 2005. xi.
\4\ Copulos, Milton, President of National Resource Defense Council
Foundation. ``The Hidden Cost of Oil.'' Testimony before the U.S.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. March 30, 2006. 1, 3.
\5\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. ``Petroleum and Ethanol
Fuels: Tax Incentives and Related GAO Work.'' GAO/RCED-00-301R.
September 25, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 19, 2007 the President and Congress took a huge step
forward in trying to mitigate climate change and reduce our country's
reliance on fossil fuels by enacting the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA, P.L. 110-140). EISA substantially increases the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), calling for the production by 2022 of 36
billion gallons of renewable fuel with specific targets for greenhouse
gas reductions. Within the 36 billion gallon mandate, 21 billion
gallons must come from advanced biofuels, which means renewable fuel
other than ethanol derived from corn starch. Additionally, there is a
carve-out within the advanced fuels mandate that 16 billion gallons of
cellulosic biofuel be derived from `renewable biomass.' This is an
aggressive and ambitious RFS. It is laudable, but it stirs up a lot of
difficult issues regarding the sustainability of biofuels. One of the
biggest factors in determining if a biofuel is sustainable is the
choice of feedstocks used to produce the renewable fuel. Unfortunately,
the definition of `renewable biomass' included in the law deems several
feedstocks ineligible, including thinning materials and woody residues
from Federal forests, some woody feedstocks from private forests, and a
wide array of feedstocks from municipal solid waste.
Key Points:
Renewable fuels are important to our climate and energy
security strategy. They are reducing our dependence on foreign
oil, reducing the cost of gasoline at the pump, and if produced
sustainably, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Renewable fuel facilities provide a market for low-value
material produced through forest management practices.
Abundant sources of woody biomass in the West can increase
the distribution of liquid transportation fuels across the
country. This will help to meet the large fuel markets of the
West while further securing our energy supply.
Mill residue and other woody materials create complications
(in terms of collection) and should be carefully considered
during implementation.
Municipal solid waste is a low-value feedstock that several
companies are investigating. Confusing or varying definitions
included in public law create risk, limit innovation, and
ultimately reduce the use of a feedstock currently considered a
problem.
Production of renewable fuels from low-value materials, such
as woody biomass and municipal solid waste, reduces the
pressure to develop feedstocks on sensitive land.
A variety of stakeholders overwhelmingly support a
broadening of feedstocks that could be eligible for the RFS.
Specifically, low-value woody biomass sustainably harvested
from both Federal and private lands should be included.
Cellulosic biofuels can be produced from a highly diverse array of
feedstocks, allowing every region of the country to be a potential
producer of this fuel. (Cellulose is found in all plant matter.) As a
result, support for cellulosic biofuels has brought together a broad
array of constituents including environmentalists, farmers, national
security experts, industry, and religious leaders. Unquestionably, the
production of renewable fuels needs to be done in a way that sequesters
carbon and enhances natural resources, including soils, water supply
and native habitats. Production of renewable feedstocks should not be
deemed to be in competition with the goals of sustainable agriculture
or forestry. In fact, there are opportunities for renewable fuel and
energy production to aid conservation efforts and environmental
sustainability beyond those associated conventional agriculture,
forestry or fossil fuel production and consumption.
Renewable Fuels: Part of Our Climate and Energy Security Strategy
EESI believes that the rapidly escalating pace of global climate
change is the single most serious challenge facing the world today.
According to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),\6\ the increase in concentration of
greenhouse gases since the pre-industrial era is due primarily to human
activities, especially the widespread combustion of fossil fuels. The
report specifically concludes that the ``global net effect of human
activities since 1750 has been one of warming''. Evidence of existing
climate change impacts is staggering, and alarming new ramifications of
global warming are reported weekly. Among many such reports, scientists
from the National Geographic Institute reported on June 20, 2008 that
the Arctic Ocean may be ice-free this summer for the first time in
recorded history.\7\ Energy efficiency and renewable energy,
specifically bioenergy, are important energy sources that can help
mitigate phenomena such as this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.
Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
\7\ Mehta, Aolok. ``North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This
Summer'' June 20 2008 National Geography News.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Renewable fuels are one of many important tools in the effort to
reduce our national greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation
sector. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
inventory of greenhouse gas emissions,\8\ the U.S. emitted a total of
7,260.4 Tg CO2-eq/yr in 2005, which was an increase of 16.3
percent compared to 1990. Twenty-three percent of these emissions
(1669.9 Tg COCO2-eq/yr) were from petroleum-based
transportation fuels. Renewable fuels are especially attractive as a
low- or no-carbon alternative to petroleum-based fuels such as gasoline
and diesel. The technology is sustainable, rapid to implement, and
available across the entire United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005. 15 April 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States has the resources necessary to provide for our
energy needs, and renewable fuels can and will play a vital role as
part of a larger strategy to diversify our energy supplies. A June 2008
report released by Merrill Lynch concluded that biofuels are the single
largest contributor to global oil supply growth in light of the
inability of non-OPEC crude oil supply to expand. ``According to the
International Energy Agency, `biofuels have become a substantial part
of faltering non-OPEC supply growth, contributing around 50 percent of
incremental supply in the 2008-2013 period.' '' \9\ The use of
domestically produced renewable fuels extends fuel supply by displacing
the amount of foreign crude oil the United States needs to import.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Renewable Fuels Association, Canadian Renewable Fuels
Association, European Bioethanol Fuel Association, and UNICA. Financial
Times. ``OPEC Rakes in Billions, but Blames Bio-
fuels . . . Confused?'' July 16, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's 2008
International Energy Outlook, global energy consumption of liquids and
other petroleum will grow from 83.6 million barrels of oil per day in
2005 to 112.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2030. The
transportation sector will account for 74 percent of that increased
demand, mostly from non-OECD nations. Additionally, world oil prices
are expected to be in the range of $113 to $186 per barrel in nominal
terms in 2030.\10\ Concern about a potential shortfall of supplies and
high prices is intensified by the possibility of supply disruptions due
to the instability of four of the top six sources of U.S. oil imports
from the countries of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iraq.\11\
Furthermore, \2/3\ of the world's known oil reserves lie in the
volatile Middle East,\12\ while the United States contains less than
three percent of the world's oil reserves but consumes \1/4\ of the
world's oil.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. ``International Energy
Outlook 2008.'' June 2008, 2, 5.
\11\ Copulos 2006. 2-3.
\12\ Renewable Fuels Association. ``Ethanol Facts: Energy
Security.''
\13\ Cooper, Mark. ``No Time to Waste: America's Energy Situation
is Dangerous but Congress can adopt new policies to secure our
future.'' Consumer Federation of America. October 2007. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forests a Valuable Resource
Forests cover approximately \1/3\ of the nation's land area and
much of that acreage is under some kind of forest management directive,
whether that is timber management, habitat improvements, hazardous fuel
reduction, or one of the many forms of stand improvement thinning
activities. A number of NGOs support the use of sustainable woody
biomass to produce renewable fuels. The Oregon Environmental Council
said this in its 2005 Fueling Oregon with Sustainable Biofuels report,
``. . . if renewable fuels are produced sustainably, they can
generate substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and
improvements in air and water quality . . . Thinning and
removal of biomass from these forests [at risk from fire] would
improve forest and provide a substantial supply of biomass for
energy production. While there are clear environmental benefits
to greater utilization of forest biomass, there are also real
sustainability concerns.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Gilman, Dan. Fueling Oregon with Sustainable Biofuels. Oregon
Environmental Council. October 2005.
Unfortunately, the majority of forest-derived feedstocks are
rendered ineligible for the RFS because of the narrow definition of
renewable biomass included in the law. As we read this definition, all
materials harvested on national forests and public lands would be
excluded (P.L. 110-140, Title II, Sec. 201[I]), with the exception of
materials removed from the ``immediate vicinity'' of buildings and
infrastructure at risk from wildfire (P.L. 110-140, Title II, Sec.
201[I][v]). This provision is exceptionally vague and it is altogether
unclear how it will be interpreted. It is unlikely, however, that any
reasonable interpretation would encompass more than a nominal portion
of the acres that could benefit from hazardous fuels reduction and none
of the biomass that could be removed from any other form of restoration
or stewardship activity, including habitat improvements, recreation
management, or timber stand improvement.
In addition to the public land exclusion, the `renewable biomass'
definition has the potential to exclude the majority of the biomass
that could be made available from private lands. The definition allows
for the usage of ``planted trees and tree residue from actively managed
tree plantations on non-Federal land cleared at any time prior to
enactment . . .'' and ``slash and pre-commercial thinning that are from
non-Federal forestlands . . .'' (P.L. 110-140, Title II, Sec.
201[I][ii], [iv]) This language limits the use of commercial-size trees
to those coming from intensively managed tree plantations and allows
only logging residues and pre-commercial thinning from naturally-
regenerated forests. This provision draws an entirely arbitrary
distinction between trees that are planted and trees that grew from
seed in the mistaken notion that a forest composed of the latter must
somehow be more wild, pristine, or valuable. This is not true. There
are ample examples of well-managed, biodiverse plantations and plenty
of poorly treated, cut-over and eroded ``natural'' forests. The reverse
is also true. The entire package of management practices, of which a
regeneration system is one component, must be used to determine what is
and is not sustainable on a given landscape.
Renewable Fuels Market: Important for Materials from Stand Improvement
Activities
Stand improvement activities, specifically thinning of small-
diameter trees, can be a valuable tool for managing forests for many
other values and objectives. Thinning can result in improved tree
vigor, increased drought tolerance, and increased growth by decreasing
the stand density and reducing competition between trees for sunlight,
water, and nutrients. Because vigorous fast-growing trees are generally
more proof against pests, thinning can be a successful means to reduce
the extent and lethality of insect infestations in many forest systems.
In addition, harvesting of small-diameter trees can be an important
component of habitat management for wildlife species that require early
successional habitat or low stand density. Finally, forest thinning and
other silvicultural activities can have positive effects on watershed
functioning, and specifically water yield,\15\ one of the most
essential ecosystem services from Federal forests in much of the
western United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest
on annual water yield. Journal of Hydrology 176: 79-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What trees should be removed during a restoration treatment is a
question that differs dramatically depending on the forest type,
location, stand conditions, and restoration objectives. Forest
restoration in forests where stand conditions (whether fire regimes,
habitat elements, or ecosystem functioning) have radically departed
from the past often requires vegetation management across a wide
spectrum of tree species, ages, and sizes--not only the removal of
``slash and pre-commercial thinnings''. The differences between forests
require management to be determined on the ground, but prescribed in
detail at the national level. This is the reason that detailed, site-
specific management plans are mandated for all public forests. In a
study by the Pinchot Institute for Conservation,\16\ management at five
national forests was evaluated against the standards adopted by the
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative
(SFI), the two largest forest certification programs in the United
States. The study found that management practices on these forests met
or exceeded the majority of the substantive sustainability criteria in
both certification schemes. One area where the Forest Service was not
in conformance was in addressing management activities:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Sample, A.V., W. Price, J.S. Donnay, and C. Mater. October 22,
2007. National Forest Certification Study: An evaluation of the
applicability of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable
Forest Initiative (SFI) standards on five national forests. Pinchot
Institute for Conservation. p. 83.
``Consistent delays or backlogs in meeting treatment objectives
led [FSC and SFI] auditors to find most case study forests
falling short of their stated economic, ecological, and social
goals. FSC and SFI auditors suggested the backlog in harvest
treatments and persistent lack of funding has exposed forests
to increased risk of disease, insect outbreaks, stand-replacing
wildfires, and in some cases, being unable to provide key
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
habitat features for certain endangered species.''
Unfortunately, as we described earlier, this material, like all
material from Federal land, is excluded from the definition. Although
the Forest Service is not currently looking into certification, these
independent evaluations demonstrate that the level of stewardship on
public forests is comparable to private forests that have achieved FSC
and SFI certification. For more information on stand improvements
please see the two attached factsheets on public and private forests.
Pre-commercial thinning, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels
reduction, and other stand improvement activities are expensive
operations, however, and feasibility is often limited by the lack of
widespread markets for small-diameter trees and woody biomass.
Transportation costs and low market value for this material limit its
removal, so the majority of materials are chipped in the field or
burned in open piles. These open fires are still generating renewable
energy, but it is energy that is being wasted instead of being put to
productive work in vehicle engines. Without a financial outlet, forest
and woodlot owners (private or public) can rarely afford to invest in
thinning or other stand improvement activities.
Moreover, we frequently hear the argument that public costs would
be less (on a per acre basis) if funds were allocated for proactive
fuels reduction as opposed to reactive fire fighting. In the long run
this is probably true, but the transition in strategies will not be an
immediate one and catastrophic fires will continue to be a major
element of the landscape in the near future. After the expenditures
associated with fighting the fires that are burning today, not much is
left to begin restoring the vast acreage at risk of burning tomorrow.
It is going to be a slow process. In the meanwhile we need to find a
commercial outlet for thinning materials if we hope to deal with an
issue of this scale and size. Lignol Energy Corporation, a Canadian
based company, is planning to construct a demonstration scale facility
in Commerce City, Colorado, which may be just the commercial outlet
needed. It is expected that this facility will utilize woody biomass as
one of its primary feedstocks to produce about 2.5 million gallons of
renewable fuel annually. In June of 2007 Ross MacLachlan, President and
CEO of Lignol, said this in reference to trial tests to convert
Mountain Pine Beetle damaged softwood and other wood species to
cellulosic ethanol,
``These results in converting Mountain Pine Beetle damaged
softwoods to cellulosic ethanol confirm our view that this
abundant feedstock currently found in British Columbia, Alberta
and the Pacific Northwest of the United States represents a
significant untapped potential for transportation fuels.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Lignol Energy Corporation. Lignol Receives Additional Funding
from Ethanol BC and Announces Successful Trial Results for Mountain
Pine Beetle Damaged Softwood and Other Wood Species. http://
www.lignol.ca/news.html. (accessed July 21, 2008).
Thus, national efforts to promote production and use of cellulosic
biofuels, such as the RFS, have tremendous potential to act as an
important incentive for improved management practices and better
stewardship of forest resources . . . if only the material qualified.
Forests Biomass: Readily Available and Abundant
In order to ensure that feedstock production is pursued
sustainably, a national biomass assessment needs to be funded and
carried out. The ``billion ton study'',\18\ a joint report issued by
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and USDA, was done to determine if
``a 30 percent replacement of the current U.S. petroleum consumption
with biofuels by 2030'' could be accomplished. Although this is a
controversial document and many of its conclusions are disputed, it
nonetheless provides the most rigorous national estimate to date. The
``billion ton study'' found that approximately 2.9295 billion tons of
woody biomass could be obtained from public lands in the form of
logging residue or thinning materials generated as a result of
hazardous fuel reduction treatments annually. Most of this material is
currently inaccessible due to topography, lack of infrastructure, or
cost of removal. However, an estimated 21.5 million tons would be
available using existing roads and infrastructure. The same study
estimates that privately-owned forests have the potential to generate
5.5531 billion dry of woody biomass, of which 78.9 million tons is
currently accessible. In total, 100.4 million tons of woody biomass is
currently available from private and Federal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Oak Ridge National Laboratory (DOE) and USDA. DOE GO-102995-
2135, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry:
Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. April 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Converting this woody biomass to cellulosic ethanol could produce
between 5.5 and 6.5 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol using current
technologies.\19\ Ethanol is not the only biofuel option, however, nor
is it necessarily the most efficient one. In a recent press
release,\20\ Syntec Biofuel announced yields of 105 gallons per ton for
a number of higher alcohols, such as methanol, n-butanol, and n-
propanol. When yields of this scale become commercially feasible, our
public and private forests could produce almost 10.5 billion gallons of
renewable fuels \21\--nearly 66 percent of the 16 billion gallons of
cellulosic fuels mandated by the RFS. These fuel estimates are not
meant to be conclusive, but to illustrate that the potential fuel yield
from Federal forests is significant and depends strongly on what
assumptions are made about resource availability, technological
advances, and conversion efficiency. Unfortunately, almost none of this
material falls under the current definition of renewable biomass.
Federal forests are excluded in totality and only a minority of private
forests can be classified as ``actively managed tree plantations''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Oak Ridge National Laboratory (DOE) and USDA. DOE GO-102995-
2135, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry:
Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. April 2005. Tables A.1-A.7.
Zerbe, John I. Liquid fuels from wood--ethanol, methanol, diesel.
World Resource Review
3(4):406-414.
100.4 million tons * 55 gpt (dilute acid hydrolysis) = 5522
million gallons.
100.4 million tons * an average of 65 gpt (pretreatment +
enzymes) = 6526 million gallons.
\20\ Syntec Biofuels ``Syntec Biofuel Achieves Yield of 105 Gallons
per Ton of Biomass'' 8 February 2008.
\21\ 100.4 million tons * 105 gpt = 10542 million gallons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Federal forests are not evenly distributed across the
nation. In total, they encompass about 43 percent of the national
forest resource or approximately 323 million acres.\22\ The Western
Governors' Association report identifies 23 million acres in 12 states
that are at high risk from wildfire. Thinning materials from this
acreage could provide up to 318 million tons of biomass,\23\ of which
7.2--14.5 million tons annually is immediately accessible and available
for fuel production. This number only includes thinning for fuel
reduction, which is one source of biomass feedstock among many others
already mentioned. Using the Syntec technology this could yield 750
million--1.5 billion gallons.\24\ These are some of the regions that
are most threatened by catastrophic wildfire and are most in need of
hazardous fuels reduction treatments. In counties and communities
entirely surrounded by Federal feedstocks, the entire local supply of
woody biomass may be off limits. This could have drastic effects where
it is possible to produce renewable fuels, favoring eastern states over
western ones. When energy security is considered this imbalance in
eligible feedstocks becomes even more illogical. During Hurricane
Katrina in 2005, 25 percent of the country's oil refining capacity was
off line initially. Since then the merits of distributed power as well
as fuel production have been discussed as a national security issue. In
2006, 1.4175 billion barrels of petroleum were consumed in the 12
states that were included in the Western Governors' Association
thinning assessment. If the 750 million--1.5 billion gallons are used
within those states, 18-39 percent of the demand could be supplied.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Mila Alvarez. ``The State of America's Forests.'' Society of
American Foresters: 2007.
\23\ Biomass Task Force Report, Clean and Diversified Energy
Initiative, WGA, January 2006, p. 37.
\24\ 7.2 and 14.5 million tons * 105 gpt = 756-1,522.5 million
gallons.
\25\ Table F9a: ``Total Petroleum Consumption Estimates by Sector,
2006.'' Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/
states/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_pa.html (accessed July 21, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mill Residue and Other Woody Materials: Implications of Exclusions
The restrictive nature of the current definition could also
exclude, in practice, woody biomass from secondary or mixed sources. In
many locations, residues from sawmills and pulp operations source
materials from a mixture of Federal, private, plantation, and natural
`forests'. Mill residues (chips, sawdust, bark, etc.) could represent
some of the most available, convenient, and economically attractive
sources of woody biomass, but this material may not be eligible for the
RFS if separating residue streams proves difficult or prohibitively
expensive. This problem would also exist in integrated biorefineries
where a number of additional bio-based products are produced in
addition to renewable transportation fuels and heat and power. The
biorefinery is a desirable industrial model, as utilization of waste
from one process is the feedstock for another. This minimizes waste,
increases sustainability and greatly increases economic viability.
These facilities would very likely source from a number of different
owners.
Furthermore, these secondary residues can also be one of the most
low carbon and environmentally friendly sources of woody biomass.
Because these materials are waste products of existing industries, they
do not have a direct impact on practices or conditions in the forest.
Compared to harvesting biomass directly in the woods, the use of
residues does not increase traffic on forest roads, as material is
generated at the mill site. Excluding these materials could be a lost
opportunity.
In addition to the biomass intentionally removed during forest
management activities, an important secondary source of material could
be recovered from debris generated by natural disasters. Hurricanes,
floods, ice damage, and other natural disasters annually destroy
significant amounts of urban trees, forest growth, and wooden
structures on both private and public lands. Very little of this
material is recovered and put to a productive use. Instead, it is
landfilled, incinerated, piled and burned in the field or often left in
the forest (which emits greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide,
methane (which is 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide) and air
pollutants). Increasing the recovery rate for this material would be
beneficial for a number of reasons, including emergency clean-up,
reduction of fire hazard, recovery of economic losses, and as a
potentially significant feedstock for production of renewable fuels.
The availability of this material is difficult to predict, as it
depends largely on chance events. Infrequent, large-scale disasters
(like Hurricane Katrina, for example) have the potential to contribute
additional millions of dry tons of woody biomass when they do occur.
Moreover, since all materials are subject to the appropriate lifecycle
analysis and some materials are totally excluded from the RFS all
together an uneven playing field is created, making some materials
favored over others (because some materials will be more difficult to
track than others); again creating illogical barriers to available
feedstocks which are waste materials generally considered a societal
and environmental problem.
One illustration of this is the Gulf Coast Energy Inc.'s wood
waste-to-ethanol pilot-scale facility in Livingston, Alabama. It is
expected to go online this month and is capable of producing 200,000
gallons of ethanol and 30,000 gallons of biodiesel annually.\26\ The
fuel will be sold at a reduced rate to the City of Hoover, Alabama,
which is already using leftover cooking oil to produce biodiesel at a
cost of $0.75 per gallon. The city, whose employees have been busy
collecting enough downed trees, branches, and limbs from storms to
produce 350,000 gallons of biofuel, is expecting to save at least $1
per gallon on fuel compared to what it is spending now and is planning
for its entire fleet of more than 340 vehicles to become self-
sufficient in energy by the end of the year.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ McGraw, Tommy. ``Second in a series about Livingston's new
ethanol/bio-diesel plant.'' Gulf Coast Energy, Inc.
\27\ Gulf Coast Energy, Inc. ``In the News.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Coast Energy Inc. is also planning to build three commercial-
scale wood waste-to-ethanol facilities in Livingston, Alabama; Mossy
Head, Florida, and Jasper, Tennessee. The company plans to use a
carbon-neutral, zero-emission process \28\ and take advantage of the
synergies of ethanol and biodiesel production by combining the
production of these biofuels into a single facility. The company will
use the glycerin byproduct from biodiesel production with its biomass
gasification technology to produce ethanol; the methanol stream created
during ethanol production will be used during the biodiesel production
process.\29\ By the end of 2009, Gulf Coast Energy Inc. plans to
complete Phase I, which entails producing 10 million gallons of
biodiesel and 35 million gallons of ethanol annually at all three
commercial-scale facilities. Plants may be expanded after the process
is proven successful.\30\ The Mossy Head, FL, facility received a $7
million Florida Farm to Fuel Grant for the company's $62 million
project.\31\ These are the kind of innovative solutions we are seeking
to solve our climate and energy problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Reeves, Steve. ``Livingston Plant's Efforts May Yield New
Energy Source.'' Gulf Coast Energy, Inc. June 19, 2008.
\29\ Santosus, Melissa. Exec Digital. ``Exploiting Potential in
Renewable Fuels.'' April 2008. 289-290.
\30\ Santosus 2008, 290-291.
\31\ Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
``Farm to Fuel Grants Program Winners.'' January 22, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonindustrial Private Forest Owners and Encroachment
By giving preference to plantation forests, the renewable biomass
definition favors the owners of large, industrial forest plantations
over the nonindustrial private forest owners (NIPF), who generally do
not have the capital to use artificial regeneration. NIPFs contain the
majority of diverse, mixed-species woodlands in the nation. Not only do
these forests generally boast higher biodiversity than plantations, but
the periodic income from selective harvesting on these properties is
often the only thing standing between these forests and the very real
pressure to sell out to land speculators and real-estate developers.
According to a report released by the Southern Forest Resource
Assessment \32\ of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it is expected
that approximately 12 million acres of timberland in the Southeast will
be lost due to urbanization between 1992 and 2020. An additional 19
million acres is expected to be lost between 2020 and 2040 assuming
that trends established in the 1990s persist. The loss of timberland is
expected to be concentrated near urban centers such as Charlotte,
Raleigh, Atlanta, Nashville, and throughout much of Florida while rural
areas in Arkansas and Mississippi may gain timberland. The report does
state that moderate increases in timber prices combined with unchanging
agricultural returns could offset much of the loss due to urbanization
by allowing crop and pasture land to be converted to forest uses. On
the other hand if timber prices remain unchanged, it can be expected
that a total of 31 million acres of forestland could be lost to
urbanization by 2040. The renewable fuels market has real potential to
provide additional value to forests while helping to keep family
forests off the auction block.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Wear, D.N., D.R. Carter, and J. Prestemon. ``The U.S. South's
Timber Sector in 2005: A Prospective Analysis of Recent Change.''
Southern Forest Resource Assessment, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, according to estimates made for Range Fuels using data
from the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis Program
(FIA),\33\ over 76 percent of forests in 10 southeastern states do not
qualify as forest plantations. In Georgia and Alabama, two of the
biggest timber producing states, this definition would exclude 67.6
percent and 70.9 percent of private forests, respectively. Range Fuels
Director of Project Development Ron Barmore said this when discussing
the limitations of the current RFS,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Range Fuels, unpublished data.
``Range Fuels is very concerned about ambiguity in the current
definition of Renewable Biomass in the Energy Policy and
Security Act that, under some interpretations, could severely
limit the potential benefits that can be derived from the
advancement of cellulosic ethanol production. The vast majority
of commercial timber that is grown and logged for the forest
products industry is harvested from naturally regenerated
forests.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ In an e-mail message to the Jetta Wong on July 22, 2008.
These percentages are surprisingly high given the enormous
importance of plantation forestry to the economy and culture of the
southeastern states. In many other regions, such as New England, the
acreage of qualifying private forest plantation will be almost non-
existent.
Stakeholder Support for Biomass From Forests
As more and more acres of forestland are bulldozed to make way for
suburbia, burned in massive conflagrations, or destroyed by pests, a
number of environmental organizations are beginning to see the value in
sustainable, multiple value forest management for helping to ensure the
perpetuation of diverse, vibrant forest ecosystems and the many values
they offer--clean water, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities,
and diverse forest products, including renewable fuels. The Pinchot
Institute for Conservation came out with this statement in 2007
identifying the potential value in renewable energy to make possible a
better and more sustainable form of forestry,
``. . . wood energy could help address several longstanding
challenges in sustainable forest management: treating hazardous
fuels accumulations to minimize future threat of wildfires,
creating economic outlets for small-diameter and low-grade wood
to reduce forest degradation, and strengthening community
economic development on the basis of sustainable use of local
forest resources.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Sample, V. Alaric. Ensuring Forest Sustainability in the
Development of Wood-based Bioenergy. Pinchot Institute For
Conservation. 2007. p. 6.
The problems I have identified in the current definition have
received similar attention from a number of other groups and
organizations. The Society of American Foresters and the National
Association of State Foresters, two of the largest and most well-
respected forestry organizations in the nation, have both written
letters to Congress expressing their concern about the way in which
forest materials are treated in the RFS. SAF is the premier national
organization representing forest science, research, education and the
forestry profession in the United States and is the largest forestry
organization in the world. SAF publishes several of the most esteemed
scholarly publications dedicated to forestry, including both The
Journal of Forestry and Forest Science. In a letter to the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce dated February 12, 2008, the president
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of SAF, Tom Thompson, wrote,
``At a time when considerable legislative and agency efforts
are being made to address global climate change, wildfire
severity, and renewable energy production, it is regrettable
that a definition would be promulgated that would equally
obstruct all of these goals. The current definition will
interfere with the ability to remove non-merchantable, small-
diameter trees from our public lands, both as renewable fuels,
and as a means for addressing the increasingly devastating
wildfires we are experiencing. Any notion of climate change
mitigation and adaptation of existing forests to changing
environmental conditions will require the maximum in management
flexibility for both public and private forests, and hampering
that management with an unscientific and ill-conceived
renewable biomass definition is unacceptable. Finally, the
definition's arbitrary limits on qualifying private forestlands
can only exacerbate the land-use conversion pressures faced by
our smaller, private working forest landowners.''
The National Association of State Foresters is a nonprofit
organization representing the directors of the forest agencies in all
the states, the U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. In a
letter to the same Committee dated February 7, 2008, Kirk Rowdabaugh,
President of NASF, expressed a similar view, ``Our nation's forests can
provide a ready supply of feedstock for renewable fuels, and any
exclusion of woody biomass from the Renewable Fuel Standard would
hamstring the nation's efforts to reduce our reliance on foreign oil.''
A number of similar letters have originated from organizations
other than those dedicated to forestry, including the Western
Governors' Association and 25x'25, a nonprofit organization encouraging
25 percent of our nation's energy supply to come from renewable sources
by 2025. In addition to these, a number of private citizens,
scientists, and local organizations have written or are in the process
of writing similar letters, some of which I have submitted with my
testimony. These letters express the concerns of those who work in our
woodlands and forests and who understand the failure of the current
definition to realize the use of forest resources for renewable energy
in a way that complements sustainable management for critical ecosystem
services, habitat values, biodiversity, timber resources, and
recreation.
Municipal Solid Waste
One potential biofuel feedstock that is not currently included
within the definition of `renewable biomass' is some portions of
organic material comprising municipal solid waste (MSW). While the RFS
includes, ``Biogas (including landfill gas and sewage waste treatment
gas) produced through the conversion of organic matter from renewable
biomass,'' (P.L. 110-140, Title II, Sec. 201[A](ii)V) the definition of
renewable biomass only includes ``separated yard waste or food waste,
including recycled cooking and trap grease,'' (P.L. 110-140, Title II,
Sec. 201[I](vii)). It is unclear how this definition will be
implemented by EPA, specifically because most landfill gas is produced
from existing landfills where a mixture of organic, inorganic and MSW
already exists.
The United States already has an abundant amount of this material.
EPA estimated in 2006 that 169 million tons of MSW were disposed of
after recycling, including 96.81 million tons of organic material.
Although per capita waste generation has been relatively stagnant since
1990 due to increased recycling rates, overall waste generation has
risen as the population of the United States has continued to grow. At
the same time, the number of landfills in the United States has fallen
from 7,924 landfills in 1988 to 1,754 in 2006 meaning that wastes must
be transported over farther distances, which consumes more fuel,
currently fossil based.\36\ Generation of MSW varies regionally with
the highest concentration located in urban areas. In 2007, New York
City generated 3.6 million tons of MSW and spent $283.3 million to
export its waste to landfills outside of the city.\37\ As of 2006, only
12.5 percent of the MSW generated in the United States before recycling
was combusted for energy recovery.\38\ The Energy Information
Administration (EIA) has estimated that the electricity generated from
MSW totaled 9 million MWh in FY 2007 with an additional 6 million MWh
generated from landfill gas.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Environmental Protection Agency. ``Municipal Solid Waste
Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and
Figures for 2006.'' Environmental Protection Agency, 2007.
\37\ Niblack, P. ``More Recycling Needed to Help Lower City's Trash
Costs.'' New York City Independent Budget Office, 2007.
\38\ Environmental Protection Agency, 2007.
\39\ Energy Information Administration. ``Federal Financial
Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007.'' Energy
Information Administration, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As these statistics show, there is a significant amount of organic
material that must be disposed of after recycling. Even though MSW is
not currently included in the Renewable Fuel Standard, several states
including Maryland \40\ and New Jersey \41\ currently include it in
their Renewable Portfolio Standards for energy and Pennsylvania \42\
includes MSW as part of its Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard. The
State of Hawaii currently includes MSW as a potential source of
renewable energy as part of its Renewable Portfolio Standard and
includes MSW as a potential feedstock for ethanol production in its
Ethanol Facility Tax Credit.\43\ Even other Federal policies allow for
the use of MSW for biofuel production. In the Department of Energy's
Integrated Biorefinery and Demonstration grant program of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005, P.L. 109-58), the definition of biomass
notes ``any waste material that can be converted to energy is
segregated from other waste materials''. The only explicit exclusion of
MSW pertains to wood waste materials including paper waste.\44\
According to this definition, some organic portions of MSW including
food waste would be included. This section of the EPAct 2005 is the
basis for several large grants given to commercial-scale biorefinery
projects, a series of which were awarded in 2007 including BlueFire
Ethanol, which plans to use portions of MSW as a potential
feedstock.\45\ The enactment of the RFS was suppose to be a clear
signal to investors of the government's commitment to renewable fuels
as a part of the country's energy and greenhouse gas reduction
strategies. Unfortunately this restrictive definition and the
government's mixed signals illustrated in the different definitions of
biomass may not be the clear signal intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Md. Code, Com. Law 7-701.
\41\ New Jersey Clean Energy Program. ``Renewable Energy Compliance
Certification Forms for the State of New Jersey.'' New Jersey.
\42\ 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. 1648.2.
\43\ Haw. Rev. Stat. 235-110.3
\44\ Energy Policy Act of 2005 932(a), 42 U.S.C. 923(a) (2005).
\45\ Department of Energy. ``DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol
Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding.'' Department of
Energy. http://www.energy.gov/news/4827.htm (accessed July 16, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although waste-to-biofuel conversion technologies are similar to
other cellulosic feedstock technologies, there are several unique
challenges to utilizing MSW as a feedstock. One challenge in converting
MSW to biofuels is pollution control. In any waste stream there will be
chemicals and substances of concern and although the fuel derived from
MSW will be clean, other materials may still contain contaminants. It
must be noted, though, that traditional waste-to-energy generation has
made significant progress in reducing emissions of pollutants. This is
largely due to the implementation of scrubbers to remove acids as well
as filters to remove particulates.\46\ As MSW-to-biofuels technology
becomes more mature, it can be expected that pollution controls will be
developed in accordance with appropriate government regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Environmental Protection Agency. ``Solid Waste Combustion/
Incineration.'' Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/landfill/sw_combst.htm (accessed July 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Lake County, Indiana, there are two municipal solid waste-to-
biofuel facilities that are currently under development. Genahol-
Powers, LLC and Indiana Ethanol Power, Inc. are both in negotiations
with Lake County officials to obtain waste disposal contracts to
convert the county's waste into biofuels. It is expected that, if
constructed, these facilities will process waste not only from Lake
County, but also from surrounding areas including nearby Chicago.
Proposed plans for Genahol and Indiana Ethanol Power have a combined
capacity to produce 110 million gallons of biofuel per year while
processing waste at the same time. It should be noted that Indiana
Ethanol Power has received a $100,000 grant from the Indiana Office of
Energy & Defense Development.\47\ Under current legislation, it is
unclear whether fuel produced from these facilities would be included
in the RFS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Shaw, Dan. ``Evansville Companies Bid to Make Ethanol from
Lake County Trash.'' Evansville Courier & Press, June 2, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulosic biofuel startup Coskata, Inc. is currently planning to
construct a cellulosic ethanol demonstration facility in Madison,
Pennsylvania, in coordination with General Motors. It is expected that
this facility will use a variety of feedstocks such as municipal solid
waste, woody biomass and steel off gases. In addition, Coskata will
also use other feedstocks including agricultural wastes which are
included in the RFS. Coskata's demonstration scale facility is expected
to produce 40,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year. The company
is also planning to construct a commercial scale facility in the future
at the same site producing 50-100 million gallons per year.\48\ Coskata
is particularly interesting because of their ability to use multiple
feedstocks. By eliminating certain feedstocks, the government may be
artificially restricting their decision-making process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Coskata, Inc. ``Coskata Inc. Selects Madison, Pa. for
Commercial Demonstration Facility to Produce Next-Generation Ethanol.''
