Biomass Feedstocks for .
Biopower:
Background and Selected IssuesFederal Support
Kelsi Bracmort
AnalystSpecialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
October 6, 2010July 16, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41440
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Biomass Feedstocks for c11173008
Biopower: Background and Selected IssuesFederal Support
.
Summary
Biopower—a form of renewable energy—is the generation of electric power from biomass
feedstocks. Biopower, whichIn 2014, Biopower comprised about 1.6% of total U.S. electricity generation and
accounted for close to 12% of U.S. renewable electricity generation. Its advantages include a
potential for baseload power production, greenhouse gas emission reduction, and use of
renewable biomass feedstock, among other things. Its disadvantages include uncertain sustainable
feedstock supply and infrastructure concerns, among other things.
Recent developments have prompted renewed interest in biopower. For instance, some
stakeholders are concerned about the treatment of biopower by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for the proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP). The CPP proposal establishes carbon
dioxide (CO2) emission rate goals (pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour) for each state. States then
have the option of choosing how they will meet the emission rate goals, including with the use of
biopower. EPA has struggled with accounting for greenhouse gas emissions from bioenergy for
various reasons, and it is not clear if this struggle will continue throughout the implementation of
the CPP. Further, international demand for wood pellets—primarily to satisfy European Union
renewable energy mandates—has increased significantly. This development has prompted
environmental organizations and others to express concern about the harvest of increasing
amounts of biomass and about possible increases in greenhouse gas emissions from the
combustion of wood pellets to produce energy. By contrast, some in the forestry industry and the
wood pellet industry argue that the international demand presents another market opportunity, that
measures are in place to ensure a sustainable biomass feedstock supply, and that biopower can
result in lower greenhouse gas emissions.
The future contribution of biopower to the U.S. electricity portfolio is uncertain. Challenges to
biopower production include regulatory uncertainty (e.g., EPA’s CPP), market fluctuation (e.g.,
natural gas prices), conversion technology development, and tax uncertainty (e.g., extension or
termination of renewable energy tax credits), among other issues. Some argue that a
comprehensive energy policy focused on renewables could boost biopower production efforts,
especially if the policy includes a renewable portfolio standard—a mandate that requires
increased production of energy from renewable sources. There is no federal renewable portfolio
standard, and the last Congress to robustly debate the issue was the 111th Congress. However, 29
states have established renewable portfolio standards, which vary dramatically from state to state.
Current federal support for biopower exists in the form of loans, tax incentives, grant programs,
and more.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Bioenergy ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Biopower.......................................................................................................................................... 3
Potential Benefits....................................................................................................................... 4
Baseload Power ................................................................................................................... 4
Renewable Biomass Feedstock Supply ............................................................................... 4
Potential Challenges .................................................................................................................. 4
Feedstock Availability and Cost .......................................................................................... 4
Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................... 5
Biomass Feedstock Types ................................................................................................................ 5
Woody Biomass ......................................................................................................................... 6
Wood Pellets ........................................................................................................................ 7
Biopower Technologies ................................................................................................................... 8
Federal Support .............................................................................................................................. 11
Tax Incentives .......................................................................................................................... 11
Bonds ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Federal Loans .......................................................................................................................... 12
Grant Programs ........................................................................................................................ 12
Regulatory Treatment .............................................................................................................. 13
Biopower Perspectives................................................................................................................... 13
Support for Biopower .............................................................................................................. 13
Opposition to Biopower .......................................................................................................... 14
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Figures
Figure 1. Bioenergy and Bioproduct Conversion Processes .......................................................... 10
Tables
Table 1. General Classification of Biomass ..................................................................................... 6
Appendixes
Appendix. Biopower R&D Authorizations .................................................................................... 16
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 21
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
Introduction
Biopower—the production of electricity from biomass feedstocks—contributes to the U.S.
electricity portfolio and has done so for more than a century. Biopower comprised approximately
1.6% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2014. By comparison, electricity generated from fossil
fuels and nuclear electric power comprised 87% of total U.S. electricity generation in the same
year.1 When accounting solely for renewable energy sources, biopower constituted close to 12%
of U.S. renewable electricity generation in 2014.2
As a renewable energy source, biopower has benefits and challenges. One of its primary benefits
is that it can provide baseload or firm power. If an electric generation plant operates as a baseload
plant, the plant can run continually except for maintenance and unexpected outages. In contrast,
other renewable energy sources—such as wind and solar energy—are generated intermittently
and require either a form of power storage, such as batteries, or another power source, such as
natural gas turbines, to provide firm power. Additionally, biopower is not limited to a specific
biomass feedstock and therefore is relatively flexible in terms of fuel suppliers. Challenges to
biopower production involve infrastructure concerns, such as siting a biopower facility in close
proximity to the biomass feedstock to reduce feedstock transportation costs. Moreover, it may be
difficult to obtain a continuously available feedstock supply. Lastly, there is significant legislative
and regulatory uncertainty surrounding incentives for biopower.
Congress may view biopower with new interest, especially given recent developments announced
by the Obama Administration and mounting discourse between environmental groups and certain
biopower feedstock groups (e.g., the forestry industry). For instance, biopower is likely to play a
role in the Administration’s proposed state-specific rate-based goals for carbon dioxide emissions
from the power sector (i.e., the Clean Power Plan).3 Additionally, international demand for certain
U.S. biomass feedstocks may be a part of any future legislative discussions (e.g., demand for
wood pellets by European Union [EU] member countries to meet carbon goals using biopower).4
Congress may debate the future role for biopower in the U.S. electricity portfolio, and as such it
may consider whether biopower requires new national policies or incentives to further encourage
its use or if its use should be diminished. Congress also may explore biopower feedstock
availability and accessibility, technological advancements, and new forms of economic support,
along with other items such as environmental considerations. In considering congressional action
to broaden or limit legislative authorities for biopower, an understanding of bioenergy, biopower,
biomass feedstocks, federal incentives, and challenges to biopower production could be useful to
policymakers. This report provides analyses on the aforementioned topics along with legislative
1
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Monthly Energy Review, June 2015. EIA collects data for facilities
that generate at least 1 megawatt (MW) of electricity. Additional EIA biopower data is available in the EIA’s Electric
Power Annual Report and in databases for both survey form EIA-923, “Power Plant Operations Report,” and form
EIA-860, “Annual Electric Generator Report.”
2
The renewable energy sources include conventional hydroelectric power, biomass (wood and waste), geothermal,
solar/PV, and wind.
3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary
Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units,” Proposed Rule, 79 Federal Register 34830, June 18, 2014.
4
Tom Zeller Jr., “Wood Pellets Are Big Business (And for Some, a Big Worry),” Forbes, February 1, 2015.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
1
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
issues.5 The report begins with general summaries about bioenergy and biopower—including
potential benefits and challenges, feedstocks, and biopower technologies. The report then delves
into federal support available for biopower, followed by legislative concerns.
Bioenergy
Bioenergy is renewable energy derived from biomass.6 It comes in three forms: biopower,
biothermal, and biofuels. Essentially, biomass is used to produce electricity (biopower), heat
(biothermal), and fuels (biofuel). Biomass also can be used to produce combined heat and power
(CHP).
Using bioenergy has several advantages and several challenges. One advantage to using
bioenergy is its classification as a renewable energy source because it uses biomass feedstocks,
which may be replenishable in a short time frame relative to fossil fuels. Bioenergy also has the
potential to contribute to rural economic development and to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. The carbon status of most bioenergy types has thus far been treated as neutral or as
having a low impact, although this assumption has been questioned.7 Another benefit is the
potential for the production of coproducts at bioenergy facilities, which may be of more value
than the bioenergy being produced.
Challenges to bioenergy production include limited biomass feedstock availability and, in some
cases, limited access to the feedstock. Further, certain biomass feedstocks (e.g., corn stover) may
have to be harvested in a way that the soil and water nutrient value they provide to the landscape
is not diminished. Moreover, the feedstock condition and arrangement may make it difficult and
costly to transport and process for energy generation. In some instances, biomass feedstock
storage can be an issue, especially during periods of peak demand. Lastly, biomass feedstocks on
average have a lower energy content than fossil-fuel feedstocks, often requiring more feedstock to
match the energy potential of fossil fuels.
Bioenergy is unique among renewable energy sources because it can come in three diverse forms.
Each form, thus far, has received a different amount of attention. However, there are some aspects
of all bioenergy forms that could be addressed in tandem. For example, as biomass is the
foundation of any form of bioenergy, the initial stages of the bioenergy pathway—feedstock
production, harvest, and transport—all bear the same environmental and sustainability concerns.
Although some stakeholders may voice their concerns more strongly for one bioenergy form than
for another, often the concerns are transferable to other bioenergy forms (e.g., the impact of land
use change on biofuel production). Congress, the executive branch, and others have tended to
focus on one bioenergy form at a time, at the exclusion of others. For instance, in the last decade,
legislative, research, and industrial attention have focused more on biofuels (e.g., corn-based
5
This report solely addresses the more technical aspects of biomass feedstock used for biopower. It does not address
biopower environmental or health concerns. For information about the carbon status of biopower, see CRS Report
R41603, Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?, by Kelsi Bracmort.
6
Biomass is organic matter that can be converted into energy. Biomass feedstocks encompass a wide range of material
including agricultural crops, crop and forest residues, waste materials, and more. For more information on biomass, see
CRS Report R40529, Biomass: Comparison of Definitions in Legislation, by Kelsi Bracmort.
7
There is an ongoing discussion about the carbon status of bioenergy, particularly biopower. For more information, see
CRS Report R41603, Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?, by Kelsi Bracmort.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
2
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
ethanol) than on other bioenergy forms.8 Such focus may occur due to the regulatory
requirements necessary for the bioenergy end use as opposed to the bioenergy supply. One issue
for Congress is that bioenergy can cross multiple committee jurisdictional boundaries, possibly
making it harder to reach a consensus on a more comprehensive approach to bioenergy.
Biopower
Biopower was the third-largest renewable energy source for electricity generation in 2014, after
conventional hydroelectric power and wind.9 The top five states to contribute the largest amounts
of net electricity generation from biomass year-to-date through December 2014 were California,
Florida, Georgia, Virginia, and Maine.10 The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects
that electricity generation from biomass will grow through 2030 by an average of 3.1% annually,
led by co-firing at existing coal plants through 2030, and that after 2030 new dedicated biomass
power plants will account for most of the growth in biopower.11
Woody biomass is the primary biomass feedstock used for biopower. In 2014, roughly two-thirds
of biopower generation used wood and wood-derived fuels as its biomass feedstock. The
remaining one-third came from municipal solid wastes from biogenic sources, landfill gas, and
agricultural byproducts, among others.12 EIA reports that biomass consumed as combustible fuel
for electricity generation in 2014 was 723 trillion British thermal units (btu)—430 trillion btu
from wood and wood-derived fuels, and 293 trillion btu from other biomass feedstocks.13
Like other power sources, biopower has its advantages and disadvantages. The intensity of those
advantages and disadvantages varies based on the scenario under consideration. The sections
below discuss some of these potential benefits and challenges.14
8
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a mandate to ensure that domestic transportation fuel contains a specified
volume of biofuels, is one reason most legislative and administrative efforts have focused on development of biofuels
for transportation. For more information, see CRS Report R40155, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and
Issues, by Mark A. McMinimy and Kelsi Bracmort, and CRS Report R43325, The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): In
Brief, by Kelsi Bracmort.
9
Biopower constituted close to 12% of electricity generation from renewable energy sources in 2014, compared with
conventional hydroelectric power and wind, which constituted roughly 48% and 34%, respectively. EIA, Monthly
Energy Review, June 2015.
10
EIA, Electric Power Monthly with Data for December 2014, February 2015.
11
EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2015, DOE/EIA-0383 (2015), April 2015. Co-firing is the combustion of
supplementary fuel (e.g., biomass) and coal concurrently. EIA reports that the “AEO Reference case generally assumes
that current laws and regulations affecting the energy sector remain unchanged throughout the projection (including the
assumption that laws that include sunset dates do, in fact, expire at the time of those sunset dates). This assumption
enables policy analysis with less uncertainty regarding unstated legal or regulatory assumptions.”
12
Biomass fuel types used for EIA statistical surveys include solid renewable biomass fuels (e.g., agricultural
byproducts, municipal solid waste, other biomass solids, and wood/wood waste solids), liquid renewable biomass fuels
(e.g., other biomass liquids, sludge waste, black liquor, and wood waste liquids excluding black liquor), and gaseous
renewable biomass fuels (e.g., landfill gas and other biomass gas). EIA, Form EIA-860M Monthly Update to Annual
Electric Generator Report Instructions, 2013.
13
EIA, Monthly Energy Review June 2015.
14
For more information, see U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Biopower Technical Strategy Workshop Summary
Report, December 2010, or the International Energy Agency, Technology Roadmap: Bioenergy for Heat and Power,
2012.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
3
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
Potential Benefits
Baseload Power
Biopower can be a firm source of power for baseload power production. Baseload power is the
minimum amount of electric power delivered or required over a given period of time at a steady
rate.15 Baseload plants produce electricity at a constant rate and generally run continuously
throughout the day. With sufficient feedstock supplies, among other things, a biopower plant can
provide firm power for baseload needs. It is one of the few renewable energy sources that can
provide consistent power.16
Renewable Biomass Feedstock Supply
Biopower originates from a feedstock—renewable biomass—that can be replenished in a short
time frame relative to fossil fuels and may offer certain environmental benefits. Renewable
biomass, or simply biomass, is organic matter that can be converted into energy. Biomass can
come from food crops, dedicated energy crops, crop residues, trees, forestry residue, and reusable
feedstocks that once were considered wastes (e.g., animal manure). Currently, woody biomass
and wood wastes are the principal biomass feedstocks used for biopower generation. However,
biopower generation is not limited to a specific feedstock and therefore is relatively flexible in
terms of supply. Thus, each region of the country can pursue biomass feedstocks that are native,
cost-effective, and readily available to generate biopower (e.g., food waste in urban areas).
Potential Challenges
Feedstock Availability and Cost
The amount of biopower that can be produced depends on the availability and cost of biomass
feedstocks, both of which fluctuate given various conditions. Some biomass feedstock can be
available at substantially lower costs than fossil fuels and integrated relatively easily into a
bioenergy production process (e.g., yard waste). However, other biomass feedstocks have higher
logistical and transaction costs associated with their removal and transport (e.g., forestry
residues). An overarching concern is maintaining an environmentally and economically
sustainable biomass feedstock supply.17 Collecting or harvesting biomass without regard to
replenishment, or in an otherwise unsustainable manner, may lead to the deterioration of certain
natural resources, such as soil erosion or the depletion of forested land. Thus far, biomass used for
biopower is not subject to the same constraints as biomass used for liquid transportation fuels
under federal statute.18 Additionally, feedstock diversity is a formidable challenge to biopower
15
Baseload should not be confused with peak load, which is the maximum electricity load during a specific period of
time.
16
Hydropower and geothermal electricity also provide baseload power. Historically, coal and nuclear are nonrenewable
sources of energy that produce baseload power.