Coskata, Inc. http://www.coskata.com/pagebody/Madisonannouncement.htm
(accessed July 16, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilization of Waste Materials Reduces Stress on Other Feedstocks
Another possible side effect of these exclusions is that they shift
the entire burden of production onto non-Federal forests and
agriculture land, promoting intense production and increasing the odds
that unsustainable and environmentally-degrading management practices
may be used. This could lead to soil erosion, reduced productivity,
compromised habitat, and reductions in water quality. Among these
issues are some fundamental agriculture issues, including competition
for land and natural resource protection.
The competition for land is a complicated issue that stems from the
perceived differences between growing crops for food, feed, fiber and
now fuel. Land is the most finite of resources and ultimately the basis
for all wealth--we rely on it to feed, clothe, and shelter our
civilization. When land is managed in an unsustainable way, our ability
to provide these and other basic values is compromised. For every acre
of land that is eroded or acidified or desertified or otherwise
degraded, we have one less productive acre that can provide food,
biofuel feedstocks or ecosystem services. Likewise, inappropriate
allocation of land for the wrong use can carry negative consequences,
including adverse impacts to the environment and the economy.
Fortunately, good stewardship and wise allocation of our precious land
resources can provide abundant biomass for fuels, food, and diverse,
healthy ecosystems.
In this respect, the wisest course of action would be to focus on
feedstocks that do not compete for land resources, such as low-value
forest residues and other waste materials. The RFS is a very aggressive
mandate, but it is not an impossible one, as long as we do not exclude
any of those feedstocks that can be produced sustainably and that meet
important environmental and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. With
conversion technologies still in development, we must keep our options
open and strive to produce renewable fuels that meet objective and
appropriate standards of sustainability. Fortunately, our nation
possesses abundant and readily available feedstocks that satisfy this
criterion.
Conclusion
By utilizing the renewable biomass resources from America's farms,
forests, and open spaces, we have the potential to lower our greenhouse
gas emissions, increase energy security, and stimulate economic
development in rural communities. Renewable fuels from biomass
feedstocks (coupled with increased fuel efficiency, plug-in hybrids,
and similar technologies) provide the most immediate means to begin
reducing the emissions associated with liquid transportation fuels. By
adding value to forests and forest products, the renewable fuels market
is one tool that can help slow down urban encroachment, improve
wildlife habitat, reduce the threat of forest fires, and improve timber
stocks, all while driving local economic development through the
creation of jobs in rural communities.
The United States has the resources necessary to provide for our
energy needs, and renewable fuels can and will play a vital role as
part of a larger strategy to diversify our energy supplies. A June 2008
report released by Merrill Lynch concluded that biofuels are the single
largest contributor to global oil supply growth in light of the
inability of non-OPEC crude oil supply to expand. ``According to the
International Energy Agency, `Biofuels have become a substantial part
of faltering non-OPEC supply growth, contributing around 50 percent of
incremental supply in the 2008-2013 period.' '' \49\ The use of
domestically-produced renewable fuels extends fuel supply by displacing
the amount of foreign crude oil the United States needs to import. On
June 12, 2008, Alexander Karsner, DOE Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, testified before the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources that gasoline prices would be between
20 cents to 35 cents per gallon higher if it was not for ethanol
production and use.\50\ Simply put, the use of renewable fuels eases
the strain of transportation costs on American consumers. Time is of
the essence if the United States is to lay groundwork for a sustainable
future that will mitigate climate change, reduce dependency on foreign
oil, and reduce costs of transportation fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Renewable Fuels Association, Canadian Renewable Fuels
Association, European Bioethanol Fuel Association, and UNICA. Financial
Times. ``OPEC Rakes in Billions, but Blames Bio-
fuels . . . Confused?'' July 16, 2008.
\50\ Karsner, Alexander. Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy. ``Biofuels and the Food Versus Debate.''
Testimony before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee. June 12, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to thank the Committee once again for the opportunity
to speak before you. Let me also extend my gratitude for your part in
creating and passing this important Renewable Fuel Standard and
recognizing the role it plays in our climate protection and national
security efforts.
Attachments
July 17, 2008
Federal Forests and the Renewable Fuel Standard
On December 19, 2007, the President signed into law the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). This law (P.L. 110-140)
includes an increase in the national Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by
2022. Within the total mandate, 21 billion gallons must qualify as
advanced biofuels--fuels made from renewable biomass other than corn
starch. There are additional carve-outs for biomass-based diesel and
fuels made from cellulosic feedstocks, such as wood, grasses, and
agricultural residues. An important component of the RFS is a series of
greenhouse gas emissions screens, essential safeguards that ensure
renewable fuels will meet minimum verifiable reductions in greenhouse
emissions. For renewable fuels (from new facilities) to qualify under
the RFS, they must achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in direct
and indirect lifecycle emissions compared to equivalent petroleum
fuels. Advanced fuels and cellulosic fuels are subject to a 50 percent
and 60 percent emissions screen, respectively. Because of these
stringent safeguards and the large quantity of fuel mandated, it is
paramount that we not rule out potentially important feedstocks without
valid reasons. The definition of `renewable biomass' included in the
law, however, does rule out a number of feedstocks, including thinning
materials and woody residues from Federal forests.
There are a number of reasons why the inclusion of Federal forests
in the definition of renewable biomass would be beneficial for the RFS,
global climate, and our public forests:
Significant Potential
U.S. forests cover 755 million acres (Alvarez 2007), of
which approximately \1/3\ is managed by Federal agencies.
Public forests are concentrated in the western states,
especially throughout the Rocky Mountains and Alaska. Slash,
unmerchantable trees and other logging residues are regularly
generated within these forests as byproducts of stand
improvement thinnings and forestry activities intended to
promote wildlife habitat, ecosystem functioning, timber
production, biodiversity, and recreational opportunities. In
addition, biomass is regularly harvested during restorative and
preventative treatments to protect against wildfire and insect
infestations. According to one assessment, 5.2-7.5 million dry
tons of forest biomass could be sustainably generated from
hazardous fuel reduction treatments in the western states
(Western Governors' Association 2005).
No Indirect Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Current estimates of direct lifecycle emissions for
cellulosic fuels show reductions in the order of 88-94 percent
compared to petroleum fuels (Schmer et al. 2008, Union of
Concerned Scientists 2007). However, the emissions requirements
in the RFS explicitly include both direct and indirect
emissions. Recent publications (Searchinger et al. 2008,
Fargione et al. 2008) highlight the potential magnitude of
indirect emissions caused through agricultural displacement
globally. These emissions occur when production on arable land
shifts from food products to biofuel feedstocks. Since global
demand for foodstuffs is fairly inelastic, this decrease in
supply is met by clearing new lands for agriculture, resulting
in greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, fires, and
erosion. To make matters worse, clearing often occurs in
rainforests, wetlands, native grasslands, and other imperiled
ecosystems. Although indirect emissions could become a major
obstacle to producing biofuel feedstock on agricultural land,
more research is needed to understand how to fully determine
these effects. In the meantime, prudency would suggest that we
place greater emphasis on those feedstocks which do not impact
the supply of agricultural commodities and therefore will not
result in such a chain reaction. This includes waste materials,
such as agricultural residues, food processing byproducts,
yellow grease, and urban wood waste, and feedstocks produced on
non-agricultural land, such as algae and woody biomass from
existing forestlands--including the extensive managed areas of
our Federal forests.
Cost-effective Tool for Sustainable Forest Management
Not only can woody biomass contribute substantially to the
production of sustainable biofuels, but biomass utilization can
be a valuable tool to help improve stand conditions and
facilitate management on those public forests that could
benefit from increased thinning of small-diameter and low-
quality trees. Small-diameter thinning is a major component of
hazardous fuels reduction on lands identified as being at risk
from catastrophic wildfire. Since 2000, the National Fire Plan
has included hazardous fuels reduction as a key element of
national fire policy (USDA and DOI 2000). Large, catastrophic
fires destroy life and property, threaten communities, reduce
air quality, and release huge pulses of greenhouse gases. One
study estimates that large, stand-replacing fires can emit over
2 tons of carbon per hectare (Finkral and Evans 2007). Where
and when appropriate, hazardous fuels reduction can decrease
fire intensity, fire frequency, and fire velocity, as well as
the likelihood that a fire will evolve into a highly
destructive crown fire (Duvenek and Patterson 2007, Agee and
Skinner 2005, Brose and Wade 2002, Pollet and Omi 2002, Finney
2001, Fule et al. 2001, Stephens 1998, Kalabokidis and Omi
1998, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996). In order to be successful
in these objectives and avoid negative environmental impacts,
however, hazardous fuel reduction treatments must be carefully
tailored to the forest type, historical fire regime, geography,
and ecological characteristics of the stand being treated.
After thinning, slash and harvest residues should be treated on
site or transported out of the forest to avoid increased fire
risks among accumulated low fuels (Bolding and Lanford 2001,
Kalabokidis and Omi 1998, Stephens 1998). Currently, the
majority of thinning materials are chipped, ground or burned on
site (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2007). The
intentional burning of residues in the field produces many of
the same negative impacts as wildfires, including emissions of
greenhouse gases and particulate matter (Radke et al. 1981).
Thinning of small-diameter trees can be a valuable tool in
managing Federal forests for other values and objectives in
addition to hazardous fuels reduction. Thinning can result in
improved tree vigor, increased drought tolerance, and increased
growth by decreasing the stand density and reducing competition
between trees for sunlight, water, and nutrients (Smith et al.
1996). Because vigorous fast-growing trees are generally more
proof against pests, thinning can be a successful means to
reduce the extent and lethality of insect infestations in many
forest systems (Fettig et al. 2007, Romme et al. 2006). In
addition, harvesting of small-diameter trees can be an
important component of habitat management for wildlife species
that require early successional habitat or low stand density
(McComb 2007, Gram et al. 2003, Desseker and McAuley 2001, Hume
et al. 1999). Finally, forest thinning and other silvicultural
activities can have positive effects on watershed functioning,
and specifically water yield (Stednick 1996, Troendle 1983), of
the most essential ecosystem services from Federal forests in
much of the western U.S.
Stand improvement thinnings focusing on small-diameter trees
are expensive operations; Federal budgets are inadequate to
treat the vast public acreages that could benefit from this
treatment (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2008). Adding
costs for residual treatments (chipping, grinding, and burning)
only compounds the problem. The feasibility of thinning is
limited in many places by the lack of markets for small-
diameter trees and woody biomass. In the absence of markets,
Federal agencies almost certainly cannot afford to thin vast
acreages on the public dollar--nor would this necessarily be
the wisest and best use of funds. The RFS has the potential to
provide necessary markets and bring a higher quality and
greater range of management tools within the national budget--
helping provide solutions to multiple problems.
Conclusion
Federal forests have the potential to contribute substantially to
the production of sustainable biofuels. Furthermore, biomass extraction
has the potential to become a powerful tool for improving the quality
of management on our Federal lands. The range of options for management
of wildlife habitat, forest hydrology, hazardous fuels reduction, and
pest infestations could be vastly increased if markets for small-
diameter trees were expanded. These markets are not likely to appear,
however, if Federal forests are excluded from the RFS. A transparent
and inclusive dialogue among stakeholders, interest groups, and
policymakers will be a necessary step in amending this law.
References:
Agee, J.K. and C.N. Skinner. 2005. Radke, L.F., P.V. Hobbs, and J.L.
Basic principles of forest fuel Stith. 1981. Particle emissions
reduction treatments. Forest and the production of ozone and
Ecology and Management 211:83-96. nitrogen oxides from the burning
Alvarez, M. 2007. The State of of forest slash. Atmospheric
America's Forests. Bethesda, MD: Environment 15(1):73-82.
Society of American Foresters. 68 Romme, W.H., J. Clement, J. Hicke,
p. D. Kulakowski, L.H. MacDonald,
Bolding, M.C. and B.L. Lanford. T.L. Schoennagel, and T.T. Veblen.
2001. Forest fuel reduction 2006. Recent forest insect
through energy wood production outbreaks and fire risk in
using a CTL/small chipper Colorado forests: a brief
harvesting system. In: Proc. 24th synthesis of relevant research.
Annual Council on Forest Colorado Forest Restoration
Engineering Meeting; Showshoe, WV. Institute, Colorado State
Brose, P. and D. Wade. 2002. University. 24 p.
Potential fire behavior in pine Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A.
flatwood forests following three Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J.
different fuel reduction Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and
techniques. Forest Ecology and T. Yu. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands
Management 163: 71-84. for biofuels increases greenhouse
Desseker, D.F. and D.G. McAuley. gases through emissions from land
2001. Importance of early use change. Scienceexpress,
successional habitat to ruffed published online 7 February 2008;
grouse and American woodcock. 10.1126/science/1151861.
Wildlife Society Bulletin Schmer, M.R., K.P. Vogel, R.B.
29(2):456-465. Mitchell, and R.K. Perrin. 2008.
Duvenek, M.J. and W.A. Patterson. Net energy of cellulosic ethanol
2007. Characterizing canopy fuels from switchgrass. Proceedings of
to predict fire behavior in pitch the National Academy of Sciences.
pine stands. Northern Journal of 105(2):464-469.
Applied Forestry 24(1): 65-70(6). Smith, D.M., B.C. Larson, M.J.
Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, Kelty, and P.M.S. Ashton. The
S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne. Practice of Silviculture: Applied
2008. Land clearing and the Forest Ecology. 9th ed. John Wiley
biofuel carbon debt. & Sons, Inc., 1996. 560 p.
Scienceexpress, published online 7 Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the
February 2008; 10.1126/ effects of timber harvest on
science.1152747. annual water yield. Journal of
Fettig, C.J., K.D. Klepzig, R.F. Hydrology 176: 79-95.
Billings, A.S. Munson, T.E. Stephens, S.L. 1998. Evaluation of
Nebeker, J.F. Negron, and J.T. the effects of silvicultural and
Nowak. 2007. The effectiveness of fuels treatment on potential fire
vegetation management practices behavior in Sierra Nevada mixed-
for prevention and control of bark conifer forests. Forest Ecology
beetle infestations in coniferous and Management. 105:21-35.
forests of the western or southern Troendle, C.A. 1983. The potential
United States. Forest Ecology and for water yield augmentation from
Management 238: 24-53. forest management in the Rocky
Finkral, A.J. and A.M. Evans.2007. Mountain region. Journal of the
The effects of a thinning American Water Resources
treatment on carbon stocks in a Association 19(3): 359-373.
northern Arizona ponderosa pine U.S. Department of Agriculture and
forest. Unpublished manuscript. 26 U.S. Department of the Interior.
p. Managing the Impact of Wildfires
Finney, M.A. 2001. Design of on Communities and the
regular landscape fuel treatment Environment: A Report to the
patterns for modifying fire growth President in Response to the
and behavior. Forest Science Wildfires of 2000. 8 September
47(2): 219-228. 2000.
Fule, P.Z., A.E.M. Waltz, W.W. U.S. Government Accountability
Covington, and T.A. Heinlein. Office. Wildland Fire Management:
2001. Measuring forest restoration Better Information and a
effectiveness in reducing Systematic Process Could Improve
hazardous fuels. Journal of Agencies' Approach to Allocating
Forestry 99(11):24-29. Fuel Reduction Funds and Selecting
Gram, W.K., P.A. Porneluzi, R.L. Projects. GAO-07-1168. September
Clawson, J. Faaborg, and S.C. 2007. 103 p.
Richter. 2003. Effects of U.S. Government Accountability
experimental forest management on Office. Wildland Fire Management:
density and nesting success of Federal Agencies Lack Key Long-
bird species in Missouri Ozark and Short-Term Management
Forests. Conservation Biology Strategies for Using Program Funds
17(5): 1324-1337. Effectively. GAO-08-433T. 12
Humes, M.L., J.P. Hayes, and M.W. February 2008. 14 p.
Collopy. 1999. Bat activity in Union of Concerned Scientists.
thinned, unthinned, and old-growth Biofuels: An Important Part of a
forests in western Oregon. The Low-Carbon Diet. November 2007. 27
Journal of Wildlife Management p
63(2):553-561. Western Governors' Association.
Kalabokidis, K.D. and P.N. Omi. Transportation Fuels for the
1998. Reduction of fire hazard Future, Biofuels: Part 1. 8
through thinning/residue disposal January 2008. 69 p.
in the urban interface. Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N.
International Journal of Wildland Skinner. 1996. Landscape-level
Fire 8(1): 29-35. strategies for forest fuel
McComb, B.C. Wildlife Habitat management In: Status of the
Management: Concepts and Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada
Applications in Forestry. CRC Ecosystem Project, final report to
Press, Inc., 2007. 384 p. Congress. Vol. 11: Assessments and
Pollet, J. and P.N. Omi. 2002. scientific basis for management
Effect of thinning and prescribed options. Wildl. Res. Ctr. Rep. No.
burning on crown fire severity in 37. Davis, CA: University of
ponderosa pine forests. California--Davis, Center for
International Journal of Wildland Water and Wildland Resources: 1471-
Fire 11(1)1-10. 1492.
______
July 17, 2008
Private Forests and the Renewable Fuel Standard
On December 19, 2007, the President signed into law the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). This law (P.L. 110-140)
includes an increase in the national Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by
2022. Within the mandate, 16 billion gallons must be produced from
cellulosic feedstocks, such as wood, grasses, and agricultural
residues. An important component of the RFS is a series of greenhouse
gas emissions screens, essential safeguards that ensure renewable fuels
will meet minimum verifiable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
For renewable fuels (from new facilities) to qualify under the RFS,
they must achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in direct and
indirect lifecycle emissions compared to equivalent petroleum fuels.
Cellulosic fuels are subject to a 60 percent emissions screen. Because
of these stringent safeguards and the large quantity of fuels required,
it is paramount that we not exclude feedstocks without valid reasons.
The definition of `renewable biomass' included in the law, however,
does rule out a number of feedstocks, including some woody biomass from
private forests.
The definition includes usage of ``planted trees and tree residue
from actively managed tree plantations on non-Federal land cleared at
any time prior to enact-
ment . . .'' and ``slash and pre-commercial thinnings that are from
non-Federal forestlands . . .'' This language limits the use of
merchantable trees to those coming from tree plantations. Only logging
residues and pre-commercial trees can be used from naturally-
regenerated forestlands.
There are a number of reasons why a broader inclusion of private
forests in the definition of renewable biomass would be beneficial for
the RFS, global climate, and our forests:
Significant Potential
U.S. forests cover 750 million acres (Alvarez 2007), of which
approximately 57% are owned by private citizens, families, private
cooperatives, industry, investment funds, and institutions. The
majority of these forests rely on natural regeneration for stand
establishment instead of the artificial regeneration (i.e., planting)
used in plantation forests. Furthermore, these forests are heavily
concentrated in the northern and southeastern parts of the country
(Alvarez 2007), where agricultural feedstocks may not be as available
as they are in the Midwest and western states.
No Indirect Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions restrictions in the RFS explicitly include both direct
and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases. Current estimates of direct
lifecycle emissions for cellulosic fuels show reductions in the order
of 88-94 percent compared to petroleum fuels (Schmer et al. 2008, Union
of Concerned Scientists 2007). However, recent publications
(Searchinger et al. 2008, Fargione et al. 2008) highlight the potential
magnitude of indirect emissions caused through land use change. These
emissions are associated with the clearing of new farmland to
compensate for those crops and farmlands that are diverted towards the
production of biofuels. Although indirect emissions could become a
major stumbling-block to producing climate-friendly biofuel feedstock
on agricultural land, more research is needed to understand how to
fully measure and attribute these effects. In the meantime, prudency
would suggest that we place greater emphasis on those feedstocks which
do not impact agricultural markets. This includes wastes and residues;
such as agricultural wastes, food processing byproducts, and urban wood
waste; and feedstocks produced on non-agricultural land, such as algae
and woody biomass from existing forestlands--including the extensive
privately-owned, naturally-regenerated forests throughout the nation.
Valuable Stewardship Tool
Biomass harvesting can be a valuable tool to help improve stand
conditions in a number of forest types for a number of management
values. On many acres across the nation, the restoration of historic
fire regimes through hazardous fuels reduction is a management
priority. In those forests where hazardous fuels reduction is
warranted, appropriate use of hazardous fuels reduction can decrease
fire intensity, fire frequency, and fire velocity, as well as the
likelihood that a fire will evolve into a highly destructive crown fire
(Duvenek and Patterson 2007, Agee and Skinner 2005, Brose and Wade
2002, Pollet and Omi 2002, Finney 2001, Fule et al. 2001, Stephens
1998, Kalabokidis and Omi 1998, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996). In
forests where stand conditions (and associated fire regimes) have
radically departed from the past, restoration of historical conditions
may require vegetation management across a wide spectrum of tree
species, ages, and sizes--not only the removal of ``slash and pre-
commercial thinnings'' allowed by the current definition. In addition
to fire management, biomass harvesting has the potential to be an
important component of management for other values and objectives.
Thinning can be used to improved tree vigor, increase drought
tolerance, and increase growth by decreasing the stand density and
reducing competition among trees for sunlight, water, and nutrients
(Smith et al. 1996). Because vigorous, healthy trees are generally more
resistant to pests, thinning can be a successful means to reduce the
extent and lethality of insect infestations in many forest systems
(Fettig et al. 2007, Romme et al. 2006). Restoration and improvement of
wildlife habitat in many circumstances depends on harvesting trees and
forest biomass (McComb 2007, Gram et al. 2003, Desseker and McAuley
2001, Hume et al. 1999). Like restoration of historic fire regimes,
restoration or creation of specific habitat components may require
management of a variety of trees other than just small trees and brush.
The removal of biomass of all size-classes is also a regular component
of management for a number of other forest values, including
recreation, aesthetics, and watershed functioning (Stednick 1996,
Troendle 1983).
The RFS Definition and Sustainability
The definition of `renewable biomass' included in the RFS was
crafted to serve a laudable purpose--to ensure that the RFS provides
incentives for sustainable stewardship of our nation's precious forest
resources. Unfortunately, the current definition is NOT based on
ecologically meaningful sustainability criteria. Instead, it is an
arbitrary series of exclusions based on ownership and regeneration
systems. As result, material from the most poorly managed forest
plantations is eligible to be included in the RFS while trees from
well-managed, sustainably-harvested Federal and private forests are
not. Indicators and criteria of sustainability need to be based on
objective, ecologically meaningful factors such as forest type,
climate, topography, soil characteristics, fire regime, and local
biodiversity. Sustainable forestry is not a simple concept; it means
tailoring management practices to achieve multiple objectives, while
improving and maintaining the productivity and ecological functioning
of forested ecosystems--far more than simply avoiding the cutting of
large trees.
Conclusion
Private forests and woodlands have the potential to contribute
substantially to the production of sustainable biofuels and be a
powerful tool for improving the quality of stewardship in many forests
for a number of values, including wildlife habitat, forest hydrology,
hazardous fuels reduction, and pest management. To this end, it is
essential that biofuel incentives promote sustainable management
practices. The broad exclusions included in the Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS), however, are not appropriate. A transparent and inclusive
dialogue among stakeholders, interest groups, and policymakers will be
a necessary step in developing a new definition that is flexible enough
to utilize sustainably-produced woody biomass from all ownerships and
regions where it is be an appropriate and sustainable management tool.
References:
Agee, J.K. and C.N. Skinner. 2005. McComb, B.C. Wildlife Habitat
Basic principles of forest fuel Management: Concepts and
reduction treatments. Forest Applications in Forestry. CRC
Ecology and Management 211:83-96. Press, Inc., 2007. 384 p.
Alvarez, M. 2007. The State of Pollet, J. and P.N. Omi. 2002.
America's Forests. Bethesda, MD: Effect of thinning and prescribed
Society of American Foresters. 68 burning on crown fire severity in
p. ponderosa pine forests.
Brose, P. and D. Wade. 2002. International Journal of Wildland
Potential fire behavior in pine Fire 11(1)1-10.
flatwood forests following three Romme, W.H., J. Clement, J. Hicke,
different fuel reduction D. Kulakowski, L.H. MacDonald,
techniques. Forest Ecology and T.L. Schoennagel, and T.T. Veblen.
Management 163: 71-84. 2006. Recent forest insect
Desseker, D.F. and D.G. McAuley. outbreaks and fire risk in
2001. Importance of early Colorado forests: a brief
successional habitat to ruffed synthesis of relevant research.
grouse and American woodcock. Colorado Forest Restoration
Wildlife Society Bulletin Institute, Colorado State
29(2):456-465. University. 24 p.
Duvenek, M.J. and W.A. Patterson. Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A.
2007. Characterizing canopy fuels Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J.
to predict fire behavior in pitch Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and
pine stands. Northern Journal of T. Yu. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands
Applied Forestry 24(1): 65-70(6). for biofuels increases greenhouse
Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, gases through emissions from land
S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne. use change. Scienceexpress,
2008. Land clearing and the published online 7 February 2008;
biofuel carbon debt. 10.1126/science/1151861.
Scienceexpress, published online 7 Schmer, M.R., K.P. Vogel, R.B.
February 2008; 10.1126/ Mitchell, and R.K. Perrin. 2008.
science.1152747. Net energy of cellulosic ethanol
Fettig, C.J., K.D. Klepzig, R.F. from switchgrass. Proceedings of
Billings, A.S. Munson, T.E. the National Academy of Sciences.
Nebeker, J.F. Negron, and J.T. 105(2):464-469.
Nowak. 2007. The effectiveness of Smith, D.M., B.C. Larson, M.J.
vegetation management practices Kelty, and P.M.S. Ashton. The
for prevention and control of bark Practice of Silviculture: Applied
beetle infestations in coniferous Forest Ecology. 9th ed. John Wiley
forests of the western or southern & Sons, Inc., 1996. 560 p.
United States. Forest Ecology and Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the
Management 238: 24-53. effects of timber harvest on
Finney, M.A. 2001. Design of annual water yield. Journal of
regular landscape fuel treatment Hydrology 176: 79-95.
patterns for modifying fire growth Stephens, S.L. 1998. Evaluation of
and behavior. Forest Science the effects of silvicultural and
47(2): 219-228. fuels treatment on potential fire
Fule, P.Z., A.E.M. Waltz, W.W. behavior in Sierra Nevada mixed-
Covington, and T.A. Heinlein. conifer forests. Forest Ecology
2001. Measuring forest restoration and Management. 105:21-35.
effectiveness in reducing Troendle, C.A. 1983. The potential
hazardous fuels. Journal of for water yield augmentation from
Forestry 99(11):24-29. forest management in the Rocky
Gram, W.K., P.A. Porneluzi, R.L. Mountain region. Journal of the
Clawson, J. Faaborg, and S.C. American Water Resources
Richter. 2003. Effects of Association 19(3): 359-373.
experimental forest management on Union of Concerned Scientists.
density and nesting success of Biofuels: An Important Part of a
bird species in Missouri Ozark Low-Carbon Diet. November 2007. 27
Forests. Conservation Biology p
17(5): 1324-1337. Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N.
Humes, M.L., J.P. Hayes, and M.W. Skinner. 1996. Landscape-level
Collopy. 1999. Bat activity in strategies for forest fuel
thinned, unthinned, and old-growth management In: Status of the
forests in western Oregon. The Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada
Journal of Wildlife Management Ecosystem Project, final report to
63(2):553-561. Congress. Vol. 11: Assessments and
Kalabokidis, K.D. and P.N. Omi. scientific basis for management
1998. Reduction of fire hazard options. Wildl. Res. Ctr. Rep. No.
through thinning/residue disposal 37. Davis, CA: University of
in the urban interface. California--Davis, Center for
International Journal of Wildland Water and Wildland Resources: 1471-
Fire 8(1): 29-35. 1492.
Thank you, Ms. Wong. Mr. Blazer.STATEMENT OF ARTHUR ``BUTCH'' BLAZER,
FORESTER, STATE OF NEW MEXICO; EXECUTIVE MEMBER, COUNCIL OF
WESTERN STATE FORESTERS; EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS, SANTA FE, NM
Mr. Blazer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about this
issue of great importance to the western United States and my State of
New Mexico. I am Butch Blazer, the New Mexico State Forester and
Executive Member of the Council of Western State Foresters as well as
the National Association of State Foresters.
I am representing the Council of Western State Foresters today. The
Council is comprised of 17 western state foresters and six western
territorial highland foresters. The Council's mission is to ensure the
sustainability and health of western forests to meet today's needs and
the needs of future generations. It is the mission that has compelled
me to testify before you on the impact of the 2007 Energy Bill's
definition of renewable biomass within the Renewable Fuel Standard goal
section of the bill.
As a member of the Western Council and the National Association, I
am uniquely qualified to address the issue that is on the minds of many
of my peer state foresters. I represent a diverse group of government
foresters and resource managers who are responsible to their people and
their natural resources.
Congress took up the issue of energy security for our country in
the 2007 Energy Bill and spent many months of hearings and testimonies
on the importance of this issue, as well as the many factors that must
be integrated into the final version of a successful bill. The
Renewable Fuel Standard section of 2007 Energy Bill that was marked up
and approved by the jurisdictional Committees was a solid draft and
contained a workable definition of woody biomass. However a last-minute
change to the definition of renewable biomass changed the bill in a
significant manner.
The 2007 Energy Security and Independence bill signed by the
President now includes an overly restrictive definition of renewable
biomass that has created unfortunate consequences for the
implementation of a responsible resource management strategy consistent
with the purposes of the bill itself.
The revision was advocated by groups based on philosophies of old
and result in broad, generalizing mandates that hinder our ability to
restore forests, capture carbon from the atmosphere, provide clean air
and water and sustain healthy, vibrant communities.
As currently codified, the definition for renewable biomass
stipulates the conditions wherein woody biomass on Federal and non-
Federal lands may be used as a resource for the production of biofuels.
The revised and subsequently adopted definition of renewable biomass
restricts the source and type of wood that could be counted towards the
Renewable Fuel Standard goal, in part by restricting use of woody
material from Federal lands thereby eliminating the opportunity to
count towards the law's 36 billion gallon goal for renewable fuels.
This will adversely impact significant forested ecosystems,
especially as our climate gets warmer, fuel loads increase, and the
publicly-funded budgets to undertake needed work, such as reducing
hazardous fuels, shrink. We only have to look as far as this year's
fire season in my State of New Mexico, northern California, as well as
states outside the West, such as Texas and North Carolina, to
understand what is at stake.
Already over 3,300,000 acres have burned, and we have spent over
$800 million in suppression alone this year. And that is just the
wildfire end of the problem. The out-of-control wildfires themselves
have the potential to turn our forests from carbon sinks into carbon
sources.
Researchers from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and
the University of California report that carbon emissions from fires in
some states can exceed that which is emitted through human use of
fossil fuels. A striking implication of very large wildfires is that a
severe fire season lasting only--excuse me. I am sorry. I need to
change glasses here.
The Chairman. Take your time, sir.
Mr. Blazer. I had my glasses break on me, and I picked some up. And
they are not working very well. I apologize.
Researchers from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and
the University of California report that carbon emissions from fires in
some states can exceed that which is emitted through human use of
fossil fuels. A striking implication of very large wildfires is that a
severe fire season lasting only 1 or 2 months can release as much
carbon as the annual emissions from the entire transportation or energy
sector of an individual state based on the NCAR study.
Further, offsetting any amounts of foreign oil with domestically-
supplied renewable energy has obvious foreign policy advantages that
only add to the justification that we need not artificially limit our
biofuel feedstocks. The current limiting definition unjustifiably adds
to the cost of business, a tough notion to swallow, considering the
worsening budget and fiscal climate we are in.
I would add that the definition creates a bureaucratic nightmare
that makes any use of woody biomass cost prohibitive. Imagine trying to
track woody biomass that can only come from certain lands as is
currently crafted. The needed systems would not be cheap nor easy for
any government entity to track.
The definition also prohibits the utilization of biomass from
forests that are considered rare or imperiled based on global or state
rankings pursuant to the State Natural Heritage Program databases. This
precludes the use of other information or programs that provide
guidance on these forests such as state wildlife strategies and the
forest legacy program to name a few. This is another example of some
unnecessary and artificial restrictions.
Not to be overlooked is the impacts on private forestlands. I have
elaborated on this in my written testimony.
Continuing, the definition also precludes the utilization of
biomass from late succession or old growth forests but provides no
specification for what constitutes these conditions. Biomass market
investment would be discouraged even though they might otherwise
encourage thinning in older stands to improve forest health or prevent
wildfire. Without specifying the conditions, the current definition
will create added uncertainty into the woody biofuel equation,
something that will only compound the disincentives of private sector
woody biofuel investment.
Our Federal lands, which make up around 40 percent of the land
ownership in the West, are important sources of cellulosic material
that can and should be used toward the goals of the 2007 Energy Bill.
The current measured and thoughtful approaches to the management of and
uses of woody biofuels were not taken into consideration during the
discussions of materials for the RFS goals.
Is there enough woody biomass? The current net growth alone of
forest biomass conservatively estimated at 360 million tons per year
could meet 30 percent of America's need for liquid fuel.
The Chairman. Mr. Blazer, if you could summarize and finish your
testimony, sir.
Mr. Blazer. Yes. In summary, I just feel that the material coming
off of our Federal lands is going to be imperative if we are going to
be able to meet the needs of protecting our life and property of our
folks out West. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blazer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arthur ``Butch'' Blazer, Forester, State of New
Mexico; Executive Member, Council of Western State Foresters;
Executive Member, National Association of State Foresters, Santa Fe, NM
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about this issue of great
importance to the Western United States and my State of New Mexico. I
am Arthur `Butch' Blazer, New Mexico State Forester and Executive
member of the Council of Western State Foresters (CWSF) as well as the
National Association of State Foresters. I am representing the Council
of Western State Foresters today. The Council is comprised of 17
western state foresters and six western Territorial Island Foresters.
The Council's mission is to ensure the sustainability and health of
western forests to meet today's needs and the needs of future
generations.
It is this mission that has compelled me to testify before you on
the impact of the 2007 Energy Bill's definition of renewable biomass
within the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) goal section of the bill.
There are concerns that the current definition is not sustainable,
meaning ecologically, economically and socially sustainable. As a
member of the Western Council and National Association, I am uniquely
qualified to address this issue that is on the minds of so many of my
peer state foresters. I represent a diverse group of government
foresters and resource managers who are responsible for the forest
management and to the people of their state or island.
There are many forest and economic health facets involved in this
issue. As a representative of the Western Council, I will highlight the
western concerns on this issue. However, I also want to inform the
Committee that we are also concerned with the national implications for
private lands and plantations that will be addressed by other witnesses
today.
Congress took up the issue of energy security for our country in
the 2007 Energy Bill and spent many months holding hearings and
receiving testimony on the importance of this issue as well as the many
materials that must be integrated into the final version of a
successful bill. The Renewable Fuel Standard section of the 2007 Energy
bill that was marked-up and approved by the jurisdictional committees
was a solid draft and contained a workable definition for `woody
biomass.' However, a last minute change to the definition of `renewable
biomass' changed the bill in a significant manner.
The 2007 Energy Security and Independence Bill signed by the
President now includes an overly-restrictive definition of renewable
biomass that has created unfortunate consequences for the
implementation of a sustainable resource management strategy consistent
with the purposes of the bill itself. The revision was advocated by
groups based on philosophies of old that result in broad, generalizing
mandates that hinder our ability to restore forests, capture carbon
from the atmosphere, provide clean air and water, and sustain healthy,
vibrant communities.
According to the report, A Strategic Assessment of Forest Biomass
and Fuel Reduction Treatments in Western States,* in the west there are
at least 28 million acres of forest that could benefit from reducing
hazardous fuels. Implementation of any significant, sustainable effort
would generate large volumes of biomass and create jobs in the West. A
new way of forestry and business has emerged, one that addresses the
forest health issues, wildland fire, renewable energy, as well the
potential for community investment and landscape-scale restoration
opportunities.
As currently codified, the definition for `renewable biomass'
stipulates the conditions wherein woody biomass on Federal and non-
Federal lands may be used as a resource for the production of biofuels.
The revised, and subsequently adopted, definition of `renewable
biomass' restricts the source and type of wood that can be counted
towards the Renewable Fuel Standard goal in part by restricting use of
woody materials from Federal lands. The definition of renewable biomass
specifies that Federal lands, particularly the national forest system
lands, are excluded from the definition of `renewable biomass', unless
they are in the immediate vicinity of communities, thereby drastically
and practically eliminating the opportunity to use biomass for the
production of biofuels that can count towards the law's 36 billion
gallon goal for renewable fuels. Considering the vast Federal land
ownership in the west, a definition that limits biomass in such a way
unfairly hamstrings the west and puts us at an economic disadvantage to
establish bio-based industries that can help with so many of our
nation's ills. This will adversely impact significant forested
ecosystems especially as our climate gets warmer, fuel loads increase
and the publicly-funded budgets to undertake needed work, such as
reducing hazardous fuels, shrink. This is not a sustainable scenario.
We must invest in our forests and communities and not lock them up.
The definition, as currently written, is a problem because it
artificially delineates what is eligible for the usage of woody biomass
from many sources including both private and public lands. It
unnecessarily constrains important biomass supply sources to help meet
our nation's renewable energy goals and in particular, has a limiting
effect on private market investment in woody biofuel solutions to our
larger wildfire and forest health problems. Solutions that not only
would help diminish our dependence on foreign oil, but also help
address the catastrophic and mega wildfire problem which threaten
nearly 170 million acres of our nation's forests. We only have to look
as far as this year's fire season in northern California, as well as
states outside of the West such as Texas and North Carolina, to
understand what is at stake. Already over 3,300,000 acres have burned
and we have spent over $800 million in suppression alone this year. And
as early studies put ``true fire costs,'' those that consider the
broader range of wildfire impacts (lost economic productivity, damage
to ecosystem services, utility outages, etc.), as high as 30:1, we
cannot afford to close the door on helpful options.
And this is just the wildfire end of the problem. The out-of-
control wildfires themselves have the potential to turn our forests
from carbon sinks into carbon sources. Researchers from the National
Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of California report
that carbon emissions from fires--in some states--can exceed that which
is emitted through human use of fossil fuels. A striking implication of
very large wildfires is that a severe fire season lasting only 1 or 2
months can release as much carbon as the annual emissions from the
entire transportation or energy sector of an individual state, based on
the NCAR study.
Further, offsetting any amounts of foreign oil with domestically-
supplied renewable energy has obvious foreign policy advantages that
only add to the justification that we need not artificially limit our
biofuel feedstocks. The current limiting definition unjustifiably adds
to the cost of business, a tough notion to swallow considering the
worsening budget and fiscal climate we are in. The bottom line is that
we have the laws and regulations in place to guarantee we will maintain
healthy and sustainable forests, even in the face of increasing demands
on woody biofuel feedstocks. If we want truly sustainable and
economically-feasible management of our forestland for forest health
and renewable energy, the definition must be changed.
I would add that the definition creates a bureaucratic nightmare
that makes any use of woody biomass cost prohibitive. Imagine trying to
track woody biomass that can only come form certain lands as is
currently crafted. The needed systems would not come cheap nor easy for
any government entity to track. The definition also prohibits
utilization of biomass from forests that are considered rare or
imperiled based on global or state rankings pursuant to State Natural
Heritage Program databases. This precludes the use of other information
or programs that provide guidance on these forests such as state
wildlife strategies, and the forest legacy program, to name a few. This
is another example of some unnecessary and artificial restrictions.
We would also like to reinforce what you have heard today about the
impacts this definition has on private forestlands. The definition
constrains utilization of woody biomass from plantations to ``actively-
managed tree plantations'' on land that was cleared prior to enactment
of the legislation, i.e. December 19, 2007. New plantations either
established on bare land or converted from other vegetative cover after
the date do not qualify as source material. This has the effect of
constraining economically efficient sources of supply for a national
energy initiative. Further, what would otherwise be a market incentive
to reforest bare land or create and perpetuate forest cover could have
the effect of encouraging conversion to non-forestland use. This issue
is significant to the western U.S. as the economic constrain of any
sources for a national energy initiative will hinder the long-term
success of the U.S. in this market.
Continuing, the definition also precludes the utilization of
biomass from ``late succession'' or ``old growth forest,'' but provides
no specification for what constitutes those conditions. Biomass market
investment would be discouraged even though they might otherwise
encourage thinning in `older' stands to avoid or mitigate the spread of
insect and disease infestation, prevent wildfire and perpetuate healthy
growth. Without specifying the conditions, the current definition will
create added uncertainty into the woody biofuel equation, something
that will only compound the disincentives for private sector woody
biofuel investment.
Our Federal lands, which make up over 40% of the land ownership in
the West, are important sources of cellulosic material that can and
should be used towards the goals of the 2007 Energy Bill. The current
measured and thoughtful approaches to the management of and uses of
woody biofuels were not taken into consideration during the discussions
of materials for the RFS goals. Our belief is that the best and most
successful way of approaching Federal forestland management, or all
Federal land management for that matter, is to include communities and
stakeholders in the process. This assures a balanced, solution oriented
approach. This is not reflected in the last minute change to the
renewable energy definition in the Energy Bill and does no justice in
recognizing the scale of the problem we face around forest health,
climate, and our dependence on foreign oil. Obviously we want to be
cognizant of project scale, but a one-size-fits all approach is not the
right approach. It only stifles the innovation and investment in woody
biofuels that is needed and is part of a well rounded solution to these
problems.
Allow me to expand upon this point with a specific example. There
are many groundbreaking cross boundary collaborations that are helping
to improve the health of western forests, such as that demonstrated
through the implementation of the White Mountain Stewardship Contract
on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Less than a decade ago,
Arizona's forest-based communities near the Apache-Sitgreaves N.F.
shared concerns regarding the departure of the local forest products
industry and an impending threat of large, uncharacteristic wildfires.
In 2002, the Rodeo-Chediski fire burned nearly \1/2\ million acres and
consumed over 400 homes forcing communities, business owners, and
agency employees to move beyond the gridlock which often accompanies
forest stewardship on our national forests. The end result included a
long-term contracting mechanism (i.e., stewardship contract developed
collaboratively by the agency and local community) which provided the
necessary woody biomass supply assurance needed before investors were
willing to outlay the significant capital required to produce renewable
heat and/or power for local community members.
One such example is the Snowflake White Mountain Biomass Power
Plant in Arizona. The plant is generating electricity through a wood-
burning boiler using forest thinning (wood-waste material from the
area's forest industries) and waste recycled paper fibers from an
existing newsprint paper mill located adjacent to the biomass facility.
At least 75 percent of the Snowflake plant's production will be
generated by forest-thinning efforts occurring on U.S. forestlands that
surround the communities of Arizona's White Mountains and it could not
function if not for the stewardship contract mentioned above. Now this
example does not tie directly to use of woody biomass for biofuel
production, but a direct analogy can be made here. The private sector
will not invest the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars needed to
commercialize woody cellulosic biofuel production in the West knowing
that the vast majority of Federal lands are off limits.
The current net growth of forest biomass--conservatively estimated
at 360 million tons per year--could meet 30 percent of America's need
for liquid fuels, perhaps more. Much of the material to provide this
fuel would come from the small trees that should be removed to improve
the health of the forests while reducing the impacts and costs of
wildfire. An estimate from the USFS Forest Products Lab states that in
order to improve health and decrease the risk of catastrophic wildfire,
8.4 billion dry tons of material needs to be removed from the national
forests alone. If this 8.4 billion dry tons of material can not be
counted towards to RFS goal the opportunities for energy independence
in this country are being significantly limited, our forests and
citizens all suffer.
We believe the Federal Government can and should be responsible
land stewards and do their part to see our country on its way to energy
independence. We suggest a definition of renewable biomass that
includes materials from both private and Federal lands, gives guidance
as to how those materials can meet the RFS goal and specifies how our
nation's energy goals are going to be met. The demand for renewable
energy and the need to protect communities and forests is a perfect fit
to turn wood waste into a clean burning, renewable source of energy. We
urge Congress to consider changing the definition of renewable biomass
to allow materials from Federal lands to be `counted' towards our
Country's goals for renewable fuels in the future. Where to start? We
would recommend the definition in the recently passed farm bill is a
good place to look. Please let us know if you would like to follow up
and pursue some solutions to this problem. We stand ready to help.
Thank you for your consideration.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Blazer. Mr. Burke. But before
Mr. Burke begins, I would remind all witnesses to try to stay
as close to the 5 minute rule as possible. Mr. Burke.
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. BURKE III, TREE FARMER, CAROLINE COUNTY,
VA; PARTNER, McGUIRE WOODS LLP, RICHMOND, VA
Mr. Burke. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is John Burke. I am a private landowner
in Caroline County, Virginia. I manage forestland for my family
and for a number of family limited partnerships.
Our tree farms contains both planted trees, such as pine,
bald cypress, green ash, and hardwood species, as well as
naturally regenerated hardwood and pine. In a moment, you will
see why this diversity in our tree farm is relevant to my
testimony.
Today there are nearly five million family forest owners
like myself, and we own nearly \2/3\ of the nation's productive
forestland. It is this forest resource that supplies the bulk
of forest products used in wood and paper manufacturing. Today
these family forest owners face many challenges in managing
their forests and in planting for the succession of their
forests.
I would like to share some thoughts in connection with the
definition of renewable biomass as it appears in the RFS. In
particular, the definition of renewable biomass in subparts ii
and iv appear too narrow and too restrictive. This definition
does not allow our country to reach out to the broad diverse
forest resources that can sustainably provide a renewable
source of biomass for the transportation fuel pipeline.
Before I get into the details, there are goals and
statements which I believe that most voters will support.
First, encouraging healthy forests is a good thing. Second,
sustainably increasing the inventory of available, renewable
biomass is a good thing. Third, increasing and strengthening
markets for forest products coming from forestland owners is a
good thing. I will punctuate the limitations of the definition
with two examples from our woodlands.
On one of our naturally regenerated stands, that is a stand
of hardwood, we conducted a pre-harvest thinning. This is a
management technique used to remove inferior species, small
diameter competition and trees that will not survive until
harvest. In carrying out this healthy forest practice, the wood
that comes from our thinning should be able to flow into the
renewable biomass market. Under the definition, it appears that
this thinned material may not because these were not ``planted
trees'' and the thinning may not be considered, under some
definitions, as a pre-commercial thinning. Naturally
regenerated stands are a very important and a very large
component of the makeup of America's forest resources.
Further the wide geographic availability of naturally
regenerated forests means that they usually will be part of a
local supply, thereby reducing transportation costs for this
very important cellulosic feedstock. As you can see, this
important component of America's forests and the good
management techniques needed for these naturally regenerated
forests could be ignored by the existing definition and
therefore ineligible to the RFS.
A second example from our woodlands: In one of our stands,
it consists of both naturally regenerated pine, loblolly pine,
and planted pine. This stand was established after a harvest
that my father conducted. Following the harvest we did site
prep and planted trees, pine trees, on most of the stand. A
unique feature was the presence of naturally regenerating
loblolly pines. We did not plant in that area but allowed these
to naturally regenerate and to develop along with the planted
pines.
At the sixteenth year of the life of this stand, we
mechanically thinned the entire stand to remove the weaker
trees and to allow crop trees better spacing, that is more
access to water, nutrients, and sunlight. These practices are
consistent with healthy forest management. Under the present
definition, however, it is not clear whether and to what extent
materials from our thinning would be considered renewable
biomass. This definition may either exclude the materials we
thinned from the stand from the renewable energy pipeline, or
in the alternative require a very difficult identification and
sorting process to separate out those trees that were thinned
from planted trees versus those trees that were thinned from
naturally regenerated trees.
As you can see from this fact pattern, the definition
appears unnecessarily limited and could require complex and
probably unworkable tracking mechanisms.
In sum, I would urge that the definition of renewable
biomass under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
be broadened and expanded by new legislation amending this
title. In the alternative, it is my request that these concerns
be taken into consideration as part of the rule making process
so as to broaden and make more inclusive the definition of
renewable biomass. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burke follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Burke III, Tree Farmer, Caroline County,
VA; Partner, McGuire Woods LLP, Richmond, VA
Thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding the role of
America's forest resources in connection with the Renewable Fuel
Standard under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Mr. Chairman and other Members of the House Committee on
Agriculture's Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy and
Research, my name is John Burke. I am a private landowner in Caroline
County, Virginia. I manage forestland that my wife and I own and also
manage forestland for a number of family limited partnerships. In
addition, I practice law in Richmond, Virginia and am active in
forestry related organizations at the state and national level. Our
tree farm contains planted trees, such as pine, bald cypress, green ash
and other hardwood species, as well as naturally regenerated pine and
hardwood. In a moment you will see why this diversity in our woodlands
is relevant to my testimony.
The wise management of forest resources is critically important to
the health of a forest and to many benefits that the public enjoys,
including habitat for various wildlife species, protection of water
quality through management of critical watersheds, and the enhancement
of air quality and green space around our cities and urban areas.
Stewardship and management by forest landowners for future
sustainability cannot, however, occur in a vacuum. It must occur in the
context of real world markets and the challenges and risks facing
family forest owners.
Family forest owners currently face difficult economic times and
the challenging task of maintaining the health of their forests. Today
there are nearly five million family forest owners in the United States
who own nearly \2/3\ of the nation's productive forestland. It is this
forest resource that supplies the bulk of the forest products used for
wood and paper manufacturing. Today this group of landowners faces many
challenges in managing their forests and planning for the succession of
their forests to future generations.
Now that you know my interests and bias, I would like to share some
thoughts in connection with the definition of renewable biomass as it
appears in the Renewable Fuel Standard of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007. Allow me to direct your particular attention to
two subparts contained in the definition of renewable biomass. These
are subparts (ii) and (iv). In sum, the definition of renewable biomass
appears too narrow and restrictive. It does not allow us to reach out
to the broad, diverse forest resources that can sustainably provide a
renewable source of biomass for transportation fuels. As we drill down
on the particulars of this definition, I will share with you those
areas where I believe the definition contains unnecessary and
inappropriate limitations.
There are three goals or statements which I believe most of
America's voters will support:
(1) Encouraging healthy forests is a good thing;
(2) Sustainably increasing the inventory of available renewable
biomass is a good thing; and
(3) Increasing and strengthening markets for the forest products
coming from land of forest owners is a good thing.
We will now examine whether, and to what extent, the definition of
renewable biomass furthers these goals and, equally important, the
goals of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Subparagraph (ii) of the definition of renewable biomass contains a
number of unnecessary restrictions or limitations. For example, the
requirement of ``planted trees'' and ``tree plantations'' could exclude
from the definition of renewable biomass materials from naturally
regenerated forests. Further, this definition's limitation of ``land
cleared at any time prior to the enactment of this sentence'' is an
unnecessary timing limitation, apparently intended to impact what some
view as inappropriate land conversion.
I will punctuate the impact of the ``planted trees'' limitation
with two examples from our woodlands. On one of our naturally
regenerated hardwood stands, we conducted a pre-harvest thinning. This
is a management technique used to remove inferior species, small
diameter competition and trees that will not survive until the harvest.
This technique improves the health of the forest and improves the
genetic makeup of the under story. In this way, when the future harvest
occurs, the resulting next stand of hardwood trees will have larger
trees, of better quality with a higher percentage of the desired tree
species. In carrying out this healthy forest practice, the wood that
comes from our pre-harvest thinning should be able to flow into the
renewable biomass market. Under this definition, it appears that this
thinned material would not, because these were not ``planted trees''.
Naturally regenerated stands are a very large and important component
of the overall makeup of America's forest resource. Further, the wide
geographic availability of naturally regenerated forests means that
they will usually be part of a local supply, thereby reducing
transportation costs for this cellulosic feedstock. On our tree farm,
we try to maintain a balance between naturally regenerated stands and
planted stands. As you can see, this important component of America's
forests and the good management techniques needed for these naturally
regenerated forests could be ignored by the existing definition of
renewable biomass and therefore not eligible for inclusion in the Fuel
Standard.
Further, it appears that the definition is intended to capture only
material from planted tree plantations. Another example from our family
forest will highlight the problem with this limitation. One of our pine
stands consists of approximately 100 acres of loblolly pine. This stand
was established following a harvest that my father conducted. After the
harvest, we did site preparation through a control burn, planted pines
on most of the stand (more on that later) and then sprayed the stand
during the second year of its life to control competition. One unique
feature of this stand, however, was the presence of an area of
approximately 30 acres where loblolly pines were naturally
regenerating. My father did not plant this area, but allowed the
naturally regenerated pines to develop along with the other planted
pines on the rest of the stand. Over a 3 year period we conducted, by
hand, an initial thinning on that area of the stand that was naturally
regenerated because these trees were too densely populated. Then, at
approximately the 16th year of this stand's life we had the entire
stand mechanically thinned to remove the weaker trees and to allow the
crop trees better spacing (more access to water, nutrients and
sunlight) so as to be more resistant to insect and disease attack, and
to grow bigger and better for future timber harvesting and the other
collateral benefits of a healthy forest. All of these practices are
consistent with healthy forest management. Under the present
definition, however, it is not clear whether and to what extent
material from this later thinning would be considered renewable
biomass. In other words, the pines which we allowed to regenerate
naturally may not be considered ``planted trees''. So this definition
may either (1) exclude the materials we thinned from this stand from
the renewable energy pipeline or, in the alternative, (2) require a
very difficult identification and sorting process to separate out those
trees which were thinned from planted trees versus those trees which
were thinned from naturally regenerated trees. As you can see from this
fact pattern, the definition is unnecessarily limited and could require
complex and probably unworkable tracking mechanisms.
An additional concern arises as I study the definition and the
limitations contained in subparagraph (ii). In particular, a hyper-
technical reading could exclude from the renewable biomass pipeline
even those trees thinned from a planted stand, because in many
instances the trees thinned are not ``planted trees'', but naturally
regenerated competition growing up in the planted stand. It is my
assumption and my hope that this is not the case and I am offering this
to you so that it will be part of the legislative history as rules are
written and as courts attempt to adjudicate what these words mean.
The timing limitation also contained in subparagraph (ii) requires
that for wood products to qualify they must come from ``land cleared at
any time prior to the enactment of this sentence.'' This ``prior to''
requirement unnecessarily restricts the inventory of available
renewable biomass. If the goal is to control land conversion, then it
should be addressed directly at the state or local level and not buried
in this definition. Our free market has worked quite well in the past
and we should continue to allow it to work in connection with a forest
landowner's decision with regard to his or her land and what types of
trees or crops will be grown there.
Subparagraph (iv) of the definition of renewable biomass also
includes unnecessary limitations on the inventory of biomass available
to the renewable energy pipeline. In particular, it appears to be
limited to only ``slash and pre-commercial thinnings'' and it has an
exclusion based on ``old growth forests'' or ``late successional
forests''. First, there is no scientific basis for limiting the
feedstocks that qualify for renewable energy to only ``pre-commercial
thinnings'' as opposed to any type of thinning. A landowner and his or
her consulting forester should be allowed to make the decision whether,
based on the health of the forest, landowner objectives and market
conditions, to allow materials from any thinning to flow into the
renewable energy pipeline. Further, the concepts of ``old growth
forests'' and ``late successional forests'' are hot buttons in
forestry. Many people disagree about the validity and meaning of these
terms. To exclude products coming from these types of areas creates its
own problems. First, there are mechanisms at certain state and local
levels to protect these types of rare stands where, on the unique facts
at hand, a particular type of tree may be very difficult to reestablish
if it is lost. This legislation is not the place for that activity.
Second, sorting out which thinnings come from one type of stand versus
another will create an implementation headache that is likely to
discourage the availability of renewable biomass inventory.
Limitations such as ``tree plantations'' and ``old growth forests''
reveal the footprints of special interests. This, in and of itself is
not necessarily bad; however, the limitations contained in the
definition of renewable biomass are counterproductive to the goals of
the legislation and counterproductive to the three goals discussed
above. Further, these limitations will likely lead to disputes and
unnecessary complexities as the regulations are written to implement
this law. Moreover, these limitations will lead to disputes and
complexities as the law and the regulations are implemented on the
ground, thereby reducing the available inventory of renewable biomass.
Further, litigation may result as parties with diverse interests try to
understand what these unclear words mean. Such litigation will work its
way through the trial and appellate courts of our Federal system. At
some point, we will look back and say, ``This law was a great idea. Why
didn't it work?'' The definition of renewable biomass needs to be
simplified and streamlined and the limitations and restrictions need to
be removed from it so that the working definition of renewable biomass
is not the reason for our failure to accomplish the goals of this
legislation, and other goals important to the health of our forests.
Some may argue that a broad definition of renewable biomass may
overlap with existing markets for pulpwood and wood chips and that, in
these hard economic times, we should not sacrifice one market for
another. First, I concur that these are difficult economic times and
that family forest owners feel the stress of these difficult economic
conditions. Family forest owners are faced with tight and ever-
shrinking markets for the wood that we choose to sell. No one--least of
all me--would want simply to gain one market for my low-value wood and
lose another at the same time. The answer, however, is not to limit the
definition of renewable biomass for biofuels, but rather to broaden the
definition and to use the ``biorefinery bridge.'' In particular, our
existing pulp and paper industry has a world class procurement system
and it is in the best position of all of us to become a major player in
the production of fuel from renewable biomass. This industry's mills
are almost always close to the wood and their manufacturing processes
already include systems that could be adapted for biofuel production.
So it is time to broaden, not to limit, the definition of renewable
biomass for biofuels.
The overall benefits of the Renewable Fuel Standard under the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 dovetail with the benefits
available under the energy title of the farm bill. However, these two
provisions, meant to be bookends to encourage renewable energy, do not
work well together. The definition of renewable biomass contained in
the farm bill is broad and will permit many projects; however, the
definition of renewable biomass in the Renewable Fuel Standard appears
narrow and will cause a bottleneck as those products try to find their
way to market.
In conclusion, the definition of renewable biomass, as contained in
the Renewable Fuel Standard under the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 is too limited and exclusionary. First, this definition
could exclude from the renewable energy fuel pipeline many appropriate
sources of biomass. These limitations are, therefore, counterproductive
to the goals of the legislation. In particular, much appropriate
biomass from naturally regenerated family forests may not be available
as a feedstock to qualified renewable energy fuels. Second, the
definition fails to encourage healthy forest practices. For example,
the thinning of naturally regenerated stands is, in many instances, a
proper forest management tool and materials from these thinnings should
qualify as an input to the renewable energy pipeline. Third, the
limitations appear counterproductive to providing more and stronger
markets for the forest products coming from the land of family forest
owners.
I urge that the definition of renewable biomass under the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 be broadened and expanded by new
legislation amending this title. In the alternative, it is my request
that these concerns be taken into consideration as part of the rule-
making process, so as to broaden, and to make more inclusive, the
definition of renewable biomass.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Burke. Mr. Grant.
STATEMENT OF DUANE GRANT, PARTNER AND GENERAL
MANAGER, GRANT 4-D FARMS; GENERAL MANAGER, FALL RIVER FARMS;
VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, SNAKE RIVER SUGAR COMPANY, RUPERT,
ID
Mr. Grant. Chairman Holden, Ranking Member Lucas, my name
is Duane Grant, and I am a farmer from Rupert, Idaho. I farm
wheat, barley, corn, potatoes, and sugar beets. It may also
interest the Committee to know that I am Vice Chair of the
group known as Snake River Ethanol, a cooperative in Idaho that
is looking at building a destination corn-based ethanol
facility. I was also Chairman of the Straw Value Add Committee,
a consortium of farmers in Idaho who worked diligently with
Iogen to site a cellulosic refinery in southern Idaho, which I
will touch on further in my testimony.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today on the
extended RFS included as part of the EISA and associated issues
of interest to agricultural producers.
Clearly, passage of the EISA puts us on a path where
renewable fuels will make up an ever greater share of our
liquid transportation requirements. Let us talk for just a
minute about biomass production in context of agriculture.
I think that some felt that with the passage of the EISA
and other biofuels related legislation, farmers would be racing
to plant switchgrass and other dedicated energy crops from
fence row to fence row.
But despite operating in a very risky environment, farmers
are generally a very risk-adverse group. You are not going to
see us rushing to plant any new crop that has never been grown
before on a commercial scale in this country or an other
country for that matter, which has no direct market already
established. Obviously then without adequate feedstock growing
in the field, a refinery won't locate to a given location, and
without a refinery to purchase feedstock, growers will continue
to be reluctant to grow it, leading us to the proverbial
chicken and egg problem.
This Committee and the Congress recognized this dilemma in
the recently enacted 2008 Farm Bill's Energy Title and with the
establishment of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, I
encourage you to urge quick implementation of this program.
Let us talk for a moment about sustainability and what that
means in this context, how central to many debates in
agriculture these days is the idea of sustainability. Certainly
this means different things to different people, but I would
suggest the following as a working definition.
``Sustainability'' means managing the use, development, and
protection of our natural, social, and environmental resources
in a way and at a rate that enables people to meet their
current needs without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs. So the question is not whether
or not we should produce biomass or any other agricultural crop
for that matter in a sustainable manner. The question becomes
how to find a balance between these often competing values.
I have personal experience in an effort where community
came together and balanced the economic, environmental, and
social interests for the greater good. The Iogen Corporation, a
Canadian cellulosic ethanol manufacturer, had a interest in
building a commercial-sized cellulosic refinery in southern
Idaho. However, unfortunately due to delays in getting a loan
guarantee program established at the Department of Energy, the
project is currently on hold. But the process that those of us
in the community have gone through to secure feedstock for the
facility is instructive.
The proposed Iogen facility would utilize primarily wheat
and barley straw for conversion to cellulosic ethanol. We
surveyed growers in the region and found that we were able to
obtain between 600,000 and 800,000 tons of wheat and barley
straw under preproduction pre-refinery construction contracts.
Those were contractual commitments the growers made. We
determined that we could remove this tonnage and still retain
enough residue on the ground to ensure the maintenance of
organic matter in the soil so as to maintain soil productivity.
All of this was accomplished in association with local
community interests and local environmental interests.
The definition then, moving to the next topic of what
actually is renewable biomass, is of interest to us as well. Of
course, as we have heard often today as provided in the EISA,
renewable biomass is defined as ``planted crops and crop
residue harvested from agricultural land cleared or cultivated
at any time prior to the enactment of this sentence that is
either actively managed, fallow, or non-forested.''
The energy component of the farm bill contains a definition
of renewable biomass that is in contradiction to this
definition and is not nearly as restrictive as the definition
contained in the EISA. And so while I certainly appreciate this
Committee's interest in providing farmers with the best
economic opportunity for growing biomass on any and all of the
land they might have, it might be important to remember the
history of farming and cultivation in this country when
considering this definition.
Farming and cultivation have occurred in this country since
well before it became a country but were revolutionized when
Mr. John Deere invented the first commercially successful self-
scouring steel plow in 1837.
Then using tools like the steel plow and its predecessors,
horse- and mule-drawn implements, settlers opened vast acreages
wherever they could plow. Over time, much of the less desirable
land was subsequently removed from intensive agriculture
production and reverted to livestock use, native vegetations,
or in other ways became fallow. I believe that, as markets of
biomass or feedstocks develops, farmers may find it ideal to
concentrate on opportunities for growing biomass crops on land
which is marginal for high input cost, low crop production, but
could be ideally suited for dedicated perennial biomass crops.
Let us touch just briefly on the lifecycle issues and
greenhouse gas emissions as it relates to this topic. The RFS
also required EPA Administrator to take into consideration
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions including all stages of fuel
and feedstock production. I and my fellow agricultural
producers have questions about how this requirement will be
executed and what it will mean for our renewable fuel feedstock
and food crop production. Proper implementation of this key
component of the RFS is critical to the successful development
of the cellulosic industry.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my personal
support for the Renewable Fuel Standard and increased
production of renewable fuels, especially cellulosic ethanol.
The RFS is essential to the continued growth of this industry.
I would just emphasize that point, and I urge you to oppose, in
the strongest possible terms, any effort to reduce its
influence.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and I will be
happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grant follows:]
Prepared Statement of Duane Grant, Partner and General Manager, Grant
4-D Farms; General Manager, Fall River Farms; Vice Chairman of the
Board, Snake River Sugar Company, Rupert, ID
Chairman Holden, Ranking Member Lucas and Members of the Committee,
my name is Duane Grant. I farm 18,000 acres of wheat, barley, corn,
potatoes and sugar beets near Rupert, Idaho.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today on the expanded
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) included as part of the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA) and associated issues of interest
to agricultural producers.
Passage of the EISA has clearly put us on a path for renewable
fuels to make up an ever greater share of our liquid transportation
fuel requirements. The extended and expanded the RFS now calls for the
blending into our fuel supply 9 billion gallons of renewable fuel in
2008, increasing to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022. Of
this 36 billion gallon requirement, 21 billion gallons must be advanced
biofuels, including cellulosic biofuels and biomass-based diesel.
Biomass Production
I think some felt that with passage of EISA and other biofuels-
related legislation, farmers would be racing to plant switchgrass or
other dedicated energy crops from fence row to fence row. Indeed, it is
our hope that these non-food crops eventually provide significant
feedstock for second-generation ethanol, along with agricultural
residue like wheat straw.
However, despite operating in a very risky business, farmers are
generally a very risk-averse group. You're not going to see them
rushing to plant any new crop that's never been grown on a commercial
scale before in this country and has no direct market already
established. Farmers like to work with what they know and while growing
switchgrass or other dedicated energy crops may not be rocket science,
it may well be soil science or some other cultivation issue that could
crop up, so to speak, on a commercial scale. Current high prices for
wheat and corn also incentivize producers to stick with what they know.
This, of course, is a short description of the much-touted chicken
and egg problem. Without adequate feedstock growing in the field, a
refinery won't locate in a given location, and without a refinery to
purchase the feedstock, growers will be reluctant to grow it.
I believe this Committee and the Congress recognized this dilemma
in the recently enacted 2008 Farm Bill's energy title with the
establishment of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program. This program is
designed to provide incentives to farmers and foresters to grow
bioenergy crops in a sustainable manner in an attempt to address the
issue of who goes first in the development of cellulosic ethanol. This
program also provides an incentive for farmers to harvest, store and
transport biomass to bioenergy facilities. I encourage you to urge
quick implementation of this program.
Sustainability
Central to many debates in agriculture these days is the idea of
sustainability. Certainly this means different things to different
people, but I would suggest the following as a working definition:
sustainability means managing the use, development and protection of
our natural social and environmental resources in a way and at a rate
that enables people to meet their current needs without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their needs, Utilizing this
definition requires that we recognize the interdependence between our
economic, environmental and community needs.
So the question is not whether we should produce biomass--or any
other agricultural crop--in a sustainable manner, the question becomes
how to find a balance between these often competing values. Imagine
three overlapping circles--one representing our economic needs, one
representing our environmental needs and one representing our social or
community needs. The area where the three circles overlap is the area
of sustainability--the area through which run all the elements of a
good quality of life: a healthy, functioning natural environment; a
strong economy with jobs and job security; and safe, secure communities
where people have a sense of belonging and purpose and a commitment to
each other. These elements--these threads which together weave the
fabric of sustainability--are things we hold in common.
Some may say that today these threads are beginning to fray and
unravel in ways both large and small. This need not be the case. I have
personal experience in an effort where the community came together and
balanced the economic, environment and social interests for the greater
good. The Iogen Corporation, a Canadian cellulosic ethanol
manufacturer. has an interest in building a commercial-sized cellulosic
refinery in southwest Idaho. Due to delays in getting a loan guarantee
program established at the Department of Energy, the project is
currently on hold, but the process those of us in our community have
gone through to secure feedstock for the facility is instructive.
The proposed Iogen facility would utilize primarily wheat and
barley straw for conversion to cellulosic ethanol. We surveyed growers
in the region and found that we were able to obtain somewhere between
600,000 to 800,000 tons of wheat and barley straw under pre-production
contracts. We determined that we could remove this tonnage and still
retain enough residue on the ground to ensure continued organic matter
in the soil to maintain soil productivity. From that standpoint, we
believed that we could continue to provide feedstock to a facility that
will consume 1,400 to 2,000 tons per day of this agriculture residue in
a sustainable manner. All of this was accomplished in association with
local community interests and local environmental interests.
By the way, when finally built, this facility will produce between
40 to 60 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year and provide 90
full time jobs in addition to 500 construction jobs for 2 years, 100
feedstock collecting jobs and 450 spin-off jobs. So we hit all three of
my elements of sustainability--economic, environment and community
needs.
Definition of Renewable Biomass
I understand that the Committee has some concerns over how
renewable biomass is defined in EISA and the general debate over the
sustainability of renewable biomass production.
As provided in the EISA, renewable biomass is defined as, ``Planted
crops and crop residue harvested from agricultural land cleared or
cultivated at any time prior to the enactment of this sentence that is
either actively managed or fallow, and nonforested.''
While I certainly appreciate the Committees interest in providing
farmers with the best economic opportunity for growing biomass on any
and all land they might have, it may be important to remember the
history of farming and cultivation in this country when considering
this definition. Farming and cultivation have occurred in this country
since well before it became a country, but were revolutionized when
John Deere invented the first commercially successful, self-scouring
steel plow in 1837.
Using tools like the steel plow and its predecessors, horse- or
mule-drawn implements, settlers opened vast acreages wherever they
could plow. Over time, much of the less desirable land was subsequently
removed from intensive agriculture and has reverted to livestock,
native vegetation or in other ways become fallow. I believe that, as
the market for biomass feedstock develops, farmers may find it ideal to
concentrate on opportunities for growing biomass crops on land which is
marginal for high input cost row crops but often ideally suited for
dedicated perennial biomass crops.
Having said this, I find it interesting to note that the definition
of renewable biomass contained in the recently enacted energy title of
the farm bill seems to contain no such restriction to prior cleared or
cultivated land. Perhaps USDA should be encouraged to work with the
Environmental Protection Agency through Memorandum of Understanding or
some type of joint rulemaking to harmonize the potentially competing
definitions.
Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The RFS also requires the EPA Administrator to take into
consideration lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions including all stages
of fuel and feedstock production. I and my fellow agricultural
producers have questions about how this requirement will be executed
and what it will mean for our renewable fuels feedstock and food crop
production. For instance, how will these determinations be made at the
farm gate level? Will lifecycle GHGs also be considered for non-
feedstock production? The answers to these questions have serious
implication for crop production in this country, and we encourage you
to continue to seek information and provide guidance as appropriate to
the EPA as they undertake this process.
And when it comes to agricultural residues, am I now going to be
somehow penalized for growing a crop of wheat or barley? And if I
decide to not sell my straw to Iogen, am I then off the hook?
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my personal support for
the Renewable Fuel Standard and increased production of renewable
fuels, especially cellulosic ethanol. We are already seeing positive
effects from this homegrown fuel in an increased fuel supply that is
keeping gas prices lower than they would have ordinarily been if we are
reliant only on oil. Expansion of this industry has provided and will
continue to provide important economic advantages to rural communities,
in many cases revitalizing areas through value-added production. The
RFS is essential to the continued growth of this industry, and I urge
you to oppose in the strongest possible terms any effort to reduce its
influence.
This concludes my testimony, and I thank you again for the
opportunity to be here today. I'm happy to answer any questions you may
have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Grant. Mr. Cassman.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH G. CASSMAN, Ph.D., DIRECTOR,
NEBRASKA CENTER FOR ENERGY SCIENCES RESEARCH; PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY AND
HORTICULTURE, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-LINCOLN,
LINCOLN, NE
Dr. Cassman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a
privilege to be here today. I have a PowerPoint presentation,
and detailed testimony is given in the back of that handout
that is available on site.