17
Executive Order 13514 defines sustainability as the creation and maintenance of conditions that allow humans and
animals to exist in productive harmony, and that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of
present and future generations. For more information, see CRS Report R40974, Executive Order 13514: Sustainability
and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction , by Richard J. Campbell and Anthony Andrews.
18
The RFS, expanded under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140), mandates a
(continued...)
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
4
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
growth, because cultivation, harvest, storage, and transport vary according to the feedstock type
and conventional agriculture is based on mass production of one crop. Another challenge is
determining the amount of available feedstock due to market fluctuations and weather variability.
Estimates of feedstock availability also differ depending on certain assumptions.19 Further, it is
not clear if biomass supplies exist at a level that is palatable to the biomass-producing
communities, the electricity industry, and the environmental community.
Infrastructure
Biopower infrastructure, especially plant siting and power transmission, may pose certain
challenges. The current economic climate for biopower dictates that biopower plants should be
located in close proximity to feedstocks to reduce transportation costs, which can be significant.20
This high cost associated with transporting feedstocks for long distances is a result of nonexistent
transportation infrastructure for biomass feedstocks compared with what is available for fossil
fuels (e.g., a rail transportation system for coal). Permitting and transmission for any new or
existing power facility also may be difficult given recent federal actions.21 Financing and siting
both a new facility and new transmission infrastructure could add uncertainty to a proposed
project. However, it is possible to retrofit existing combustion plants for biopower production,
and power from these plants could use existing transmission infrastructure.
Biomass Feedstock Types
There are several types of biomass feedstock available as a fuel source for electric power
generation (see Table 1).22 These sources include land- and water-based vegetation (e.g., trees,
algae), as well as other organic wastes. The type, amount, and costs of biomass feedstocks will
largely determine whether biopower can thrive as a major renewable energy alternative.
Stakeholders differ on what are ideal feedstocks for biopower and what are feasible locations to
grow and harvest feedstock. Biomass feedstock plays a critical role in biopower plant feasibility
studies, especially feedstock storage and transport and other economic and environmental criteria.
These issues contribute to uncertainty about the biopower market.
(...continued)
minimum volume of biofuels to be used in the national transportation fuel supply each year. Under the RFS, biomass
used for renewable fuel for transportation purposes cannot be removed from federal lands, and the law excludes crops
from forested lands. For more information on the RFS, see CRS Report R43325, The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS):
In Brief, by Kelsi Bracmort. For more information on biomass definitions, see CRS Report R40529, Biomass:
Comparison of Definitions in Legislation, by Kelsi Bracmort.
19
Assumptions could include the existence and duration of certain policy drivers, tax incentives, market conditions,
weather conditions, international demand, and more.
20
Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Biopower, December 2009. Certain analysis indicates that feedstock supply
should be located within a 50-mile radius to avoid excessive transportation costs: Marie E. Walsh, Robert L. Perlack,
and Anthony Turhollow et al., Biomass Feedstock Availability in the United States: 1999 State Level Analysis, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, January 2000, at http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/resourcedata/index.html.
21
For more information, see CRS Report R43572, EPA’s Proposed Greenhouse Gas Regulations for Existing Power
Plants: Frequently Asked Questions, by James E. McCarthy et al.
22
The following section, “Woody Biomass,” discusses the primary biomass feedstock used for biopower. Although the
other biomass types could be a primary feedstock source for biopower in the future, minimal information about their
current contribution to biopower production is available.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
5
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
Comprehensive, national-level data on the current and future biomass feedstock supply is not
available.23 In the future, the potential inclusion of genetically modified dedicated energy crops or
selective breeding for bioenergy purposes may alter the amount of biomass feedstock available
for biopower production (and could impact water quantity and quality, air quality, and land use).
Table 1. General Classification of Biomass
Biomass Groups
Biomass Subgroups, Varieties, and Species
Wood and Woody Biomass
Coniferous or deciduous (gymnosperm or angiosperm); stems,
branches, foliage, bark, chips, lumps, pellets, briquettes, sawdust,
sawmill, and other wastes from various woody species
Herbaceous and Agricultural Biomass
Annual or perennial and field-based or process-based such as
grasses and flowers (alfalfa, arundo, bamboo, bana, brassica, cane,
miscanthus, switchgrass, timothy, others);
straws (barley, bean, flax, corn, mint, oat, rape, rice, rye, sesame,
sunflower, wheat, others);
other residues (fruits, shells, husks, hulls, pits, pips, grains, seeds,
coir, stalks, cobs, kernels, bagasse, food, fodder, pulps, cakes,
others)
Aquatic Biomass
Marine or freshwater algae and microalgae; macroalgae (blue,
green, blue-green, brown, red); seaweed, kelp, lake weed, water
hyacinth, others
Animal and Household/Commercial Biomass
Wastes
Bones, meat-bone meal, chicken litter, various manures, others
Contaminated Biomass and Industrial Biomass
Wastes (Semi-biomass)
Municipal solid waste, demolition wood, refuse-derived fuel,
sewage sludge, hospital waste, paper-pulp sludge and liquors,
waste papers, paperboard waste, chipboard, fiberboard, plywood,
wood pallets and boxes, railway sleepers, tannery waste, others
Biomass Mixtures
Blends from the above varieties
Source: Stanislav V. Vassilev, David Baxter, and Lars K. Andersen, et al., “An Overview of the Chemical
Composition of Biomass,” Fuel, vol. 89 (2010), pp. 913-933. Adapted by CRS.
Woody Biomass
Currently, woody biomass is the main feedstock used for biopower. However, woody biomass
also is used in a variety of markets, including the timber market, the wood products market, and
other energy markets. There are four primary energy markets for woody biomass: industrial,
residential, electricity, and commercial. The electricity sector is responsible for 9% of wood
consumed for energy, following the industrial (68%) and residential (20%) sectors.24 Timber
23
For more information on the amount of biomass feedstock available, see DOE, U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass
Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry, 2011; and Anthony Turhollow, Robert Perlack, and Laurence Eaton,
et al., “The updated billion-ton resource assessment,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 70 (2014), pp. 149-164. Another
source for biomass feedstock supply data is the Bioenergy Knowledge Discovery Framework, an online collaboration
toolkit and data resource that provides access to the latest bioenergy research. Lastly, some states and regions have
completed individual biomass resource assessments, such as the California Biomass Collaborative, Summary of
Current Biomass Energy Resources for Power and Fuel In California, May 15, 2011.
24
U.S. Forest Service (FS), U.S. Forest Products Annual Market Review and Prospects, 2010-2014, September 2014.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
6
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
production data indicates that for 2011 close to 6% of timber production in the United States was
used to generate electricity.25
Wood Pellets
Interest in one particular type of woody biomass feedstock—wood pellets—has increased over
the last few years, mainly due to international demand for this commodity.26 Wood pellets are
small, compressed pieces of woodchips or sawdust that are used to heat homes and to produce
electricity at power plants. The condensed, uniform size of wood pellets—about one inch in
length with the diameter roughly matching that of a pencil—makes them easy to transport and
store. Wood pellet challenges include the potential to overheat and spontaneously combust when
stored and the dust produced during pellet production, which has the potential to become a
combustible fuel source.
Until recently, U.S. wood pellet production, consumption, and global trade data did not garner
much attention, partly because wood pellets were used mostly at a small scale for domestic
residential heating. Thus, wood pellet data collection had been disparate and opaque. However,
today wood pellet production is on an upswing, with approximately half of U.S. wood pellets
being exported for use at large power facilities. International policy, particularly the EU’s 2009
Renewable Energy Directive (RED), has encouraged greater use of wood pellets. For a variety of
reasons—economic, environmental, and more—better wood pellet data is now available to
monitor the fuel’s use and trade. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) reports that
domestic wood pellet production, which is concentrated in the southern United States, was
approximately 5.5 million metric tons (Mt) in 2013, half of which was exported.27 Further, the
ITC reports that 99% of wood pellet exports in 2013 went to the EU.28 Forisk Consulting reports
that as of January 2015, there were at least 129 operating wood pellet plants in the United
States.29
There are concerns about the sustainability and environmental impact of an expanding wood
pellet market. For instance, some environmental groups argue that increased wood pellet
production will destroy ecosystems and incentivize conversion of natural forests to plantations,
among other things.30 They contend that measures should be implemented to ensure more
participation in rigorous forestry sustainability certification programs, prevent harvesting of
whole trees, account for the future carbon storage capacity of a forest, and better regulate certain
practices occurring in private forests. Some in the wood pellet industry disagree, asserting that
they use low-grade wood, mill residues, tops and limbs, and thinnings. Further, they state that any
use of whole trees is limited to certain situations and that their practices do not contribute to
25
FS, U.S. Timber Production, Consumption and Price Statistics 1965-2011, June 2013. Estimate calculated by
dividing wood used for electric utilities by the total industrial roundwood production for 2011 (minus the fuelwood
production and consumption).
26
Christina Nunez, “The Energy Boom You Haven’t Heard About: Wood Pellets,” National Geographic, December
10, 2014.
27
1 million metric tons (Mt) = 1000 kilograms = 2,204 pounds. Alberto Goetzl, Developments in the Global Trade of
Wood Pellets, U.S. International Trade Commission, Working Paper no. ID-039, January 2015.
28
The United Kingdom accounted for approximately 59% of U.S. wood pellet exports in 2013.
29
Forisk Consulting, Forisk Research Quarterly Q1 2015 Wood Bioenergy US, February 2015.
30
Natural Resources Defense Council, The Truth About the Biomass Industry: How Wood Pellet Exports Pollute Our
Climate and Damage Our Forests, August 2014.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
7
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
deforestation.31 Additionally, several entities within the EU are in the midst of discussing
sustainability criteria for biomass energy, including wood used for pellet production.32 It is not yet
known if such a development could result in a hardship for the U.S. wood pellet sector. Since
several smaller forest owners provide the wood used for pellet production, it may be difficult for
them to track some of the required measures and meet certification standards.
Currently, a viable market exists for wood pellets. However, it is not clear what future demands
and policies could have on this market.33 For instance, there could be market tension between the
U.S. forest products sector and the U.S. wood pellet sector, which may compete for the same
source material. Moreover, possible energy and environmental policy changes (e.g., any new
energy bill, the Environmental Protection Agency’s [EPA’s] Clean Power Plan [CPP], state
renewable portfolio standards) could impact wood pellet production and export.34
Biopower Technologies
Biomass is converted to biopower via thermochemical and biochemical conversion processes.
These processes include combustion (or firing), pyrolysis, gasification, and anaerobic digestion
(see box below and Figure 1). Essentially, plants use photosynthesis to store energy (carbonbased molecules) within cell walls, and that energy is released, or converted, when the biomass
undergoes a chemical process (such as combustion) or a biological process (such as anaerobic
digestion). The type of conversion technology selected for a specific biomass feedstock results in
differing amounts of useful energy recovered and forms for that energy.35 The technologies are at
varying stages of maturity, with combustion (e.g., co-firing) being the most established.
One critical factor in determining the potential generation of a biopower plant is determining the
supply of biomass feedstock necessary to run the plant.36 The amount of feedstock required
depends on many things, including the feedstock’s energy content—the less the energy value, the
more feedstock that is needed. Further, the growing area needed to produce the biomass is
contingent not only on the energy value of the feedstock but also on the power plant capacity and
efficiency, as well as the feedstock yield.37 In general, the higher the yield of the biomass
feedstock, the less growing area is required to produce a megawatt of power. Also, less biomass is
needed to support power plants with high efficiency rates.
31
U.S. Industrial Pellet Association, Frequently Asked Questions, 2013.
One example of an EU biomass sustainability plan is the United Kingdom Department of Energy and Climate
Change, Timber Standard for Heat and Electricity: Woodfuel Used under the Renewable Heat Incentive and
Renewables Obligation, 2014.
33
For more information, see FS, Effect of Policies on Pellet Production and Forests in the US. South, December 2014.
34
Although there is no federal renewable portfolio standard, 29 states do have a renewable portfolio standard.
35
Peter McKendry, “Energy Production from Biomass (Part 1): Overview of Biomass,” Bioresource Technology, vol.
83 (2002), pp. 37-46.
36
The federal government has studied biomass feedstock supply for bioenergy. For more information, see DOE, U.S.
Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry, August 2011 and FS, Chapter 10,
“Forest Biomass-Based Energy,” in The Southern Forest Futures Project: Technical Report, August 2013.
37
Power plant capacity is the maximum output of power, commonly expressed in millions of watts (megawatts, or
MW), that generating equipment can supply over a certain time period. Power plant efficiency is the amount of electric
energy produced per unit of feedstock input. For more information on power plant efficiency, see CRS Report R43343,
Increasing the Efficiency of Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants, by Richard J. Campbell.
32
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
8
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
Furthermore, the size of the biopower plant can range substantially. Small-scale systems (or
modular units) may be an optimal choice for rural areas with limited electricity demand. Largescale systems may be more economically suitable in urbanized areas or near grid connections if
feedstocks are ample.
Selected Biopower Conversion Processes Defined
A. Combustion is the burning of biomass in a power plant. The biomass is burned to heat a boiler and create steam.
The steam powers a turbine, which is connected to a generator to produce electricity. Existing plant efficiencies are in
the low 20% range, although methods are available to advance efficiency to upwards of 40%. (Efficiency essentially
describes the percentage of the energy in the feedstock processed that is actually converted to electricity.)
B. Co-firing, the simultaneous firing of biomass with coal in an existing power plant, is currently the most costeffective biopower technology. Co-firing with biomass using existing equipment is less expensive than constructing a
new biopower plant. The existing plant does require retrofitting to accept the biomass entering the plant. Certain air
particulates associated with coal combustion are reduced with co-firing, as less coal is being burned. Co-firing has a
generation efficiency in the 33%-37% range; coal-fired plants have efficiencies in the 33%-45% range.
C. Gasification is the heating of biomass into synthesis gas (syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide) in
an environment with limited oxygen. The flammable syngas can be used in a combined gas and steam power plant to
generate electricity. Generation efficiencies range from 40% to 50%. One challenge for gasification is feedstock
logistics (e.g., cost to ship or transport the feedstock to the power plant). A wide variety of feedstocks could undergo
gasification, including wood chips, sawdust, bark, agricultural residues, and waste.
D. Pyrolysis is the chemical breakdown of a substance under extremely high temperatures (400°C -500°C) in the
absence of oxygen. There are fast and slow pyrolysis technologies. Fast pyrolysis technologies could be used to
generate electricity. Fast pyrolysis of biomass produces a liquid product, pyrolysis oil or bio-oil, that can be readily
stored and transported. The bio-oils produced from these technologies would be suitable for use in boilers for
electricity generation. One of the challenges with pyrolysis is that the bio-oil produced tends to be low-quality
relative to what is needed for power production. Commonly used feedstock types for pyrolysis include a variety of
wood and agricultural resources.
E. Anaerobic digestion is a biological conversion process that breaks down a feedstock (e.g., manure, landfill waste)
in the absence of oxygen to produce methane, among other outputs, that can be captured and used as an energy
source to generate electricity. Anaerobic digestion systems historically have been used for comparatively smaller-scale
energy generation in rural areas. Feedstocks suitable for digestion include brewery waste, cheese whey, manure, grass
clippings, restaurant wastes, and the organic fraction of municipal solid waste, among others. Generation efficiency is
roughly 20%-30%.
Sources: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biomass Energy Data Book: Edition 2, at ORNL/Tm-2009/098,
December 2009, http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/pdf/BEDB2_Full_Doc.pdf; International Energy Agency, Biomass for
Power Generation and CHP, ETE03, January 2007, at http://www.iea.org/techno/essentials3.pdf; National
Association of State Foresters, A Strategy for Increasing the Use of Woody Biomass for Energy, Portland, ME,
September 2008, at http://www.stateforesters.org/files/NASF-biomass-strategy-FULL-REPORT-2009.pdf; Sally
Brown, “Putting the Landfill Energy Myth to Rest,” BioCycle, May 2010; John Balsam and Dave Ryan, Anaerobic
Digestion of Animal Wastes: Factors to Consider, ATTRA—National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service,
IP219, 2006, at http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/anaerobic.html; Jennifer Beddoes, Kelsi Bracmort, and Robert
Burns et al., An Analysis of Energy Production Costs from Anaerobic Digestion Systems on U.S. Livestock Production
Facilities, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service, October 2007;
personal communication with Robert Baldwin, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010; personal
communication with Lynn Wright, biomass consultant working with Oak Ridge National Laboratory. For more
information on anaerobic digestion, see CRS Report R40667, Anaerobic Digestion: Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reduction and Energy Generation, by Kelsi Bracmort.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
9
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
Figure 1. Bioenergy and Bioproduct Conversion Processes
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State Bioenergy Primer, 2009.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
10
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
Federal Support
The federal government supports biopower with multiple initiatives including tax incentives,
grant programs, research and development efforts, and more.38 Additionally, there are state
initiatives that support biopower.39 Some of the federal biopower initiatives that have been
available to industry are described below.
Tax Incentives
•
Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC): The business energy ITC is a 10%
tax credit for expenditures on combined heat and power (CHP) systems,
including biomass CHP. 40 The credit for biomass CHP is scheduled to expire
December 31, 2016.
•
Seven-year period for Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS):
The MACRS allows businesses to recover investments in certain property
through depreciation deductions, including CHP property and biomass property
used to create electricity.41 There is no expiration date for the MACRS.
•
Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC): The renewable electricity
PTC is a per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax credit for electricity generated using
qualified energy resources, including biomass.42 It expired in 2014 after being
extended for one year as part of the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 (P.L.
113-245).
Bonds
•
New Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs): CREBs can be used by certain
entities to finance renewable energy projects, including biomass. Federal tax
credits in lieu of a portion of the traditional bond interest result in a lower
effective interest rate for the borrower.43
•
Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBs): A QECB allows qualified state,
tribal, and local government issuers to borrow money at attractive rates to fund
energy conservation projects. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports the
bonds can be used to produce electricity from renewable energy sources, among
other things.44
38
For information on biopower research and development efforts and more, see the Appendix.
For information about state incentives, see the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE)
and the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Energy Incentive Program Funding by State.
40
For more information, see the DSIRE.
41
Ibid.
42
For more information, see CRS Report R43453, The Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit: In Brief, by
Molly F. Sherlock.
43
For more information, see CRS Report R40523, Tax Credit Bonds: Overview and Analysis, by Steven Maguire; the
DSIRE; and U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), “IRS Announces New Clean Renewable Energy Bonds
Supplemental Allocations for Cooperative Electric Companies,” press release, January 15, 2015.
44
For more information, see Energy Programs Consortium, Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBS), December
(continued...)
39
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
11
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
Federal Loans
•
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Energy for America Program
(REAP) Loan Guarantees and Grants: The program provides guaranteed loan
financing and grant funding to agricultural producers and rural small businesses
to purchase, install, or construct renewable energy systems; make energy
efficiency improvements to nonresidential buildings and facilities; use renewable
technologies that reduce energy consumption; and participate in energy audits
and renewable energy development assistance. The program receives mandatory
funding and can receive discretionary funding through FY2018.45
•
DOE Section 1703 Loan Guarantee Program: The program issues loan
guarantees for projects with high technology risks that “avoid, reduce or
sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of GHG; and employ new or
significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in
service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued,” including
forestry waste-to-energy projects and co-firing.46 The program is permanent,
although the total amount of loans that may be guaranteed is capped in statute.
Grant Programs
•
USDA Repowering Assistance Biorefinery Program: This program provides
payments to eligible biorefineries to install renewable biomass systems for
heating and power at their facilities, or to produce new energy from renewable
biomass.47
•
USDA High Energy Cost Grant Program: This program provides grants to assist
power providers in lowering energy costs for families and individuals in areas
with extremely high per-household energy costs. Grants may be awarded to
finance the acquisition, construction, or improvement of facilities serving
residential customers or communities, including biomass technologies used for
electric power generation, among other things.48
•
Tribal Energy Program Grant: This DOE program provides financial assistance,
technical assistance, and education and training to tribes for the evaluation and
(...continued)
2014, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Qualified Energy Conservation Bond (QECB) Update: New
Guidance from the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, July 18, 2012.
45
For more information, see CRS Report R43416, Energy Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79), by Mark A.
McMinimy.
46
For more information, see DOE Loan Programs Office, Renewable Energy and Efficient Energy Projects Loan
Guarantee Solicitation Announcement, July 3, 2014; and CRS Report R42152, Loan Guarantees for Clean Energy
Technologies: Goals, Concerns, and Policy Options, by Phillip Brown.
47
The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) provided mandatory funding of $12 million for FY2014 to remain available until
expended. For FY2015, Congress reduced available funds by $8 million through the FY2015 Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235). Discretionary funding of $10 million was authorized to be appropriated
for FY2014-FY2018. For more information, see the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency
(DSIRE), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), “Vilsack Announces Farm Bill Funding for Bioenergy
Research, Converting to Biomass Fuel Systems,” press release, June 13, 2014.
48
For more information, see the DSIRE and USDA, “USDA Announces Funding to Help Reduce Energy Costs in
Remote Rural Areas,” press release, April 8, 2014.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
12
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
development of renewable energy resources and energy efficiency measures,
including co-firing, waste-to-energy, and CHP.49
Regulatory Treatment
Biopower has received different attention and treatment than some other renewable electricity
sources and conventional electricity sources. Although it generally is viewed as beneficial yet
complicated, biopower often requires a high-level technical discussion that incorporates
numerous facets to determine the best method to integrate it into whatever the immediate goal
may be (e.g., environmental policy, energy policy). Further complications arise when considering
the demands of the various stakeholders (e.g., agricultural and forestry producers, environmental
organizations, energy sector, infrastructure development community, homeowners, business
community, science community) and which prism to use for evaluating its contribution (e.g.,
GHG emission reduction, energy generation, market for agricultural or forestry or recyclable
commodities).
Currently, from a federal regulatory perspective, the most pressing example of distinct treatment
for biopower—specifically, its carbon status—is the EPA’s CPP.50 This proposal would create
carbon dioxide (CO2) emission rate goals (pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour) for each state. The
goals effectively would apply to a state’s overall electricity generation portfolio. Renewable
energy would play a major role in meeting EPA’s emission rate targets. Although EPA states it is
revising its draft biomass accounting framework, biomass as an energy source would be counted
as carbon neutral in the proposed CPP—in both the emission baseline methodology and in
building block 3 (i.e., renewable energy).
Based on past support (see Appendix), both Congress and the executive branch have decided that
biopower has a role in the U.S. energy portfolio. Deciding what exactly that role should be, how
substantial it should be, and what aspects should be accounted for is the focus of many of the
present disagreements.
Biopower Perspectives
Biopower potentially straddles at least three policy areas: agriculture, energy, and the
environment. Articulated perspectives on biopower thus far generally have focused on biopower’s
impact on one of the aforementioned policy areas. This section discusses, in general terms, some
of the reasons for the support and opposition.
Support for Biopower
Some proponents of biopower argue that the agricultural and forestry communities benefit from
biopower production because they will produce the required biomass feedstocks, potentially
49
For more information, see the DSIRE and the DOE, Tribal Clean Energy Projects Awarded $6.5 Million from U.S.
Energy Department, February 16, 2012.
50
For more information on the proposed CPP and biopower carbon neutrality, see CRS Report R43942, EPA’s
Proposed Clean Power Plan: Conversion to Mass-Based Emission Targets, by Jonathan L. Ramseur and CRS Report
R41603, Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?, by Kelsi Bracmort.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
13
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
adding value to their farming or forestry operations. Further, the two communities have
experience with implementing environmental and conservation measures that could lead to
productive field conditions for biomass growth and harvest. Some in the energy industry,
particularly technology companies and renewable energy companies, support biopower because
of the potential to be at the leading edge of development and deployment of biopower
technologies, especially if they receive federal financial assistance to do so. Given
implementation of certain environmental standards for biomass feedstock cultivation and
biopower plants, some in the environmental community might support certain forms of biopower,
especially if there is monitoring of land-use, biodiversity, and GHG emission reduction impacts.
Legislative efforts are under way that could possibly further support the biopower industry. For
example, S. 1294 would establish a bioheat and biopower initiative to provide grants to relevant
projects, among other things. Additionally, 47 Senators sent a letter to the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Energy and the EPA Administrator to express their support for the carbon
neutrality of forest biomass.51 Another relevant legislative effort is for the creation of a federal
renewable electricity standard (RES) that would encourage renewable energy use and thus the
production of renewable energy such as biopower. For example, an amendment was introduced in
the 114th Congress that would establish an RES (S.Amdt. 77 to S. 1). Discussion of an RES has
been minimal over the last few Congresses compared with the discussions that took place during
the 111th Congress.52 Many different state programs exist, which could create uncertainty as an
RES is debated.
Opposition to Biopower
Some opponents of biopower argue that the agriculture and forestry sectors cannot meet biomass
feedstock demands for biopower without infringing upon current demands for food, feed, and
energy needs (e.g., biofuels). There is concern that additional demand for these feedstocks for
biopower could discourage production of feedstocks for other purposes, especially if market
prices were to favor feedstocks for power production. Additionally, some express unease at the
potential environmental impacts of producing feedstocks for biopower, especially if a few
feedstocks become the dominant feedstock for biopower, requiring monolithic cultivation patterns
that hamper biodiversity efforts. There also is concern that biopower is not technologically or
economically feasible at a large scale relative to the fossil-fuel electricity sector. This concern
may raise questions about the costs to provide assistance for feedstock production, technology
build out, plant construction, and more. Lastly, some oppose biopower because it may not be
viewed as a long-term solution to a persistent demand for electricity.
Legislative efforts that oppose increasing federal support of biopower have not been introduced
thus far in the 114th Congress. However, various organizations have expressed opposition to
biopower. For example, several environmental organizations are concerned about the use of forest
biomass for biopower production, particularly the use of whole trees in pellet manufacturing
facilities and utility-scale biomass projects.53 Moreover, in 2012, the American Lung Association
stated it “does not support biomass combustion for electricity production, a category that includes
51
Senator Susan Collins, “U.S. Senators Collins (R-ME) and Merkley (D-OR) Urge EPA, DOE, and USDA to
Recognize Clear Benefits of Forest Bioenergy in Federal Policy,” press release, July 1, 2015.
52
Several renewable electricity standard bills were introduced during the 111th Congress, including S. 1462, S. 433, S.
3021, H.R. 2454, and H.R. 890.
53
Dogwood Alliance, Biomass Platform and Endorsers, March 2015.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
14
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
wood, wood products, agricultural residues or forest wastes, and potentially highly toxic
feedstocks, such as construction and demolition waste. If biomass is combusted, state-of-the-art
pollution controls must be required.”54
Conclusion
Although significant challenges remain regarding any future large-scale development, biopower
production could increase in the coming years to satisfy state renewable portfolio standards.
Generation of electricity from biopower has some advantages over other renewable sources such
as wind and solar. Biopower plants can function as baseload power plants, and multiple biomass
feedstocks can be used to generate electricity. A sustainable supply of biomass feedstocks would
be necessary for biopower growth. Some disadvantages of using biomass for electricity
generation include the cost to transport the biomass to the biopower plant, less biomass being
available for other purposes, and environmental tensions such as whether biomass combustion is
carbon neutral.
Most biopower technologies, with the exception of combustion and co-firing systems, have yet to
reach commercial status. Some have argued that regulatory uncertainty has contributed to the
reluctance to develop biopower (e.g., EPA’s CPP). In addition, there is no federal mandate
requiring the production of biopower, although 29 states have implemented state renewable
portfolio standards that include biopower. Furthermore, it is not clear how the agricultural and
forestry communities would adapt to an increased demand for feedstock to be used at new
biopower facilities. If there is a desire to increase biopower production, questions remain about
what would be needed to simultaneously address technological, environmental, and agricultural
concerns.
54
c11173008
American Lung Association, “Public Policy Position: Energy,” June 23, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
15
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
Appendix. Biopower R&D Authorizations
R&D Authorizations
Congress has enacted numerous provisions that authorize the Departments of Energy (DOE) and
Agriculture (USDA) to conduct biopower research, development, and demonstration projects
(RD&D) and to support biopower commercial application efforts.55 At least eight public laws
contain one or more biopower provisions:
•
P.L. 95-620, Powerplants and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978
•
P.L. 96-294, Energy Security Act of 1980
•
P.L. 106-224, Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000
•
P.L. 107-171, Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
•
P.L. 108-148, Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003
•
P.L. 109-58, Energy Policy Act of 2005
•
P.L. 110-140, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
•
P.L. 110-246, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
•
P.L. 113-79, Agricultural Act of 2014
The public laws discussed in this section are summaries of provisions at the time of enactment to
illustrate the evolution of bioenergy policy in chronological order. Some provisions may have
been amended since enactment.56 A comprehensive legislative history of current law is beyond
the scope of this report.
1978-1980: Biopower Legislative Origin
Both the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-620) and the Energy Security
Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-294) introduced the concept of biopower to the legislative arena. However,
the enacted legislation emphasized the use of biomass as a liquid fuel to reduce dependence on
imported petroleum and natural gas. Biomass used to generate electricity appears to have received
less legislative support compared with biomass use as a liquid fuel, based on the report language
and authorizations.
Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-620)
The legislative origin of the federal biopower definition stems from the Powerplant and Industrial
Fuel Use Act of 1978. The act aimed to restrict the use of oil and natural gas as fuel in an attempt
to mitigate the oil crisis of the mid-1970s by encouraging industries and utilities to reduce oil use.
55
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Power Technologies Energy Data Book, NREL/TP-620-39728, August
2006, at http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/docs/pdf/39728_complete.pdf.
56
Some provisions are renewed through multiple bills (e.g., the Farm Bill). In such cases, only notable updates to those
provisions are included.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
16
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
It required new power plants to operate using coal or alternate fuel sources. Otherwise, the act did
not provide explicit support for biopower RD&D and commercial application.