We are going to pick up where Mr. Grant left off talking
about the greenhouse gas emission standards in the 2007 EISA.
And the proposal I would like to put before this Committee
today, Subcommittee today, is that this is the first climate
change legislation that will have teeth, and those teeth will
first be used on agriculture as the guinea pig. And I think
this is something that, unless we recognize it explicitly up
front, we will be very surprised in the outcome.
You have heard a number of people talk about what those
standards are briefly. Starch ethanol, cellulose ethanol,
advanced ethanol all have standards that they must meet with
regards to reduction of greenhouse gases both direct and
indirect effects. They grandfather existing plants for starch
ethanol, but there will be an effect through the imposition of
low-carbon fuel standards at the state level such that if corn
ethanol is deemed not to meet those standards, blenders in
California, for instance, would have to buy higher cost, low-
carbon intensity fuels to offset the use of corn ethanol
blending in California. This would add cost to the use of corn
ethanol in markets like California.
So I want to make the case that it is critically important
to get corn ethanol right. We will have plenty of time to work
on the greenhouse gas standards for cellulosic and other types
of second generation ethanol, but it will be immediately used
on corn ethanol. So the focus when EPA goes forward must be on
corn ethanol, getting that right, because it will effect how
low carbon fuel standards are implemented in the states, not
just California. The Midwest is looking at this, as well as the
Northeast.
It is going to effect the role of corn and agriculture in
general in greenhouse gas legislation that is coming later
perhaps in terms of offsets and credit markets. It will effect
loans and risk assessment of different projects, and it greatly
effects public perception about the role of agriculture in
contributing to climate change.
Now, it is important to use the best science and data. I
would like to make the case here. More than 60 percent of all
corn ethanol produced today is coming from ethanol plants that
have been built since 2005. By next year, 75 percent come from
plants built from 2005. Unfortunately, the way things are
going, older data from before the massive investment in modern
ethanol plants will be used for corn ethanol.
And I just show these data here that we are finding that
recent data shows that energy use in the ethanol plant itself
is way down from what it was in older studies. For instance,
the data used in the GREET model is being used by EPA and in
California. And energy use in the ethanol plant is 30 to 35
percent of total energy use. We are finding is it 25 to 30
percent less than the data they are using, and this is actually
data measured on the existing plants.
The bottom line is you end up with, by our estimation using
the BESS model, 54 percent reduction in greenhouse gases
compared to what is being estimated currently by GREET of 24
percent. If you add any indirect land use change carbon cost to
the GREET estimate, corn ethanol will not make it in the
California market. And it is likely to be worse in gasoline.
So we have to then look ahead. How can we avoid getting in
this situation with second generation biofuels? And the answer
is we need to invest in the kind of research that achieves
scientific consensus well before the large-scale
commercialization. And this was a mistake made with corn
ethanol. We are only guessing now rather than having real data
from production-scale field research.
And the rest of my testimony, which I won't have a lot of
time to go through, provides information about the kind of
research that is required to ensure that by the time we are
ready to have large-scale commercialization and investment in
second-generation biofuels, we have the data. Farmers can be
assured, investors can be assured that there won't be second
looks at the system and changing the numbers halfway through
the game.
This gives you an example of what research like this looks
like. It has to be done at a production scale because the scale
at which you conduct the research effects the answer you get.
You do it in small scale research blocks, you get one answer.
You do the same work at a large production scale, you get a
different answer.
That is largely because of the heterogeneity in fields. You
get the small plots. And fortunately we have geostatistics, new
methods to take account of this. We have new, exciting research
methods to do scaling from single plants, plant communities and
landscapes and regions.
So in conclusion, my goal is two things. One to ensure we
get the greenhouse gas emissions science and data right for
corn ethanol. My fear is we are not doing it; although we do
have tools that can do it. And second to invest properly, and I
don't see it in current USDA research legislation or in DOE
legislation, that we invest properly to ensure that we have the
science and data to achieve a consensus on the contributions of
second generation biofuels to greenhouse gas emissions. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cassman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth G. Cassman, Ph.D., Director, Nebraska
Center for Energy Sciences Research; Professor, Department of
Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on the state of current knowledge and knowledge
gaps affecting implementation of lifecycle assessment (LCA) protocols
to estimate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by different types of
biofuels as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA). I believe that development of these protocols will have a
large impact on the economic viability of both the biofuel industry and
the broader farm economy.
I am Dr. Kenneth G. Cassman, Director of the Nebraska Center for
Energy Sciences Research, a position I have held since the Center was
created in 2006. Previously I worked as a research agronomist in the
Amazon Basin of Brazil, Egypt's Nile Valley and at the International
Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. My academic appointments
include 7 years on the faculty at the University of California--Davis,
and 13 years at the University of Nebraska where I served as Head of
the Department of Agronomy from 1996-2004. My research, teaching and
extension efforts have focused on ensuring local and global food
security while conserving natural resources and protecting
environmental quality. My current research focuses on the environmental
impact of biofuel systems, including development of lifecycle
assessment tools for estimating the GHG emissions of corn grain-
ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol produced from corn stover or
switchgrass.
I come from a state where the long-term viability of the biofuel
industry is a major driver of economic development, especially in rural
Nebraska. In fact it is now one of the largest industries in the state,
and Nebraska ranks second nationally in ethanol production. Nebraska
also has an emerging biodiesel industry, and the Abengoa company is
developing a pilot plant for cellulosic ethanol production in York,
NE--a project partially supported by the Department of Energy. Like
many regions of the country, Nebraska's entrepreneurs are looking at
advanced cellulosic biofuels and considering their potential.
My testimony will focus on three topics:
(1) The importance of using the best science and most recent data
for establishing the methods and standards for GHG emissions
reductions of corn--grain ethanol systems compared to gasoline
in complying with the 2007 EISA, and how the lack of scientific
consensus about this issue can be addressed;
(2) The need to achieve a scientific consensus on the environmental
impact and GHG emissions of second-generation biofuels, such as
cellulosic biofuels, before they are widely commercialized; and
(3) The science required to ensure that such a consensus is
achieved for developing the lifecycle assessment methods and
standards for second generation biofuels.
As you are well aware, EISA requires that:
EPA establish methods and standards for assessing lifecycle
GHG emissions for different types of biofuels with the
comparable petroleum-based fuel as the basis for comparison;
Starch-ethanol plants, such as those that use corn grain,
that came into production after 2007 must reduce GHG emissions
by 20% (existing plants are exempted);
Cellulosic biofuels must reduce GHG emissions by 60%; and
Advanced biofuels must reduce GHG emissions by 50%.
Regulations for GHG emissions reductions are also part of the
California Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS), which will play an
important role in determining the value of different biofuels in
marketplace. Unlike the 2007 EISA, there are no exemptions for existing
biofuel plants under the California LCFS. In addition to California, a
number of others states are developing or considering the development
of LCFS. Because it is important that EPA biofuel emissions assessment
protocols be consistent with state-level LCFS, EPA has an opportunity
to play a leadership role to ensure that the best science and most
recent data are incorporated into these standards.
There may also be opportunities for the biofuel industry to
monetize GHG emissions reductions if they can be properly documented
and certified for emissions trading markets both in the U.S. and
globally. For example, several climate change bills under development
include cap-and-trade provisions for GHG emissions. Developing
scientifically robust, accurate, and user-friendly LCA assessment tools
provide the foundation for inclusion of biofuels in a cap-and-trade
emissions market.
As we embark on the effort to develop LCA methods for estimating
GHG emissions from different biofuels, it is imperative that the
regulatory process ``get corn ethanol right'' for three reasons. First,
corn grain-ethanol (hereafter called corn ethanol) is the only biofuel
that will be directly affected by the EPA guidelines as soon as they
are developed because it is the only biofuel that is available and used
on a large scale. Present annual corn ethanol production capacity is
approaching 9 billion gallons per year (bgy), and it will likely reach
more than 12 bgy by end of 2009. In contrast, the 2007 EISA does not
mandate use of more than 1 bgy of cellulosic ethanol until after 2013.
Hence, EPA's guidelines for GHG emissions from cellulosic biofuels may
be developed and refined over the next 4 years before cellulosic
ethanol is commercialized on a large scale. Second, EPA's efforts to
determine the degree to which corn ethanol reduces GHG emissions
compared to gasoline may have a large influence on the development and
implementation of state-level LCFS. In fact, if corn-ethanol is
determined by EPA and/or state regulators to emit more GHG than
gasoline, then corn-ethanol would fetch a lower price in LCFS markets
as blenders must buy higher-priced low carbon-intensity fuels to offset
the use of corn-ethanol. If this occurs, it would likely have a
devastating impact on the U.S. corn ethanol industry and the farm
economy. Third, the values set by EPA for GHG emissions of corn ethanol
compared to gasoline will influence public opinion regarding the
whether corn ethanol, and perhaps renewable fuels in general, are a
positive or negative factor in addressing climate change concerns. It
is not enough to say ``we have a process to adjust the number later,''
although EPA is required to do that as well. History tells us that
public opinion will latch onto the first standard issued, and if the
number is inaccurate, the public may lose trust in the LCA process
itself and withdraw their support for further development of renewable
biofuels because of concerns about environmental impact.
Given this situation, we must learn from our experience with corn
ethanol, where large-scale commercial production is well ahead of the
science and knowledge required to develop accurate regulations
regarding impact on GHG emissions. Instead, we must develop the
scientific methods and forge a scientific consensus BEFORE producers
start growing ``second generation'' biofuel crops on a large scale.
Indeed, it may be difficult to entice producers to grow a second
generation biofuel crop feedstock such as switchgrass if there is a
risk that lifecycle GHG emission reduction levels will be changed at a
later date such that they fall below the required 2007 EISA thresholds.
What investor will invest many millions of dollars in a cellulosic
refinery without knowing this information with a high degree of
certainty?
I believe our experience at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to
develop user-friendly lifecycle assessment software for estimating GHG
emissions of corn-ethanol systems is instructive in this regard. Our
goal was to bring together an interdisciplinary group of scientists to
use the best available science and most recent data to ensure that the
model accurately estimated the performance of corn-ethanol systems as
they currently function. Our model is called the Biofuel Energy Systems
Simulator (BESS Model), and it estimates the lifecycle net energy yield
and GHG emissions of corn ethanol. It has the capability to simulate
ethanol facilities at a state or regional levels, and also for an
individual biorefinery, including: crop production, the ethanol
biorefinery, and the cattle feedlot for feeding co-product distiller's
grains. Systems that include an anaerobic digestion unit as part of a
closed-loop corn-ethanol biorefinery can also be simulated. The BESS
model is available to the public for download at www.bess.unl.edu.
The BESS model performs three types of lifecycle analysis:
Energy analysis--lifecycle net energy yield & efficiency;
GHG emissions analysis--net carbon dioxide (CO2)
and trace greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O),
and global warming potential (GWP); and
Resource Requirements--crop production area and total
amounts of grain, water, fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas,
and coal) used in the production lifecycle.
It is my understanding that EPA has been relying on a different
model called the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy use
in Transportation (GREET) model from the U.S. Department of Energy's
(DOE) Argonne National Laboratory. Unlike the BESS model which can only
simulate corn ethanol systems, the GREET model has the capacity to
evaluate and compare the environmental impacts of a wide range of
renewable and conventional transportation fuels and motor vehicle
fleets. While having the capacity to evaluate a wide range of different
biofuels, as well as petroleum-based fuels, is critical to the EPA
effort to meet the 2007 EISA requirements for establishing GHG
emissions protocols, we believe the GREET estimates for corn-ethanol do
not reflect the current status of the corn-ethanol industry.
In fact, there are large differences in estimates of GHG emissions
from direct effects of corn-ethanol production obtained from the BESS
and the GREET models. While the BESS model estimates an emissions
reduction of 54% reduction compared to gasoline, the GREET model
estimates a 24% reduction, and this lower value is currently being
proposed as the standard for implementing the California LCFS. It is
our understanding that EPA is also basing their estimates of direct-
effect GHG emissions for corn ethanol on the GREET model. Because an
additional amount of GHG emissions is likely to be added due to land-
use change, the GREET estimate will therefore result in failure of corn
ethanol to meet the statutory 20% GHG emissions reduction standard of
the 2007 EISA. The primary reasons for the greater GHG emissions
reduction estimated by the BESS model is because it uses more recent
data for crop production, biorefinery energy efficiency, and co-product
use that the GREET model. As such we believe the corn-ethanol values in
BESS are more appropriate for developing the 2007 EISA GHG standards.
Moreover, unlike other LCA models including GREET, the BESS model was
developed by an interdisciplinary team of scientists with expertise in
agronomy, soil science, ecosystem modeling, engineering, and animal
science, and the development effort included input from biofuel
industry professionals. We believe that an interdisciplinary effort is
critical for developing LCA protocols of biofuel systems.
The ``cautionary tale'' to be learned from our experience with corn
ethanol is that before second generation biofuels can become
commercially viable, we need anticipatory research to accurately
document GHG emissions and environmental impact. We at the University
of Nebraska-Lincoln have a vision of how to make that happen, and it
would involve a wide regional collaboration.
For each biofuel crop, research must be conducted at a production
scale to determine the impact of feedstock crop production system on
greenhouse gas emissions, soil carbon sequestration, and on soil and
water quality and wildlife. For example, besides unused woody biomass
and sawdust from forestry systems, switchgrass is the next most likely
commercially viable cellulosic biofuel crop. Therefore, we must
identify the key knowledge gaps about the environmental impact of
switchgrass systems and invest in research to close them.
The University of Nebraska is developing research to support
development of carbon intensity standards and certification protocols
for switchgrass. While the environmental benefits of cellulosic ethanol
production are estimated to be larger than for grain-ethanol, these
benefits have not been validated in large production-scale field
conditions that are representative of commercial production. Instead,
to date most estimates have been produced by models and assumptions
based on data from relatively small-scale research over relatively
short periods. In fact, our initial investigations to date suggest that
the direct-effect GHG emissions reduction potential of switchgrass is
about the same as for corn ethanol unless switchgrass has a larger
potential to sequester carbon in soil. Validation of benefits under
production-scale conditions will help guide development of appropriate
policies and markets and reduce risks to producers by helping to ensure
that GHG emissions reduction estimates are based on the best available
science.
Therefore, for each promising biofuel, such anticipatory research
would require the following elements:
Production-scale research on environmental impact of
feedstock crop production systems, including GHG emissions,
soil carbon sequestration or loss, and impacts on water and
soil quality, other environmental services;
Collaboration with industry to obtain the most recent
estimates of biorefinery energy efficiency and GHG emissions
from feedstock conversion to biofuel at a commercial scale;
For indirect effects, more detailed understanding of complex
interactions that govern land use change is required through
development of appropriate econometric models, with strong
collaborative input from biophysical scientists; and
Development of software tools that can be used to perform
LCA-GHG emissions assessments, and these tools must be widely
accessible, transparent, user-friendly, and based on best
available science published in refereed scientific journals.
In summary, I realize that EPA is on a relatively short timetable
to publish the proposed rule for comment this fall and the final rule
in the spring 2009 as stipulated in the 2007 EISA. But it is imperative
that EPA use the best science and most recent information in developing
the LCA methods and standards for establishing GHG emissions from corn-
ethanol because not doing so could have significant negative impact on
the biofuel industry and the farm economy in general. In contrast, the
guidelines for second generation biofuels will not have immediate
impact because these biofuels have not yet been commercialized on a
large scale, which gives time to refine and improve the guidelines as
commercialization proceeds.
Finally, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to
commend you and your colleagues on the full House Agriculture Committee
for recognizing the importance of developing the scientific tools
required to support accurate lifecycle analysis by including it as a
priority within the Biomass Research and Development Initiative of the
new farm bill. This competitive grant program, jointly run by USDA and
Department of Energy, includes a challenging set of nine objectives,
including one on Energy and Environmental Impact, which specifically
identifies ``improvement and development of tools for lifecycle
analysis of current and potential biofuels.'' Mandatory funds were
provided for this program in the amounts of $20,000,000 in Fiscal Year
2009, $28,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2010, $30,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2011,
and $40,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2012. It is my hope that additional
discretionary funds are appropriated as well to ensure adequate funding
research on environmental impacts of biofuel systems and development of
accurate lifecycle assessment tools so that regulation does not once
again precede scientific understanding with potentially negative
consequences for on viability of the biofuel industry.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I hope I've been able
to provide some helpful information about the urgent need for the best
available science and accurate data for determining the lifecycle
environmental impact for the next generation biofuels, and about how to
help ensure that this is accomplished. As a step in the right
direction, it is imperative we get the numbers ``right'' for both corn
ethanol and the second generation biofuels to come before significant
investments are made by industry or producers. I am happy to answer any
questions.
Thank you, Dr. Cassman. Dr. McDill.STATEMENT OF MARC E. McDILL, Ph.D.,
ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF FOREST MANAGEMENT, SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES, PENN STATE
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA
Dr. McDill. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to
you today about the potential use of wood biomass for energy. While
much of what I will say applies at a national level, my expertise
relates primarily to the northeastern U.S., specifically Pennsylvania,
so my testimony will be informed by this regional perspective.
First, allow me to tell you a little about the forest of the
northeastern U.S. Forests cover roughly \2/3\ of the region.
Furthermore, more than 85 percent of this forestland is privately owned
with about 85 percent of that owned by families and individuals not
associated with the forest products industry.
With the exception of Maine, the vast majority of this forestland
is naturally regenerated second, third, and fourth-growth hardwood
forest. We have very little old growth and few plantations. The
northern U.S. has an abundant supply of wood however. In fact, in the
last 50 years, the net volume of growing stock on forestland in the
northern U.S. has doubled.
While the region produces some of the finest hardwood saw timber in
the world, more than half of the wood in Pennsylvania's forest is
classified as so-called low-use wood. Markets for this low-use wood are
limited because we have a relatively small pulp and paper industry.
Experts in sustainable forest management believe that improving markets
for low-use wood, such as would exist with the growing biomass energy
industry, will provide opportunities to better manage the regions
forests.
These markets will provide income for land owners to help offset
management costs. They will make additional management practices, such
as improvement thinning, commercially feasible. And they will reduce
the incentives to high-grade forests. High grading is a practice where
only the best trees are harvested, which degrades the species
composition and genetic quality of the forest over time.
Low-use wood is an abundant and underutilized forest resource
wherever there is a limited demand for pulpwood. For example, when
western forests are thinned to reduce fuels, huge piles of low-use wood
are left behind to rot for lack of a viable market. Under current law,
this low-use wood from Federal forests and also from the naturally
regenerated forests that are common in the Northeast cannot be turned
into fuel that counts toward the Renewable Fuel Standard targets.
Frankly, it is difficult for me to understand the rationale for
these restrictions. Despite the attention given to corn ethanol in
recent discussions, wood is still the most important biomass energy
feedstock in the U.S. Wood biomass is burned directly in heating
systems for individual homes, commercial buildings, and institutions
such as schools and hospitals. Wood is also burned directly or co-fired
with coal to generate electricity.
Right now, biomass-based energy is the primary alternative to
fossil fuels for producing liquid fuels. When the promise of cellulosic
biofuels is realized, Pennsylvania could replace \1/3\ or more of the
gasoline used in the state with wood-based ethanol and other advanced
biofuels.
Of course, there is great uncertainty about how all this will play
out. We don't know the true lifecycle greenhouse gas savings of using
wood for biofuels. We don't know exactly how much low-use wood will
really be available and at what cost. We don't know the extent to which
private landowners will allow biomass harvest on their properties. We
don't know exactly how growing markets for biofuels will change forest
management practices, and we don't know the exact environmental impacts
of removing more biomass during harvest.
At Penn State, we are working to answer some of these questions. In
particular, we are trying to carefully quantify biomass yields and the
cost of harvesting, collecting, and transporting wood biomass based on
actual field operations. We are also assessing the environmental
impacts of these operations.
Wood has obvious advantages as a biofuel feedstock. The U.S. has an
abundant supply of wood biomass that is currently greatly
underutilized. Better use of this resource could complement existing
wood products industries and promote improved forest management. And
unlike corn, using wood does not compete with food production.
We must broaden the definition of cellulosic ethanol within the
Renewable Fuel Standard to include at least low-use wood biomass
harvested from natural hardwood forests and probably other things as
well. But that is what I am particularly interested in from my state.
Thank you again for giving me this opportunity to speak to you, and
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McDill follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marc E. McDill, Ph.D., Associate Professor of
Forest Management, School of Forest Resources, Penn State College of
Agricultural Sciences, University Park, PA
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today about
the potential use of wood biomass for energy. While much of what I will
discuss applies at a national level, my expertise primarily relates to
the northeastern U.S., specifically Pennsylvania, so my testimony will
be informed by this regional perspective.
Forests are the dominant land use in the northeastern U.S. Roughly
\2/3\ of the region is forested. Furthermore, more than 85% of this
forestland is privately owned, with about 85% of this private
forestland owned by families and individuals not associated with the
forest products industry. The vast majority of this forestland (with
the exception of Maine) is naturally-regenerated second- or third-
growth oak-hickory and northern hardwood forests. The northern U.S. has
an abundant supply of wood. Between 1953 and 2007 the estimated net
volume of growing stock on forestland in the northern U.S. more than
doubled, from 103.7 billion cu ft to 248.0 billion cu ft. USDA Forest
Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data indicates that
Pennsylvania's forests alone contain 1,146 million green tons of
biomass. (A green ton is equivalent to about half a ton of dry
biomass.) More than half of the wood in the state has been classified
as so-called ``low use'' wood. Due to a relatively small pulp and paper
industry in the region, markets for this low use wood are limited.
Most forest landowners and proponents of sustainable forest
management believe that improved markets for low use wood--such as
would exist with a growing biomass energy industry--would provide
opportunities to better manage the region's forests. Such markets would
provide additional income for landowners to help offset management
costs; it would make additional management practices, such as
improvement thinnings, commercially feasible; and it would reduce
incentives to high-grade forests (a practice where only the best trees
are harvested, degrading the species composition and genetic quality of
the forest over time). Low use wood is abundant wherever there are
forests and limited demand for pulpwood. For example, in much of the
western U.S., material from thinnings done to reduce fuels, and hence
the susceptibility of forests to devastating wildfires, is currently
being collected in huge piles where it is typically left to rot for
lack of a viable market. It is my understanding that much of this low
use wood--from both the natural, private forests in the East and from
western Federal lands--cannot currently be counted toward the Renewable
Fuel Standard (RFS) targets. Frankly, the rationale for this is
difficult for me to understand.
A crucial advantage of biomass-based energy is that it currently is
the most economical alternative to fossil fuels for producing liquid
fuels. In spite of the attention given to corn ethanol in recent
biomass energy discussions, wood is still the most important feedstock
for biomass energy in the U.S. This is largely because the wood
products industry has long been very efficient in its use of residues
produced in sawing lumber and making pulp. Wood biomass can be burned
directly in heating systems, for both individual homes and for
institutions such as schools, hospitals and commercial buildings. Wood
can also be burned to directly generate electricity or in combined heat
and power facilities. And wood can be co-fired with coal to produce
electricity. Wood pellets produced from sawdust are now a very cost-
competitive fuel for residential heating. When the promise of
cellulosic biofuels is realized, Pennsylvania could potentially replace
up to \1/3\ of the gasoline used in the state with wood-based ethanol
and other advanced biofuels.
There are, of course, many uncertainties about how all this will
play out over the coming years. It is uncertain what the true lifecycle
greenhouse gas savings are in these processes relative to fossil fuels.
Another key question is how much low use wood is really available at
what cost. There is some uncertainty as to how much of this low use
wood there actually is, and few attempts to quantify this resource have
even tried to accurately assess how the available amount would vary
with different prices. Key factors affecting the quantity that would be
available at a given cost include harvesting and transportation costs.
However, an important related question that is even more difficult to
answer is the extent to which private landowners would be willing to
allow harvesting on their properties. Many surveys of forest landowners
have shown that earning income from harvesting wood is a low priority
for many of them. Also important is the question of how growing markets
for biofuels will change forest management practices. Again, in many
cases having these markets will improve forest management by providing
additional income and paying for practices that are currently not
commercially viable. However, increasing use of wood for biofuels could
lead to shorter rotations and shifts from natural forests to
plantations. To what extent will it be cheaper to simply grow wood in
short-rotation biomass plantations (either switchgrass, or tree species
such as hybrid poplar and willow)? What will be the environmental
impacts of removing more biomass during harvests? Removing more biomass
means removing more of the nutrients from the site and reduction of
woody debris which provides important habitat. Also, more intensive
harvesting practices could lead to soil compaction and more roads,
further fragmenting already fragmented forests.
The research we currently are doing at Penn State attempts to
answer only a few of these questions. In particular, we are trying to
do a better job of quantifying biomass and other product yields and
harvesting, collection, and transport costs based on actual operations
in the field. We are also planning to assess soil nutrient impacts and
compaction. We are looking to expand this research to look at a larger
set of the questions discussed above.
I hope my comments have helped give you a broader perspective on
the potential of wood as a biofuel feedstock. Wood has obvious
advantages for such uses. First, the U.S. has an abundant supply of
wood biomass that is currently not being used. Use of this resource
could be complementary to existing wood products industries and promote
improved forest management. And, unlike corn ethanol, using wood does
not generally compete with food production. It is important to
significantly broaden the definition of cellulosic ethanol within the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to include wood biomass from all sources.
Thank you again for giving me this opportunity to speak to the
Subcommittee. I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. McDill. I have a question I am
not--anyone is going to want to answer, but all of you have
identified the concern that we have had since the
implementation of H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security
Act and how parts of the country are going to be limited in
being able to participate.
Does anyone care to say what could have been the motivation
of the people who were encouraging the change in that language
that happened in the last minute? What were they trying to
achieve? Ms. Wong?
Ms. Wong. I think that they were trying to achieve
environmentally sustainability. I thought that because it was
done in a rush, maybe things did not turn out how they thought
they would.
The Chairman. Dr. Cassman?
Dr. Cassman. Yes, I am struck in the deliberation of the
Committee and the statements made by Members of Congress
starting out this session. There seems to be a lack of
communication, good communication between the Agricultural
Committee and the environmental community, and you seem to be
talking past each other.
The Chairman. That is not new but----
Dr. Cassman. And yet there is so much common ground that
could be plowed. Another example is the language concerning
indirect language change effects in greenhouse gas emissions.
Clearly that was put in by the environmental movement with
concerns about if we used every acre of land to produce
biofuels not only in this country but globally.
And it also occurs to me I have never heard anyone talk--
when you talk about indirect language change, the single most
important thing we could do is focus tightly on accelerating
the rate of gain in corn yields and other crop yields on
existing land and do so at the same time while reducing
environmental impact. It is a massive challenge.
We have never done that in the past. We have increased
yields but had negative environmental impact. And we can reduce
environmental impact simply by reducing yields, reducing
inputs. We have never done both at the same time, and so it
seems to me there is a lot of common ground between the two
groups, but there doesn't seem to be an honest broker effort to
bring together and focus on the things that can make both
groups achieve their goals.
The Chairman. Anyone else care to comment? Mr. Grant?
Mr. Grant. Mr. Chairman, it would be my observation as a
producer and an individual involved with numerous associations
that have dealt with this issue that there was perhaps a
misperception on the part of the environmental community that
producers, farmers, would be very quick to make the change.
That they would use existing ground, ground that is currently
in production and divert that ground to the production of
switchgrass, other biofeedstocks, and then pass on the
opportunity to produce conventional crops.
In conversations we have had with environmental groups, we
have maintained and repeatedly asserted that our producers
simply aren't interested in that. That in the future when
biomass crops become an economic reality, definitely we will
look at those in the context of competing crops. But today we
believe that biomass cellulosic production will evolve
primarily using waste from production of existing crops. And we
think that message just hasn't resonated with the environmental
community, hence this language is our belief.
The Chairman. Mr. Burke.
Mr. Burke. Mr. Chairman, I think that the language does
show the footprints of special interest, and I think that the
language ignores a very valuable supply of low-value hardwood
and other woody biomass that is geographically spread across
our country.
It also ignores many healthy forest practices that will not
be incentivized or encouraged by very narrow definitions of
particular types of thinning so----
The Chairman. And all of us on this Committee are well
aware of the need to change this definition. Ms. Herseth
Sandlin has legislation, I believe other people do as well. But
again all of you have mentioned this and the Chairman and
Ranking Member had in their comments as well as Mr. Lucas and
myself. But just once again for the record, if we do not change
the definition of biomass, what regions of the country would be
winners? What regions of the country will be losers? And who
will be able to participate and not participate? Anyone care to
comment?
Dr. McDill. Well, clearly the northeastern U.S. is a big
loser because again we have all of these hardwood forests which
are naturally regenerated, and it would be very hard to include
this in the definition of renewable fuels as it currently
stands.
Now, interestingly, it is exactly where you don't have
plantations where you have the most low-use wood that should be
available, which could be used and currently is underutilized.
So the plantations exist where you have pulpwood markets, where
you have a pulp mill, where you already have a market for that
kind of wood. That is where you have the plantations.
Where you don't have a pulpwood market, then that is where
we have all this low-use wood. So the northeastern U.S. and
also the intermountain West, where again, we have all of this
material from thinning for fuel reduction treatments, which
can't be utilized either under the current definition.
The Chairman. Thank you. My time has expired. Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And since we have a
group that represents insights from all over the country, let
us just cut to the chase. Some of the groups that we have been
discussing in a roundabout way are clearly paling, screaming to
the top of their lungs that the renewable biomass restrictions
in the RFS will help protect forests and wildlife habitat. If
anyone on the panel would care to offer a comment or an opinion
about whether that is an accurate statement on what you are
aware or not, I would be very interested.
Mr. Blazer. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the
Committee, the problem that I have with that in regards to the
fuel loads that we see in our western forests, looking at it
from a watershed perspective, if we don't get these forested
lands back in shape and get those fuel loads reduced, it is not
going to be a good thing. Because we are going to have
catastrophic fire. We are going to lose wildlife habitat. We
have to get this thing turned around, the redefining of this
definition is going to be critical for that.
Mr. Burke. I do not agree with that statement. I don't
think that a limited definition will, in fact, protect our
forests or the wildlife habitat. I think the restriction is
counterproductive to many valuable goals. For example, a
healthy forest. Many thinning practices would be excluded from
the definition, and these thinnings lead to healthy forests.
They reduce fire risk. They decrease the risk of insect and
disease damage. They provide for better trees and hence better
habitat.
Also a restricted definition is not open and inclusive with
respect to markets, and this puts family forest owners at a
disadvantage and may in fact result in conversions of
forestland to other uses if the forestland cannot produce a
fair rate of return.
Finally, forests give us many advantages. Not only the
fiber and the wood but watershed for water quality and wildlife
habitat. So I think the limited definition is not protective of
these values but in fact counterproductive.
Dr. McDill. Well, as I stated in my testimony, having
markets for low-use wood helps land owners manage their forests
better. So from that perspective, the definition is
counterproductive. Furthermore, it is also counterproductive
because it could create incentives to convert natural
forestland to plantations so that it would count under the
current standard.
So the best way to achieve sustainable forest management is
not really through definitions, how we define renewable fuels.
The best way is through other means of providing incentives and
best management practice guidelines for landowners to help
encourage them to manage sustainably.
Ms. Wong. And on that note, I think that we would
absolutely agree. The definition shouldn't be based on these
distinctions of ownership. They should be based on management
practices for forests. The RENEW NY will be using forests that
are probably some of the healthiest forests in New York.
Doesn't matter what their ownership is. It should matter how
many bird species they have, what the water quality is. So I
think we would absolutely agree with that.
Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman, the panel has been very precise
and clear. Thank you.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the Ranking Member and
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Donnelly.
Mr. Donnelly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr.
McDill, there are a lot of questions. What do you need to do to
get answers? You said well, we have a question about this and
we have a question about that. And what kind of resources do
you need to get answers and how soon can we get those answers?
Dr. McDill. Well, researchers tend to emphasize the
uncertainties. I want to maybe say right up front that there is
a lot that we do know. But there still--it is true that there
is a lot of uncertainty. We need better support for research in
addressing these kinds of questions.
We need time to get some of these research activities going
on the ground. We just got a research grant this spring, and so
then it takes a little while to get research going. But
basically we need the resources to do research to better
understand what the lifecycle gains really are.
We need research to look at how much is really going to be
available. Basically we need--a lot of the data is actually
there, and a lot of things we can look at. We just need time,
and resources, to do the analysis.
Mr. Donnelly. Okay, and then this is for anybody on the
panel. My state has a lot of hardwood production, and in fact,
every year we manage these forests. We take a lot of product
out, and we have more acres of forest in our state now than at
any time in the last 100 years. And so is there any reason why
we can't take more biomass out and be able to manage it
efficiently?
It seems to be working at this time if we take more biomass
out for fuel or whatever. The skills for proper management are
in place, aren't they?
Mr. Burke. I will be happy to address that. Virginia is
similarly situated. We have much naturally regenerated
hardwood. It is of good quality, and properly managed, it can
be sustainably grown successive track after track. And it would
be advantageous to have an additional market for the low-value
hardwood so as to improve the residual stand. So we have a
similar tract pattern in Virginia.
Mr. Donnelly. And I read in The Economist a few weeks ago--
and I don't know how exactly correct they are. But they said if
we used the biomass we have in this country on a renewable
basis that will come back on a constant basis and not change
anything, we could meet 65 percent of our petroleum needs in
the years ahead. Does that seem reasonable to all of you?
Dr. McDill. Well, as I stated in my testimony, the amount
of wood in northern forests had doubled in the last 50 years.
So we are currently not harvesting at the rate that the forests
are growing. So clearly we could harvest more than what we are
harvesting right now. Through better management, we could
increase growth rates and harvest no more. Sixty-five percent,
frankly, sounds a little bit high to me, but I think, as I said
in my testimony, a third--at least in heavily forested regions
like the Northeast, a third of our liquid fuels requirements
could be met with cellulosic.
Mr. Donnelly. And is a lot of this dependent on better
cellulosic ethanol technology?
Dr. McDill. We have Purdue in my state who is working
almost nonstop on trying to develop the cellulosic ethanol
technology. So my comment would be, and clearly representing
production agriculture, we believe we have a key role to play
on the cellulosic industry as it evolves, but also state right
up front that we don't have the technology, just the practical,
the fundamental technology that we need in place to effectively
play in the cellulosic industry today.
We don't know, for example, on a specific geographic
region-by-region basis exactly how much biomass we can remove
and maintain the soil health so that it is sustainable. The
ability to do the research is there. It just simply hasn't been
done with this end goal in mind. Our end goals have been driven
by completely different factors, different motivations for the
last 50 years that research has been done. So if, in fact, we
are to be tasked with producing fuel to the level, Congressman,
that you indicate, I believe we can rise to the challenge. But
we will need some research to do that.
Ms. Wong. I would absolutely agree, and I think that that
is something that is critically important. We have talked about
research needs. There was a billion ton study that was done by
USDA and DOE, but it really needs to be done again and in a
mode where we are looking at soil type by soil type and the
different feedstocks that are out there. I think the important
thing to point out is that there is a wide variety of
feedstocks that we can use that are low value like the forest
thinning, the municipal solid waste, that will not have a land
impact. And I think that that is really important as we are
looking at some of the environmental and climate effects that
we have been talking about.
Mr. Burke. If I might build on one of Ms. Wong's points,
feedstock is key. There are three elements to a successful
cellulosic production: feedstock, technology, and scale,
facilities of scale. And if you get the feedstocks wrong, you
have to start all over. And if you limit the available
feedstocks with artificial definitions, you have started off on
a bad beginning point.