•
§103(a)(6) - defines alternate fuel, in part, as electricity or any fuel, other than
natural gas or petroleum, from sources such as biomass, municipal, industrial or
agricultural wastes, wood, and renewable and geothermal energy sources.
Energy Security Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-294)
•
§203(4)(B) - defines biomass energy, in part, as energy or steam derived from the
direct combustion of biomass for the generation of electricity, mechanical power,
or industrial process heat.
•
§203(5)(B) - defines biomass energy project, in part, as any facility (or portion of
a facility) located in the United States that is primarily for the combustion of
biomass for generating industrial process heat, mechanical power, or electricity,
including cogeneration.
•
§203(19) - defines a small-scale biomass energy project as a biomass energy
project with an anticipated annual production capacity of not more than 1 million
gallons of ethanol per year, or its energy equivalent of other forms of biomass
energy.
•
§211(a) - requires DOE and USDA to collaborate on a biomass energy
production and use plan and on providing financial assistance for biomass energy
projects.
•
§251(a) - indirect reference to biopower; stipulates the establishment of
demonstration biomass energy facilities by the Secretary of Agriculture to exhibit
the most advanced technology available for producing biomass energy.
•
§252 - indirect reference to biopower; modifies §1419 of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-113)
to better address biomass energy for RD&D purposes; authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to award grants for research related to, in part, the development of
the most economical and commercially feasible means of producing, collecting,
and transporting agricultural crops, wastes, residues, and byproducts for use as
feedstocks for the production of alcohol and other forms of biomass energy.
•
§255(a) - indirect reference to biopower; adds a Biomass Energy Educational and
Technical Assistance Program to Subtitle B of P.L. 95-113 to provide technical
assistance to producers for efficient use of biomass energy and disseminate
research results to producers about biomass energy, among other things.
1981-1999: Biopower Legislation and Technology
Congress did not significantly address biopower during most of the 1980s and 1990s, partially
due to stable conventional energy prices and supplies. Some biopower technologies emerged
during this time period with low success rates due to poor design and inadequate management
(e.g., anaerobic digestion systems). Other reliable biopower technologies were developed during
this time period (e.g., biomass co-firing), but these could not compete economically with other
energy sources.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
17
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
2000-Present: Biopower Legislative Action
Described below are a variety of biopower provisions contained in public laws since 2000.
Although many of the provisions focus primarily on the use of biomass for liquid transportation
fuel, there also has been legislative support for biopower. Both DOE and USDA have the
authority to conduct RD&D and support commercial application efforts for biopower. However,
project summaries and financial allotments indicate the majority of resources in recent years were
directed toward liquid fuels for transportation.57
Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-224)
The Biomass Research and Development Act58 established a partnership between USDA and
DOE for RD&D on the production of biobased industrial products. (This act was amended by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, P.L. 109-58.) The original provisions included the following:
•
§303(2) - defines biobased industrial products to include fuels, chemicals,
building materials, or electric power or heat produced from biomass.
•
§305 - implicit reference to biopower; establishes the Biomass Research and
Development Board to coordinate research and development activities relating to
biobased industrial products; board membership includes a representative from
DOE, USDA, Department of the Interior, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
•
§306 - implicit reference to biopower; establishes the Biomass Research and
Development Technical Advisory Committee to, in part, advise the Biomass
Research and Development Board concerning the technical focus and direction of
requests for proposals issued under the Biomass Research and Development
Initiative.
•
§307 - implicit reference to biopower; authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture
and Energy to, in part, competitively award grants, contracts, and financial
assistance to eligible entities that can perform research on biobased industrial
products. For example, grants may be rendered to an entity conducting research
on advanced biomass gasification and combustion to produce electricity
(§307(d)(2)(e)); related research in advanced turbine and stationary fuel cell
technology for production of electricity from biomass (§307(d)(2)(f)); biomass
gasification and combustion to produce electricity (§307(d)(3)(A)(v)); and any
research and development in technologies or processes determined by the
Secretaries, acting through their respective points of contact and in consultation
with the Biomass Research and Development Board (§307(d)(4)).
57
For information on biomass energy incentives, see CRS Report R40913, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs, by Lynn J. Cunningham and Beth Cook.
58
The Biomass Research and Development Act is Title III of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106224).
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
18
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171)
•
§9003 - authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to award grants to assist in paying
the development and construction costs of biorefineries in order to carry out
projects that demonstrate their commercial viability for converting biomass to
fuels or chemicals.
•
§9003(b)(2) - defines biorefinery as equipment and processes that convert
biomass into fuels and chemicals and may produce electricity.
Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148)
•
§203 - establishes the Biomass Commercial Utilization Grant Program;
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to the owner or operator of
a facility that uses biomass as a raw material to produce one or more of several
outputs, including electric energy.
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05; P.L. 109-58)
c11173008
•
§931(f) - authorizes the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of
Agriculture, to implement rural demonstration projects that use renewable energy
technologies to assist in delivering electricity to rural and remote locations from
biomass.
•
§932 (b)(1) - authorizes the Secretary of Energy to conduct a program of RD&D
and commercial application for bioenergy including biopower energy systems.
•
§932 (d)(B)(iv) - authorizes the Secretary of Energy to demonstrate the
commercial application of integrated biorefineries from the commercial
application of biomass technologies for energy in the form of electricity or useful
heat.
•
§941(a) - amends the definition for biobased product in P.L. 106-224 to mean an
industrial product (including chemicals, materials, and polymers) produced from
biomass, or a commercial or industrial product (including animal feed and
electric power) derived in connection with the conversion of biomass to fuel.
•
§941(d)(1) - modifies membership of the Biomass Research and Development
Technical Advisory Committee (P.L. 106-224, §306); replaces an individual
affiliated with the biobased industrial products industry with an individual
affiliated with the biofuels industry; adds an individual affiliated with the
biobased industrial and commercial products industry; requires committee
members as described in P.L. 106-224, §306(b)(1)(C), (D), (G), and (I) to have
expertise in “fuels and biobased products” whereas previously members were to
have expertise in “biobased industrial products.”
•
§941(e)(1) - modifies the Biomass Research and Development Initiative (P.L.
106-224, §307(a)) to focus on “research on, and development and demonstration
of, biobased fuels and biobased products, and the methods, practices and
technologies, for their production.” Previously the initiative focus was on
“research on biobased industrial products.”
Congressional Research Service
19
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
•
§941(e)(2) - adds to the Biomass Research and Development Initiative (P.L. 106224, §307) an objectives section and a technical areas section, in addition to other
sections, that specify biobased fuels as a priority. For example, the initiative is to
support “product diversification through technologies relevant to production of a
range of biobased products (including chemicals, animal feeds, and cogenerated
power) that eventually can increase the feasibility of fuel production in a
biorefinery.”
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140)
•
§231(1) - modifies EPAct05 §931(b) by adding an authorization of $963 million
for FY2010. Section 931 of EPAct05 authorizes the Secretary of Energy to
conduct programs of renewable energy RD&D and commercial application.
•
§231(2) - modifies EPAct05 §931(c)(2) to increase authorized funding for
FY2008 from $251 million to $377 million; also modifies EPAct05 §931(c)(3) to
increase authorized funding for FY2009 from $274 million to $398 million.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill, P.L. 110-246)
c11173008
•
§7526 - reauthorizes the Sun Grant program, which requires USDA to coordinate
with DOE and land-grant colleges and universities to provide grants to the Sun
Grant centers to enhance the efficiency of bioenergy and biomass research and
development programs.
•
§9001 - defines biorefinery as a facility that converts renewable biomass into
biofuels and biobased products and may produce electricity.
•
§9008 - defines biobased product as an industrial product (including chemicals,
materials, and polymers) produced from biomass, or a commercial or industrial
product (including animal feed and electric power) derived in connection with
the conversion of biomass to fuel.
•
§9011 - establishes the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, which provides
financial assistance to producers or entities that deliver eligible biomass material
to designated biomass conversion facilities for use as heat, power, biobased
products, or biofuels.
•
§9012 - authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest
Service, to conduct a competitive R&D program to encourage use of forest
biomass for energy.
•
§9013(a)(2) - defines a community wood energy system as an energy system that
primarily services public facilities owned or operated by state or local
governments, including schools, town halls, libraries, and other public buildings;
and uses woody biomass as the primary fuel. The term includes single facility
central heating, district heating, combined heat and energy systems, and other
related biomass energy systems.
•
§9013(b) - establishes the Community Wood Energy Program and authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest Service, to provide grants of
up to $50,000 for up to 50% of the cost for communities to plan and install wood
energy systems in public buildings.
Congressional Research Service
20
Biopower: Background and Federal Support
.
Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill, P.L. 113-79)
•
§7526 - reauthorizes the Sun Grant program, which requires USDA to coordinate
with other appropriate federal agencies and land-grant colleges and universities
to provide grants to the Sun Grant centers to enhance the efficiency of bioenergy
and biomass research and development programs.
•
§9011 - repeals the forest biomass for energy program.
•
§11022 - authorizes research and development regarding the use of biomass
sorghum grown expressly for the purpose of producing a feedstock for renewable
biofuel, renewable electricity, or biobased products.
Author Contact Information
Kelsi Bracmort
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
kbracmort@crs.loc.gov, 7-7283
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
21% of electricity generation in 2008, may reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, provide energy security, and promote economic development. A large
range of feedstocks can be used, from woody and herbaceous biomass to agricultural residues.
Each feedstock has technical and economic advantages and challenges compared to fossil fuels.
Unlike wind or solar energy, a biopower plant is considered to be a baseload power source
because some biomass feedstocks can be used for continuous power production. However,
ensuring a sustainable supply of biomass feedstocks is a major challenge. Although there are
multiple biopower technologies, few of them except combustion have been deployed at
commercial scale nationwide.
Federal policymakers are supporting biopower through feedstock supply analysis and biopower
technology assessments. However, there is limited comprehensive data about the type and amount
of biomass feedstock available to meet U.S. biopower needs at a national level. If the use of
dedicated biomass feedstocks to generate biopower were to develop into a sizeable industry,
concerns would likely include the effect of the industry on land use (i.e., how much land would it
take to grow the crops needed to fuel or co-fuel power plants) and the effect on the broader
economy, including farm income and food prices. To date, these have not been issues: most
existing biomass feedstocks have been waste products generated by the forest products industry
or by farms, or municipal solid waste for which combustion served as both a disposal method and
a source of energy.
Growing crops for use as a power source would be different from using waste. Under generally
accepted assumptions regarding crop yields and energy content, approximately 31 million acres—
roughly the amount of land in farms in Iowa—would be needed to supply enough biomass
feedstock to satisfy 6% of total 2008 U.S. electricity retail sales. When added to the amount of
land needed to meet the requirements of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a federally
mandated transportation fuel requirement, the potential impacts could be significant: the RFS
already consumes 35% of the nation’s corn crop, and its requirements will triple between 2010
and 2022 (although much of this fuel will come from feedstocks other than corn).
Beyond land use and economic impacts, others are concerned that the use of biomass feedstocks
to generate biopower, particularly through combustion, could add to greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission levels and exacerbate climate change concerns. They fear that certain areas may be
unsustainably harvested to meet biomass feedstock demand, or that less biomass may be left for
other purposes (e.g., wood and paper products). The concerns exist partly because biomass used
for biopower does not face the same constraints as biomass used for liquid transportation fuels
under the RFS. In addition, the idea that biomass combustion is carbon-neutral is under scrutiny.
The Environmental Protection Agency has not exempted biomass combustion emissions from the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. The rule sets
thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits are required for new and existing
industrial facilities. It is unclear what the rule would mean for biomass combustion plants, since
determinations of the best available control technologies (BACT)—a pollution control standard
mandated by the Clean Air Act—will be provided in another rulemaking. Those who consider
biomass combustion emissions to be biogenic (produced by living organisms), and thus carbonneutral over time, argue that these emissions should be exempted from the rule.
Congressional Research Service
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
What Kind of Biomass Is Available for Biopower?......................................................................2
From Biomass to Biopower .........................................................................................................4
Carbon Balance...........................................................................................................................7
Implications for Legislation ...................................................................................................... 10
Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 11
Figures
Figure 1. Biopower Conversion Processes ...................................................................................6
Figure 2. Biopower and Biofuel Technology Pipeline ..................................................................6
Figure 3. Carbon Balance of Energy............................................................................................8
Tables
Table 1. General Classification of Biomass..................................................................................3
Table 2. Biomass Feedstock Growing Area Required to Produce Biopower .................................7
Appendixes
Appendix A. Biomass Feedstock Characteristics for Biopower Generation ................................ 13
Appendix B. Biopower R&D Authorizations ............................................................................. 22
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 27
Congressional Research Service
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Introduction
The production of bioenergy—renewable energy derived from biomass—could potentially
increase national energy security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to rural
economic growth. Legislative, research, and industrial attention have focused on the production
of bioenergy in the form of liquid transportation fuels (e.g., corn-based ethanol).1 Biopower—the
production of electricity from biomass feedstocks—may require new national policies or
incentives if Congress decides to encourage its development.
Biopower, or biomass power, comprised about 1% of electricity generation in 2008.2 It was the
third-largest renewable energy source for electricity generation in that year, after conventional
hydroelectric power and wind. 3 The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Information
Administration (EIA) projects that electricity generation from biomass will grow from 0.9% of
total generation in 2008 to 5.5% in 2035.4 The DOE reference case for this projection assumes
extension of federal tax credits, state requirements for renewable electricity generation, and the
loan guarantee program in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05; P.L. 109-58) and the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5).
Current concerns for accelerating biopower growth include the need for a continuously available
feedstock supply, a commercial-scale facility to generate the biopower, and market certainty for
investors and purchasers alike. Improved feedstock availability, technological advancements, and
new forms of economic support could increase the relative contribution of biopower to meeting
U.S. energy demand.
One reason for the projected growth of biopower is the fuel’s ability to be used in a baseload
power plant. Baseload power is the minimum amount of electric power delivered or required over
a given period of time at a steady rate. If a plant operates as a baseload plant, the plant can run
continually except for maintenance and outages. With sufficient feedstock supplies, a biopower
plant could provide “firm” power for baseload needs (and long-term contracts would reduce risk).
In contrast, wind and solar energy require either a form of power storage, such as batteries, or a
backup power source, such as natural gas turbines, in order to provide firm power.
Power generation from biomass is not limited to a specific feedstock and therefore is relatively
flexible in terms of fuel suppliers. Each region of the country can pursue biomass feedstocks that
are native and readily available (e.g., corn stover in the Midwest, hybrid poplar in the Northwest,
switchgrass in the Southeast). The economic climate for biopower dictates that biopower plants
1
The Renewable Fuel Standard, a mandate to ensure that domestic transportation fuel contains a specified volume of
biofuels, is one reason most legislative and administrative efforts have focused on development of biofuels for
transportation. For more information, see CRS Report R40155, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues,
by Randy Schnepf and Brent D. Yacobucci.
2
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2009, DOE/EIA-0384(2009), August 2010,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/elect.html.