Mr. Donnelly. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, we
have a golden opportunity here, as you well know, to use
products from your state and my state to keep our funds here
and our resources here instead of sending them over to another
part of the world.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Nebraska.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. Although Nebraska is the home of Arbor Day, we are
generally not known for forest production. But nonetheless,
since this is the topic at the moment--then I will pivot to
another issue--I would just like to tell a story, Mr. Chairman.
I was coming home from the airport recently, and along the
side of the road was a huge pile of wood that was compost for
some apparent development purpose, just burning. And I hadn't
seen that in a very long time, and I just--the mental thought
came to mind what a waste. And in terms of low-use biomass or
woody pulp maybe perhaps being not the second but the third
generation of cellulosic opportunities, I think we need to take
a serious look at that. And I appreciate you bringing this up.
I would like to go back to the discussion about the
Renewable Fuel Standard and biofuels in general and to talk
about some synergistic technologies that are greatly improving
efficiencies that are important to add to this overall
discussion. In order to know where we go, I think it is
important to know where we came from. Just a few short years
ago, 2005, we implemented the first Renewable Fuel Standard. We
have expanded that this year, and in doing so, that was a very,
very long arduous legislative fight, much of which took place
before I got here.
I thought it was a very important move to--remember we were
trying to replace the pollutant additive in gasoline, MTBE,
with something that would be more environmentally friendly.
Corn was below $2 most of the time, looking for a way to expand
our market for farmers and therefore save money on support
programs in the government and help stabilize--help provide
another opportunity for our farmers.
And so this whole industry, which had been worked on, of
course, for decades, but was launched in a very, very rapid way
and now has tremendous potential to expand.
Now, it is always important to look at policies to ensure
that we haven't overreached and affording later-causing
dislocations and unintended consequences elsewhere. But there
are some important weddings of technologies that are going on
right in Dr. Cassman and my backyard, one of which is a closed
loop energy system in which a cattle field lot is co-located
next to an ethanol plant: 30,000 head of cattle. The manure is
captured from them, put into a methane digester, and then the
surrounding farms, of course, bring the corn there for ethanol
production. The distiller's grain byproduct is then fed back to
the cattle. The phosphorus, by the way, is pulled out of the
manure, which is the environmentally difficult component of
manure, and sold as another product adding further value there.
So in very simplistic terms, while we, of course, want to
see the energy output-to-input ratio increase dramatically on
traditional ethanol production, corn-based ethanol production
with the underlying fuel sources, perhaps natural gas being
less than 2:1. This plant, this closed-loop energy system moves
that equation to 5:1 of output to energy input.
Another plant in my district is Tide. Its energy source,
the local landfill, and now supplants its natural gas usage by
about \1/3\, which again is another way to calculate, improve,
vastly improve energy output-to-input equations.
There is a farmer in my district who has taken--he is a hog
farmer. He has 8,000 head. He creates methane from a methane
digestion pit. Now, he hasn't chosen to use that methane to run
an ethanol facility, but he generates electricity on the spot
with it and 8,000 head of hogs. And the power in their
droppings, so to speak, creates enough electricity for 40
homes.
I bring all this up to not only--to add a dimension to the
discussion of the overall development of biofuels as we look
forward to this next generation of cellulosic sources that will
decrease pressures on traditional grain sources and also
hopefully improve efficiency. But also to think through the
synergistic opportunities we have to co-locate inputs and
outputs as well that will help secure and mitigate questions
about the energy efficiencies of biofuels as we look to it as a
component, just a component, in the overall portfolio of energy
opportunities that we have in our country.
So that is a speech not a question, Mr. Chairman, but if
anybody would like to respond to that, I would welcome
comments.
Ms. Wong. I would actually like to respond to that. I am
really happy that you brought up the historic reasons why this
country has looked at renewable fuel. I think it is also going
to look at what that could mean for woody biomass. We really
need to increase that value of woody biomass because our
forests are disappearing. Thirty-one million acres could
disappear by 2040 because of urbanization in the Southeast. We
need to keep forests as forests for water, wildlife, carbon
sequestration, several other reasons.
So I think providing value to agriculture products is
extremely important and will be very important. But it is the
same thing for woody biomass. So I think that is one of the
reasons why we need to make sure that this definition will be
very inclusive when it comes to that.
Mr. Grant. If I could, I would appreciate if the context of
the holistic system as you referred to--and I think it is
important to point out a couple of key issues there. I am
familiar with methane digesters because we actually have a
dairy and have one there. And one of the drivers are regulation
and the need to deal with the phosphorus, as you mentioned, and
that system helps to accomplish and meet the demands of that
driver.
So I bring that up only to illustrate the point that we
have an RFS which is serving as a driver for ethanol at large
and to a large extent also for cellulosic. We are not sure yet
how the cellulosic history is going to evolve, but certainly
the most likely first plants will be plants that are built in
these closed-loop type systems where you have the resources
already there within a very close geographic location.
Freight in a cellulosic system is extremely important, and
if we try to gather up resources from around the country, the
efficiencies disappear. So it is just extremely important
that----
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, if I could interrupt for a moment.
Mr. Chairman, could----
The Chairman. Please.
Mr. Fortenberry.--you indulge me for an additional moment?
I think that is important in pointing to the opportunity we
have, and my comments were already toward this as well to think
about smaller scale distributed generation of this opportunity.
Use what we have considered waste rather than burning it on the
side of the road or having problems with spreading it too thick
on fields to pouring that in to again innovative,
technologically sophisticated operations that may be, as we
develop it smaller in scale so that they become common on even
a regular, midsize working farm.
Our closed-loop system, I should point out, is on hold at
the moment. We are looking forward to getting it back going,
but it is very, very innovative.
Mr. Grant. Congressman, I will make my point. The RFS is a
driver. Investment is responding to that as a driver. I think
we need to be careful as the Committee--I guess I would
encourage the Committee to be careful in advocating quick
changes to the RFS because there are investments taking place
built on that driver today. And we will have plenty of time in
the future to fine tune where we go.
Mr. Fortenberry. Dr. McDill?
Dr. McDill. Yes. I just wanted to say that you are
absolutely right. The situation is changing really rapidly, and
new technologies are coming online. And some of the things that
we were hopeful might be really good are turning out to not be
so good. So I think it is really critical to have some
flexibility, and having the kind of restrictions in the biomass
feedstocks that are in the law right now is exactly the kind of
thing that makes it difficult to have the flexibility to
develop a lot of these new kinds of technologies.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Dr. McDill.
The Chairman. The gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
coming to testify. I very much appreciate your expertise and
your commitment to these issues. I want to talk a little bit
about the Northeast and what you think will happen. First, if
the rule isn't changed and the definition isn't changed, and
then, second, if it is changed to allow for--excuse me--to
allow for the use of woody biomass particularly from our
forests through management of our forests.
In particular, if they don't change the rule, will we not
be able to use our forest for cellulosic ethanol under the
current legislation that the House has passed?
Dr. McDill. You know my understanding is it is probably
going to happen even if you don't change the rule. It just
won't count.
Mrs. Gillibrand. The market today, because I come from
upstate New York where we have the Adirondack and the
Catskills. We have massive beautiful natural resources that
with good stewardship practices and good forest management we
will have enormous availability for cellulosic ethanol
production. And we are hopefully having a cellulosic ethanol
plant being built right now in the Port of Albany that could be
easily used to develop that fuel source.
So what I would like some more analysis on is if the rule
isn't changed, is it going to stifle investment? Or do you
think the horse is actually out of the barn and we will have
investment and this will be one of the future fields that we
use? Will we be able to use woody biomass and forestry
management in the Northeast as a real alternative fuel?
Dr. McDill. I think it is going to happen whether the rule
is changed or not, but certainly it doesn't help. The current
rule doesn't help. So it certainly would help to change the
rule. I think you would see faster development than what would
happen with the rule that is there right now. But the economics
are driving it as much as the policy, and it is going to
happen. We are building a cellulosic ethanol plant in
Clearfield, Pennsylvania near State College where I live so
these things are coming online. But certainly it would help if
we would change the rule.
Ms. Wong. I would definitely agree with that. I think one
of the issues that we have right now is that we have several
companies out there, and EESI just released a fact sheet that
there could be 55 different biorefineries in 31 different
states in the next couple years.
But what the rule does is that, first, it is going to limit
innovation. And for the companies that are still trying to site
facilities or figure out where there might be the appropriate
feedstock, they might decide that the Southeast might be better
because of this or the Northwest might be better because of
that.
And so this definition is really important because there
are certain things that are basically excluded. So the
Northeast, because of the naturally regenerated forest there,
might have a very difficult time getting a biorefinery to
actually site there.
Mr. Burke. I think the preferred approach would be a
legislative change to simplify the definition because where we
are going to end up without that is unnecessary complexities as
this unclear language leads to regulations and rule making. And
then you are going to have disputes and complexities as the
laws and the regulations are tried--we try to implement them on
the ground. And there is going to be litigation, trial court
litigation and appellate court litigation over what these words
meant in the statute and in the rules. And then we were going
to look back, and we are going to say that was a great law. Why
didn't it work?
Mrs. Gillibrand. Right.
Mr. Burke. I think it would be better for the definition of
renewable biomass not to be the reason it didn't work.
Mrs. Gillibrand. Correct.
Mr. Burke. And the simple fix is legislative.
Ms. Wong. I think the other thing that is extremely
important is that, as has been said this definition came up at
the last minute. There are several other different definitions
for biomass, renewable biomass, open loop and closed loop
biomass that are already in public law. I think that this would
set a very bad precedent for further legislation. And I think
that that is going to be really important as we look to develop
a biomass industry in the United States.
Mrs. Gillibrand. And the other aspect of the rule and the
law that I want you to touch on is, in the Northeast we have
about 17 percent of public lands, and the rest is privately
held. And the rule now requires it to be privately held. I
think it would make an enormous difference because we do have
the Adirondack Park, and we do have enormous land in the
Catskills under conservation. But for the management practices
that we would normally use to take out dead wood and to make
sure that the forest is healthy, we could use that feedstock as
well.
So that would be another area where I hope you will focus
on your advocacy because I think it is very important that we
have all the forests eligible.
And the last thing I wanted to address--I am out of time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. Moran. No questions at this time.
The Chairman. Okay, the gentlewoman from Kansas.
Mrs. Boyda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And would you like
to--I will yield to you a minute. My friend from New York, did
you want to ask your final question?
Mrs. Gillibrand. Yes, I just wanted to ask what is the rate
of percentage of input versus output ratio for woody biomass--
if you say corn-based ethanol is 1:1, maybe 1:2. Is woody
biomass, based on wood pulp, 1:10? What is it? What is the
ratio?
Dr. McDill. There is a lot of uncertainty about that
number, but if I were to give you sort of a best estimate, I
would say 1:4.
Mrs. Gillibrand. One to 4. Thank you.
Dr. Cassman. I would like to just comment on that,
Congresswoman. I think the danger there is that you are
comparing a hypothetical system with an actual system. You have
to be very careful. What we are finding with cellulosic ethanol
from switchgrass, where we are starting to get some numbers, is
that the numbers are falling down. And it falls down as you
scale up, and it looks like the cellulosic ethanol from
switchgrass, the key is going to be whether or not it
sequesters carbon. And if it doesn't, it is going to be not
much better than corn ethanol. So I would be very careful about
comparing hypothetical with actual.
And corn ethanol is much better than--again if you use
numbers from the current majority of ethanol plants built since
2005 that are going to be producing the vast majority of our
total ethanol from corn, the number is closer to 1.8. And if
you do things, as Congressman Fortenberry said, the innovations
that will come will put it well over two.
Mrs. Gillibrand. So 1-2? Okay, thank you.
Mrs. Boyda. Yes, I just had a couple of quick questions,
and you might have spoken about this earlier, but when do you
think the cellulosic could actually be commercially viable for
either switchgrass or for woody mass, anyone?
Ms. Wong. Well, as I just mentioned, we just put out a fact
sheet from several months of research on different cellulosic
biorefineries that have been looking to commercialize these
different technologies: 55 different ones are saying that they
are interested in moving forward, 31 different states.
There are several companies that have already received
grants from DOE, from states that are ready to move forward
whether or not that is a demonstration plant, a power plant, or
a commercial facility. There were six commercial facilities
that were awarded grants in 2007 by DOE. Four of them right now
still exist and are trying to move forward. Range Fuels, for
example, in Georgia should be up and running, I believe, by
2009. It might have been pushed back to 2010. That would be a
commercial facility around 20 million gallons.
Let us just say that if all 55 of these biorefineries are
able to make it forward, from looking at all the information,
there could be up to 630 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels
in the next 2 to 3 years. But, it really is going to depend on
what happens whether----
Mrs. Boyda. So you are saying that the first possible one
might be up in 2010?
Ms. Wong. Well, it has already started construction, which
is the first one in the United States commercially. So my
understanding is 2009 to 2010 it will be in production.
Mrs. Boyda. I get that question a fair amount as you can
imagine. People are curious. They just want the information. Do
you think then if we didn't include this woody mass, can we
meet the RFS without it? Do we have to have it? Are we on
schedule if on the best of all possible roads, is it going to
happen?
Ms. Wong. I think it might be very difficult.
Mrs. Boyda. Does anyone disagree with that? So I guess what
I am asking is there room for everybody in the market? Is it
for all players? What----
Ms. Wong. I think one of the important things is that for
individual communities that have a biomass resource that they
can use in a sustainable way, why should we limit them when
they have the opportunity to participate in that market?
Mrs. Boyda. Can I just ask one more quick question too?
Just technology wise, would a plant that is able to use
switchgrass also be able to use--could they go back--feedstocks
could be the same; or are they different? That is yes, they
can?
Dr. Cassman. In the initial phases, they will be fairly
specialized. Later, I think the Holy Grail is to get a
cellulosic ethanol system that could chew up anything.
Mrs. Boyda. We have a 2\1/2\ mile log jam on one of the
rivers that is causing a lot of problems, and I just wondered
if that was a hope that might be out there sometime.
Dr. Cassman. Not in the short term.
Mrs. Boyda. All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate your
testimony.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlewoman and recognize the
gentleman again.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A follow up to the
gentlewoman from Kansas's question. Mrs. Boyda is correct. We
are often asked about the potential of cellulosic ethanol and
mostly in regard to a timeframe. And I wanted to see if I could
get a clearer understanding of when that is. There are lots of
proposals out there. Is there a particular technology or
product that holds the highest promise? And under the best of
scenarios, is this something that--will we see a significant
cellulosic ethanol component to our energy mix in the next
year, the next 2 years, the next 5 years, the next 10 years?
What do we see developing over the next decade?
Dr. Cassman. A quick answer is that it depends what you are
asking in terms of volume. If you are talking 1 billion gallons
a year, 10 billion or the 20 that is required under the
Renewable Fuel Standard. It is going to take 5 to 10 years to
get up to the billion gallon level.
And the biggest challenge is not the science and technology
in the conversion process. It is the science and technology of
the harvest, storage, and transport of large bulky material and
the quality control therein. These are the things that really
are not getting a lot of attention in the whole program and
system; and the infrastructure therein of how you handle it.
Mr. Moran. That is interesting because I think the
difficulty we face in ethanol, in corn-based ethanol today is
more related to infrastructure than it is related to the
process. Let me ask would we then be unable to meet the
Renewable Fuel Standard in your opinion, in your estimation, as
required for cellulosic ethanol?
Dr. Cassman. As we are currently going and funding, yes.
Mr. Moran. My guess is we knew that actually when we
created the standard.
Dr. Cassman. Right, but you are making major steps here,
and everyone assumes that as successes are found, as we go
along--55 plants you mentioned. No two of them have identical
technologies, and so you are in this incredible race to sort
through options. And that gets back to this question of what is
the ratio of energy. It depends on what the final winners are
in this technological race to see which kinds of second
generation ethanol are going to win.
Mr. Moran. What is the consequence to starch-based ethanol
with the development of cellulosic? Does one replace the other?
Dr. Cassman. Tell me what the price of oil is when this
occurs because it depends on the price of a barrel of oil.
Right now, even without the subsidy, corn ethanol is a viable
enterprise.
Mr. Moran. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burke. Let me comment or respond. I think that woody
biomass should be a player in this. Without it, we are unlikely
to meet the goals for the standard. Unlike corn, the feedstocks
that come from the forest are different and in many instances
locally unique. And therefore the local supply means that they
will be readily available where they are needed, and we need a
definition to permit and incentivize those locally available
woody biomasses to feed into this important renewable energy.
I don't think it is an either/or. I think it is a both, and
we have to step up and provide it.
Ms. Wong. And furthermore on that note, it already has an
infrastructure. Woody biomass has been used. There are roads.
There are facilities that can be converted. There are co-
location type technologies that you can use. So woody biomass
has that incentive as well.
Mr. Moran. Okay.
Dr. McDill. Can I say something?
Mr. Moran. Yes, sir.
Dr. McDill. The potential for woody biomass, I believe, is
much greater than for corn. I think with corn we are already
hitting some limits because corn, first of all, competes with
food. So it drives up the cost of food. Also corn requires
relatively good quality soils whereas woody biomass or
cellulosic biomass from say switchgrass can be grown on much
lower quality types of lands.
And so I believe in 10 years we will be producing a lot
more ethanol from cellulose than we will from corn because of
the--we will be able to scale it up a lot further than we can
corn.
Mr. Moran. As you all know, two states, particularly the
Texas Governor has requested an alteration, a moratorium, on
the Renewable Fuel Standard. If the EPA, which has now put this
issue--they delayed an answer to this issue. If EPA would
decide to do that, are there consequences to the development of
new technologies? One of the arguments I would hope that EPA
takes into account that an alteration of that Renewable Fuel
Standard probably reduces the likelihood that we move in
different directions, new directions, the woody biomass
cellulosic. Is there not a consequence to a different
generation of ethanol in changing that standard?
Mr. Grant. Congressman, if I could quickly comment. I would
tell you that without equivocation on the part of the
Administration in administering previously past laws that would
have given a loan guarantee to Iogen, we would have ground
broken in Idaho on an Iogen facility today.
So that directly relates to your RFS question. Yes,
equivocation on the RFS will serve to shuffle capital away from
investment in this technology. We very much believe that.
The Chairman. The gentlewoman from South Dakota.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all
of you for your written testimony and your testimony here today
and answering so many questions. I have a number of questions
that I know I won't have time to get through, but I will submit
to you in writing for the record if you could get back to me.
But I do want to pursue an area, Dr. Cassman, as it relates
to the potential of American agriculture as it relates to
reducing greenhouse gases and carbon sequestration. Your
written testimony states that with respect to each biofuel
crop, research is needed at the production scale to evaluate
the effect of the feedstock crop production system on
fluorocarbon sequestration. And it also suggests that a key
question in determining whether switchgrass promises greater
direct effect greenhouse gas emissions reduction in corn
ethanol is whether the switchgrass could sequester greater
amounts of carbon.
So if you could please describe for the Subcommittee in
greater detail the state of the science on fluorocarbon
sequestration and what is needed for us to accurately evaluate
the overall role American agriculture producers can play in
reducing greenhouse gases through carbon sequestration.
Dr. Cassman. Well, Congresswoman, you have asked a very
important question because the example of carbon sequester is
very illustrative of what can happen when you don't have good
science in place.
For example, right now on the Chicago Climate Exchange, we
are selling carbon credits for farmers who agree to do no-till
and continue that practice for some time. But the science upon
which that was based was very shaky. It wasn't based on direct
measurement. It was based on experiments, long-term experiments
that weren't set up to ask that question. And now what we are
finding in recent publications and prestigious journals show
there is no carbon sequestration with no-till--very
interesting. And it is again a consequence of not having done
and invested in good, high-quality, production-scale research
when you take into account how systems actually operate.
So I see the same thing happening. Now, that doesn't mean
that no-till is not a good, favorable practice. There are huge
benefits from no-till in terms of impact on wildlife, in terms
of water retention, in terms of soil till structure, and in
terms of less energy use in the systems. So there are
tremendous benefits. But it is not sequestering carbon.
I think the same thing is going to be true for switchgrass.
That is when you look at the existing literature, it is all
over the place. And it looks to us like it is the fundamental
key to whether this system is going to be massively positive in
terms of its impact on greenhouse gases.
And we could have the answer for you in 2 to 3 or 4 years
if we get cracking, but what I don't see if the commitment to
fund research that gets at--that actually measures things. We
are relying far too much on models and back-of-the-envelope
estimates.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. If I may----
Dr. Cassman. Yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin.--interrupt. Mr. Moran and I have been
working with a number of our Agriculture Committee
organizations and other membership organizations as it relates
to sort of planning for and preparing to comment and influence
potential climate change legislation. What role do you see for
these agricultural organizations planning? And what can we do
as a Subcommittee or full Committee working with the Executive
Branch to accelerate and target the type of research to get
these accurate measurements that can ensure that American
agriculture can be a participant in a carbon cap-and-trade if
indeed we adopt that type of system.
Dr. Cassman. And that is the key long-term strategic issue
here. It is much bigger than biofuels. And the key to me is
what the environmental groups have done by bringing in things
like indirect land use change is really a benefit long term to
agriculture in a sense because it recognizes that high-yield
scientific agriculture on existing farmland is the key to
preventing indirect land use changes in places like the Amazon.
And so we can start working with them. Say yes, this is
common ground. So research should focus on scientific means and
documentation, validation, and models. How do we double yields
on existing farmland and reduce the environmental impact of
agriculture? Ask that single question. Demand that it be done
at a production scale, and you have solved the food versus fuel
issue. You have solved the greenhouse gas issue, and you have
put us back on a path to finding answers that will get us
forward.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much. Dr. McDill?
Dr. McDill. Yes, I just want to say that oftentimes
policymakers want and need numbers really quick, and no matter
how much money you throw at a research question, when you want
numbers really quick, the way they tend to get developed is you
pull numbers out of the literature. And so that is exactly what
Dr. Cassman was talking about. When you look at a lot of the
existing studies, people have taken models and thrown numbers
out of the literature, into those models with very little
validation that goes on.
Frankly there isn't much substitute for time and long-term
study. So that kind of modeling is critically important for
getting answers to policymakers really quick, but there is a
tendency then, once we have a number, to say okay, we have the
number. Let us just move on.
It is also really critical to fund more long-term research
to actually look at what is going on on the ground and to do
careful measurements and update those numbers and revisit those
numbers over time, which almost never gets done.
Ms. Wong. But until you have that information, we already
have a feedstock that has been excluded. We have the thinning
materials, the restoration materials that are basically being
left in the forest or are being burned in fields that are being
excluded.
So that information is extremely important, but this
definition is already excluding things that we have right now
that are low-carbon and low-value.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, my time is up, but, Ms. Wong, I
appreciate that comment because it sort of goes to my other
area of concern here with what we have done in the short term
that hamstrings our efforts. I think we can address both energy
security issues, as well as positive environmental issues for
the health of our forests; but also for energy diversity with
cellulosic biofuels.
So I appreciate your insightful responses to my question,
and we look forward to working together with you to work
through this issue of carbon sequestration, the type of
information we need. But, Ms. Wong, since votes haven't been
called and the Chairman is giving me the green light, let me
just ask a quick question of you. And you may have answered
this already, and I think I know generally where the Institute
is in trying to figure a way through where we are now.
Your written testimony notes with regret that the
definition of renewable biomass included in the 2007 Energy
Bill rules several feedstocks ineligible, as you just
mentioned, including thinning materials and woody residues from
Federal forests, some woody feedstocks from private forests. So
as you know I too want to see that definition changed and
improved, and I have introduced the legislation to do that. And
I am also open to discussion, however, about how to best
accomplish that goal. It is not my bill or nothing. I am open
to figuring this out so that my constituents and folks across
the country that can benefit both economically and
environmentally from developing biomass can do so.
And I guess I am wondering what you see as sort of the key
in developing a consensus on improving the definition of
renewable biomass to widen it to include woody biomass
feedstocks that qualify under the RFS. Have you had discussions
with other organizations focused on sustainability, focused on
other issues important to this definition that you can see that
there might be a key or two to developing that consensus
separate from what some want just in a regulatory environment
and what some of us want as a legislative fix in bills that
have already been introduced?
Ms. Wong. That is a very good question. So first of all, I
think what this Subcommittee is doing right now is extremely
important because it is really highlighting the issue of what
the feedstock really is. I can congratulate everyone on that.
It is difficult to say. EESI has been involved or has been
leading a dialogue for a year now on bioenergy from forests,
and it is very difficult to get consensus around this
definition. And I really look forward to working with both you
and all the other Members on this definition.
I think what is really key is to really look at the
performance of the fuel that we are trying to get at. I think
that the arbitrary distinctions are not working, but I don't
know if I have really unlocked it yet. So I look forward to
talking with you more about that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I appreciate that. Yes, Mr. Burke.
Mr. Burke. Let me offer insight but not necessarily the
key. I think the local nature of the forest-based renewable
resource is key because it avoids the transportation costs, and
that is an important component in finding that key or solution
to opening the definition to be more inclusive.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. That is a very good point. Thank you.
Thank you all very much. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. I yield
back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlewoman, and the chair thanks
the panel for your testimony and your participation today as
well as all the Members of the Subcommittee. Under the rules of
the Committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open
for 10 days to receive additional material and supplementary
written responses from witnesses to any question posed by a
Member of the panel.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Energy, and Research is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter from Hon. Jerry Moran, a Representative in Congress
from Kansas
June 19, 2008
Hon. Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Administrator Johnson:
On April 25, 2008, Texas Governor Rick Perry submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a request for a 50 percent waiver
of the 2008 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) implemented by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007. Although significant challenges
face the agriculture and ethanol industry in meeting the goals of the
RFS in the future, I ask that you deny Governor Perry's request. A
waiver of the RFS in 2008 is premature and unwarranted under existing
law.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-
140, amended section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act to require that
gasoline in the United States contain at least 9 billion gallons of
renewable fuel in 2008. It also amended section 211(o)(7) to expand the
circumstances when the Administrator of EPA may waive the requirements
of the RFS. Section 211(o)(7) allows the Administrator to waive the RFS
in a given year if the Administrator determines the RFS would
``severely harm the economy . . . of a state . . . .''
Governor Perry's request that the RFS ``is unnecessarily having a
negative impact on Texas' otherwise strong economy'' by its own words
falls short of the severe harm standard articulated in Clean Air Act.
Severe harm was intended to be high threshold. Although it is
undeniable the RFS has and will continue to put upward pressure on the
price of corn, the conclusion that ethanol is the primary cause of the
recent increase in food price is inaccurate. Ethanol production
generated by the RFS has helped reduce the price of gasoline by as much
as fifteen percent according to a Merrill Lynch analyst and 29 cents to
40 cents per gallon according to an Iowa State University study. The
RFS will also serve as a catalyst to encourage production of the next
generation of biofuels like cellulosic ethanol.
A significant cause of the increase in food prices is the
escalating cost of energy. According to U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS), from 1999 until May
2008, the food commodity index rose 98 percent, while the oil index
rose 547 percent. In addition, the weakened U.S. dollar, increased
global food demand, global crop production shortages caused by weather
related disasters, and protectionist trade polices of other nations
have led to worldwide food inflation.
ERS reports that only \1/3\ of retail food products use corn as an
ingredient. It also states that an increase in the price of corn is
passed through to retail food prices at a rate of less than ten percent
of the increase in corn price. When this data is considered together,
ERS concludes a 50 percent increase in corn prices translates into less
than a one percent increase in the price of food above the normal rate
of inflation.
The most direct impact of higher corn prices is felt by the fed
livestock industry. Kansas is the largest beef producing state and
ranks among the top three states in total number of cattle on feed.
Kansas also ranks in the top ten states in hog production. The
livestock industry is as important to Kansas as it is to Texas.
The challenges faced by the livestock industry will continue in the
subsequent years as the demand for corn-based ethanol increases. The
ethanol industry must be kept viable, but as the need for corn-based
ethanol production increases, it will become necessary to find ways to
expand corn supply or allow livestock producers to more equitably
compete for available corn stocks. I urge you to work with the
Secretary of Agriculture to find solutions to these emerging issues.
Although challenges remain, the RFS should be allowed to function
in 2008. On balance, the negative impacts referenced by Governor Perry
do not rise to the level of severe harm. In addition, the negative
impacts from waiver of the RFS mid-way through the year could have an
adverse affect on many ethanol plants that have made yearly operating
plans based on the 2008 RFS levels. A waiver of the RFS not only risks
retraction of the corn-based ethanol industry, but could stifle
research and development in cellulosic ethanol technology. This would
be unfortunate, as cellulosic ethanol may enable the biofuel industry
to less actively compete against livestock producers for feedstock.
Thank you for considering my comments and please let me know if I
can be of assistance as you make your decision.
Very truly yours,
Hon. Jerry Moran,
Member of Congress.
______
Submitted Statement of Bart Ruth, Member, 25x'25 National Steering
Committee
The 25x25 Steering Committee would like to thank the Subcommittee
for holding a hearing on producer eligibility for farm bill energy
title programs and the implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS).
Over the last year, opportunities for farmers, ranchers, and
foresters to participate in domestic energy production have increased
significantly as result of the passage of the Energy Security and
Independence Act of 2007 (EISA) and the 2008 Farm Bill. The newly
established Biomass Crop Assistance program (BCAP) will help producers'
transition to dedicated energy crop production however, to be
effective, authorized funding for establishing, harvesting, collecting
and transporting biomass must be provided.
In addition, a major funding gap remains for research, development,
and deployment for dedicated energy crops and their conversion to
bioenergy on a commercial scale. While a recent Environmental and
Energy Study Institute (EESI)'s survey shows 22 commercial-scale
cellulosic biorefineries being planned, with projected operating
ability in the 2009-2010 time period,\1\ Federal assistance to
producers and refiners who plan to move advanced biofuels from pilot
stage to commercial scale production is critically needed. We urge this
Subcommittee to communicate it support for expanded Federal bioenergy
education, research, and deployment funding to appropriate
Congressional Appropriation Subcommittees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cellulosic Biofuels Factsheet, Environmental and Energy Study
Institute, 2008 http://www.eesi.org/publications/Fact%20Sheets/
eesi_cellethanol_factsheet_072308.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know, EISA and the farm bill contain different definitions
of biomass eligible for funding under the two laws. While the Energy
Title of the 2008 Farm Bill included biomass from Federal forestlands
in the definition for eligible sources, EISA excludes woody biomass
from Federal forestlands and naturally grown forests from its
definition of renewable biomass thus rendering these sources of biomass
ineligible for EISA-funded programs. Considering that a third of
America's land base is forested, and nearly 60 percent is held by
private nonindustrial landowners, this restriction basically undermines
the ability of the forestry sector to participate in biomass energy
conversion projects and contribute to the nation's energy needs.
The narrow scope of the definition eliminates important economic
incentives for forest owners and forestland managers to thin and remove
hazardous fuel accumulations. A more inclusive definition of renewable
biomass which allows the thinning and removal of hazardous fuel loads
will reduce wildfire occurrences as well as the related costs to
Federal and state governments for fighting and controlling wildfires.
At the same time, it will reduce significant greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from catastrophic wildfires such as those occurring this
summer in California. The definition, as it now stands, also excludes
potential markets and removes viable economic options for private
forest landowners and public land managers who have acreages in need of
thinning and other forest management treatments that could improve the
health, productivity, and sustainability of our nation's forestlands.
We would like to thank Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin for leading
the effort on this issue, and we strongly urge Congress to pass a bill
that would correct the woody biomass definition this year.
The issue of woody biomass eligibility is also critical when
Congress addresses climate change legislation. The agriculture and
forestry sectors can and do play a major role in reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and sequestering carbon. An expanded definition of
renewable biomass along with adequate incentives will ensure that our
nation's forest and agricultural lands contribute their full potential
towards the reduction of harmful greenhouse gases.
The 25x25 Alliance believes that to be a long-term solution for
America renewable energy production must conserve, enhance and protect
natural resources and be economically viable, environmentally sound and
socially acceptable. Earlier this year, we worked with a broad cross-
section of 25x25 partners and developed a set of Sustainability
Principles for a 25x25 Energy Future. These principles were
subsequently adopted by the 25x25 National Steering Committee which
recommended their adoption by renewable energy producers and policy
makers. A copy of these principles are attached to this statement.
In closing, we hope that the U.S. Congress will pass a technical
corrections bill before the end of the year that will establish a
broader definition for renewable biomass eligible for participation in
Federal renewable energy programs. Thank you for the opportunity to
submit this statement. We would be happy to respond to any questions.
Attachment
25x'25 Sustainability Principles
March 2008
In September of 2007, the 25x'25 Steering Committee chartered a
work group composed of a cross section of agricultural, forestry,
industry, environmental and conservation leaders to help further define
sustainability in a 25x'25 renewable future. The mission of the work
group was to develop recommendations for sustainability principles that
would help guide the evolution of 25x'25.
The sustainability principles outlined in this report are the
product of the 28-member 25x'25 National Steering Committee. Though the
assumptions and principles were drawn from the consensus
recommendations developed by the work group, they represent the views
and position of the 25x'25 National Steering Committee rather than any
individual 25x'25 Alliance partner.
Preamble
In the Energy Independence and Security Act passed in December 2007
the U.S. Congress formally adopted 25x'25 as a national goal, affirming
that it is the goal of the United States to derive 25 percent of its
energy use from agricultural, forestry and other renewable resources by
2025.
The 25x'25 Action Plan Charting America's Energy Future, authored
and released by the 25x'25 National Steering Committee in February
2007, outlines specific steps that need to be taken to put the United
States on a path to secure 25 percent of its energy needs from
renewables by the year 2025. The 25x'25 goal and Action Plan stand on a
foundation of five key principles--efficiency, partnership, commitment,
sustainability, and opportunity.
Sustainability has always been considered as central to the success
of the 25x'25 renewable energy initiative and is defined as follows in
the Action Plan:
Sustainability--To be a long-term solution for America,
renewable energy production must conserve, enhance, and protect
natural resources and be economically viable, environmentally
sound, and socially acceptable.
Underpinning the concept of sustainability is the ideal of
stewardship or the responsible use and orderly development of natural
resources in a way that takes full and balanced account of the
interests of society, future generations, and other species, as well as
private needs, and accepts significant answerability to society.
In developing these principles, a number of basic underlying
assumptions were identified and agreed to:
Renewable energy production must comply with all existing
federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
All regions will have an opportunity to engage in the
production of bioenergy feedstocks and renewable energy.
Renewable energy production should address the multiple-
values of the land-base including environmental, economic,
social, and historical.
Balance of stakeholder interests must be a central theme in
renewable energy production.
The principles set forth for sustainability are mutually
reinforcing.
The 25x'25 National Steering Committee recommends the following
principles to 25x'25 partners and would support their adoption by
renewable energy producers and policy makers.
Access:
Renewable energy producers and consumers should have fair and
equitable access to renewable energy markets, products, and
infrastructure.
Air Quality:
Renewable energy production should maintain or improve air quality.
Biodiversity:
Renewable energy production should maintain or enhance landscape
biodiversity and protect native, rare, threatened, and endangered
species and habitat.
Community Economic Benefits:
Renewable energy production should bolster the economic foundation
and quality of life in communities where it occurs.
Efficiency and Conservation:
Renewable energy production should be energy efficient, utilize
biomass residues and waste materials when possible, and conserve
natural resources at all stages of production, harvesting, and
processing.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Renewable energy production should result in a net reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions when compared to fossil fuels.
Invasive and Non-Native Species:
Introduced or non-native species can be used for renewable energy
production when there are appropriate safeguards against negative
impacts on native flora and fauna, and on agricultural and forestry
enterprises.
Market Parity:
Renewable energy production should have parity with fossil fuels in
access to markets and incentives.
Opportunities:
All regions of the nation should have the opportunity to
participate in renewable energy development and use.
Private Lands:
Renewable energy production on private working farm, forest, and
grasslands should improve the health and productivity of these lands
and help protect them from being permanently converted to non-working
uses.
Public Lands:
Renewable energy production from appropriate public lands should be
sustainable and contribute to the long-term health and mission of the
land.
Soil Erosion:
Renewable energy production should incorporate the best available
technologies and management practices to protect soils from loss rates
greater than can be replenished.
Soil Quality:
Renewable energy production should maintain or enhance soil
resources and the capacity of working lands to produce food, feed,
fiber, and associated environmental services and benefits.
Special Areas:
Renewable energy production should respect special areas of
important conservation, historic, and social value.
Technology:
New technologies, including approved biotechnology, can play a
significant role in renewable energy production, provided they create
land use and production efficiencies and protect food, feed, and fiber
systems, native flora and fauna, and other environmental values.
Water Quality:
Renewable energy production should maintain or improve water
quality.
Water Quantity:
Renewable energy production systems and facilities should maximize
water conservation, avoid contributing to downstream flooding, and
protect water resources.
Wildlife:
Renewable energy production should maintain or enhance wildlife
habitat health and productivity.
Reference Materials Reviewed
25x'25 Action Plan: Charting America's Energy Future. 25x'25
National Steering Committee. Washington, D.C. February 2007.
Achieving Sustainable Production of Agricultural Biomass for
Biorefinery Feedstock. Biotechnology Industry Association. Washington,
D.C. 2006.
Bioenergy. NCR-SARE Bioenergy Position Paper. Nov. 2007. http://
www.sare.org/ncrsare/bioenergy.htm.
Getting Biofuels Right: Eight Steps for Reaping Real Environmental
Benefits from Biofuels. Natural Resources Defense Council. Washington,
D.C. May 2007.
Ken Cairn, B. Biomass Energy--Critical Issues for Consideration in
Developing Biomass Energy and Energy Policy in Colorado and the West.
Community Energy Systems, LLC. Oak Creek. CO. 2007.
Natural Resources: Woody Biomass Users' Experiences Offer Insights
for Government Efforts Aimed at Promoting Its Use. U.S. Government
Accountability Office. Washington, D.C. GAO-06-336. March 2006.
Principles for Bioenergy Development. Union of Concerned
Scientists. Cambridge, MA. April 2007.
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels: Ensuring That Biofuels Deliver
on Their Promise of Sustainability. Ecole Polytechnique Federale De
Lausanne. July 2007.
Sample, V. Alaric. Ensuring Forest Sustainability in the
Development of Woody-Based Bioenergy. Pinchot Institute for
Conservation. Washington, D.C. Vol. 12, No. 1, 2007.
Sample, V. Alaric. Bioenergy Markets: New Capital Infusion for
Sustainable Forest Management. Pinchot Institute for Conservation.
Washington, D.C. Vol. 11, No. 2, 2006.
Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry: A Findings Report
of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry.
National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry. Washington,
D.C. January 2005.
Sustainability: Meeting Future Economic and Social Needs While
Preserving Environmental Quality. National Corn Growers Association.
Chesterfield, MO. 2007.
The Rush to Ethanol: Not All Biofuels Are Created Equal. Food &
Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices. Washington, D.C, and
New York, NY. 2007.
The Environmental, Resource, and Trade Implications of Biofuels.
Woods Institute for the Environment. Stanford University. Stanford, CA.
2007. http://woods.stanford.edu/ideas/biofuels.html.
25x'25 National Steering Committee
William Richards--Circleville, OH; (Committee Co-Chair); Corn and
soybean producer; former Chief, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service.
J. Read Smith--St. John, WA; (Committee Co-Chair); Wheat, small
grains and cattle producer; former President, National Association of
Conservation Districts.
Duane Acker--Atlantic, IA; Farmer; former President, Kansas State
University; former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Science and
Education, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
R. Bruce Arnold--West Chester, PA; Consultant, woody biomass
utilization for the pulp and paper industry; retired engineer and
manufacturer, Scott Paper Company.
Peggy Beltrone--Great Falls, MT; County Commissioner--Cascade
County Montana; member, National Association of Counties' Environment,
Energy and Land Use Steering Committee.
John R. ``Jack'' Block--Washington, D.C.; Former Secretary of
Agriculture, 1981-1986.
Michael Bowman--Wray, CO; Wheat, corn and alfalfa producer;
Steering Committee member, Colorado Renewable Energy Forum; Rural
Chair, Colorado Ag Energy Task Force.
Charles Bronson--Tallahassee, FL; Commissioner, Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services; member, Florida Cabinet; member,
Florida Governor's Council on Efficient Government; former President,
Southern Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
Glenn English--Arlington, VA; CEO, National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association; former Co-Chair, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, DOE Biomass R&D Federal Advisory Committee; former Member
of Congress (6th OK) 1974-1994; Chairman, House Agriculture
Subcommittee on Environment, Credit, and Rural Development.
Tom Ewing--Pontiac, IL; Immediate past Chairman, USDA, DOE Biomass
R&D Federal Advisory Committee; former Member of Congress (15th/IL)
1991-2001; Chairman, House Agriculture Subcommittee on Risk Management
and Specialty Crops.
Barry Flinchbaugh--Manhattan, KS; Professor of Agricultural
Economics, Kansas State University; Chairman, Commission on 21st
Century Production Agriculture.
Robert Foster--Middlebury, VT; Dairy farmer, composter, anaerobic
digester; President, Vermont Natural Ag Products; Vice-President,
Foster Brothers Farm Inc.; President, AgReFresh.
Richard Hahn--Omaha, NE; Retired President, Farmers National
Company.
Harry L. Haney, Jr.--Austin, TX; Consultant, non-industrial private
forestland management; emeritus professor, Department of Forestry,
College of Natural Resources, Virginia Tech; past president, Forest
Landowners Association.
Ron Heck--Perry, IA; Soybean and corn producer; Past President,
American Soybean Association.
Bill Horan--Rockwell City, IA; Corn and soybean producer; former
Board Member, National Corn Growers Association.
A.G. Kawamura--Sacramento, CA; Orange County specialty crops,
produce grower and shipper; Secretary, California Department of Food
and Agriculture; Vice Chairman, Rural Development & Financial Security
Policy Committee, National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture; founding Partner, Orange County Produce, LLC.
Jim Moseley--Clarks Hill, IN; Managing Partner, Infinity Pork, LLC;
former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture; former
Director of Agricultural Services and Regulations, Purdue University's
School of Agriculture; Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural
Resources and the Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Allen Rider--New Holland, PA; Retired President, New Holland North
America; former Vice President, New Holland North America Agricultural
Business Unit.
Nathan Rudgers--Batavia, NY; Senior Vice-President, Director,
Business Development, Farm Credit of Western New York; former
Commissioner, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets;
former President, National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture.
Bart Ruth--Rising City, NE; Corn and soybean producer; Past
President, American Soybean Association; 2005 Eisenhower Fellow for
Agriculture.
E. Dale Threadgill--Athens, GA; Director, Faculty of Engineering,
and Department Head, Biological & Agricultural Engineering, the
Driftmier Engineering Center, and the Biorefinery and Carbon Cycling
Program, University of Georgia; private forest landowner.
Mike Toelle--Brown's Valley, MN; Chairman, CHS; past Director and
Chairman, Country Partners Cooperative; operator, grain and hog farm,
Browns Valley.
Gerald Vap--McCook, NE; Chairman, Nebraska Public Service
Commission; former Chairman, National Conservation Foundation;
President, Vap Seed & Hardware.
Don Villwock--Edwardsport, IN; Grain and soybean producer;
President, Indiana Farm Bureau Federation; former Chairman, Farm
Foundation.
Sara Wyant--St. Charles, IL; President, Agri-Pulse Communications,
Inc.; former Vice-President of Editorial, Farm Progress Companies.
Ernest C. Shea--Lutherville, MD (Project Coordinator); President,
Natural Resource Solutions, LLC; former CEO, National Association of
Conservation.
______
Submitted Statement by William Imbergamo, Director, Forest Policy,
American Forest & Paper Association
The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) appreciates the
opportunity to share our perspective on the Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS) that was enacted as part of P.L. 110-140, the Energy Security and
Independence Act of 2007.
AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest, pulp, paper,
paperboard, and wood products industry. The industry accounts for
approximately six percent of the total U.S. manufacturing output,
employs more than a million people, and ranks among the top 10
manufacturing employers in 42 states with an estimated payroll
exceeding $50 billion. We support policy efforts to increase our
nation's energy security and our member companies are leading the
effort to achieve this objective by combining advanced technology and
innovative manufacturing practices with responsible stewardship of our
natural resources.
The forest products industry is a leader in the generation and use
of renewable energy from biomass residue in our mills. Sixty-four
percent of the energy used at AF&PA member pulp and paper mills, and 74
percent of the energy from our wood products facilities, is generated
from carbon-neutral biomass. Forest product facilities account for 82
percent of the total biomass energy generated by all industries
collectively.
Our renewable energy use and production is accomplished while
adhering to disciplined market-based standards of accountability that
ensure the wood fiber we use is grown in a sustainable manner. Since
1995, all AF&PA members must subscribe to the principles of the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative' (SFI'), which
sets rigorous forest management standards that are reviewed by external
partners from conservation groups and research organizations. With over
226 program participants and 156 million acres of certified well
managed forests, the SFI' program ensures that America's
forest and paper companies are committed to sustainable management. Our
historic commitment to renewable energy and sustainable forest
management demonstrates that a balance between the two is both possible
and necessary.
AF&PA urges Congress to modify the definition of renewable biomass
in the RFS provision of P.L. 110-140, which currently restricts
eligibility based on forest types and successional stage and
disqualifies most fiber from public ownerships. We also recommend
adding criteria to the waiver provision that will help balance the
resource needs of existing biomass users, the emerging resource needs
of the cellulosic biofuels industry, and the health, viability, and
productivity of our agricultural and forestlands throughout the
country.
The definition of renewable biomass in the RFS statute creates a
number of implementation challenges and would meaningfully reduce
landowner options and raise fiber costs for manufacturers of paper and
wood products. We urge Congress to revisit this issue and replace the
existing definition of renewable biomass with the definition contained
in Section 102(4) from the version of H.R. 6, the Energy Security and
Independence Act that passed the Senate on June 21, 2007.
As written, the definitional approach in P.L. 110-140 regarding
tree plantations established prior to enactment potentially excludes
large swaths of timberland and provides a disincentive to prospective
market entrants who wish to grow new forests. This language also
excludes materials from forests in the Lake States, northern New
England, Central Appalachians, and other regions that are managed to
allow natural tree regrowth, with potentially negative effects on jobs
and economic growth in these already distressed rural areas. In
addition, the renewable biomass definition in the RFS encourages would-
be producers of renewable fuel to focus their procurement efforts on
existing softwood plantations, which are already intensively managed
and supply the raw material for existing wood fiber-based
manufacturing.
Second, the prohibition on the use of ``slash and thinnings'' from
either old growth or forests on any list of imperiled forests is
unworkable because of numerous technical ambiguities that make it
difficult, if not impossible, to map and apply. We are concerned the
prohibition in practice will either exclude large amounts of wood fiber
out of confusion or an abundance of caution, or be enforced entirely in
the breech because of difficulties verifying the source of the
generally low value fiber being used to produce biofuels. In any event,
landowner decisions regarding harvest are driven primarily by regional
market dynamics which make harvesting old growth timber to produce low-
value biomass impractical.
Third, the exclusion of fiber from public lands prevents the
utilization of low value materials removed from the forest to reduce
fire risk and improve forest health. There are over 90 million acres of
Federal public lands that are at high risk of uncharacteristic fire,
insect, or disease outbreaks. Eliminating the biofuels market as a tool
to reduce hazardous fuel loads will exacerbate the decline in
infrastructure needed to do this work, placing both forests and
adjacent communities at increased risk.
In addition to definitional modifications, AF&PA urges Congress to
further amend the RFS by adding language that would clarify that a
state's petition for a waiver from the RFS mandate should be granted if
compliance with the mandate would severely harm the long-term
agricultural and silvicultural capability of a region of the country.
Clarifying that a waiver should be granted if mandated production
levels threaten the ability of natural resources in the state or region
to satisfy production levels, in addition to meeting demand from
existing biomass feedstock users that rely on the same resource to
produce food and manufacture products, would improve the standard.
Enhancing the waiver will help maintain a working balance between the
resource needs of existing biomass users and the emerging resource
needs of the cellulosic biofuels industry. The modification would also
help preserve the health, viability, and productivity of our
agricultural and forestlands throughout the country, as well as
economies in rural areas.
The forest products industry is a leader in developing innovative
energy solutions that decrease our reliance on fossil fuel and is the
largest producer of biomass energy in the country. We urge Congress to
assist our efforts by supporting an unbiased definition of renewable
biomass, ensuring the long-term silvicultural and agricultural
capability of regions, and maintaining the current biomass needs of
existing facilities.
We thank the Committee for creating an opportunity to comment on
this important issue and look forward to working with you and others in
Congress in the coming months to craft a workable and balanced
renewable energy policy.
For more information please contact:
Elizabeth VanDersarl,
Vice President, Government Affairs,
American Forest & Paper Association.
______
Submitted Letter and Statement of Joseph Jobe, CEO, National Biodiesel
Board
July 24, 2008
Hon. Tim Holden,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
RE: Subcommittee Hearing to Review Renewable Fuel Standard
Implementation and Agriculture Producer Eligibility.
Dear Chairman Holden and Ranking Member Lucas:
The National Biodiesel Board (NBB) applauds you for your continued
leadership on renewable fuels and for holding this hearing today. The
NBB is the trade association for the U.S. biodiesel industry and
represents 171 biodiesel producers across the United States.
As an industry, we wanted to make sure the Subcommittee was aware
of an issue that is of critical importance to the ultimate success of
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and our nation's efforts to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil. Specifically, we are concerned that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will not require the domestic use
of 500 million gallons of biodiesel or biomass-based diesel as mandated
by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) in 2009. The
bipartisan EISA enacted in December, 2007, significantly improved the
RFS and included a requirement to use 500 million gallons of biomass-
based diesel in the United States in 2009. This requirement gradually
increases to 1 billion gallons by 2012. Biodiesel is one of the fuels
available in the marketplace today that will qualify as a biomass-based
diesel. It is imperative that the EPA require the use of 500 million
gallons of biomass-based diesel be used domestically in 2009.
Already, in 2008 the industry is expected to exceed the 500 million
gallons required by the RFS in 2009 and under the existing RFS, the EPA
has a system in place to track biodiesel in the marketplace through its
``renewable identification numbers'' (RINs). In our view, EPA should
use this existing system to implement the biomass-based diesel use
requirements as mandated under current law.
To help meet the nation's larger policy goals as it relates to
energy security, climate change and economic development, it is vital
that EPA move forward with creating the domestic requirement to use 500
million gallons of biomass-based diesel in 2009, consistent with
current law under EISA and the RFS.
The NBB looks forward to working constructively with both Congress
and the EPA to meet the RFS requirements established in EISA. We
appreciate your continued leadership and support of efforts to promote
the production and use of biodiesel.
Sincerely,
Submmited Statement
Chairman Holden, Ranking Member Lucas and Members of the
Subcommittee, the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) applauds you for your
continued leadership on renewable fuels and for holding this hearing
today. We appreciate the opportunity to submit written testimony
concerning the implementation of the updated Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS2) which the industry supports and has pledged to help implement.
As an industry, we wanted to make sure the Subcommittee was aware
of an issue that is of critical importance to the ultimate success of
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and our nation's efforts to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil. Specifically, we are concerned that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will not require the domestic use
of 500 million gallons of biodiesel or biomass-based diesel as mandated
by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) in 2009. The
bipartisan EISA enacted in December, 2007, significantly improved the
RFS and included a requirement to use 500 million gallons of biomass-
based diesel in the United States in 2009. This requirement gradually
increases to 1 billion gallons by 2012. Biodiesel is one of the fuels
available in the marketplace today that will qualify as a biomass-based
diesel. It is imperative that the EPA require the use of 500 million
gallons of biomass-based diesel be used domestically in 2009.
About NBB: The National Biodiesel Board (NBB) is the national trade
association representing the biodiesel industry as the coordinating
body for research and development in the United States. It was founded
in 1992 by state soybean commodity groups who were funding biodiesel
research and development programs. Since that time, the NBB has
developed into a comprehensive industry association which coordinates
and interacts with a broad range of cooperators, including industry,
government and academia. NBB's membership is comprised of state,
national and international feedstock and feedstock processor
organizations, biodiesel suppliers, fuel marketers and distributors and
technology providers.
Background and Industry Overview: Biodiesel is a diesel fuel
replacement that is made from agricultural oils, fats and waste greases
that meets a specific commercial fuel definition and specification. The
fuel is produced by reacting feedstock with an alcohol to remove the
glycerin in order to meet specifications set forth by the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International). Biodiesel is
one of the best-tested alternative fuels in the country and the only
alternative fuel to meet all of the testing requirements of the 1990
amendments to the Clean Air Act.
Biodiesel is primarily marketed as a blended product with
conventional diesel fuel, typically in concentrations up to 20%. It is
distributed utilizing the exiting fuel distribution infrastructure with
blending most commonly occurring ``below the rack'' by fuel jobbers.
Biodiesel is beginning to be distributed through the petroleum terminal
system. To date, biodiesel has positions in approximately 42 terminals.
The biodiesel industry has already committed funds to study the
technical needs required for moving biodiesel through U.S. pipelines.
Already, biodiesel is moved through pipelines in Europe and extending
that capability in the U.S. would significantly increase biodiesel
penetration in the U.S. diesel fuel market.
The biodiesel industry has shown steady growth over the last 15
years. In 2007, the industry produced 500 million gallons of biodiesel
and is on pace to increase production above these levels in 2008.
Today, there are 171 plants in operation with the capacity to produce
more than 2.24 billion gallons of biodiesel and 60 new plants under
construction or expansion, which will add an estimated new capacity of
nearly 1.13 billion gallons.
Industry Position on RFS2 Implementation: The bipartisan Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), enacted in December,
2007, significantly improved the original RFS and included a
requirement to use 500 million gallons of biomass-based diesel in the
United States in 2009. This requirement gradually increases to 1
billion gallons by 2012. Biodiesel is one of the fuels available in the
marketplace today that will qualify as a biomass-based diesel.
Consistent with existing statute as established in EISA, it is
imperative that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require the
use of 500 million gallons of biomass-based diesel in 2009.
For the NBB, the most important issue or concern relating to
implementation of RFS2 is ensuring that the EPA complies with the
statutory requirement to mandate the domestic use of 500 million
gallons of biomass-based diesel in 2009. While we applaud the EPA for
diligently moving forward on implementing the rule, the biodiesel
industry is concerned that EPA will not be prepared to issue a final
rule prior to January 1, 2009, which may delay implementation of the
biomass-based diesel usage requirement.
The U.S. biodiesel industry is fully capable of meeting the RFS
biomass-based diesel requirements. U.S. biodiesel production in 2008 is
expected to exceed the 500 million gallons required by the RFS in 2009.
Under the existing RFS, the EPA tracks the amount of biodiesel used
in the marketplace via ``renewable identification numbers'' (RINs) and
in our view, EPA has the ability to use this existing system to
implement the biomass-based diesel use requirements as mandated under
current law. It is vital that EPA move forward with implementing the
domestic requirement to use 500 million gallons of biomass-based diesel
in 2009 to help meet the nation's larger policy goals relating to
energy security, climate change and economic development.
There is precedent for EPA to require the use of renewables absent
the issuance of a final RFS rule. When the initial RFS was enacted as
part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPA required the use of a
minimal amount of renewable fuels in the marketplace prior to
promulgation of a final rule implementing the RFS. Specifically, it
required the use of 4.0 billion gallons in 2006 with no rule or
tracking system in place. Also, in 2007, 4.7 billion gallons were
required, even though the regulatory rule did not take effect until
September 1, 2007. Given the presence of the existing tracking system,
the EPA has both the mechanisms and the precedent to move forward with
requiring the use of 500 million gallons of biomass-based diesel absent
the promulgation of a final RFS2 rule.
Implementation of the 500 million gallon use requirement for
biomass-based diesel in 2009 absent promulgation of a final rule
implementing RFS2 is consistent with EISA's greenhouse gas reduction
goals. The most recent USDA-DOE lifecycle study shows a 78% reduction
in lifecycle CO2 emissions for biodiesel. Already, we know
that using 500 million gallons of biodiesel in the United States will
reduce current lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by 8.06 billion
pounds, the equivalent of removing 700,000 passenger vehicles from our
highways.
We are concerned that if EPA does not direct obligated parties to
use biomass-based diesel, then the entire amount of renewable fuels
required in 2009 (11.1 billion gallons) will be filled by ethanol.
Already, the ethanol industry has more than 9.4 billion gallons of
capacity with more than 4.2 billion gallons coming online in the next
18 months. Today, ethanol is blended into more than 50% of the gasoline
marketplace nationwide and new infrastructure is rapidly being
established in the Southeast, where an estimated 2 billion new gallons
of ethanol is already entering the marketplace. In our view, the
overwhelming volume, the mature infrastructure, and the economics of
today's market will lead obligated parties to choose ethanol, rather
than any other fuel, to meet 2009 requirements under the RFS2. This is
inconsistent with the goal of RFS2 to diversify the use of renewable
fuels in the U.S. and for the first time implement a low-carbon
renewable requirement for U.S. diesel fuel.
Therefore, NBB recommends that after January 1, 2009 and until the
final regulatory rule required by the EISA is promulgated, that the
Administrator of the EPA include a specific actual volume for
``biomass-based diesel'' consistent with Section 202 of EISA.
Furthermore, we encourage the Administrator to utilize EPA's existing
authority to implement the biomass-based diesel schedule consistent
with RFS2.
Biomass-Based Diesel RFS2 Requirement Has Minimal Impact of Food
Prices: As both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) have noted, biofuels-related feedstock
demand plays only a small role in global food supply and pricing.
Worldwide, the estimated increase in the price of soybeans and soybean
oil would increase the global food commodity price index by 1-2
percent. In the U.S., according to USDA and DoE, food prices have
increased by about 4.8 percent. Of that increase, ethanol and biodiesel
consumption accounted for only four or five percent while other factors
accounted for 95-96 percent of the increase.
The combination of rising energy costs, increased global commodity
demand, and the weak dollar are the main causes of rising food prices.
It is important to note that U.S. biodiesel production is not a
significant factor of soybean usage either in the United States or
worldwide. In 2007, only 12% of U.S. soybean production and 4% of
global soybean production was used by the U.S. biodiesel industry to
produce fuel. Furthermore, from the soybeans used to produce biodiesel,
81% of the soybean's yield is protein that enters the market for either
human consumption or animal feed.
Concern has been raised regarding the impact of RFS2 on corn or
feed prices. Again, the true causes of rising food prices are energy
costs, global commodity demand, and the weak dollar. With that said, it
is also important to again note that biodiesel is made from
agricultural oils, fats and waste greases, not made from corn. Thus,
the production of biodiesel has no direct impact on corn prices. Corn
and soybeans compete for acreage in the United States and weather will
play a role in production numbers for both crops; however, according to
USDA's most recent World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates,
global oilseed production is projected to increase to nearly 420
million tons for 2008/09, an increase of 31.6 million tons from 2007/
08.
Soybeans are currently the primary oilseed crop grown in the United
States, and soybean oil makes up about 60 percent of the raw material
available to make biodiesel. The other 40 percent consists of all other
vegetable oils and animal fats. Specifically, in 2007, refined soybean
oil, made up 62.74%; crude soybean oil, made up 16.64%; animal fats and
oils, made up 16.05%; inedible tallow and grease, made up 4.36% and
cottonseed oil, made up .021%.
As this demonstrates, U.S. biodiesel is produced from a variety of
diverse feedstocks. Looking forward, it is apparent that the feedstock
needed to meet the biomass-based diesel requirements in RFS2 will be
readily available and U.S. biodiesel production will continue to have
an insignificant impact on food prices.
Technological advances and plant science research are adding
``virtual acres'' for greater production from existing cropland. In
July, 2007 Monsanto announced plans to introduce new technology in 2009
that can increase yields by as much as 9% to 11%. In September, 2007
DuPont announced it is commercializing soybean varieties that increase
yields by as much as 12%. If 90% of U.S. soybean acres adopted the new
technology, more than 60 million acres could benefit from a 10%
increase in yield. This potentially equates to more than 250 million
additional bushels of soybeans (the equivalent of 380 million gallons
of biodiesel).
Other sources of biodiesel feedstock, such as restaurant grease and
animal fats are increasingly being used in biodiesel production. In
addition, corn oil derived from ethanol production, camelina, and algae
are currently being developed and utilized. According to the National
Energy Research Laboratory (NREL), in Golden Colorado (March 2006),
current feedstocks for biodiesel total nearly 2.0 billion gallons
(including greases, animal fats, and vegetable oils). NREL anticipates
the natural growth and expansion of existing feedstocks (soy, canola,
and sunflowers) will expand feedstocks supplies for an additional 1.8
billion gallons by 2016.
It is clear that the feedstock needed to meet the conservative
biomass-based diesel schedule established in RFS2 will be readily
available, and any minor increases in food prices that could result
will be more than offset by the public policy benefits that are
achieved by addressing the nation's energy security, climate change and
economic development objectives.
Conclusion:
We appreciate the opportunity to provide written comments for this
important hearing and we look forward to working with you to improve
our nation's energy balance, its environmental stewardship and the
creation of new green jobs across the United States.
If the EPA implements RFS2 as required by statute, it will provide
the greatest opportunity for this nation to decrease its dependence on
imported oil, increase domestic employment opportunities and decrease
greenhouse gas emissions through transportation's fuels.
For the NBB, the most important issue or concern relating to
implementation of RFS2 is ensuring that the EPA complies with the
statutory requirement to require the domestic use of 500 million
gallons of biomass-based diesel in 2009.
Finally, the U.S. biodiesel industry is fully capable of meeting
the RFS biomass-based diesel requirements and in a manner that will
have little if any impact on food prices because the industry utilizes
an abundant, increasingly diversified pool of feedstocks to produce the
most sustainable fuel used in transportation fuels today.
______
Submitted Statement of Hon. M. Michael Rounds, Governor, State of South
Dakota; Chairman, Midwestern Governors Association
I would like to thank Chairman Holden and Ranking Member Lucas of
the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research of the
House Committee on Agriculture for holding this hearing on the
renewable fuels and eligibility, as well as affording me the ability to
provide this statement for the record.
As Governor of the great state of South Dakota, I provide the
following remarks on behalf of the Midwestern Governors Association
(MGA), of which I am Chair. The panels of witnesses assembled here
today have helped to provide a voice in response to the negative image
that some are attempting to place on biofuels. I hope that my
testimony, in conjunction with the others heard here, will help dispel
many negative stereotypes associated with ethanol.
The MGA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that brings
together the governors of 12 states to work cooperatively on public
policy issues of significance to the midwestern region. In addition to
myself and the state of South Dakota, the current members of the MGA
are Gov. Rod Blagojevich (Ill.), Gov. Mitch Daniels (Ind.), Gov. Chet
Culver (Iowa), Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas), Gov. Jennifer Granholm
(Mich.), Gov. Tim Pawlenty (Minn.), Gov. Matt Blunt (Mo.), Gov. Dave
Heineman (Neb.), Gov. John Hoeven (N.D.), Gov. Ted Strickland (Ohio)
and Gov. Jim Doyle (Wis.).
The states have long been leaders in recognizing the benefits of
strong renewable and domestic sources of energy. This recognition has
turned to action in the Midwest for support of ethanol (including the
development and deployment of cellulosic biofuels), wind, woody
biomass, advanced coal with carbon capture and sequestration, and
anaerobic digesters. Support for these sources of bio and renewable
energy, as well as support for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), are
key ways to move our country to reach our goal, the goal of yielding a
clean, sustainable, domestic source of energy.
One of the ways the Federal Government has played a role in
supporting the states in their actions to encourage new energy sources
is through the enactment of the RFS. Unfortunately, the negative public
relations campaign against renewable energy sources has caused the RFS
to come under criticism. This critique has led many to call for the RFS
to be repealed, waived or weakened. The benefits of the RFS need to be
stressed to the public, who are currently being barraged by the
campaign to halt this support of biofuels. Through the RFS, the
increased use of renewable fuels will reduce traditional car
pollutants, such as benzene and carbon monoxide. Additionally, the RFS
also helps to move the ethanol industry towards the use of cellulosic
materials and other second and third generation biofuels.
Some criticism for the RFS, however, is warranted and has been a
focus in today's hearing. While the field of renewable energy sources,
options and techniques are growing, many of these new sources are not
counted towards the RFS. We strongly feel that there are a host of
energy options that the should be explored, implemented and utilized to
meet the current and future energy needs of this nation and the world.
Similarly, each region of our nation has varied resources and
capabilities to explore these varied energy sources. The U.S. Congress
needs to closely examine Federal regulations to ensure that they are
not inadvertently stifling renewable energy production.
While we do not debate that there may be a correlation between food
prices and the use of biofuels, we do contend that it is neither the
only nor the major factor for the increase in commodity prices. There
is a myriad of reasons for the increase in all commodities, not just
corn. These factors include rising transportation costs due to record
oil prices, increased demand for grains and meat from developing
countries, increased speculator investment and influence in all
commodities markets, and extended global draught. Placing blame on the
biofuel industry is misguided and needs to be corrected.
The economic implications of bio and renewable fuels are
significant to the Midwest. The growth of biofuels have provided an
avenue for rural revitalization and job opportunities for local
residents. Our region, as well as other states, have seen a significant
growth in the quality of living for those living in rural areas. At a
time where there is population migration away from the rural areas,
energy industry job opportunities for rural residents will be
instrumental in drawing people back to the less-populated areas of the
states. This new source of vitality for historically underserved
communities is imperative to our nation's place in a global market--as
well as ensuring all Americans are afforded the same opportunities and
quality of living of those living in urban and suburban areas.
Our nation has become a global economic superpower and leader in
the markets due in part to our entrepreneurial spirit. From the
telegraph to Silicon Valley, the combine to the transcontinental
railway, our country has made giant leaps from the ground to the moon
in developing and implementing new technologies. Our entrepreneurial
spirit is continuing on with research and expansion of the renewable
energy and fuels markets. Advancing from first generation to second,
and even third generation biofuels hinges on the support and
encouragement of the industries we have in place now. Placing undue
criticism and blame on ethanol for price increases in the food or
energy markets will only stunt our country's ability to have a clean,
sustainable and domestic energy future.
This hearing you held provided excellent information for the record
to discount many of the negative perceptions that many are beginning to
hear about the biofuel industry. Without a response and attempt to
answer some of the misinformation, the future development of second and
third generation biofuels may be jeopardized.
Thank you again for allowing me the ability to provide these
remarks for the record. The Midwestern Governors Association and myself
look forward to being of any assistance we can as you continue to
discuss this important topic.
______
Submitted Letter of Consortium of Agricultural Soils Mitigation of
Greenhouse Gases
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte:
We are writing to you to correct the record on a very important
matter that is of relevance not only to the agricultural sector but
also to the U.S. Congress and to our nation. The issue pertains to the
ability of soils--our greatest and most vital natural resource--to
absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This tendency is referred to
as soil carbon sequestration, and is a form of biological or
terrestrial sequestration that has been identified by many economists,
climatologists, and soil scientists as one of, if not the primary, low-
cost, high-impact near-term technologies at our disposal to help to
begin to reduce U.S. and global emissions of greenhouse gases as we
attempt to combat climate change. Agricultural soil sequestration can
provide a bridge to a lower-carbon intensive future, by providing
valuable emissions reductions and therefore allowing time for the more
costly infrastructure changes and capitol stock turnover to occur in
the early years of a national policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG).
We are all members of a consortium of scientists from land-grant
universities and national laboratories created by Congress in 2001 to
focus on research and outreach programs related to agricultural soil
sequestration, along with agricultural nitrous oxide and methane
mitigation efforts in the U.S. The Consortium of Agricultural Soils
Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases (CASMGS) has been conducting research on
this topic since our formation in 2001, and in most cases, the
scientists involved in the Consortium were engaged in research on this
topic long before this, as well. The Congress reauthorized CASMGS in
the recently enacted 2008 Farm Bill.
At issue is a characterization by some that certain practices such
as no-till farming do not increase or otherwise enhance soil carbon
stocks by leading to increased soil carbon sequestration. We would like
to correct this mischaracterization, and want to assure you that there
is an extensive historical and contemporary body of scientific evidence
that does in fact show that no-till and minimum-tillage practices, in
most instances, lead to increased soil carbon sequestration.
We have attached a brief synopsis reflecting this evidence, and
summarizing the state of knowledge relative to no-till and minimum-
tillage practices and soil carbon sequestration.
We hope that this information proves useful to your deliberations
as you continue to guide and shape the role of the U.S. agricultural
sector in the 21st Century, and we hope that you will consider us as a
resource for your continued efforts in considering agricultural
sustainability and the role of soil carbon sequestration in national
climate change policy.
Sincerely,
Susan Capalbo,
Department Head and Professor,
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
Oregon State University;
Rich Conant,
Research Scientist III,
Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory,
Colorado State University;
R. Cesar Izaurralde
Laboratory Fellow, Joint Global Change Research Institute,
Adjunct Professor, Department of Geography,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and University of Maryland;
Keith Paustian,
Professor, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences,
Sr. Research Scientist, Natural Resource Ecology Lab,
Colorado State University;
Chuck Rice,
Professor--Soil Microbiology,
Department of Agronomy,
Kansas State University.
Attachment
Tillage Effects on Soil Carbon Accumulation
July 31, 2008
Summary:
Data from existing long-term field experiments provides the best
source of knowledge about tillage and other production management
effects on soil carbon content. The preponderance of this data shows
that that adoption of no-tillage increases soil C, relative to
conventional tillage, in most U.S. cropland soils.
Background:
Numerous studies of replicated, long-term field experiments
comparing conventional tillage (e.g. moldboard plow, chisel, disk) and
no-tillage have demonstrated that most soils, following conversion to
no-tillage, show an increase in soil carbon (C) content relative to
tilled soils, when the measurements are integrated over the full depth
of soil affected by tillage (typically the top 20-30 cm) (see reviews
by Paustian et al. 1997, West and Post 2002, Ogle et al. 2005). In
general, positive soil C responses are obtained first after several
years of no-till management (Six et al. 2004) and after 20-30 years,
the relative rates of C accumulation tend to decline as soil C levels
approach a new equilibrium level under no-till conditions (West and
Post 2002). Specific mechanisms by which the physical disturbance from
tillage increases soil C loss (and conversely, that reduce soil C loss
under no-till) have been proposed and supported by field and
experimental evidence (e.g. Six et al. 2000, Denef et al. 2004). On the
basis of this experimental evidence, sequestration factors for reduced
and no-tillage management have been developed (Ogle et al. 2005) and
implemented for inclusion in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories (IPCC
2006) and values for C credits due to no-till management have been
sanctioned by the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).
At the same time, it has been long recognized that not all soils
respond positively in terms of gaining C under no-till--in particular,
soils with an already high content of soil C and cropland soils in
cool, moist climates often do not show increases in C content under no-
till compared to plow tillage; for example, this has been found for
several experimental sites in eastern Canada (Anger et al. 1997). The
reasons for this lack of response to reduced tillage intensity is not
yet clear, although preliminary results suggest that reduced
decomposition rates of buried residues under cool, moist climates and
`saturation' of physically-protected soil organic C in high C soils are
potential mechanisms (E. Gregorich, personal communication; D. Angers,
personal communication). However, the large majority of cropland soils
in the U.S. do not fall into this category.