3
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Renewable Energy Annual 2008 Edition, August 2010,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/rea_sum.html. Biopower constituted roughly 14.4% of
electricity generation from renewable energy sources in 2008, preceded by conventional hydroelectric power and wind,
which constituted roughly 67% and 14.5%, respectively.
4
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010, DOE/EIA-0383(2010), Washington, DC,
April 2010, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/. The bulk of this increase is expected to come from growth in co-firing
operations. Co-firing is the combustion of a supplementary fuel (e.g., biomass) and coal concurrently.
Congressional Research Service
1
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
should be located in close proximity to feedstocks to reduce transportation costs, which can be
significant.5 Furthermore, existing combustion plants can be retrofitted for biopower production;
power from these plants could use existing transmission infrastructure. Financing and siting of
new transmission infrastructure could add uncertainty to a proposed project.
The availability and cost of biomass feedstocks determine the amount of biopower that can be
produced nationally. An overarching concern is maintaining a sustainable biomass feedstock
supply. 6 If feedstocks are collected without regard to replenishment, or in an otherwise
unsustainable manner, biopower enterprises may lead to natural resource deterioration such as
soil erosion or the depletion of forested land. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), expanded
under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140), mandates a
minimum volume of biofuels to be used in the national transportation fuel supply each year.
Under the RFS, biomass used for renewable fuel for transportation purposes cannot be removed
from federal lands, and the law excludes crops from forested lands.7 Thus far, biomass used for
biopower is not subject to the same constraints as biomass used for liquid transportation fuels
under the RFS. Additionally, feedstock diversity is a formidable challenge to biopower growth,
because cultivation, harvest, storage, and transport vary according to the feedstock type. Another
challenge is accounting for the amount of feedstock available for biopower production due to
market fluctuations and weather variability.
In considering congressional action to broaden legislative authorities for sustainable biopower
production, an understanding of the various biomass feedstocks and challenges to biopower
production could be useful to policymakers. This report provides analyses of commonly
discussed biomass feedstocks and their relative potential for power generation. Additional
biopower issues—feedstock accessibility, the biomass power plant carbon-neutrality debate, and
unintended consequences of legislative activities to promote bioenergy—are also discussed.
What Kind of Biomass Is Available for Biopower?
The type, amount, and costs of biomass feedstocks available for biopower will largely determine
whether biopower can thrive as a major renewable energy alternative. There is limited
comprehensive data on the amount of biomass feedstocks available to meet current and future
biopower needs at a national level. The supply data available is generally evaluated in terms of
meeting biofuel demand. Some may argue that feedstock assessments for biofuels are adequate
for biopower purposes, as the same feedstock may be used to meet both biofuel and biopower
demands. Information that identifies which feedstocks exhibit the most potential for power
5
Pew Center on Global Climate Change , Biopower, December 2009, http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/
Biopower%20final%2011%2009.pdf. Certain analysis indicates that feedstock supply should be located within a 50mile radius to avoid excessive transportation costs: Marie E. Walsh, Robert L. Perlack, and Anthony Turhollow et al.,
Biomass Feedstock Availability in the United States: 1999 State Level Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
January 2000, http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/resourcedata/index.html.
6
Executive Order 13514 defines sustainability as the creation and maintenance of conditions that allow humans and
animals to exist in productive harmony, and that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of
present and future generations. For more information, see CRS Report R40974, Executive Order 13514: Sustainability
and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction , by Richard J. Campbell and Anthony Andrews.
7
For more information on biomass definitions, see CRS Report R40529, Biomass: Comparison of Definitions in
Legislation, by Kelsi Bracmort and Ross W. Gorte.
Congressional Research Service
2
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
generation in the near and long term is also scarce.8 Furthermore, ideal or feasible locations
where feedstocks may be grown are not well assessed. The potential inclusion of genetically
modified dedicated energy crops or selective breeding for bioenergy purposes may alter the
amount of biomass feedstock available for biopower production (and may alter land use).
Additional legislative action concerning financial support of biopower may depend on better data
to estimate the economic viability of biopower plants nationwide. 9 Costs associated with biomass
storage and transportation to a biopower plant, as well as other economic and environmental
considerations, are among the factors assessed in individual biopower plant feasibility studies.
These factors are key to determining which biomass feedstocks can be used.
In addition to economics, biological characteristics play a large role in determining the suitability
of any type of biomass. Biomass is organic matter that can be converted into energy. Plants use
photosynthesis to store energy (carbon-based molecules) within cell walls, and that energy is
released when the biomass undergoes a biological process such as anaerobic digestion, or a
chemical process such as combustion. Biomass can include land- and water-based vegetation
(e.g., trees, algae), as well as other organic wastes (see Table 1).
Table 1. General Classification of Biomass
Biomass groups
Biomass sub-groups, varieties and species
Wood and woody biomass
Coniferous or deciduous (gymnosperm or angiosperm); stems,
branches, foliage, bark, chips, lumps, pellets, briquettes, sawdust,
sawmill and other wastes from various woody species
Herbaceous and agricultural biomass
Annual or perennial and field-based or process-based such as:
—grasses and flowers (alfalfa, arundo, bamboo, bana, brassica,
cane, miscanthus, switchgrass, timothy, others);
—straws (barley, bean, flax, corn, mint, oat, rape, rice, rye,
sesame, sunflower, wheat, others);
—other residues (fruits, shells, husks, hulls, pits, pips, grains,
seeds, coir, stalks, cobs, kernels, bagasse, food, fodder, pulps,
cakes, others)
Aquatic biomass
Marine or freshwater algae and microalgae; macroalgae (blue,
green, blue-green, brown, red); seaweed, kelp, lake weed, water
hyacinth, others
Animal and human biomass wastes
Bones, meat-bone meal, chicken litter, various manures, others
Contaminated biomass and industrial biomass
wastes (semi-biomass)
Municipal solid waste, demolition wood, refuse-derived fuel,
sewage sludge, hospital waste, paper-pulp sludge and liquors,
waste papers, paperboard waste, chipboard, fibreboard, plywood,
wood pallets and boxes, railway sleepers, tannery waste, others
Biomass mixtures
Blends from the above varieties
Source: Stanislav V. Vassilev, David Baxter, and Lars K. Andersen, et al., “An Overview of the Chemical
Composition of Biomass,” Fuel, vol. 89 (2010), pp. 913-933. Adapted by CRS.
8
Some of this information may be provided in a forthcoming update to the frequently cited DOE/USDA Billion-Ton
Study, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton
Annual Supply, April 2005, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf.
9
In September 2010 the National Renewable Energy Laboratory released a comprehensive mapping application that
may provide better data to compare biomass feedstock and biopower by location. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, “NREL Releases BioEnergy Atlas—A Comprehensive Biomass Mapping Application,” press release,
September 28, 2010, http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2010/891.html
Congressional Research Service
3
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Several types of feedstocks can be used as a fuel source for electric power generation. Primary
biomass feedstocks are materials harvested or collected directly where they are grown (e.g.,
grains). Secondary biomass feedstocks are by-products of the processing of primary feedstocks
(e.g., corn stover). Tertiary biomass feedstocks include post-consumer residues and wastes (e.g.,
construction and demolition waste). Appendix A shows the energy value, crop yield, advantages,
disadvantages, and general comments for selected biomass feedstocks and fossil fuels for
comparison.
Biomass would have to be grown in enormous quantities if it is to be used as a power source to
satisfy a significant portion of national energy demand. For example, approximately 31 million
acres—roughly the amount of land in farms in Iowa—of managed crops with a yield of 6 dry tons
per acre per year would be needed to supply enough biomass feedstock to satisfy 6% of total
2008 U.S. electricity retail sales.10 Quintessential biomass crops grown specifically for energy
generation (i.e., dedicated energy crops) are being considered to meet energy demand. Dedicated
energy crops may possess several desirable characteristics: high yield, low energy input to
produce, low cost, low nutrient requirements, low contaminant level, pest resistance, and low
fertilizer input.11
From Biomass to Biopower
Biomass can be converted to biopower via thermo-chemical and bio-chemical conversion
processes. These processes include combustion (or firing), pyrolysis, gasification, and anaerobic
digestion (see box, below, and Figure 1). The technologies are at varying stages of maturity (see
Figure 2). The choice of conversion technique selected for a specific biomass feedstock results in
differing amounts of useful energy recovered and forms for that energy. 12 The systems can range
substantially in scale. Small-scale systems (or modular units) may be an optimal choice for rural
areas with limited electricity demand. Large-scale systems may be more economically suitable in
more urbanized areas or near grid connections if feedstocks are ample.
The volume of biomass feedstock supply necessary to run a biopower plant depends on the
feedstock’s energy content—the less the energy value, the more volume is needed. The growing
area needed to produce the biomass that will supply a biopower plant is contingent not only on
the energy value of the feedstock, but also on the power plant capacity, the power plant efficiency,
and the feedstock yield (see Table 2). Power plant capacity is the maximum output of power,
commonly expressed in millions of watts (megawatts, MW), that generating equipment can
supply over a certain time period. Power plant efficiency is the amount of electric energy
produced per unit of feedstock input. In general, the higher the yield of the biomass feedstock, the
less growing area is required to produce a MW of power. Also, less biomass is needed to support
power plants with high efficiency rates.
10
CRS calculations based on 2008 total U.S. retail electricity sales available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/esr/
esr_sum.html. Power plant capacity factor was assumed to be 80% with 988 growing acres required per megawatt; see
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/resourcedata/powerandwood.html. The yield, six dry tons/acre, is similar to what may be
achieved by switchgrass. Land in farms data for Iowa obtained from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, available at
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/County_Profiles/Iowa/cp99019.pdf.
11
Peter McKendry, “Energy Production from Biomass (Part 1): Overview of Biomass,” Bioresource Technology, vol.
83 (2002), pp. 37-46.
12
Peter McKendry, “Energy Production from Biomass (Part 1): Overview of Biomass,” Bioresource Technology, vol.
83 (2002), pp. 37-46.
Congressional Research Service
4
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Selected Biopower Conversion Processes Defined
A. Combustion is the burning of biomass in a power plant. The biomass is burned to heat a boiler and create steam.
The steam powers a turbine, which is connected to a generator to produce electricity. Existing plant efficiencies are in
the low 20% range, although methods are available to advance efficiency to upwards of 40%. (“Efficiency” describes
which percentage of the feedstock processed is actually converted to electricity.) Approximately 180 combustion
units for biomass are in operation using wood and agricultural residues as the feedstock.
Co-firing, the simultaneous firing of biomass with coal in an existing power plant, is the most cost-effective biopower
technology. Co-firing with biomass using existing equipment is less expensive than constructing a new biopower plant.
The existing plant does require retrofitting to accept the biomass entering the plant. Certain air particulates
associated with coal combustion are reduced with co-firing, as less coal is being burned. Co-firing has a generation
efficiency in the 33%-37% range; coal-fired plants have efficiencies in the 33%-45% range. Approximately 78 co-firing
units for biomass are in operation using wood and agricultural residues as the feedstock.
B. Gasification is the heating of biomass into synthesis gas (syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide) in
an environment with limited oxygen. The flammable syngas can be used in a combined gas and steam turbine to
generate electricity. Generation efficiencies range from 40% to 50%. One challenge for gasification is feedstock
logistics (e.g., cost to ship or transport the feedstock to the power plant). A wide variety of feedstocks could undergo
gasification, including wood chips, sawdust, bark, agricultural residues, and waste. There are currently no gasification
systems for biomass at any scale.
C. Pyrolysis is the chemical breakdown of a substance under extremely high temperatures (400°C -500°C) in the
absence of oxygen. There are fast and slow pyrolysis technologies. Fast pyrolysis technologies could be used to
generate electricity. Fast pyrolysis of biomass produces a liquid product, pyrolysis oil or bio-oil, that can be readily
stored and transported. The bio-oils produced from these technologies would be suitable for use in boilers for
electricity generation. One of the challenges with pyrolysis is that the bio-oil produced tends to be low-quality
relative to what is needed for power production. Commonly used feedstock types for pyrolysis include a variety of
wood and agricultural resources. There are currently no commercial-scale pyrolysis facilities for biomass.
D. Anaerobic digestion (not shown in Figure 1) is a biological conversion process that breaks down a feedstock
(e.g., manure, landfill waste) in the absence of oxygen to produce methane, among other outputs, that can be
captured and used as an energy source to generate electricity. Anaerobic digestion systems have historically been
used for comparatively smaller-scale energy generation in rural areas. Feedstocks suitable for digestion include
brewery waste, cheese whey, manure, grass clippings, restaurant wastes, and the organic fraction of municipal solid
waste, among others. Generation efficiency is roughly 20%-30%. Approximately 150 anaerobic digesters are in
operation using manure as the feedstock.
Sources: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biomass Energy Data Book: Edition 2, ORNL/Tm-2009/098, December 2009,
http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/pdf/BEDB2_Full_Doc.pdf. International Energy Agency, Biomass for Power Generation and CHP,
ETE03, January 2007, http://www.iea.org/techno/essentials3.pdf. National Association of State Foresters, A Strategy for
Increasing the Use of Woody Biomass for Energy, Portland, ME, September 2008, http://www.stateforesters.org/files/
NASF-biomass-strategy-FULL-REPORT-2009.pdf. Sally Brown, "Putting the Landfill Energy Myth to Rest," BioCycle,
May 2010. John Balsam and Dave Ryan, Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Wastes: Factors to Consider, ATTRA—National
Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, IP219, 2006, http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/anaerobic.html. Jennifer
Beddoes, Kelsi Bracmort, and Robert Burns et al., An Analysis of Energy Production Costs from Anaerobic Digestion
Systems on U.S. Livestock Production Facilities, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, October 2007. Personal
communication with Robert Baldwin, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010. Personal communication with
Lynn Wright, biomass consultant working with Oak Ridge National Laboratory. For more information on anaerobic
digestion, see CRS Report R40667, Anaerobic Digestion: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction and Energy Generation, by
Kelsi Bracmort.
Congressional Research Service
5
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Figure 1. Biopower Conversion Processes
Source: Peter McKendry, “Energy Production from Biomass (Part 2): Conversion Technologies,” Bioresource
Technology, vol. 83 (2002), pp. 47-54. Adapted by CRS.
Figure 2. Biopower and Biofuel Technology Pipeline
Source: Electric Power Research Institute, Biopower Generation: Biomass Issues, Fuels, Technologies, and
Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Opportunities, February 2010.
Congressional Research Service
6
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Table 2. Biomass Feedstock Growing Area Required to Produce Biopower
Power plant capacity factor (%)
80
80
80
80
90
90
90
90
Power plant efficiency (%)
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
Crop yield (dry tons/acre/year)
(see Appendix A)
Growing Acres Required per MW
1
5930
4941
4235
3706
6671
5559
4765
4169
2
2965
2471
2118
1853
3335
2780
2382
2085
3
1977
1647
1412
1235
2224
1853
1588
1390
4
1482
1235
1059
927
1668
1390
1191
1042
5
1186
988
847
741
1334
1112
953
834
6
988
824
706
618
1112
927
794
695
7
847
706
605
529
953
794
681
596
8
741
618
529
463
834
695
596
521
9
659
549
471
412
741
618
529
463
10
593
494
424
371
667
556
476
417
Source: Department of Energy, Relationship Between Power Plant Efficiency and Capacity and Tons Biomass
Required and Acres Required, Lynn Wright, http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/resourcedata/powerandwood.html.