Recently, a few researchers have raised questions about whether no-
till, in general, actually leads to a relative increase in soil carbon
when viewed at whole soil level, as illustrated in the papers by Baker
et al.\1\ and Blanco-Canqui and Lal.\2\ The foundation of their
arguments lay largely in the fact that most measurements of no-till
versus tillage systems in long-term experiments have often only
measured the top 30 cm or less of the soil profile, although several
sites have been measured to depths of up to 100 cm. These authors argue
that if soil carbon contents are summed to a greater depth of the soil
profile (e.g the top 0 to 60 or 100 cm) then in most cases there is no
statistically significant difference between different tillage systems.
The problem with this argument is two-fold. First, it is true that the
effects of no-till adoption are typically manifested in the top 20-30
cm of soil, which is the zone of soil disturbance in a tilled system!
The vast majority of tillage comparisons show no significant
differences in soil carbon content below the tillage zone (Ogle et al.
2005).\3\ Second, because the change in soil C due to tillage
management (the `signal') is relatively small relative to the
`background' soil C content (the `noise'), by adding in the additional
C stored in lower parts of the profile (even if differences below the
plow layer are not significant), this calculation increases the `noise'
in the estimate such that the signal-to-noise ratio decreases and thus
it is not surprising that comparisons of C content for the entire soil
profile are often not significantly different. A more meaningful
determination is to utilize, as far as possible, measurements for
different soil depth increments to the full depth of the soil profile
and then to evaluate whether soil C contents are different below the
tillage zone, and if not, then the estimates should be based on the
measurements encompassing the depth of tillage, where the main effects
of tillage management are manifested. This is the procedure that has
been used in developing the IPCC soil C change factors for tillage
management (IPCC, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Baker, J.M., T.E. Ochsner, R.T. Veterea and T.J. Griffis. 2007.
Tillage and soil carbon sequestration: What do we really know?
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118:1-5.
\2\ Blanco-Canqui, H. and R. Lal. 2008. No-tillage and soil-profile
carbon sequestration: An on-farm assessment. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 72:693-701.
\3\ Baker et al. (2007) argue that one way in which plowed soils
could accumulate more C in deeper depths in the soil profile, compared
to no-till, is if no-till results in a more superficial distribution of
roots, such that comparatively more root residues are deposited in
deeper soil zones under plow tillage. Unfortunately, there are very few
measurements of root distributions comparing tilled and no-tilled
systems--Baker et al. (2007) cite only one study (from Switzerland)
showing a deeper root distribution under plow tillage. While this
potential mechanism is worthy of further research, it does not merit
rejecting the many long-term tillage comparisons showing no significant
differences in soil C below the depth of tillage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other data that has been used to question whether no-till really
increases soil carbon are total ecosystem C flux from eddy covariance
measurements (Baker et al. 2007). While eddy covariance (EC) techniques
are a highly useful approach in C cycling research, there are several
drawbacks which make them inappropriate for drawing inference about
soil C changes. First, there are only (to our knowledge) 2-3 locations
in the U.S. where EC is being used to estimate ecosystem C balances for
systems under no-till (Baker et al., Verma et al. 2005), thus any
inferences made cannot be considered general for no-till systems.
Secondly, EC measurements have so far been for the first 2-3 years
following conversion to no-till, in other words, during the transition
phase between conventional and no-till when soil C increases are
expected to be lowest. Finally, the typical rates of C accumulation
determined from long-term plot studies (e.g. 0.1 to 0.5 tonnes C per
ha) are likely to be within the `error' estimate for annual net C
accumulation using EC methods, thus there is little confidence in the
estimates obtained for annual soil C changes (furthermore, EC estimates
to date are typically unreplicated, hence a true determination of the
error associated with these annual C changes are not possible). Hence
the best method for determining soil C changes due to changes in soil
management practices (including tillage) is through careful soil
measurements in which the accumulated change in soil C over several
years can be accurately determined.
An important point raised by Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2008) is that
we currently lack good data on tillage effects under actual on-farm
conditions. Our best information on tillage impacts are from field
experiments administered by land grant universities and by governmental
research agencies (e.g. ARS).\4\ However, the approach taken in the
paper by Blanco-Canqui and Lal--i.e., paired field (`across the fence')
comparisons of tilled and no-till practices--involved a number of
serious shortcomings. First, paired comparisons--because they lack a
true control--have a high degree of uncertainty. Even if similar soil
and slope conditions are chosen it is impossible to know if soil carbon
contents were the same before a change in tillage practices occurred.
Second, in on-farm comparisons it is difficult to isolate the effect of
tillage from other management variables. In most of the comparisons
described by Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2008), crop rotations and nutrient
management, as well as tillage, were different within the paired
comparisons--hence apparent differences between fields cannot, in fact,
be attributed to tillage. As the authors themselves point out, several
of the apparent tillage differences, if real, are likely due to factors
other than tillage, e.g., from pg. 697, ``Unlike the NT [no-till]
field, however, the PT [plow tillage] field was under winter wheat and
rye cover crops, which were plowed under every year. Thus we
hypothesize that the higher SOC [soil organic carbon] with PT may have
been due to the use of cover crops. In MLRA 124, the higher SOC with PT
may have been due to the use of continuous corn, a high biomass-
producing crop, in contrast with the corn-soybean-alfalfa rotation in
the NT field. Annual burying of coarse corn residues in PT soils may
have increased SOC at lower depths compared with the relatively low-
biomass-producing rotation adopted in NT farming''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ However, it should be pointed out that the vast majority of
agricultural field research being used for management and policy
decisions in other areas (e.g. on genetics, yield, nutrient management,
etc.) is also derived from controlled field research settings, and not
from on-farm studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of using unreliable paired comparisons, new measurements of
soil C change under actual on-farm conditions should be based on a
resampling over time of on-farm benchmark sites, as part of a
nationwide soil C monitoring network. Such a network is currently under
development as part of the National Resources Inventory (NRI)
administered by USDA-NRCS (J. Goebel, personal communication).
Resources to establish and build out this network should be a high
priority. In the meantime, our data from existing long-term field
experiments provides the best source of knowledge about tillage (and
other management) effects on soil C--here, the preponderance of
evidence supports the conclusion that adoption of no-tillage increases
soil C, relative to conventional tillage, in most U.S. cropland soils.
References
Angers, D.A., M.A. Bolinder, M.R. Carter, E.G. Gregorich, C.F.
Drury, B.C. Liang, R.P. Voroney, R.R. Simard, R.G. Donald, R.P. Beyaert
and J. Martel. 1997. Impact of tillage practices on organic carbon and
nitrogen storage in cool, humid soils of eastern Canada. Soil Tillage
Res. 41:191-201.
Baker, J.M., T.E. Ochsner, R.T. Veterea and T.J. Griffis. 2007.
Tillage and soil carbon sequestration. What do we really know?
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118:1-5.
Blanco-Canqui, H. and R. Lal. 2008. No-tillage and soil-profile
carbon sequestration: An on-farm assessment. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 72:693-701.
Denef, K., J. Six, R. Merckx, and K. Paustian. 2004. Carbon
sequestration in microaggregates of no-tillage soils with different
clay mineralogy. Soil Science Society of America Journal 68:1935-1944.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006. 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia
L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan.
Ogle, S.M., F.J. Breidt and K. Paustian. 2005. Agricultural
management impacts on soil organic carbon storage under moist and dry
climatic conditions of temperate and tropical regions. Biogeochemistry
72:87-121.
Paustian, K., O. Andren, H. Janzen, R. Lal, P. Smith, G. Tian, H.
Tiessen, M. van Noordwijk and P. Woomer. 1997. Agricultural soil as a C
sink to offset CO2 emissions. Soil Use and Management
13:230-244.
Six, J., Elliott, E.T. and Paustian, 2000. K. Soil macroaggregate
turnover and microaggregate formation: A mechanism for C sequestration
under no-tillage agriculture. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 32:2099-2103.
Six, J., S.M. Ogle, F.J. Breidt, R.T. Conant, A.R. Mosier and K.
Paustian. 2004. The potential to mitigate global warming with no-
tillage management is only realized when practiced in the long term.
Global Change Biology 10:155-160.
Verma, S.B., A. Dobermann, K.G. Cassman, D.T. Walters, J.M. Knops,
T.J. Arkebauer, A.E. Suyker, G.G. Barba, B. Amos, H. Yang, D. Ginting,
K.G. Hubbard, A.A. Gitelson and E. A Walter-Shea. 2005. Annual carbon
dioxide exchange in irrigated and rainfed maize-based agroecosystems.
Agri. Forest. Meteror. 131:77-96.
Question 1. Do you think that creating a market for low value woody
waste material from Federal forests in the RFS would create a financial
incentive to expand forest management practices or other forest
stewardship activities?
Answer. The short answer to this question is yes, because the RFS
requires blenders and distributors to sell specific quantities of
biofuels produced from specific sources and feedstocks. Including
biomass produced as a result of public land management among those
sources will establish a guaranteed market for these materials and
direct capital towards an expansion of these management practices. On
the other hand, excluding biomass from public land management will
ensure that fuel producers and blenders actively avoid these materials
in favor of feedstocks that are eligible, such as agricultural
commodities, energy crops, and farm residues.
To explore this question more thoroughly, it is important that we
define what is meant by ``expand forest management''. There are several
perspectives on what an expansion of Federal forest management could
entail and whether or not that would be a positive thing. In the view
of many organizations, including EESI, there are many acres of Federal
forestland that could benefit from silvicultural activities intended to
restore past ecological conditions, maintain ecosystem functions, or
improve the value of forest stands from an economic or ecological
perspective. As I outlined in my testimony, harvesting biomass can be
an effective tool in many forests for creating habitat, promoting
biodiversity, improving timber stocks, slowing or preventing pest
infestations, reducing fire risk, and achieving a number of other
objectives. These activities are referred to by a number of different
names, including ecosystem restoration, timber stand improvement, and
forest stewardship, but they all have in common the fact that they
provide social, economic, and ecological benefits above and beyond the
value of the wood products that are produced. These activities are not
appropriate in all forests, but they can be valuable silvicultural
tools where they are appropriate.
Unfortunately, in today's market most stand improvement activities
are either only marginally profitable or, more usually, a net
expenditure (these activities are commonly known as `pre-commercial
thinnings'). Although some industrial forest owners may have the
capital to treat these activities as long-term investments, most non-
industrial private forest (NIPF) owners, as well as the Federal
Government, cannot afford to invest in these treatments on any
meaningful scale. Because of this, the U.S. Forest Service has included
developing new and expanded markets for bioenergy and bio-based
products as an important goal of its woody biomass utilization
strategy.\1\ The exclusion of this material from the RFS will make it
more difficult to develop markets for low-quality wood, small diameter
trees, brush, and other low value forest products. Eliminating this
exclusion is a necessary first step to developing these markets and
providing the capital that is necessary to achieve national stewardship
and forest restoration objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Patton-Mallory, Marcia, ed. 2008. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture woody biomass utilization strategy.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 17 p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to the preceding perspective, a number of groups and
individuals see expanded forest management in Federal forests as
essentially a dangerous precedent to set. A minority of these groups
ascribe to a philosophy that sees all intensive human activities as
inappropriate in public forests. The majority of these groups, however,
are more concerned with specific environmental impacts they believe
would result from an expansion of existing management. This viewpoint
tends to downplay the value of stewardship activities and focus on the
negative consequences for forest ecosystems, wildlife, soils, and water
resources that could result from increased management activities. In
addition, people with this perspective frequently do not trust Federal
land managers to manage public resources responsibly and for the
greater good of the public. There is validity to many of these
concerns. Sloppy or inappropriate management practices can undoubtedly
have unintended environmental consequences.\2\ In some cases, the
impacts of these practices on specific processes and components of
forest ecosystems are not yet even fully understood.\3\ History and
experience also provide reasons to warrant concern; past (and existing)
markets for biomass products, such as charcoal and woodchips, have
often led to clear cutting and other destructive management
practices.\4\-\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ R.A. Young and R.L. Giese (Ed.). Introduction to Forest
Science. 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1990. 586 p.
\3\ Hacker, J.J. 2005. Effects of Logging Residue Removal on Forest
Sites: A Literature Review. West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission. 29 p.
\4\ Kambewa, P., B. Mataya, K. Sichinga, and T. Johnson. 2007.
``Charcoal: The Reality, A Study of Charcoal Consumption, Trade, and
Production, in Malawi.'' International Institute for Environment and
Development. 58 p.
\5\ The Southern Center for Sustainable Forests (Duke). 2000.
``Economic and Ecological Impacts Associated With Wood Chip Production
in North Carolina, Integrated Research Project Summary.'' Prepared for
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 82
p.
\6\ Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills. ``Chip Mill
Experiences in Other States.'' Missouri Department of Natural
Resources. http://www.dnr.mo.gov/chipmills/fr_sectionh.htm (accessed
August 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons mentioned above, some people feel that incentives
such as the RFS could promote widespread and destructive practices
across many of the country's national forests and other public lands.
Implicit in this thinking, however, is the assumption that Federal land
management is primarily driven by the marketplace. This is far from
true. The marketplace is certainly important in determining what
projects are feasible or preferable at a given time, but the broad
national objectives behind Federal land management, such as
biodiversity, wildlife habitat, watershed protection, and resource
production, are established by law. Several land management acts,
including those for the national forests (16 U.S.C. 1604), BLM public
lands (43 U.S.C. 1712), and the National Wildlife Refuge System (16
U.S.C. 668dd), collectively identify these broad objectives and require
individual management units to prepare comprehensive management plans
illustrating how the broad objectives translate into local, on-the-
ground management prescriptions. These management plans are open to
public comment and judicial review. Additional environmental laws,
notably the Endangered Species Act and national Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA), help to further ensure that public land
management activities are driven by principles of good stewardship and
not merely by the demands of the marketplace.
Another error exists in some groups thinking that all public lands
would be open to biomass harvesting. This a misplaced fear. Out of the
nearly 672 million acres of public land, more than 105 million acres
(815.7 percent) are currently classified as wilderness \7\ and are
therefore off-limits to any commercial activities (16 U.S.C. 1133).
Many more acres are inaccessible due to topography, infrastructure, or
remoteness.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Congressional Research Service. Federal Land Management
Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management. RL32293. 75 p.
\8\ Oak Ridge National Laboratory (DOE) and USDA. DOE GO-102995-
2135, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry:
Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. April 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize my answer, I do believe that including public lands in
future versions of the RFS will aid considerably in providing needed
financial incentives to expand forest management where that management
is in line with national management directives, mandatory site-specific
management plans, and public law. Existing restrictions will largely or
entirely prevent the expansion of management activities that fly in the
face of statutory stewardship objectives and environmental review.
Furthermore, this financial incentive will not expand management in the
millions of acres that are classified as Wilderness or are otherwise
inaccessible.
Question 2 Your testimony discussed the effect of forest thinning
and silvicultural activities on the ability of a watershed to function
properly and increase water yield. Can you explain how thinning a
forest can be part of a stewardship plan to improve water quality and
forest health?
Answer. Water is one of the most valuable of the many goods and
services produced in forests. Approximately \2/3\ of drinking water in
the United States is generated from forested landscapes.\9\ The
Congress recognized this important fact in the Organic Act of 1897,
establishing that one of the primary purposes of the national forest
system would be ``to secure favorable conditions of water flows'' (16
U.S.C. 471).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The National Academy of Sciences. July 2008. Report in Brief:
Hydrologic Effects of a Changing Forest Landscape. 4 p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As water moves through a forested watershed, it is in a state of
constant interaction with soils, trees, and other forest vegetation.
Evaporation, transpiration, infiltration, surface flow, and other
measures of hydrological function are all directly and indirectly
influenced by:
(1) stand-level characteristics, such as canopy cover and tree
density, and
(2) landscape-level characteristics, such as stand heterogeneity
and species diversity.
For this reason, any activity that modifies vegetation, including
thinning, has the potential to alter the flow, storage, and chemical
properties of water in the watershed. These interactions are complex,
however, and vary widely from forest to forest. Like all aspects of
forest management, determination of appropriate management activities
must be made on a stand-by-stand basis, using site-specific conditions
and management objectives as a guide.
The relationship between water quantity and forest coverage is
especially complex. Broadly speaking, harvesting activities can be used
to temporarily increase streamflow after storm events
\10\-\13\ but the effect is generally short-lived and
dependent on repeated treatments.\14\ Harvests and thinning activities
can also be effective at increasing accumulation of snow under the
forest canopy.\15\ Snowpacks are an important source of water across
much of the United States and a deeper snowpack translates into greater
total storage of water. On some forests, however, thinning can also
result in accelerated loss of the snowpack and higher peak flows,\16\
increasing the chances of flooding. Early snowpack melting is highly
correlated with an increase in wildfires.\17\ As climate change
exacerbates this effect, we will want to be even more careful that
forest management activities do not have unintended consequences. Local
conditions, including flood risk and wildfire conditions, must always
be carefully scrutinized to ensure that harvesting activities will help
achieve water quantity objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Troendle, C.A. 1983. The potential for water yield
augmentation from forest management in the Rocky Mountain region.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 19(3): 359-373.
\11\ Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest
on annual water yield. Journal of Hydrology 176: 79-95.
\12\ R.A. Young and R.L. Giese (Ed.). Introduction to Forest
Science. 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1990. 586 p.
\13\ Brooks, K.N., P.F. Ffolliot, H.M. Gregersen, and L.F. DeBano.
Hydrology and the management of watersheds. 3rd Ed. Blackwell
Publishing, 2003. 547 p.
\14\ The National Academy of Sciences. July 2008. Report in Brief:
Hydrologic Effects of a Changing Forest Landscape. 4 p.
\15\ Brooks, K.N., P.F. Ffolliot, H.M. Gregersen, and L.F. DeBano.
Hydrology and the management of watersheds. 3rd Ed. Blackwell
Publishing, 2003. 547 p.
\16\ Brooks, K.N., P.F. Ffolliot, H.M. Gregersen, and L.F. DeBano.
Hydrology and the management of watersheds. 3rd Ed. Blackwell
Publishing, 2003. 547 p.
\17\ Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, T.W. Swetnam.
2006. Warming and earlier spring increase Western U.S. forest wildlife
activity. Science 313: 940-943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thinning and harvesting activities can also be used to achieve
water quality objectives, especially in the context of fire management.
High-severity wildfires can increase erosion, and, ultimately, sediment
flow to water bodies.\18\ Through a judicious thinning of understory
vegetation and overly dense stands, often called hazardous fuel
reduction, the frequency and severity of wildfires can be effectively
reduced in some forests.\19\-\23\ However, hazardous fuel
reduction is not appropriate for all forest types.\24\ Where this
practice is appropriate, consideration must be given to possible trade-
offs between water quality benefits and potential negative impacts,
such as soil compaction and erosion from the use of heavy
machinery.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Brooks, K.N., P.F. Ffolliot, H.M. Gregersen, and L.F. DeBano.
Hydrology and the management of watersheds. 3rd Ed. Blackwell
Publishing, 2003. 547 p.
\19\ Agee, J.K. and C.N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest
fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211:83-96.
\20\ Brose, P. and D. Wade. 2002. Potential fire behavior in pine
flatwood forests following three different fuel reduction techniques.
Forest Ecology and Management 163: 71-84.
\21\ Pollet, J. and P.N. Omi. 2002. Effect of thinning and
prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests.
International Journal of Wildland Fire 11(1)1-10.
\22\ Stephens, S. L. 1998. Evaluation of the effects of
silvicultural and fuels treatment on potential fire behavior in Sierra
Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 105:21-35.
\23\ Graham, R. T., S. McCaffrey, and T.B. Jain (tech. eds.) 2004.
Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior
and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station. 43 p.
\24\ Odion, D.C., E.J. Frost, J.R. Strittholt, H. Jiang, D.A.
Dellasala, and Max. A. Moritz. 2004. Patterns of Fire Severity and
Forest Conditions in the Western Klamath Mountains, California.
Conservation Biology 18:4 927-936.
\25\ J.J. Rhodes, W. L. Baker. 2008. Fire probability, fuel
treatment effectiveness, and ecological tradeoffs in Western U.S.
Public Forests. The Open Forest Science Journal 1:1-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hydrological consequences of thinning or any other form of
forest management should never be considered in isolation, but as part
of an overall management strategy to achieve multiple stewardship
objectives, including habitat management, timber production, ecological
restoration, recreation, and aesthetics. To this end, a management plan
is an essential tool on both private and public lands, the latter of
which already require exhaustive plans (see Question 1). A management
plan is a comprehensive document that identifies objectives and
prescribes a series of management activities that will achieve those
objectives in a complementary fashion. In some forests, objectives will
be best achieved by allowing stands to develop on their own, but in
many forests some mixture of harvests, thinning, and other
silvicultural activities will be valuable tools, especially where
ecosystem processes, stand structure, and habitat have been adversely
impacted by past management activities. In these forests, restoration
activities will generate woody biomass in the form of logging slash,
brush, and low-quality trees that often can be available for use in the
production of renewable fuels.
The most important thing that must be done to preserve and maintain
both water quantity and water quality is to ensure that forested
watersheds remain forested. When forests are replaced by urban sprawl,
suburban development, or other non-forest uses, watershed functioning
can change drastically and often for the worse.\26\ Given increasing
financial pressures to sell or develop forestlands across the country,
providing financial incentives for landowners to keep and maintain
forests should be a crucial component of any policy or strategy that
seeks to protect water supplies. Unfortunately, entire watersheds
composed primarily of private forestland are effectively excluded from
the Renewable Fuel Standard due to the narrow definition of renewable
biomass included in the law, specifically section 42 U.S.C.
7545(o)(1)(I)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Brooks, K.N., P.F. Ffolliot, H.M. Gregersen, and L.F. DeBano.
Hydrology and the management of watersheds. 3rd Ed. Blackwell
Publishing, 2003. 547 p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In New York State, the Watershed Forestry Program (WFP) \27\ \28\
is an excellent example of a program promoting private forest
stewardship as a means of achieving broad watershed objectives. This
program was established in the 1990s, when the declining quality of
drinking water in New York City forced decision makers to choose
between installing an expensive filtration system or to find a way to
protect and preserve the upstream watershed. Unlike municipal
watersheds dominated by public or state land, 90 percent of upstate New
York is privately-owned by a large number of farmers and non-industrial
forest owners; 75 percent of this watershed is forested. Although at
the time filtration was the standard approach, far-sighted officials
decided to work with upstate landowners to prevent urban development
and promote best management practices on farms and forests. To
accomplish this, the Watershed Agricultural Council (WAC) was
established as a liaison between the city and rural landowners. The WFP
was created within WAC to focus on stewardship of forested landscapes.
The program consists of cost-share programs, technical assistance,
education/outreach and other incentives to help landowners develop
management plans, implement best management practices, and improve the
economic viability of working forests. The success of this program is
dependent on this economic viability to preserve the diverse, forested
landscape that provides clean, reliable water supplies downstream. By
excluding these lands from the RFS and removing an important incentive
for a valuable product (renewable fuels), the current biomass
definition will have an effect directly opposed to the goals of this
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ V. Brunette and R.H. Germain.2003. Forest Management in the
New York City Watershed. 0649-B3. Submitted to the XII World Forestry
Congress.
\28\ Watershed Agricultural Council. Watershed Agricultural
Council's Forestry Program: 10-Year Anniversary: 1997-2007. 40 p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize, there are a number of circumstances in which forest
management activities such as thinning can be used to help achieve
objectives for both water quantity and quality. There are also a number
of circumstances in which thinning can have negative impacts. Forest
management activities must always be tailored to the specific
ecological characteristics and objectives of the forest under
consideration. Thinning can be a valuable tool in managing forests for
a multitude of values and objectives, including ecosystem restoration,
habitat management, watershed maintenance, and other forest health
objectives. Engaging landowners in multiple-value forest stewardship
can be effective in preserving a forested landscape against development
and urban encroachment. This is the single most important thing that
can be done to ensure healthy watersheds and clean, plentiful water for
generations to come.
Question 3. If woody biomass cannot count against the RFS, what
else could it be used for?
Answer. There is a wide selection of products that can be made from
woody biomass in addition to renewable fuels. It is preferable,
however, that we retain the fullest possible range of options for
utilization of this renewable resource, so that communities wishing to
utilize woody biomass can take full advantage of the regional
variations in market demand, business opportunities, and economic
constraints. Biomass in all its forms will need to be an important
component of any strategy to address global climate change, one of the
biggest environmental and social hazards facing the planet today. The
most important component in such a strategy must be the substitution of
renewable alternatives for fossil fuels wherever they are being used--
in the production of electricity, heat, liquid fuels, and other
chemicals and products. There are, however, a number of renewable
technologies that can be used in the production of electricity and
heat, including wind, solar, hydrokinetic, tidal, and geothermal
technologies. On the other hand, biomass is the only viable, short-term
alternative to petroleum-based transportation fuels. Until we have the
capacity to power a substantial number of vehicles with renewable
electricity or other renewable technologies, renewable fuels will
remain an essential tool in the effort to reduce oil consumption and
stall the acceleration of climate change.
In the absence of appropriate incentives for renewable fuels, there
are a number of products that can be made from woody biomass. Pulp and
paper mills are the traditional end users of small trees, low-quality
wood, and other sources of biomass unusable for sawn wood products. An
increasing number of lumber mills are also able to produce boards,
poles, fence posts, and other solid wood products from small-diameter
and low-quality biomass. Engineered wood products, such as chip board
and oriented strand board (OSB), are another possible outlet for this
material. There are also a number of other energy products (in addition
to renewable fuels) that can be produced from biomass. Woodchips,
sawdust, and hog fuel can be used to produce electricity in clean, low-
carbon biopower plants. Wood pellets, firewood, and wood chips can
provide space and process heating. Woody biomass can also be combusted
at high-efficiency in combined-heat-and-power (CHP) operations.
Additionally, a wide variety of chemicals, plastics, foams, and other
bio-based products can be produced from wood and cellulosic materials.
In the face of such an impressive menu of options, it is tempting
to draw the conclusion that the exclusion of woody feedstocks from the
RFS is of no consequence--that there are plenty of other uses and
plenty of other market opportunities for this renewable resource. This
would be a mistaken conclusion for a number of reasons. It is
preferable that markets for biomass be as diverse and inclusive as
possible. Competition for woody biomass among a larger number of end
users will help ensure landowners the best price for their biomass and
encourage them to invest in better management practices. Lack of
competitive markets for biomass over the years has been one of the
factors leading to limited use of stand improvement thinning and other
long-term forest investments. This has also led to an increased
pressure to sell land to developers.
These products can all be produced singly, but greater efficiencies
are often achieved through producing two or more products in an
integrated biorefinery. By producing a mixture of products
simultaneously, an integrated biorefinery can utilize a greater
proportion of the chemical constituents found in biomass feedstocks,
adding value to the production chain and reducing waste. Many
integrated biorefineries will likely produce renewable fuels as one of
the higher value products. If many woody feedstocks are excluded from
the RFS, the entire suite of products being produced will be rendered
less competitive and perhaps non-competitive.
Whether one or multiple products are produced, there is
considerable regional variability in market demand, economic
conditions, production costs, infrastructure, natural resources, and
local laws. Local market opportunities (and constraints) will dictate
what products are most economically feasible in a given state or
region. If the demand for transportation fuels in a region is the
strongest, then renewable fuel producers may be able to offer the best
price for material in comparison to other buyers. By removing biofuel
production from the equation, a complete market does not exist and the
true value of the material may never be realized. Ultimately, it should
be up to the community to decide the best use of its forest resources.
For example, of the 7.7 million households in the United States
that use heating oil for space heating, 5.3 million (69 percent) of
these households are located in the Northeast states.\29\ Within these
states,\30\ 52 percent of all home heating utilizes heating oil.
Unfortunately, the price of this essential commodity is escalating
rapidly. As of August 5, 2008, the NYMEX Futures Price for heating oil
was $3.28/gal, up from $1.94/gal a year ago.\31\ As these prices
continue to rise, the generation of thermal energy will become an
increasingly attractive use for local biomass resources, including wood
chips, cord wood, wood pellets, or biomass-based heating fuel). In
contrast to the Northeast, states in the West \32\ use very little
heating oil. Only Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
and Washington use heating oil at all, and in no more than seven
percent of homes. While this region may not have the demand for heating
oil substitutes, there is a significant demand for transportation
fuels. In 2006 the western United States used approximately 1,167
million barrels of oil for transportation purposes, approximately 23
percent of the national total.\33\ Renewable fuels may very well be the
most economically feasible use of woody biomass throughout the west.
And indeed the West has ample stocks of biomass in its forests, many of
which are on public lands and could benefit from thinning activities,
but these are excluded from the RFS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ United States Department of Energy. ``Northeast Home Heating
Oil Reserve.'' United States Department of Energy. http://
www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/heatingoil/ (accessed August
11, 2008).
\30\ Northeast states include CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI, and VT.
\31\ Energy Information Administration. ``New York Harbor No. 2
Heating Oil Future Contract 1.'' Energy Information Administration.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rhoc1d.htm (accessed August 11,
2008).
\32\ Western states include AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, SD, UT,
WA, and WY.
\33\ Energy Information Administration. ``Table F9a: Total
Petroleum Consumption Estimates by Sector, 2006.'' Energy Information
Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_fuel/html/
fuel_use_pa.html (accessed August 11, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument has been made that renewable fuels are a less
sustainable use for forest biomass than heat or electricity. This is a
somewhat misleading argument. It is true that there is a finite supply
of biomass that can be sustainably removed from a forest at any given
point in time. It is also true that sustainability should be at the
core of all forest management decisions. The end use of the materials
being removed, however, does not affect conditions in the woods. What
matters is not what product is being produced, but how the harvest will
improve or degrade the forest ecosystem. The impact of a given harvest
on habitat, biodiversity, and water quality will be the same,
regardless of whether the wood is shipped to a CHP plant, a renewable
fuels producer, or a lumber mill.
In regions with limited demand for heat and power, a new market for
renewable fuels could provide financial incentives to engage in
restoration forestry, habitat management, stand improvement thinning
and other proactive stewardship activities. Incentives which add value
to currently undervalued material could help defray some of the cost of
improving forest resources or restoring desired ecosystem conditions.
By getting the most value for harvested woody biomass, the limited
budgets that are available for these activities can be stretched to
achieve more. On public lands, especially, funding for stand
improvement and restoration activities is decreasing due to budget cuts
and the escalating costs of fire fighting.\34\ Improving the cost-
competitiveness of woody biomass (with incentives such as the RFS) will
open up private sector capital that can be leveraged to achieve these
and other important stewardship objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ USDA Forest Service. February 2008. Fiscal Year 2009,
President's Budget, Budget Justification. 426 p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When discussing alternative uses for biomass, it is important to
acknowledge that the RFS language has set a precedent regarding the
definition of renewable biomass. Future Federal and state laws, such as
a Renewable Portfolio Standard or renewable tax credits, could adopt
this definition, erecting a barrier for the use of biomass for many
other purposes. For these reasons, it is important that we have a
solid, agreed-upon definition of renewable biomass that promotes
sustainability, innovation and appropriate technologies at the
appropriate scale. A suite of incentives that builds off of the same
definition will provide a level playing field among the different
possible uses for wood.
Question 4. Do you think EPA will be able to track if wood procured
from a tree plantation versus a naturally regenerated forest was used
to count against the RFS? How do you think this tracking and process
will work?
Answer. Tracking forest products from woods to consumer is
notoriously difficult, but it is increasingly gaining popularity among
conservationists, sustainability experts, and the forest products
industry as a solution to the unsustainable (and often illegal)
exploitation of global forest resources.\35\ Even though there are
numerous problems and difficulties with certification systems, many
companies involved in both the forest products and the retail industry
are moving in this direction. Companies such as Lowe's are currently
purchasing and marketing wood products by the Forest Stewardship
Council as a means to avoid products from endangered forests as well as
give customers the ability to make an informed purchase.\36\ As the
public becomes more engaged and informed about sustainability issues,
they will increasingly look to make sure that products sold in the
United States are produced in a responsible manner. A number of
provisions in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), including the
greenhouse gas screens, essentially require the EPA to implement some
type of tracking system to ensure that production of feedstocks,
including woody biomass, meet emissions screens and other requirements.
Although this process will not be easy, it is not an impossible task.
The development of an effective tracking system could be an
opportunity, not only to ensure that greenhouse gas screens are met,
but also to verify that feedstocks are produced using sustainable
management practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Kemper, S. Spring 2008. ``Forest Destruction's Prime
Suspect''. Environment Yale 7(1):4-31.
\36\ Lowe's. ``Lowe's Wood Policy.'' Lowe's. http://www.lowes.com/
lowes/lkn?action=pg&p=PressReleases/wood_policy.html (accessed August
12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementing a feedstock tracking system will require some hard
work and creativity on the part of EPA, but the task is unnecessarily
complicated by the narrow and exclusionary nature of the definition of
renewable biomass included in the RFS. This definition will not only
make tracking more difficult (and consequently more expensive), but it
will also serve to focus the EPA's tracking efforts on details that are
entirely irrelevant to forest sustainability. The definition draws
distinctions between sources of woody biomass based primarily on two
criteria:
(1) whether the material came from public or private forests and
(2) whether the trees being cut come from plantations or naturally-
regenerated stands.
Unfortunately, neither of these criteria are true sustainability
criteria. The first only tells you who owns the forest and the second
is only one single silvicultural detail arbitrarily selected out of the
many such details that could describe how a forest is being managed. By
themselves, neither ownership nor regeneration system will give you any
information at all about whether or not a forest is being managed
sustainably. The sustainability of a managed forest can only be
assessed by looking at the whole suite of management practices,
management objectives, and ecological conditions found in the forest at
hand.
Not only are these criteria uninformative to the sustainability
question, but they will add a variety of logistical complexities to the
tracking process, especially the distinction between planted and
naturally-regenerated stands. Many forests are composed of a mixture of
stands relying on both artificial (planted) and natural regeneration.
Often, there is a mixture of planted trees and trees that grew from a
seed or a sprout (natural regeneration) within the same stand. Under
these circumstances, it is unlikely that loggers will be able to
separate each stem, branch, and chunk of biomass in the woods by
whether or not it came from a planted tree. In many cases, it is not
even possible to determine by looking at a mature tree whether it was
planted or seeded naturally many decades before.
Similar problems will arise with any biomass feedstocks that do not
originate exclusively from a single forest, such as woody residues from
sawmills, furniture mills, and pulp mills. These residues are an
attractive feedstock because they are concentrated at the mill and may
require less transportation and processing. The production of renewable
fuels from these residues can provide an additional revenue stream for
mills, whether those residues are sold, or better yet, utilized on
location as an integrated biorefinery. Additionally, mill residues are
an attractive feedstock from an environmental perspective, as they are
byproducts of existing industries and do not require any direct
increase in the number of trees being harvested. Unfortunately,
industrial residues are not explicitly included in the current
definition as a separate allowable category, and EPA will, therefore,
have to track these residues to the ultimate source. This is not an
easy task, however. Many mills source materials from a mixture of
Federal lands, plantations, naturally-regenerated forests, and foreign
imports. Unless residues were to be segregated by their exact source,
it would be extremely difficult to determine the exact source of the
residue and, therefore, the portion of available mill residue that
would be eligible under the current rules of the Renewable Fuel
Standard would be unclear. To require mills to segregate residues based
on source could also increase operational costs of a biorefinery and
act as a disincentive. Currently there are two Department of Energy-
funded biorefinery projects in Maine \37\ and Wisconsin \38\ co-located
with pulp mills to produce biofuels. If we are going to invest public
money in these important technologies, we should be careful to ensure
that government incentives and programs work in a complementary fashion
and are not at cross-purposes with each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ ``RSE Pulp & Chemical, LLC.'' Department of Energy. 2008.
\38\ ``Flambeau River Biofuels LLC.'' Department of Energy, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-domestic sources of biomass will likely be even more difficult
to track, as an enormous quantity of imported wood and wood products is
of unknown origin.\39\ The illegal trafficking of globally harvested
and smuggled timber compounds this problem. The Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (the farm bill) included amendments to the Lacey Act
intended to reduce traffic in illegal timber. The Lacey Act was
originally enacted to control the illegal trafficking of wildlife
across state lines.\40\ The farm bill amended the act to prohibit the
transfer of all illegally harvested wood and wood products into the
United States. If implemented properly, the Lacey Act amendment
provides a means to ensure that wood sourced for products as well as
biofuels production has been harvested legally according to domestic
and international laws. This is an important piece of legislation, but
it only protects against the importation of illegal wood products, not
legal products produced unsustainably. The two often go together, but
not always. EPA will need to determine how best to label legally-
imported biomass and count it towards the RFS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Kemper, S. Spring 2008. ``Forest Destruction's Prime
Suspect''. Environment Yale 7(1):4-31.
\40\ Office of Law Enforcement. ``Pacific Region Law Enforcement
History.'' United States Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/
pacific/lawenforcement/law6.html (accessed August 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the difficulties in tracking wood products, there are a
number of examples of tracking systems currently in place. The Forest
Stewardship Council's (FSC) forest certification system is one example
of such a tracking system. Under FSC, third-party auditors certify
forests that are managed in accordance with a specific set of
sustainability criteria. All wood products, including furniture,
timber, pulp, and paper that originate from a certified forest can be
sold with the FSC label. This demonstrates to consumers that
responsible forestry activities have taken place throughout all steps
of production for a wood product. An important component of this system
is chain-of-custody certification, in which all companies involved in
the production or transfer of certified wood products must be certified
by the FSC and documentation must be kept by each company detailing the
sale or transfer of any products. This establishes a paper trail and
allows one to trace any wood product marked with the FSC label back to
an FSC certified forest. Under FSC chain of custody rules, producers of
wood products containing a mixture of certified and uncertified wood
have the option of labeling their products with the FSC Mixed Sources
label, assuming that uncertified wood meets certain basic standards of
legality, sustainability and social justice.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ``FSC Standard for Chain of Custody Certification.'' Forest
Stewardship Council, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It remains to be seen exactly how EPA will propose to track and
label biomass feedstocks for the RFS or how they will handle blended
feedstocks or feedstocks from multiple sources. They may use a manifest
chain-of-custody system, like FSC, or they might develop a new
approach. Whatever they decide, it is almost certain that the
exclusionary nature of the renewable biomass definition will inject
difficulties into the process and direct EPA's efforts away from
tracking the overall sustainability of biofuel feedstocks. There are
two solutions that can simultaneously make tracking biomass easier and
more effective:
(1) Rewrite the definition of renewable biomass to include genuine
measures of sustainability instead of exclusions. Woody biomass
should be eligible from any forest, public or private,
plantations or natural forests, as long as harvesting is done
in accordance with best management practices, improves and
maintains ecosystem services, and promotes other management
objectives.
(2) Require management plans for all forests participating in the
RFS, public and private. As a comprehensive record of forest
resources and silvicultural actions, management plans could
help simplify tracking how biomass is produced. Without a
management plan in place, it can be incredibly difficult, if
not impossible, to determine the source of biomass coming from
a particular ownership, especially whether it was grown using
natural or `planted' regeneration. Management plans are a key
component of FSC certification and other existing forest
certification systems.
These two changes would go a long toward simplifying the tracking
process and ensuring that the data being tracked are relevant to the
sustainability of the management practices being used, instead of just
ownership and sourcing.
Question 5. Are you concerned about potential biofuel plants
bypassing the United States and ending up building in Canada or
elsewhere, especially those wanting to use woody biomass, because of
the limitations of the RFS' renewable biomass definition?
Answer. Yes, I am very worried about renewable fuel companies
deciding to research, develop and commercialize conversion technologies
for wood outside of the United States. The RFS language rules out a
number of feedstocks, including substantial quantities of woody biomass
from both public and private lands. The exclusionary nature of this
definition cannot be anything but a disincentive to companies looking
to produce wood-based renewable fuels in the United States. It is very
probable that we will see a migration of capital, technology, and
talent to countries that have policies in place to encourage and
incentivize this technology. With this loss, we will also lose a great
opportunity to develop the declining forest products industry into a
robust and competitive industry producing a variety of products,
including renewable fuels, from woody biomass. Without such a major
turnaround, the production of pulp and timber will likely continue to
move offshore.
Canada is one likely destination for biofuels companies wishing to
relocate. In December 2006, Rona Ambrose, Canadian Minister of the
Environment, announced that the government would regulate the average
renewable content of gasoline requiring fuels to contain five percent
renewable content by 2010 (essentially a Renewable Fuel Standard).\42\
On June 26, 2008, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was amended
to give the government the authority to enact these regulations.\43\
Eligible feedstocks were not explicitly defined in the law; however,
the legislative summary of the bill authorizing this standard refers
explicitly to forest biomass when describing next-generation renewable
fuels.\44\ If the final Canadian regulation broadly includes woody
biomass, as it appears it will, this mandate (along with the enormous
forest resource in Canada) will be a huge incentive for companies
wishing to produce wood-based renewable fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ ecoACTION. ``Canada's New Government takes new step to protect
the environment with Biofuels.'' Government of Canada. http://
www.ecoaction.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/20061220-eng.cfm (accessed August
14, 2008).
\43\ ecoACTION. ``The Government of Canada Biofuels Bill Receives
Royal Assent.'' Government of Canada. http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/
index.jsp?articleid=407879 (accessed August 14, 2008).
\44\ Parliamentary Information and Research Service. ``Bill C-33:
An Act to Amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.''
Parliamentary Information and Research Service. 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On top of this, Canada also has a number of funding programs in
place to encourage the production of renewable fuels, including
Sustainable Development Canada. This program provides funding for a
number of renewable energy companies, including Woodland Biofuels, Inc,
based out of Ontario. Woodland Biofuels is currently planning to
construct a 20 million gallon per year cellulosic biofuel facility
utilizing woody biomass. The facility will be partially funded by $9.8
million in assistance from Sustainable Development Technology
Canada.\45\ Iogen Corporation is another Canadian biofuels company
receiving funding under this program. In 2007, Iogen received an $80
million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to construct a
commercial-scale cellulosic biorefinery in Shelley, ID using wheat
straw as the primary feedstock. However, in June of 2008 Iogen
suspended its operations in Idaho in favor of constructing a facility
in Canada. Iogen's reasoning for the move was that DOE failed to
convince investors that $250 million in loan guarantees would be
appropriated.\46\-\48\ According to Iogen, the NextGen
Biofuels Fund, established by Sustainable Development Technology Canada
in coordination with the Canadian government, will support up to 40
percent of eligible project costs.\49\ This is one specific example of
a facility moving to Canada because of the greater value and
reliability of the overall incentive package offered there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Woodland Biofuels, Inc. ``Woodland Biofuels--Engineering
Almost Complete.'' http://www.woodlandbiofuels.com/d-4-ournews.htm
(accessed August 11, 2008).
\46\ Ellis, Sean. ``Iogen Suspends Operations in Idaho.'' Idaho
Farm Bureau Federation.
http://www.idahofb.org/news/news.aspx?n=n&id=15507 (accessed August 11,
2008).
\47\ Fehrenbacher, Katie. ``Iogen Suspends U.S. Cellulosic Ethanol
Plant Plans.'' Earth2Tech. http://earth2tech.com/2008/06/04/iogen-
suspends-us-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-plans/ (accessed August 14, 2008).
\48\ ``Iogen Nixes Idaho for Ethanol Plant, Picks Saskatchewan.''
Soyatech. http://www.soyatech.com/news_story.php?id=8326 (accessed
August 14, 2008).
\49\ ``Major Step Forward for Proposed World Leading Ethanol
Biorefinery in Canada.'' Iogen Corporation. 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outside of Canada, there are a number of examples of renewable
energy corporations moving operations or shifting exports from one
country to another one offering better incentives. In 2006, Abengoa
Bioenergy, Inc. opened a pilot cellulosic biorefinery in Salamanca,
Spain, co-located with an existing starch-based ethanol facility.\50\
Production at this facility was halted in September of 2007 due to the
lack of a biofuels mandate or sufficient incentives in Spain. Abengoa
was forced to export its product to other countries in Europe at
increased costs. However, with a law going into effect in 2009
obligating the use of biofuels, production was able to resume in July
of 2008. According to Abengoa, measures such as this resulting in a
stable market are necessary to provide the financial resources to
develop advanced renewable fuels.\51\ Abengoa also operates a number of
biorefineries in the United States, including several pioneering the
use of cellulosic feedstocks. Since the RFS excludes most woody biomass
from the RFS, however, Abengoa may find itself in a similar situation
to the one they faced in Salamanca and may decide to leave the country
or export the fuel overseas. This export of fuels and products overseas
should be seen as wasted opportunities. The value of these products
would otherwise re-circulate within the domestic economy, providing
local jobs and adding value to other local industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Abengoa Bioenergy. ``Biocarburantes de Castilla y Leon
Commences Production with Home Produced Raw Material.'' Abengoa
Bioenergy. http://www.abengoabioenergy.com/sites/bioenergy/en/
acerca_de/sala_de_prensa/historico/2006/20060707_noticias.html
(accessed August 14, 2008).
\51\ Abengoa Bioenergy. ``Biocarburantes de Castilla y Leon
informs.'' Abengoa Bioenergy.
http://www.abengoabioenergy.com/sites/bioenergy/en/acerca--de/
sala_de_prensa/historico/2008/20080716_noticias.html (accessed August
14, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abengoa is also involved in a number of solar energy projects.
Abengoa Solar Inc. currently has a proposal to build a 280 MW solar
power plant in Arizona. However, with renewable energy tax credits set
to expire at the end of this year, according to Abengoa, this facility
will not be built in Arizona or anywhere in the United States. Kate
Maracas, vice president of Abengoa's Arizona operations, has stated
``Without the 30 percent investment tax credit, the numbers simply
don't work. So we can't get project financing.'' \52\ On the same day
this story was published, Abengoa announced that it had completed
financing worth =280 million for the construction of four solar
projects in Spain.\53\ Abengoa is looking to develop solar projects in
other locations, including Algeria and Morocco.\54\ This is a different
technology and a different incentive, but the principle is the same. If
we are not willing or able to offer reliable, effective incentives for
renewables, we will lose the technology, capital, and talent to those
countries that do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Fischer, Howard. ``Solar-Power Plant Hinges on Congress.''
Arizona Business Gazette. http://www.azcentral.com/business/abg/
articles/2008/08/07/20080807abg-solar0807.html (accessed August 14,
2008).
\53\ Abengoa Solar, Inc. ``Abengoa Solar Completes Financing for
New Solar Projects Worth More Than ?280 million.'' Abengoa Solar, Inc.
http://www.abengoa.es/sites/abengoa/en/noticias_y_publicaciones/
noticias/historico/noticias/2008/08_agosto/20080807_noticias.html
(accessed August 14, 2008).
\54\ Grimm, Ryan. ``McCain Absence Could End Arizona Project.''
Politico. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12159.html
(accessed August 14, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In another example, SunPower Corporation, a U.S. supplier of solar
cells and panels, has stated that they may have to move some business
overseas if renewable energy tax credits are not extended. SunPower
Chief Executive Officer Tom Werner in an interview stated, ``We control
our own destiny, (and) we'll be able to enter other new markets
rapidly, and we believe we can hold our guidance for 2008 and 2009,
even if the ITC doesn't pass, by moving business elsewhere.'' SunPower
expects to have its sales to the business market affected the most;
however, there are plans to expand business overseas in countries like
Italy, Greece, France, and Australia.\55\ On August 14, 2008, Pacific
Gas & Electric signed an agreement with SunPower and Topaz Solar Farms
LLC to supply a combined 800 MW of renewable energy. According to the
press release, both projects are contingent on the renewal of the
Federal energy tax credit.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Daily, Matt. ``SunPower View Solid Despite Tax Credit.''
Reuters UK. http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/
idUKN0337143820080603?sp=true (accessed August 14, 2008).
\56\ SunPower Corp. ``PG&E Signs Historic 800 NW Photovoltaic Solar
Agreements with OptiSolar and SunPower.'' SunPower Corp. http://
investors.sunpowercorp.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=328221 (accessed
August 14, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The global trade in wood pellets is another example of resources
relocating to follow a needed incentive--this time the package of
climate change laws and incentives in the E.U. According to a study
published in the Forest Products Journal,\57\ the bulk of wood pellets
produced in North America in 1997 were sold on the domestic market. In
the decade since that study was published, the market situation has
changed. While there is still local demand for wood pellets, there is a
larger market evolving in Europe where climate change legislation has
created incentives for power companies to boost their use of renewable
resources. Europe already consumes nearly 8 million tons of wood
pellets a year to run factories and power plants and heat entire
neighborhoods, and that amount is still increasing. In response to this
rising demand, a number of American and Canadian pellet producers have
begun shifting their focus to export sales on the European markets.
Corinth Wood Pellets LLC in Corinth, Maine recently began operation in
central Maine. Another Maine company, Maine Wood Pellets Company, hopes
to begin operating soon. Together, the two will be able to produce over
1 million tons of wood pellets a year, a substantial portion of which
are destined for the European market. Energex Pellet Fuel, Inc.,
another company focusing on export, currently bills itself as North
America's largest pellet fuel maker, producing 200,000 tons a year from
plants in Quebec and Pennsylvania. In the southern part of the country,
both Dixie Pellets, LLC, located near Selma, Alabama and Appling County
Pellets, LLC in Baxley, Georgia plan to begin exporting pellets to meet
European demand. Green Circle Bio Energy in Jackson County, Florida,
owned by a Swedish company, is building a plant with the capability of
producing 560,000 tons a year, primarily for the European market. Green
Circle Bio Energy calls it the largest wood pellet plant in the world.
Our inexpensive wood resources are attractive to other nations beyond
Europe, as well. In the past year, Green Energy Resources, Inc.
announced a 5 yr., $144 million dollar contract to export rough wood
chips to China for use in power production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Aruna, P.B., Larman, J.G., Araman, P., and F.W. Cubbage. 1997.
An analysis of wood pellets for export: a case study of Sweden as an
importer. Forest Products Journal 47(6): 49-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just a few examples--many more could be found within the
renewable energy industry and other industries as well. There will
always be a strong economic push for any company to locate where they
have access to adequate and reliable incentives, encouraging policies,
and minimal barriers to the production of particular products or the
use of particular resources. From an economic competitiveness and a
natural security perspective, it should be a national imperative to
encourage the development of renewable technologies and implementation
of renewable energy, including wood-based biofuels, right here on our
own shores. If we miss out on these opportunities, future generations
of Americans will be saddled with the choice between importing foreign
fuels and licensing foreign technology. Either way, the United States
risks becoming even more dependent on other countries for our most
basic (and strategic) needs.
From an environmental perspective, as well, we should strive to
have our biofuel feedstocks produced on American soil, where we can
regulate and oversee the production. We have in this country a wide
variety of laws and regulations at the Federal, state, and local levels
protecting against a great number of unsustainable practices and
environmentally-damaging activities. Furthermore, we are blessed with a
judicial system that is able and willing to enforce these laws.
Comparatively, many countries have lower or non-existent environmental
standards, and where these standards do exist, they are often ignored
by the courts. Corrupt officials, insufficient resources, and
recalcitrant cultures often render environmental regulations entirely
ineffective.
In a world of finite and dwindling fossil fuels, increasing global
conflict over energy, and greater and greater concern over the dangers
of global climate change, renewable energy is the future. For reasons
of national security, economic competitiveness, and environmental
sustainability, it is essential that we commit ourselves to developing
renewable technologies here in America and providing the adequate and
reliable incentives needed to make that happen. For that reason, the
Congress should amend the renewable biomass definition to include the
full range of renewable biomass resources that we have at our disposal.
______
Response to Questions Submitted to Arthur ``Butch'' Blazer, Forester,
State of New Mexico; Executive Member, Council of Western State
Foresters; Executive Member, National Association of State Foresters
Question 1. In recent years there has been an increase in the
quantity, intensity and overall scope of forest fires, particularly in
the western United States. What is the Forest Service doing now to
remove excess fuels from public forests, and how could the Renewable
Fuel Standard (RFS) facilitate this practice?
Answer. We will start by discussing a significant hurdle before the
agency which must be fixed. The Forest Service's ability to respond to
the increasing number and intensity of large, catastrophic wildfires by
removing excess fuels has been severely hampered by increasing fire
suppression costs. The agency's first priority is to protect human life
and property which often means fighting fires in the Wildland-Urban
Interface. Fighting fires near homes and communities is expensive and
is one of the lead contributing factors to the agency's escalating
annual fire suppression costs. The Forest Service now spends over half
its budget on fire suppression and is repeatedly forced to borrow from
other internal accounts (e.g., S&PF) including those designed to
proactively remove hazardous fuels from NFS and other public and
private forestlands. Help is needed from Congress to fix this fire
``borrowing'' situation, not only to repay borrowed funds but to secure
a long term fix by passing the House Natural Resources Committee markup
version of the FLAME Act (H.R. 5541).
It is important to mention the need to address all at-risk lands in
the discussion of excess fuels and forest health. The USFS and State
Foresters have partnered on a competitive funding process for State &
Private Forestry funds to ensure that the most at-risk areas or
projects that will have the greatest impact will be funded. This is a
key step in the right direction as many of the State & Private Forestry
programs, such as State Fire Assistance, can reduce the costs of
wildland fire suppression activities in the long run.
Now let us turn our attention to activities of the USFS specific to
public lands. The Forest Service has entered into various public-
private partnerships and utilized nontraditional contracting
authorities (i.e., stewardship contracts) aimed at promoting landscape-
scale fuels reduction and forest health projects. In 2003, Congress
granted the Forest Service (and BLM) full authority to enter into
multiyear stewardship contracts on a ``best-value'' basis and allowed
the agency to exchange ``goods'' for ``services'' (among other
authorities).
Success stories have emerged on the Lakeview Federal Stewardship
Unit (i.e. Bull Stewardship Contract) and the Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forest (i.e., White Mountain Stewardship Contract), yet few
stewardship contracts have provided the long term wood supply needed to
attract significant attention of investors interested in funding new
wood-bioenergy or cellulosic ethanol facilities. Investors are most
interested in multi-year (i.e., 10 or more years), landscape level
stewardship contracts, but a number of obstacles (e.g., cancellation
ceilings, threat of litigation, diverted fire suppression funds) remain
which prevent wide-spread use of stewardship contracts--and other cross
boundary authorities--on NFS lands and leave a significant number of
acres threatened by devastating wildfire.
The RFS in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
established a national goal to reach 36 billion gallons of renewable
fuels by 2022. To help meet this target, Congress has followed by
providing policy incentives--such as the 2008 Farm Bill's $1.01/gallon
credit towards the production of cellulosic ethanol--designed to help
launch new markets for woody biomass which also hold enormous potential
for driving down the cost of fuel reduction treatments on both public
and private forestlands. Unfortunately, the current definition of
renewable biomass in the RFS section of the EISA excludes fiber from
Federal (and significant private) forestland and thwarts future
investment in conversion technologies which currently are at (or near)
operational or economical production.
Changing the renewable biomass definition could dramatically
increase market development particularly in western states where over
40 percent of land is federally held and forest health and fuel
reduction treatments are completed at a net cost to the Forest Service.
As an example, after 3 years of gathering data on the White Mountain
stewardship contract in Arizona, the results reveal that over 33% of
the material harvested remain in the forest and requires the Forest
Service to pile and burn. Regarded as forest residual, there is no
current market for this material, which some estimates believe could
account for as much as 45% of a landscape scale forest restoration or
fuel reduction project. To reach our forest health and wildfire
management goals, there must be a market for this wood.
The exclusion is overly restrictive--particularly in light of the
extensive network of Federal environmental laws (e.g., NEPA, NFMA)
which prevent the conversion of native forests to dedicated woody
biomass feedstocks--and provides little relief to cover the rising
costs of forest health and fuel reduction treatments at a time when
warming climates and limited budgets suggest it is needed most.
Question 2. Do you think it is possible to achieve fire management
objectives without removing biomass from Federal lands?
Answer. No, in order for management objectives to be effective,
activities must happen across the landscape, including Federal, state,
private and tribal lands. Federal lands in particular are overly dense.
Despite good intentions, for nearly a century Federal land managers
held the philosophy of suppressing all wildfires. This has contributed
to widespread conditions of unhealthy, overly-dense forests now at risk
of high-severity, stand-replacing wildfires. Estimates suggest there
are 90 million acres at risk of high-severity fire and devastating
insect and disease outbreaks. The backlog of badly needed treatments
has exposed over 50,000 communities to risks of losing life and
property.\1\ One of the contributing factors to the increase in
unhealthy forests is the changing climate. This trend is not expected
to reverse and will continue to impact the ability for fire management
objectives on the landscape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Association of State Foresters. 2007. Communities at
Risk Report FY 2007. Last Accessed online at: http://
www.stateforesters.org/files/NASF-finalCAR-report-FY07.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether it is possible to achieve fire management
objectives without removing woody-biomass, The Council of Western State
Foresters request you consider the following options:
Do nothing approach. Some argue that allowing nature to
``run its course'' might be the least costly alternative, while
others suggest hidden costs are buried in the price of fighting
fires and the loss of ecosystem services. Consider, for
instance, the $238 million price tag tied to the 138,000 acre
Hayman Fire which occurred in 2002 and consumed 144 homes and
466 outbuildings. These costs do not include the subsequent $8
million needed to remove fire-related debris from critical
reservoirs which supply Denver residents with clean drinking
water.\2\ If left to chance, forests will eventually burn--in
some cases--with devastating impacts on their ability to
provide for a number of important public values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ LeMaster, D.C. et al. 2007. Protecting Front Range Watersheds
from High-Severity Wildfires. Last accessed on August 19, 2008 at:
http://www.pinchot.org/current_projects/sustainable/watersheds.
Prescribed Burn. Reducing hazardous fuels using prescribed
burns may work in certain situations, but high fuel loads, air
quality restrictions, short windows of appropriate weather and
risk of escape into the Wildland-Urban Interface often
constrain managers' ability to effectively utilize this option
across the landscape.\3\ It has its' place, but it is not a
panacea alone. Costs tied to prescribed burning can quickly
escalate particularly in the West where fire-line construction
in mountainous terrain is expensive. Other costs include mop up
requirements, potential damage from escape, smoke management,
and safety.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Barrett, T.M., Jones, J.G., and Wakimoto, R.H. 2000. USDA
Forest Service use of spatial information in planning prescribed fires.
Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 15: 200-207.
\4\ Cleaves & Brodie. 1990. Economic Analysis of prescribed
burning, In Natural & Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forest, J.D.
Walstad, et al (eds.) Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.
Mechanical Treatments. Mechanical treatments designed to
remove residues or small diameter trees are often completed at
a net-cost to the Forest Service, yet are a small price to pay
when compared to fighting uncontrolled wildfire. These costs
vary widely and are affected by numerous factors including site
conditions, treatment requirements, labor rates, machines
costs, fuel costs and other considerations.\5\ Where markets
exist for previously unmerchantable, small-diameter material,
mechanical treatments have the potential to reduce or possibly
eliminate treatment costs. Therefore, it is extremely important
that we consider appropriately scaled expansion wood-based
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Rummer, B. 2008. Assessing the cost of fuel reduction
treatments: A critical review. Last accessed on August 19, 2008 at
http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_rummer017.pdf.
Litigation (or the threat thereof) of mechanical treatments, lack
of industry capable of utilizing woody-biomass, dwindling budgets being
diverted to fire suppression, and numerous other factors prevent
Federal land managers from actively achieving fire and forest
management objectives that will reduce risks to communities.
Recognizing biomass from Federal lands in any RFS is a significant
first step in creating the markets needed to drive down treatment costs
and help the Forest Service and other Federal and state land management
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
agencies address the significant backlog in fuels reduction activities.
Question 3. What are the current barriers to achieving your
management goals in your state? How important is a market, such as the
one that could be created by the RFS, in achieving these goals?
Answer. The states manage their forests within a network of various
other public and private forests. Each type of ownership is confronted
with its own specific management challenges, but collectively they are
tasked with providing a number of essential public services including
carbon sequestration, renewable energy, timber, clean air and abundant
water, and wildlife habitat amongst others. The states face very
similar issues as their Federal agency counterparts including limited
available budgets to address forest health threats such as
uncharacteristically large wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks.
In addition, states are charged with helping their neighboring private
forest landowners who face on-going pressures to convert their land to
non-forest uses.
The RFS can help address many of the barriers which stand in the
way of states' ability to meet their forest management objectives.
First, it can help generate critical markets for woody biomass and
provide new income sources for families and individuals helping them
cover their costs in owning, maintaining and protecting their forest
from wildfire. Keeping forestlands forested is a primary driver for our
policy positions. Second, new markets are accompanied by new industry
and an opportunity for communities to provide family-wage jobs and
diversify their economies. Third, it provides new opportunities for
land managers to treat more ``at-risk'' acres at a time when limited
budgets restrict their ability to proactively address forest health
concerns.
New opportunities for both public and private forestlands are
emerging through the use of wood-bioenergy or cellulosic ethanol, but a
number of barriers need to be addressed before they are fully realized
including:
Limited Markets. In the West, markets have been slow to
develop as supply from Federal lands has been limited. Demand
has been curtailed as renewable energy investors and lenders
hesitate to put forward the significant capital required for a
new wood-bioenergy or cellulosic ethanol facility without some
assurance of a stable, multi-year supply. Further, high
transportation costs limit the economic feasibility of any new
investments in woody-biomass facilities. Without these markets
and related infrastructure, states are forced to cover the full
cost of removing small-diameter materials which threaten
forests and surrounding communities.
Limited technical and financial assistance. Rural
communities are in need of programs which can help overcome a
lack of resources needed to attract new forest-based businesses
and diversify their local economies. In particular, technical
and financial assistance programs that are tailored to woody-
biomass utilization would be helpful.
Cheaper energy alternatives. Competing renewable and non-
renewable energy sources are oftentimes less expensive and can
hold a competitive advantage over woody-biomass utilization.
But woody biomass should not be written off. Rather, attention
should be placed on the thermal advantages of woody bioenergy
options and the baseload advantages and dispersed nature of the
energy source to help ensure a stable, consistent and widely
applied renewable energy. To this end, we strongly encourage
the Committee to look at renewing and extending the Production
Tax Credit (PTC) for biomass energy sources for as long as
possible. We also encourage the PTC being adjusted so all the
renewable energy sources are treated equitably under the PTC.
As it currently stands, each renewable garners different
credits. Consistency in this policy will foster private sector
investment.
In sum, an RFS is extremely important in helping states (and other
landowners) in achieving their forest management objectives. These
opportunities will not be fully realized across all the nation's
forests--but particularly in the West--until the woody-biomass
definition in the RFS is changed to recognize woody biomass from
Federal sources.
______
Response to Questions Submitted to Kenneth G. Cassman, Ph.D., Director,
Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research; Professor, Department of
Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Questions from Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a Representative in
Congress From South Dakota
Question 1. What is your opinion of the general concept of indirect
land use change and how would you characterize the current level of
scientific understanding of this issue?
Answer. The current level of scientific understanding of indirect
land use change (ILUC) caused by expansion of biofuel production
capacity is very poor (more detail provided in the answer to Question 3
below).
The general principle behind the concept of ILUC is that anything
which results in higher prices for major staple food crops encourages
farmers worldwide to expand production of those crops so they can
profit from the high prices. Expansion of production capacity can occur
in two ways--either by increasing yields on existing farm land, or by
increasing the amount of land in production. When new land is cleared
for crop production, there is a release of substantial amounts of
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere because natural ecosystems such as
forests, wetlands, and grasslands contain large amounts of stored
carbon in their biomass and soil.
The ILUC concept runs into serious problems when extended
consistently to other issues. This is because anything that reduces the
yield or total output of food crops on existing farm land would incur a
GHG emissions ``debt'' due to ILUC. For example, organic grain
producers would have an ILUC ``debt'' if they used crop rotations with
forage legumes and cover crops to maintain soil fertility without
commercial fertilizers because food output would be less than from
conventional cropping systems that produce grain crops every year.
Likewise, a corn-soybean rotation may incur an ILUC debt compared to
continuous corn if the total amount of food, feed, and biofuel
feedstock is greater in continuous corn and contributes to lower
commodity prices. Conversely, anything that increases crop yields on
existing farm land would be eligible for a GHG offset because it helps
avoid ILUC. The bottom line is that the concept of indirect land use
change is not useful for application to production agriculture when
applied broadly to a wide range of farming systems because it would
have negative effects on diversity, stability, environmental quality,
and profitability of U.S. agriculture.
Question 2. How much confidence do you have in our current
abilities to accurately estimate the greenhouse gas impacts of indirect
land use change?
Answer. Numerous research papers have been published on the factors
that influence land use change (LUC). Consistently these papers
identify a large number of factors that affect it, and they note these
factors interact in complex ways. Use of a model that only evaluates
the impact of increased biofuel production capacity avoids the need to
deal with this complexity, and predictions from such a model are not
realistic. It is worthwhile to note that the Roundtable on Sustainable
Biofuels (http://cgse.epfl.ch/page65660.html), which represents a wide
range of international researchers, government officials, industry, and
environmental advocacy organizations, has concluded there are no
broadly accepted methods for estimating ILUC.
Question 3. Can you elaborate on the difficulties of accurately
quantifying indirect land use change and assigning the greenhouse gas
emissions that result from these changes?
Answer. There are many factors, in addition to biofuels, that
influence land use change (LUC). These include currency exchange rates,
land use policies in major crop producing countries worldwide, economic
growth rates in developing countries and the impact on human diets, the
rate of growth in crop yields on existing farm land, and so forth. It
is very difficult to predict each of these factors and their
interactions with current knowledge and models. Therefore, any model
estimate of future ILUC due solely to biofuels is confounded by the
underpinning assumptions about the other factors listed above as
simulated in the model, regardless of whether these assumptions are
explicit or implicit. The bottom line is that any estimates of ILUC are
highly uncertain and therefore do not provide a reasonable foundation
for policy development.
Question 4. Is there any empirical proof to date that biofuel
expansion has caused significant land use change? Aren't farmers
cultivating considerably fewer acres today than they did 20-30 years
ago?
Answer. There is no empirical evidence that, to date, the expansion
of biofuel production has caused land use change. However, this
statement is backward looking in that it is based on the recent past
and current situation. The key issue going forward is whether there
will be significant direct and indirect LUC due to continued expansion
of biofuel production capacity in the U.S. and other countries. The
answer to this question depends on how much biofuel production capacity
is established. For example, if corn ethanol production rises to 15
billion gallons per year, it will be difficult to meet demand for
producing this biofuel as well as for livestock feed, sweeteners, and
bio-based industrial products without a large expansion of crop area,
both here in the U.S. and elsewhere, unless there is an acceleration in
the rate of yield increase on existing farm land (see answer to
Question 6 below).
Question 5. According to your modeling efforts at the University of
Nebraska, corn ethanol can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% or
more compared to gasoline. How and why are your results different than
those from scientists that suggest corn ethanol does not reduce
greenhouse gas emissions?
Answer. The most widely used models for estimating the lifecycle
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from corn grain ethanol (hereafter
called corn ethanol) are the GREET (http://www.eurekalert.org/
pub_releases/2008-05/dnl-ngm050808.php), EBAMM (Science 2006, Vol.
311:506-508), and BESS models (www.bess.unl.edu). Of these, GREET and
EBAMM use older data for corn yields and input levels, energy
requirements of the ethanol plant, and the way in which co-products are
used and credited. In contrast, the BESS model uses the most currently
available data for these lifecycle components, which better reflects
the actual performance of the ethanol industry today.
I therefore believe the BESS model provides the most accurate
representation of the corn ethanol industry as it currently functions
with regard to land requirements and GHG emissions. As such, I would
also argue that this more up-to-date GHG performance should be used by
EPA in developing its GHG emissions thresholds for corn ethanol, and
also by states that are implementing low carbon fuel standards.
Question from Hon. Tim Holden, a Representative in Congress From
Pennsylvania
Question. You mention more work needs to be done on production
scale in order to get the best science on feedstocks, but that would be
quite a financial undertaking. Is industry poised to contribute and
help finance research facilities?
Answer. There are two key issues that must be addressed to provide
unequivocal scientific evidence that existing corn-ethanol and second
generation cellulosic biofuels are environmentally sustainable and
contribute to a reduction in GHG emissions compared to gasoline, the
latter now mandated in the 2007 EISA.
The first issue concerns the food versus fuel competition, and the
need to avoid a substantial increase in food costs due to use of corn
or dedicated non-food cellulosic crops for biofuel production. In the
case of corn, current yields and rates of yield increase in are not
sufficient to meet expected demand for food, feed, and biofuels if
annual U.S. corn ethanol production reaches 15 billion gallons by 2015.
Without a substantial acceleration in corn yields on existing land,
corn prices will rise to levels that threaten the economic viability of
both the corn ethanol and livestock industries.
But it is not just a matter of more rapidly increasing yields
because we must achieve such acceleration while also protecting water
and soil quality and while reducing GHG emissions from corn production.
Thus, the second issue is how to achieve this ``ecological
intensification'' process. In fact, we have never been successful at
both raising yields quickly and reducing the environmental impact of
agriculture, and it is a major scientific challenge for which there are
no silver bullets. Instead, as our work in Nebraska has shown, it can
be done through an integrated, interdisciplinary research effort that
has an explicit focus on both accelerating yield gains and improving
the environmental performance of corn production systems. Note also
that accelerating yield gains on existing farm land will also reduce,
and even eliminate concerns about ILUC.
In the case of dedicated cellulosic biofuel crops like switchgrass,
there is a critical need to conduct similar research to identify how to
maximize yields on marginal land so as to avoid use of land that can
produce food crops while also protecting soil and water quality.
Although there has been some promising research at a relatively small
scale that suggests it is possible to achieve both goals, it is not
possible to scale up to a commercially viable system. And this scaling
constraint is also true for similar research on corn ethanol.
Therefore, for corn ethanol, switchgrass, or any other promising
biofuel system it is critical to conduct research in production-scale
fields to determine if it is possible to produce adequate amounts of
these feedstock crops while also protecting the environment, and
reducing GHG emissions relative to gasoline based on lifecycle
analysis. Monitoring changes in soil carbon sequestration is a critical
component of this work, as is model development to extend and
extrapolate the results to all environments in which the biofuel crop
may be grown.
I have described the type of research that is needed in my original
written testimony. Unfortunately, such research is not low cost because
it requires sophisticated instrumentation and scientists from a wide
range of plant, soil, and environmental sciences. I estimate it would
require a concerted effort for the next 5-10 years involving about $150
million per year. While this is clearly a lot of money, it represents
only a small fraction of the total amount of Federal funding allocated
to research and development of second generation biofuels. It is
``public goods'' research in the sense that its primary goal is to
ensure the long-term environmental and economic sustainability of the
emerging biofuel industry rather than to develop intellectual property
or products for short term profit in the private sector. Therefore, it
is not likely the private sector will volunteer to fund this work. One
option is for a national research fund derived from a half-cent check-
off on the sale of each gallon of biofuel. Such a fund would provide $5
million dollars per year for every billion gallons of biofuel
production, and could be matched by Federal funding from the DOE, USDA,
and EPA to ensure adequate funds to perform the required research.