Notes (from original source): Raw numbers have been used in the above table. Calculations assume dry biomass
at 8500 btu/lb = 19.75 Gj/MG and 3413 btu/kWH = 0.0036 Gj/kWh.
Rule of thumb relationship of 1000 acres and 5000 dry tons per MW is based on 80% capacity, 30% efficiency,
and 5 dry ton/acre/year yield. A program goal would be to have a relationship of 500 acres and 4200 dry tons
per MW at 90% capacity, 40% efficiency, and 8 dry ton/acre/year yield.
Yields of 1-2 dry ton/acre/year are common for natural forests but could also represent residue levels available
from high yield plantations. Yields of 3-4 dry ton/acre/year are common for pulpwood pine plantations. Yields of
4-7 dry ton/acre/year are being observed in woody crop and herbaceous crop plantings without irrigation,
5dt/ac/yr still best average estimate. Yields of 7-10 dry ton/acre/year are being observed in some energy crop
plantings with best clones or varieties and/or with irrigation or high water tables.
Total planted area or growing area required to supply a biomass facility should be used rather than area actually
being harvested in any given year. While these are the same for a herbaceous crop harvested annually, they differ
significantly for a woody crop harvested once every few years. Calculation of the annual harvested area for a
wood crop requires knowing both the yield (dry ton/acre/year) and the harvest age of the woody crop. This
varies from project to project.
Carbon Balance
Certain sources of biomass (e.g., forestry products, dedicated energy crops) are deemed by some
to be carbon-neutral because they absorb enough CO2 during their growth period to balance the
release of CO2 when they are burned for energy (see Figure 3). The term carbon-neutral is
defined as the combustion or oxidation of matter which causes no net increase in GHG emissions
on a lifecycle basis.13 One controversial aspect of the carbon neutrality debate, and what requires
13
Section 201 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140) defines lifecycle emissions
as follows: “(H) LIFECYCLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.—The term ‘lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’
means the aggregate quantity of greenhouse gas emissions (including direct emissions and significant indirect
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
further study, is the magnitude in which these plant-derived feedstocks will be used for energy
production and thus whether the feedstock supply can be sustained (or replenished) without
environmental impairment. Some examples of environmental impairment involve disrupting
forest ecosystems by cutting down large amounts of trees, or affecting the climate by not
capturing GHGs emitted during bioenergy production. If the feedstocks are not replenished so
that they can absorb CO2, or GHG emissions are not captured from a biopower plant, the resulting
GHG releases can be akin to that of carbon-positive fossil fuels.
Figure 3. Carbon Balance of Energy
Source: John A. Matthews, “Carbon-Negative Biofuels,” Energy Policy, vol. 36 (2008), pp. 940-945; Biopact, “The
Strange World of Carbon-Negative Bioenergy: The More You Drive Your Car, the More You Tackle Climate
Change,” 2007, http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/10/strange-world-of-carbon-negative.html. Adapted
by CRS.
Notes: Carbon-positive fuels are burned, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Carbon-neutral fuels absorb CO2
as they grow and release the same carbon back into the atmosphere when burnt. Carbon-negative fuels absorb
CO2 as they grow and release less than this amount into the atmosphere when used as fuel, either through
directing part of the biomass as biochar back into the soil or through carbon capture and sequestration.
The designation of biomass combustion as carbon-neutral has come under scrutiny recently due
to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
(Tailoring Rule) finalized in May 2010 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
Tailoring Rule does not exempt emissions from biomass combustion. 14 The rule grants
exemptions not based on source category (e.g., fossil fuels, biomass), but on carbon tonnage
(...continued)
emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes), as determined by the Administrator, related to the full
fuel lifecycle, including all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution, from feedstock generation or
extraction through the distribution and delivery and use of the finished fuel to the ultimate consumer, where the mass
values for all greenhouse gases are adjusted to account for their relative global warming potential.” 42 U.S.C.
§7545(o)(1). For more information on lifecycle emissions, see CRS Report R40460, Calculation of Lifecycle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), by Brent D. Yacobucci and Kelsi Bracmort.
14
EPA’s decision on biomass combustion and biogenic activities is described in further detail on pages 419-422 of the
final rule, available at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/20100413final.pdf. For more information on the final rule,
see CRS Report R41212, EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases: Congressional Responses and Options, by James E.
McCarthy and Larry Parker.
Congressional Research Service
8
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
emitted from a facility. Beginning in January 2011, the first phase of the rule applies to any
project that emits at least 75,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). One reason
EPA did not exempt the biomass industry from the Tailoring Rule requirements is lack of
information demonstrating the costs and administrative burdens the biopower industry would face
if subject to the permitting requirements.15 EPA issued a call for information in July 2010 to
request comment on possible accounting approaches for biogenic emissions under the Tailoring
Rule.16 It is unclear what the Tailoring Rule would mean for biomass combustion plants, since the
best available control technologies (BACT)—a pollution control standard mandated by the Clean
Air Act—are determined by individual states with EPA guidance on a case-by-case basis.17
State perspectives on the inclusion of emissions from biomass combustion in the Tailoring Rule
are divided.18 Some states contend that the inclusion of biomass combustion will jeopardize
renewable energy development due to excessive permitting requirements and fees, while other
states argue that not including biomass combustion will aggravate climate change over time.
Advocates of not exempting biomass combustion from the Tailoring Rule assert that not all
biomass is carbon-neutral.19 They point out that some types of biomass, particularly biomass
coming from waste streams, settle closer to the carbon-neutral and carbon-negative side of the
scale. However, cutting down trees from a forest to burn in a power plant without regard to
replenishing the tree stand is carbon-positive. Moreover, these advocates argue, fossil fuels are
still used to farm, harvest, and transport the biomass for biopower purposes, potentially negating
the carbon neutrality over the lifecycle.
Advocates of a complete biomass combustion exemption from the Tailoring Rule contend that
biopower plant emissions add no new carbon to the atmosphere because only residuals,
byproducts, and thinnings, or waste materials that would decay, are used.20 Furthermore, they
argue that CO2 released during biomass combustion is neutral because it is re-absorbed by
growing biomass. Thus, measuring the emissions released during biomass combustion does not
capture the entire biomass emission portfolio. The American Forest & Paper Association asserts
that not exempting biomass combustion from the Tailoring Rule “jeopardizes public and private
investment in biomass-based renewable energy, which is fundamental to existing and future green
jobs in rural communities hit hard by the economic downturn.”21
15
Environmental Protection Agency, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration,” 75 Federal Register 31590, June 3,
2010.
16
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Call for Information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with
Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources, July 9, 2010, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
biogenic_emissions.html.
17
BACT is an emissions limitation which is based on the maximum degree of control that can be achieved. It is a caseby-case decision that considers energy, environmental, and economic impact. BACT can be add-on control equipment
or modification of the production processes or methods. BACT may be a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard if imposition of an emissions standard is infeasible.
18
Energy Washington, States Split on Whether Biomass Should Be Exempt from GHG Permits, September 22, 2010.
19
Nathanael Greene, Scientists to Congress & Obama: Count the Carbon in Biomass, Natural Resources Defense
Council, May 24, 2010, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/scientists_to_congress_obama_c.html.
20
Personal communication with Bob Cleaves, CEO, Biomass Power Association, October 1, 2010.
21
American Forest & Paper Association, “EPA’S Tailoring Rule Undermines Renewable Energy From Biomass,
Harms Rural Communities and Puts American Jobs at Risk,” press release, May 14, 2010, http://www.afandpa.org/
pressreleases.aspx?id=1364.
Congressional Research Service
9
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Looking forward, these competing parties may be concerned with the designation of biomass
combustion as carbon-neutral because of congressional discussion and proposals to expand the
biomass definition in energy legislation. Expanding the biomass definition could increase the
amount of land eligible for biomass removal. The biomass definition in the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140) for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) excludes
biomass removal from federal lands, and crops from forested lands are excluded as a biofuel
feedstock.22 However, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 farm bill, P.L. 110246) includes biomass from federal lands as a biofuel feedstock. The RFS addresses the carbon
balance issue of liquid transportation biofuels by requiring advanced biofuels to have lower
lifecycle emissions relative to petroleum products. EPA was responsible for determining how the
lifecycle emissions analysis would be carried out. The debate about how EPA should address the
lifecycle emissions analysis, especially the land use component, was controversial. 23 While the
RFS focuses on liquid transportation fuels, legislation has been introduced to create a renewable
electricity standard (RES).24 Many of the same biomass concerns, and thus carbon neutrality
concerns, expressed for the RFS are applicable to an RES.
There are other aspects associated with the designation of biomass energy as carbon-neutral,
many of which are beyond the scope of this report.
Implications for Legislation
Biopower straddles at least three legislative areas: agriculture, energy, and environment. The main
benefits that agricultural legislation could provide, as argued by proponents for biopower, are to
ensure an adequate feedstock supply, maintain productive field conditions during biomass growth
and harvest, and assist farmers who participate in the bioenergy market. Energy objectives, as
stated by supporters, involve establishing a robust biopower technology platform and providing
financial and technical assistance for biopower technology pioneers. Protecting the environment
throughout the biomass-to-biopower conversion is the major environmental objective, including
monitoring GHG emissions released during energy production.
As a candidate for large-scale energy use, the biopower industry may challenge Congress to
address its evolving needs on a frequent basis until biopower is a seasoned energy alternative.
One frequent topic of discussion for renewable energy is the “uneven” playing field for certain
feedstocks. Supporters of pre-selected feedstocks for biopower production argue that resources
can be targeted to that handful of feedstocks that display the most potential for bioenergy
production. Opponents contend that pre-selecting certain feedstocks makes it difficult for other
feedstocks to obtain the support needed to show their competitiveness as a biopower source.
Congress currently supports biopower with the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC)
and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC). The PTC is an incentive to business developers of
22
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a provision established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requiring gasoline
to contain a minimum amount of fuel produced from renewable biomass. For more information on the RFS, see CRS
Report R40155, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues, by Randy Schnepf and Brent D. Yacobucci.
23
For more information, see CRS Report R40460, Calculation of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), by Brent D. Yacobucci and Kelsi Bracmort.
24
For more information on the renewable electricity standard debate, see CRS Report R40565, Biomass Resources:
The Southeastern United States and the Renewable Electricity Standard Debate, by Richard J. Campbell.
Congressional Research Service
10
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
renewable energy projects producing electricity, whereby a developer can apply for a credit
against taxes for each kilowatt-hour of renewable energy produced.25 The ITC is an incentive for
domestic investment in renewable energy plants and equipment. 26 Moving forward, there may be
unintended consequences of legislation that supports biopower. For example, initial USDA
regulations for implementing the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) led to shifting
sawmill residues from products (especially particleboard) to energy rather than increasing
utilization of forest waste or planting biomass feedstocks for bioenergy.27
Legislative efforts are under way to further support the biopower industry. One relevant
legislative effort is the creation of a renewable electricity standard (RES) to encourage renewable
energy use, and thus production of renewable energy such as biopower. One bill that includes a
federal RES is the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (ACELA, S. 1462), an energy
policy bill reported out of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on July 16,
2009.28 The RES would require utilities that sell electricity to consumers to obtain a percentage of
their annual electricity supply from renewable energy sources or energy efficiency, starting at 3%
in 2011 and rising incrementally to 15% by 2021. S. 1462 identifies biomass as an eligible
renewable source. H.R. 890, S. 433, and S. 3021 are other bills that would create a federal RES.
Additionally, H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, also contains provisions
that would support biopower, such as transmission planning and net metering, along with an
RES.29
Conclusion
While there remain significant challenges to its future development, biopower production could
increase in the coming years to satisfy U.S. renewable energy demand (e.g., state renewable
portfolio standards). Generation of electricity from biopower plants has advantages over other
renewable sources such as wind and solar. Biopower plants are considered baseload plants. Also,
multiple biomass feedstocks can be used to generate electricity. Some disadvantages of using
biomass for electricity generation include the cost to transport the biomass to the biopower plant,
less biomass to be used for other purposes, and environmental tensions such as whether biomass
combustion is carbon-neutral. A sustainable supply of biomass feedstocks could be favorable to
biopower growth.
Questions remain about how to encourage biopower production and simultaneously address
technological, environmental, and agricultural concerns. Because market uncertainties exist for
biopower, the agricultural community may hesitate to grow the amount of biomass feedstocks
needed to support large-scale biopower production. Moreover, most biopower technologies, with
the exception of combustion and co-firing systems, have yet to reach commercial status.
25
26
26 U.S.C. § 45.
26 U.S.C. § 48.
27
For more information on BCAP, see CRS Report R41296, Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP): Status and
Issues, by Megan Stubbs. BCAP provides financial assistance to producers or entities that deliver eligible biomass
material to designated biomass conversion facilities for use as heat, power, biobased products, or biofuels.
28
For more information on the proposed RES in S. 1462, see CRS Report R40837, Summary and Analysis of S. 1462:
American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, As Reported, coordinated by Mark Holt and Gene Whitney.
29
For more information, see CRS Report R40890, Summary and Analysis of S. 1733 and Comparison with H.R. 2454:
Electric Power and Natural Gas, by Stan Mark Kaplan.
Congressional Research Service
11
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Improvements to the remaining biopower conversion technologies may arise when there is a solid
market for biopower. There is no federal mandate requiring the production of biopower, although
more than 25 states have implemented state renewable portfolio standards or goals that include
biopower. Furthermore, legislative uncertainty has contributed to the reluctance to develop
biopower. Additional assurances of federal support, whether technical, economic, or through
renewable mandates, could spur commitments by investors, the technology community, and
others.
Congressional Research Service
12
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Appendix A. Biomass Feedstock Characteristics for Biopower Generation
Feedstock Type
Energy Value
Btu/lb (dry)a
Feedstock Yieldb
Selected Advantages
Selected Disadvantages
4-8 dry tons/acre/year
harvested on 2-4 year
cycle
•
High yield potential
•
•
Grown for several
cycles before
replanting
Requires specialized
harvesting equipment
•
High density plantings are
costly to establish
•
Select varieties
easily replicated by
cloning
•
•
Easy to automate
planting and
harvest as a row
crop
U.S. experience and
varieties of willow
currently limited to
Northeast
•
Short harvest cycle
for wood
•
Farmers can grow
and harvest
•
Low ash content
•
Commentsc
Woody Biomass
Willow
(example of a wood crop grown as a
bush type or “coppice” crop in high
density plantings as dedicated
bioenergy crop)
Hybrid poplar
(example of a fast growing hardwood
grown as a row crop for bioenergy
or multiple purposes)
CRS-13
7,983-8,497
8,183-8,491
3-7 dry tons/acre/year;
harvested on 5-15 year
cycles
•
Very high future
yield potential
with genetic
selection
•
Innovative harvest
equipment is
available
•
Many woody
hardwood crops
can be grown as
bush type crops
•
Economic yields
obtained on
marginal to good
cropland
•
Must be harvested in
winter to obtain regrowth
for several cycles
•
Agricultural site
preparation needed for
successful establishment
•
Susceptibility of some
willow varieties to insects
and diseases may require
occasional chemical
applications
•
Less fertilization
required than
agricultural crops
High yield potential
•
•
•
Select varieties
easily replicated by
cloning
No immediate return on
investment
•
•
Easy to automate
planting and
harvest as a row
crop
Susceptibility of some
hybrid poplar varieties to
insects and diseases may
require occasional
chemical applications
Very high future
yield potential
with genetic
selection
•
•
Agriculture-type site
preparation needed for
successful establishment
Innovative harvest
equipment is
under
development
•
•
Regrowth after harvest is
possible but replanting
Economic yields
obtained on
marginal to good
cropland
•
Can be stored on
stump until needed
•
Relatively low-
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Feedstock Type
Energy Value
Btu/lb (dry)a
Feedstock Yieldb
Selected Advantages
Selected Disadvantages
maintenance crop
Loblolly pine
(example of fast-growing softwood
grown as a row crop for bioenergy
or multiple purposes )
Pine chips
(example of forest residues from
timber and fiber harvests)
CRS-14
8,000-9,120
8,000-9,120
3-7 dry tons/acre/year;
harvested every 20-40
years
10-20 dry tons/acre of
on-site residues following
logging; harvested every
20-40 years
with superior clones is
recommend
•
Improvements for
bioenergy will also
likely benefit the
pulp and paper
industry
•
30 million acres of
southern pines
already are being
managed in
southern U.S.
•
Pines cannot currently be
cloned; standard breeding
and family selection
techniques must be used
to improve yield
•
Somewhat higher
energy value than
poplars and willows
•
•
Grows better than
poplars and other
hardwoods on
marginal coastal
plains and
flatwoods soils
Pines are mostly hand
planted, since planted as
rooted seedlings; Limited
automation is possible
•
Agricultural type site
preparation needed for
rapid early growth
•
Valuable to
landowners as a
low-intensity crop
with multiple
markets
•
Relatively
inexpensive if chips
produced at the
roadside as a byproduct of wood
processing
•
Infrastructure to
handle forest
residues exists
Commentsc
•
High retrieval cost when
tops and branches
collected in forest due to
labor-intensive collection
and transportation
•
Tops and branches may
not be accessible or
environmentally
sustainable to remove for
chipping, depending on
location and soil type
•
Well suited for
thermal
technologies to
generate
electricity and
ethanol
•
Conversion to
liquid fuels is
possible with acid
hydrolysis and as a
co-product of pulp
fiber production
•
Less fertilization
required than for
agricultural crops
•
An expanded
ethanol industry
using wood can
also be an
additional source
of biopower as a
co-product
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Feedstock Type
Mill residue
(from both sawmills and pulp mills)
Energy Value
Btu/lb (dry)a
7,000-10,000
Feedstock Yieldb
Selected Advantages
Highly variable depending
on operating size of the
mill
•
Easily available and
accessible
•
Inexpensive
•
Infrastructure to
handle feedstock
exists
•
Selected Disadvantages
Commentsc
•
Nearly all mill residues
are currently being used
in wood products such as
particleboard and paper,
as fuel for heat or
biopower, or to make
mulch
•
Most mill residues
will continue to be
used at or near
the site where
wood is processed
though at higher
energy costs,
more might shift
to on-site
bioenergy
production
Once established,
can be harvested
annually for 15-20
years before having
to replant
•
No immediate harvest;
takes one to three years
to be established
•
Perennial grass
•
•
Not a native species
•
Low fertilizer
requirements
•
•
•
Drought-tolerant
•
Very high yield
potential with
adequate water
Testing as a bioenergy
feedstock limited to the
last 10 years (most
research conducted in
Europe)
Established
vegetatively by
planting divided
rhizome pieces
•
Thick-stem and moisture
content of 30 to 50% in
late fall requires
specialized harvesting
equipment
Higher yields are
likely to occur on
well-drained soils
suitable for annual
row crops
•
Suitable for
thermochemical
conversion
processes, such as
combustion, if
harvest is delayed
until late winter
•
Native perennial
grass
•
Can be used for
gasification,
combustion or
pyrolysis
technologies to
Herbaceous Biomass
Miscanthus
(highly productive grass in Europe)
7,781-8,417
4-7 dry tons/acre/year
current U.S. average
4-12 dry tons/acre/year
has been observed for
delayed harvest yields in
Europe
Switchgrass
(example of several possible perennial
warm-season grasses)
CRS-15
7,754-8,233
4-9 dry tons/acre/year
range in research trials
•
Long growth
season in mid-U.S.
•
Giant miscanthus is
sterile, thus not
invasive
•
Planting of rhizomes
requires specialized
equipment
•
Suitable for growth
on marginal land
•
•
Relatively high,
reliable
productivity across
a wide geographical
range
No immediate harvest;
takes two to three years
to be established
•
May require annual
fertilization to optimize
yields, but at relatively
low levels
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Feedstock Type
Energy Value
Btu/lb (dry)a
Feedstock Yieldb
Selected Advantages
•
Low water and
nutrient
requirements
•
Provides wildlife
cover and erosion
control
•
Sorghum—varieties selected for
biomass production
(similar to a tall thin stalked forage
sorghum crop)
Sugarcane/Energycane
CRS-16
7,476-8,184
4-10 dry tons/acre/year
Yields exceeding 10 dry
tons/acre common
•
Annual harvest must
occur over a relatively
short window of time
each fall
•
Year-round storage is
needed if switchgrass is
only feedstock for a
bioenergy facility
•
Energy content diminishes
over year if not kept dry
•
Ash content can be high
•
Planted by seeding
•
Low moisture
content if
harvested in late
fall (15% to 20%)
•
Few major insect
or disease pests
•
Suitable for warm
and dry growing
regions
•
Yields more variable than
switchgrass, with rainfall
differences
•
Seed production
delayed, thus
produces more
biomass
•
Requires > 20 inches of
rainfall annually
•
Annual crop, thus more
expense and work to
replant each year
Higher yields observed
7,450-8,349
Can be grown and
harvested with
existing farm
equipment
Selected Disadvantages
•
Annual crop, thus
immediate return
on investment
•
Grows across most
of eastern and
central U.S., not
frost limited
•
Takes
approximately one
year to become
•
Planting locations limited
to a few states in the
South and Hawaii
Commentsc
generate
electricity or for
biochemical
conversion to
ethanol
•
Research for
bioenergy
feedstock began in
the 1980s
•
Sweet, grain, and
silage sorghums
are more suitable
for ethanol
production with
higher sugar
content
•
Susceptibility to
anthracnose
disease of some
genotypes
•
Literature mostly
centers on its use
for ethanol
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Feedstock Type
Energy Value
Btu/lb (dry)a
Feedstock Yieldb
Selected Advantages
established
•
•
Has very high yield
potential in
tropical, semitropical and
subtropical regions
of world
A multi-purpose
crop-producing
sugar (or ethanol)
and biopower
feedstock
•
Drought-adapted
•
Cultivation
strategies can
minimize or avoid
competition with
arable land and
nutrients used for
conventional
agriculture
Selected Disadvantages
•
Must be replanted every 4
to 5 years
•
Planting is vegetative
(stalks are laid down)
rather than by seed
•
Vulnerable to bacterial,
fungal, viral, and insect
pests
•
Crop must be harvested
green and dewatered or
stored like silage
•
Relatively little R&D
investment regarding
feedstock, biopower
conversion, and
infrastructure
Commentsc
•
The bagasse
(residue once juice
is extracted from
the sugarcane)
may be used for
biopower e.g.,
frequently used in
Brazil
•
Research ongoing
to hybridize to
achieve cold
tolerance
•
Considered a
third-generation
bioenergy source
•
Mainly considered
for biofuel
purposes;
however, some
scientists are
studying its
biopower
potential, both
directly or via
methane
productiond
Aquatic Biomass
Algae
CRS-17
8,000-10,000 for
algal mass; 16,000
for algal oil and
lipids
Estimates not available
for biopower
•
Can use waste
water, produced
water, and saline
water, reducing
competition for
limited freshwater
supplies
•
Can recycle carbon
from CO2-rich flue
emissions from
stationary sources
including power
plants and other
industrial emitters
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Feedstock Type
Energy Value
Btu/lb (dry)a
Feedstock Yieldb
Selected Advantages
Stover amounts could
range from 3-4.5 dry
tons/acre/year in fields
producing 100-150
bushels of grain/acre
•
Cultivation
techniques are
established
•
Using a resource
that has previously
gone unused
•
Stover conversion
process could be
added to grain-toethanol facilities
•
Cultivation
techniques are
established
•
Using a resource
that has previously
gone unused
•
Sugarcane takes
approximately one
year to become
established
•
Bagasse is collected
as part of the main
crop
•
Using a resource
that is generally
regarded as a waste
product with little
to no value
Selected Disadvantages
Commentsc
Agricultural Biomass and Animal Wastes
Corn stover
Wheat straw
Sugarcane bagasse (residue once juice
is extracted from the sugar cane; see
above for sugarcane)
Cattle manure
CRS-18
7,587-7,967
6,964-8,148
7,450-8,349
8,500
2.6 tons dry tons/acre
14%-30% of total
sugarcane yield
Based on manure
excretion rate of cow
•
Harvesting and
transportation
infrastructure not yet
established
•
Corn grain and
stover use has
reinvigorated the
food-fuel debate
•
Excessive removal may
lead to soil erosion and
nutrient runoff
•
•
Requires high level of
nutrients and fertile soils
Can be used for
gasification,
combustion, or
pyrolysis
technologies for
electricity or
biochemical
processes for
biofuels
•
Harvesting and
transportation
infrastructure not yet
established
•
•
Excessive removal may
lead to soil erosion and
nutrient runoff
Can be used for
gasification,
combustion or
pyrolysis
technologies to
generate
electricity or
biochemical
processes to
biofuels
•
Bagasse availability limited
to a few states in the
South and Hawaii
•
Literature mostly
centers on its use
for ethanol
•
Ash content can be high
•
The bagasse is
used to power
sugarcane mills in
many parts of the
world.
•
Technology to convert
manure to electricity is
expensive
•
•
Difficult for some
Well suited for
anaerobic
digestion to
generate
electricity
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Feedstock Type
Energy Value
Btu/lb (dry)a
Feedstock Yieldb
Selected Advantages
Selected Disadvantages
Commentsc
agricultural producers to
sell power to utilities due
to economics and utility
company collaboration
•
Using a resource
that has
undesirable
environmental
impacts if
improperly
managed
•
Collection systems
established for
dairy manure
•
Water and air
quality
improvement
•
A resource
available in
abundant supply
•
Could serve as a
disincentive to separate
and recycle certain waste
•
Diverts MSW from
landfill disposal
•
•
Wellcommercialized
technology (wasteto-energy plants)
Air emissions are strictly
regulated to control the
release of toxic materials
often in MSW; toxins
removed from air
emissions will be
transferred to waste ash,
which may require
disposal as hazardous
waste
Industrial Biomass
Municipal solid waste (MSW)
5,100 (on an as
arrived basis)
1,643 lbs/person/year
•
Costs are substantially
higher than landfill in most
areas
•
Limited resource
•
Major source of mercury,
SO2, and NOx emissions
Fossil Fuels
Coal
(low rank; lignite/sub-bituminous)
CRS-19
6,437-8,154
Not applicable
•
Established
infrastructure
•
Reliable
•
Not considered by
some as a
renewable energy
feedstock because
some of the waste
materials are made
using fossil fuels
•
Well suited for
combustion (waste
to energy plants),
gasification,
pyrolysis, or
anaerobic
digestion
technologies to
generate
electricity
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Feedstock Type
Energy Value
Btu/lb (dry)a
Feedstock Yieldb
Selected Advantages
•
Coal
(high rank; bituminous)
Oil
(typical distillate)
11,587-12,875
18,025-19,313
Not applicable
Not applicable
Relatively
inexpensive
•
Established
infrastructure
•
Reliable
•
Relatively
inexpensive
•
Established
infrastructure
•
Reliable
Selected Disadvantages
•
Main source of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions
•
Generates a tremendous
amount of waste ash that
likely contains a host of
hazardous constituents
•
Limited resource
•
Major source of mercury,
SO2 and NOx emissions
•
Main source of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions
•
Generates a tremendous
amount of waste ash that
likely contains a host of
hazardous constituents
•
Limited resource
•
Major source of SO2 and
NOx emissions
•
Purchased in large
quantities from foreign
sources
Commentsc
Source: Compiled from various sources by CRS and Lynn Wright, biomass consultant working with Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Notes: The information provided in this table are estimates for general use. Multiple factors including location, economics, and technical parameters will influence the data
on a case-by-case basis. Lynn Wright, biomass consultant working with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, provided the following comments: The infrastructure to handle
woody resources (both forest residues and plantation grown wood) already exists in the pulp and paper industry and can be easily used for the bioenergy industry. Most
woody biomass resources (whether forest residues or plantation grown wood) will be delivered as chips similar to current pulp and paper industry practices. However,
new equipment and harvest techniques may allow delivery as bundles or whole trees in some situations. Wood resources such as chipped pine (softwoods) and hardwoods
and urban wood residues are already being used to generate electricity using direct combustion technologies, all woody feedstocks are well suited for all thermal
conversion technologies including combustion, gasification and pryolysis to generate electricity. Biopower can also be produced from the black liquor by-product of both
pulp and ethanol production. Clean wood chips from willow, hybrid poplar, and other hardwoods are also very suitable for conversion to liquid fuels using biochemical
conversion technologies.
a.
CRS-20
Energy values for the following feedstocks were obtained from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biomass Energy Data Book: Edition 2, ORNL/Tm-2009/098, December
2009, http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/pdf/BEDB2_Full_Doc.pdf; Table A.2 “Heat Content Ranges for Various Biomass Fuels”; willow, hybrid poplar, pine = Forest Residues softwoods, switchgrass, miscanthus (converted from kj/kg to Btu/lb) corn stover, sugarcane bagasse and wheat straw. Energy values for fossil fuels were obtained by
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
converting the heating values (GJ/t) provided in Jonathan Scurlock, Bioenergy Feedstock Characteristics, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2002, http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/
papers/misc/biochar_factsheet.html to an energy value (Btu/lb). The energy value for sawmill residue was obtained from Nathan McClure, Georgia Forestry
Commission, “Forest Biomass as a Feedstock for Energy Production,” oral presentation for Georgia Bioenergy Conference, August 2, 2006,
http://www.gabioenergy.org/ppt/McClure—Forest%20Biomass%20as%20a%20Feedstock%20for%20Energy%20Production.pdf. The energy value for algae was obtained
from Oilgae, “Answers to some Algae Oil FAQs—Heating Value, Yield ...,” February 2007, http://www.oilgae.com/blog/2007/02/answers-to-some-algae-oil-faqsheating.html. The energy value of manure on a dry ash-free basis was obtained from Texas Cooperative Extension, Manure to Energy: Understanding Processes, Principles
and Jargon, E-428, 2006, http://tammi.tamu.edu/ManurtoEnrgyE428.pdf. The manure heating value may be reduced by the ash and moisture content of the manure given
certain conditions. The energy value of municipal solid waste was obtained from C. Valkenburg, C.W. Walton, and B.L. Thompson, et al., Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
to Liquid Fuels Synthesis, Volume 1: Availability of Feedstock and Technology, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL-18144, December 2008, http://www.pnl.gov/
main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18144.pdf. The energy value for sorghum was obtained using a value for sudan grass, a closely related crop, from
the European PHYLLIS database http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/dataTable.asp.
b.
The harvest frequency is on an annual basis unless stated otherwise. Energy yield ranges for willows, poplars, pines, switchgrass, miscanthus, sugarcane, sugarcane
bagasse and sorghum were provided by Lynn Wright, biomass consultant working with Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Energy yields for miscanthus. and switchgrass
were also discussed with Jeffrey Steiner (USDA), August 2010. Energy yields for hybrid poplar were also obtained from Minnesota Department of Agriculture,
Minnesota Energy from Biomass, http://www.mda.state.mn.us/renewable/renewablefuels/biomass.aspx; Energy yield for pine chips (forest residues) was obtained from
calculations from data in David A. Hartman et al., Conversion Factors for the Pacific Northwest Forest Industry (Seattle, WA; Univ. of Washington, Institute of Forest
Products, no date), pp. 6, 47. Energy yield for corn stover was obtained from R.L Nielsen, Questions Relative to Harvesting & Storing Corn Stover, Purdue University,
AGRY-95-09, September 1995, http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/pubs/agry9509.htm. Energy yield for wheat straw was obtained from Jim Morrison, Emerson
Nafziger, and Lyle Paul, Predicting Wheat Straw Yields in Northern Illinois, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2007, http://cropsci.illinois.edu/research/rdc/dekalb/
publications/2007/PredictingWheatStrawYieldsFinalReportToExtensionMay2007.pdf; In general, it is assumed a dairy cow excretes 150lbs of manure/day based on the
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) Manure Production and Characteristics Standard D384.2, March 2005. Energy yield for municipal
solid waste was calculated based on data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste http://www.epa.gov/osw/basic-solid.htm (In 2008, U.S.
residents, businesses, and institutions produced about 250 million tons of MSW, which is approximately 4.5 pounds of waste per person per day). Energy yield for
miscanthus in Europe was obtained from Clifton-Brown, J.C., Stampfl, P.A., and Jones, M.B., Miscanthus Biomass Production for Energy in Europe and Its Potential
Contribution to Decreasing Fossil Fuel Carbon Emissions. Global Change Biology, 10, (2004) pp. 509-518; Energy yield for siwtchgrass was obtained from McLaughlin, S.B.,
and Kszos, L.A., “Development of Switchgrass (panicum virgatum) as a bioenergy feedstock in the United States.” Biomass and Bioenergy 28 (2005) pp. 515-535.
Energy yield for sorghum was obtained from W.L. Rooney, et al, “Designing Sorghum as a Dedicated Bioenergy Feedstock.” Biofuels, Bioproducts, and Biorefining. 1,
(2007) pp.147-157; Energy yield for sugarcane/energycane obtained from http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=251543&pf=1 (a
web-published abstract of a book chapter written by Bransby et. al. and submitted for publication in February 2010); Energy yield for sugarcane baggase was obtained
from http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=254594&pf=1 (an abstract of a book chapter prepared by R. Viator, P. White, and E.
Richard, and entitled “ Sustainable Production of Energycane for Bio-energy in the Southeastern U.S.” submitted for publication by the Sugarcane Research Unit in
Houma, LA in August 2010).
c.
For more information on the state of combustion, pyrolysis, gasification, and anaerobic digestion technologies, see the shaded text box on page 5.
d.
For more information, see Stanford University, “Stanford Researchers Find Electrical Current Stemming from Plants,” press release, April 13, 2010,
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/april/electric-current-plants-041310.html; and John Ferrell and Valerie Sarisky-Reed, National Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap, U.S.
Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of the Biomass Program, May 2010, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/
algal_biofuels_roadmap.pdf.
CRS-21
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Appendix B. Biopower R&D Authorizations
R&D Authorizations
Congress has enacted numerous provisions that authorize the Departments of Energy (DOE) and
Agriculture (USDA) to conduct biopower research, development, and demonstration projects
(RD&D) and to support biopower commercial application efforts.30 At least eight public laws
contain one or more biopower provisions:
•
P.L. 95-620, Powerplants and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978
•
P.L. 96-294, Energy Security Act of 1980
•
P.L. 106-224, Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000
•
P.L. 107-171, Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
•
P.L. 108-148, Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003
•
P.L. 109-58, Energy Policy Act of 2005
•
P.L. 110-140, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
•
P.L. 110-246, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
The public laws discussed in this section are summaries of provisions at the time of enactment to
illustrate the evolution of bioenergy policy. Some provisions may have been amended since
enactment. A comprehensive legislative history of current law is beyond the scope of this report.
1978-1980: Biopower Legislative Origin
Both the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-620) and the Energy Security
Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-294) introduced the concept of biopower to the legislative arena. However,
the enacted legislation emphasized the use of biomass as a liquid fuel to reduce dependence on
imported petroleum and natural gas. Biomass used to generate electricity appears to have received
less legislative support compared to biomass use as a liquid fuel, based on the report language
and authorizations.
Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-620)
The legislative origin of biopower stems from the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of
1978. The act aimed to restrict the use of oil and natural gas as fuel in an attempt to mitigate the
oil crisis of the mid-1970s by encouraging industries and utilities to reduce oil use. It required
new power plants to operate using coal or alternate fuel sources. Otherwise, the act did not
provide explicit support for biopower RD&D and commercial application.
30
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Power Technologies Energy Data Book, NREL/TP-620-39728, August
2006, http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/docs/pdf/39728_complete.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
22
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
•
§ 103(a)(6) - defines alternate fuel, in part, as electricity or any fuel, other than
natural gas or petroleum, from sources such as biomass, municipal, industrial or
agricultural wastes, wood, and renewable and geothermal energy sources.
Energy Security Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-294)
•
§ 203(4)(B) - defines biomass energy, in part, as energy or steam derived from
the direct combustion of biomass for the generation of electricity, mechanical
power, or industrial process heat.
•
§ 203(5)(B) - defines biomass energy project, in part, as any facility (or portion
of a facility) located in the United States which is primarily for the combustion of
biomass for generating industrial process heat, mechanical power, or electricity,
including cogeneration.
•
§ 203(19) - defines a small-scale biomass energy project as a biomass energy
project with an anticipated annual production capacity of not more than 1 million
gallons of ethanol per year, or its energy equivalent of other forms of biomass
energy.
•
§ 211(a) - requires DOE and USDA to collaborate on a biomass energy
production and use plan and on providing financial assistance for biomass energy
projects.
•
§ 251(a) - indirect reference to biopower; stipulates the establishment of
demonstration biomass energy facilities by the Secretary of Agriculture to exhibit
the most advanced technology available for producing biomass energy.
•
§ 252 - indirect reference to biopower; modifies § 1419 of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-113)
to better address biomass energy for RD&D purposes; authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to award grants for research related to, in part, the development of
the most economical and commercially feasible means of producing, collecting,
and transporting agricultural crops, wastes, residues, and byproducts for use as
feedstocks for the production of alcohol and other forms of biomass energy.
•
§ 255(a) - indirect reference to biopower; adds a Biomass Energy Educational
and Technical Assistance Program to Subtitle B of P.L. 95-113 to provide
technical assistance to producers for efficient use of biomass energy and
disseminate research results to producers about biomass energy, among other
things.
1981-1999: Biopower Legislation and Technology
Congress did not significantly address biopower during most of the 1980s and 1990s partially due
to stable conventional energy prices and supplies. Some biopower technologies emerged during
this time period with low success rates due to poor design and inadequate management (e.g.,
anaerobic digestion systems). Other reliable biopower technologies were developed during this
time period (e.g., biomass co-firing), but these could not compete economically with other energy
sources.
Congressional Research Service
23
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
2000-Present: Biopower Legislative Action
Described below are a variety of biopower provisions contained in public laws since 2000.
Although many of the provisions focus primarily on the use of biomass for liquid transportation
fuel, there is also legislative support for biopower. Both DOE and USDA have the authority to
conduct RD&D and support commercial application efforts for biopower. However, project
summaries and financial allotments indicate the majority of resources in recent years were
directed toward liquid fuels for transportation.31
Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-224)
The Biomass Research and Development Act32 established a partnership between the USDA and
DOE for RD&D on the production of biobased industrial products. (This act was amended by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, P.L. 109-58.) The original provisions included:
•
§ 303(2) - defines biobased industrial products to include fuels, chemicals,
building materials, or electric power or heat produced from biomass.
•
§ 305 - implicit reference to biopower; establishes the Biomass Research and
Development Board to coordinate research and development activities relating to
biobased industrial products; Board membership includes a representative from
DOE, USDA, Department of the Interior, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
•
§ 306 - implicit reference to biopower; establishes the Biomass Research and
Development Technical Advisory Committee to, in part, advise the Biomass
Research and Development Board concerning the technical focus and direction of
requests for proposals issued under the Biomass Research and Development
Initiative
•
§ 307 - implicit reference to biopower; authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture
and of Energy to, in part, competitively award grants, contracts, and financial
assistance to eligible entities that can perform research on biobased industrial
products. For example, grants may be rendered to an entity conducting research
on advanced biomass gasification and combustion to produce electricity
(§ 307(d)(2)(e)); related research in advanced turbine and stationary fuel cell
technology for production of electricity from biomass (§ 307(d)(2)(f)); biomass
gasification and combustion to produce electricity (§ 307(d)(3)(A)(v)); and any
research and development in technologies or processes determined by the
Secretaries, acting through their respective points of contact and in consultation
with the Biomass Research and Development Board (§ 307(d)(4)).
31
For information on biomass energy incentives, see CRS Report R40913, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs, by Richard J. Campbell, Lynn J. Cunningham, and Beth A. Roberts
32
The Biomass Research and Development Act is Title III of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106224).
Congressional Research Service
24
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171)
•
§ 9003 - authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to award grants to assist in
paying the development and construction costs of biorefineries in order to carry
out projects that demonstrate their commercial viability for converting biomass to
fuels or chemicals.
•
§ 9003(b)(2) - defines biorefinery as equipment and processes that convert
biomass into fuels and chemicals; and may produce electricity.
Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148)
•
§ 203 - establishes the Biomass Commercial Utilization Grant Program;
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to the owner or operator of
a facility that uses biomass as a raw material to produce one or more of several
outputs, including electric energy.
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05; P.L. 109-58)
•
§ 931(f) - authorizes the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary
of Agriculture, to implement rural demonstration projects that use renewable
energy technologies to assist in delivering electricity to rural and remote
locations from biomass.
•
§ 932 (b)(1) - authorizes the Secretary of Energy to conduct a program of RD&D,
and commercial application for bioenergy including biopower energy systems.
•
§ 932 (d)(B)(iv) - authorizes the Secretary of Energy to demonstrate the
commercial application of integrated biorefineries from the commercial
application of biomass technologies for energy in the form of electricity or useful
heat.
•
§ 941(a) - amends the definition for biobased product in P.L. 106-224 to mean an
industrial product (including chemicals, materials, and polymers) produced from
biomass, or a commercial or industrial product (including animal feed and
electric power) derived in connection with the conversion of biomass to fuel.
•
§ 941(d)(1) - modifies membership of the Biomass Research and Development
Technical Advisory Committee (P.L. 106-224 § 306); replaces an individual
affiliated with the biobased industrial products industry with an individual
affiliated with the biofuels industry; adds an individual affiliated with the
biobased industrial and commercial products industry; requires committee
members as described in P.L. 106-224, § 306(b)(1)(C), (D), (G), and (I) to have
expertise in ‘fuels and biobased products’ whereas previously members were to
have expertise in ‘biobased industrial products’.
•
§ 941(e)(1) - modifies the Biomass Research and Development Initiative (P.L.
106-224, § 307(a)) to focus on “research on, and development and demonstration
of, biobased fuels and biobased products, and the methods, practices and
technologies, for their production.” Previously the initiative focus was on
“research on biobased industrial products.”
Congressional Research Service
25
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
•
§ 941(e)(2) - adds to the Biomass Research and Development Initiative (P.L. 106224, § 307) an objectives section and a technical areas section, in addition to
other sections, that specify biobased fuels as a priority. For example, the initiative
is to support “product diversification through technologies relevant to production
of a range of biobased products (including chemicals, animal feeds, and
cogenerated power) that eventually can increase the feasibility of fuel production
in a biorefinery.”
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140)
•
§ 231(1) - modifies EPAct05 § 931(b) by adding an authorization of $963 million
for FY2010. Section 931 of the EPAct05 authorizes the Secretary of Energy to
conduct programs of renewable energy RD&D, and commercial application.
•
§ 231(2) - modifies EPAct05 § 931(c)(2) to increase authorized funding for
FY2008 from $251 million to $377 million; Also modifies EPAct05 § 931(c)(3)
to increase authorized funding for FY2009 from $274 million to $398 million.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill, P.L. 110-246)
•
§ 7526 - reauthorizes the Sun Grant program, which requires USDA to
coordinate with DOE and land-grant colleges and universities to provide grants
to the Sun Grant centers to enhance the efficiency of bioenergy and biomass
research and development programs.
•
§ 9001 - defines biorefinery as a facility that converts renewable biomass into
biofuels and biobased products; and may produce electricity.
•
§ 9008 - defines biobased product as an industrial product (including chemicals,
materials, and polymers) produced from biomass, or a commercial or industrial
product (including animal feed and electric power) derived in connection with
the conversion of biomass to fuel.
•
§ 9011 - establishes the Biomass Crop Assistance Program which provides
financial assistance to producers or entities that deliver eligible biomass material
to designated biomass conversion facilities for use as heat, power, biobased
products or biofuels.
•
§ 9012 - authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest
Service, to conduct a competitive R&D program to encourage use of forest
biomass for energy.
•
§ 9013(a)(2) - defines a community wood energy system as an energy system that
primarily services public facilities owned or operated by state or local
governments, including schools, town halls, libraries, and other public buildings;
and uses woody biomass as the primary fuel. The term includes single facility
central heating, district heating, combined heat and energy systems, and other
related biomass energy systems.
•
§ 9013(b) - establishes the Community Wood Energy Program and authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest Service, to provide grants of
up to $50,000 for up to 50% of the cost for communities to plan and install wood
energy systems in public buildings.
Congressional Research Service
26
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues
Author Contact Information
Kelsi Bracmort
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
kbracmort@crs.loc.gov, 7-7283
Congressional Research Service
27