.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues
for Congress
Kelsi Bracmort
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
Randy Schnepf
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Megan Stubbs
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
Brent D. Yacobucci
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
February 1, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34738
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Summary
Cellulosic biofuels are produced from cellulose (fibrous material) derived from renewable
biomass. They are thought by many to hold the key to increased benefits from renewable biofuels
because they are made from potentially low-cost, diverse, non-food feedstocks. Cellulosic
biofuels could also potentially decrease the fossil energy required to produce ethanol, resulting in
lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Cellulosic biofuels are produced on a very small scale at this time—significant hurdles must be
overcome before commercial-scale production can occur. The renewable fuels standard (RFS), a
major federal incentive, mandates the use of 100 million gallons per year (mgpy) of cellulosic
biofuels in 2010. After 2015, most of the increase in the RFS is intended to come from cellulosic
biofuels, and by 2022, the mandate for cellulosic biofuels will be 16 billion gallons. Whether
these targets can be met is uncertain. Research is ongoing, and the cellulosic biofuels industry
may be on the verge of rapid expansion and technical breakthroughs. However, at this time, only
a few small refineries are scheduled to begin production in 2010, with an additional nine expected
to commence production by 2013 for a total output of 389 mgpy, compared with an RFS
requirement of 500 mgpy in 2012 (a year earlier).
The federal government, recognizing the risk inherent in commercializing this new technology,
has provided loan guarantees, grants, and tax credits in an effort to make the industry competitive
by 2012. In particular, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill, P.L.
110-246) supports the nascent cellulosic industry through authorized research programs, grants,
and loans exceeding $1 billion. The enacted farm bill also contains a production tax credit of
$1.01 per gallon for ethanol produced from cellulosic feedstocks. Private investment, in many
cases by oil companies, also plays a major role in cellulosic biofuels research and development.
Three challenges must be overcome if the RFS is to be met. First, cellulosic feedstocks must be
available in large volumes when needed by refineries. Second, the cost of converting cellulose to
ethanol or other biofuels must be reduced to a level to make it competitive with gasoline and
corn-starch ethanol. Third, the marketing, distribution, and vehicle infrastructure must absorb the
increasing volumes of renewable fuel, including cellulosic fuel mandated by the RFS.
Congress will continue to face questions about the appropriate level of intervention in the
cellulosic industry as it debates both the risks in trying to pick the winning technology and the
benefits of providing start-up incentives. The current tax credit for cellulosic biofuels is set to
expire in 2012, but its extension may be considered during the 111th Congress. Congress may
continue to debate the role of biofuels in food price inflation and whether cellulosic biofuels can
alleviate its impacts. Recent congressional action on cellulosic biofuels has focused on the
definition of renewable biomass eligible for the RFS, which is considered by some to be overly
restrictive. To this end, legislation has been introduced to expand the definition of renewable
biomass eligible under the RFS.
Congressional Research Service
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
The Renewable Fuel Standard: A Mandatory Usage Mandate ................................................ 1
Challenges Facing the Industry.............................................................................................. 2
Cellulosic Feedstock Supplies ..................................................................................................... 3
Crop Residues....................................................................................................................... 4
Prairie Grasses ...................................................................................................................... 5
Forest Sources of Biomass .................................................................................................... 5
Secondary and Tertiary Feedstocks........................................................................................ 6
Feedstock Issues ................................................................................................................... 6
Volumes Required........................................................................................................... 6
Impacts on Food Supplies ............................................................................................... 8
Establishment Costs and Contracting Arrangements ........................................................ 8
Extracting Fuel from Cellulose: Conversion ................................................................................ 8
Production Processes............................................................................................................. 9
Acid Hydrolysis .............................................................................................................. 9
Enzymatic Hydrolysis ................................................................................................... 10
Thermochemical Gasification and Pyrolysis .................................................................. 10
Distribution and Absorption Constraints .................................................................................... 11
Distribution Bottlenecks...................................................................................................... 11
The Blend Wall ................................................................................................................... 11
Economic and Environmental Issues ......................................................................................... 12
Economic Efficiency........................................................................................................... 12
Energy Balance ................................................................................................................... 12
Environment ....................................................................................................................... 13
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................. 13
Private Investment .................................................................................................................... 14
Federal Cellulosic Biofuels Policies .......................................................................................... 15
Direct Federal Spending on R&D........................................................................................ 15
Federal-Private Partnerships.......................................................................................... 16
Renewable Energy Provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill (P.L. 110-246) ................................... 16
Tax Credit for Cellulosic Biofuels (Section 15321)........................................................ 17
Ethanol Tariff Extension (Section 15333) ...................................................................... 17
Agricultural Bioenergy Feedstock and Energy Efficiency Research and Extension
Initiative (Section 7207)............................................................................................. 17
Biorefinery Assistance (Section 9003) ........................................................................... 17
Repowering Assistance (Section 9004).......................................................................... 18
Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels (Section 9005) ............................................ 18
Biomass Research and Development Initiative (Section 9008)....................................... 19
Biomass Crop Assistance Program (Section 9011)......................................................... 19
Forest Biomass for Energy (Section 9012)..................................................................... 19
Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343) .......................................... 20
Expansion of the Allowance for Cellulosic Ethanol Property (Division B, Section
201) ........................................................................................................................... 20
Legislative Proposals ................................................................................................................ 20
Congressional Research Service
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Legislative Changes in the RFS Volume .............................................................................. 20
Expanding Biomass Eligible under the RFS ........................................................................ 21
Time Frame for Cellulosic Biofuels Production ......................................................................... 22
Figures
Figure 1. Renewable Fuel Standard Under EISA as of November 2009........................................ 2
Figure 2. Annual Biomass Resource Potential According to USDA ............................................. 7
Tables
Table 1. Potential Cellulosic Feedstock Sources .......................................................................... 4
Table 2. Basic Steps Required to Produce Ethanol ....................................................................... 9
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 22
Congressional Research Service
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Introduction
Cellulosic biofuels are produced from cellulose1 derived from renewable biomass feedstocks such
as corn stover (plant matter left in the field after harvest), switchgrass, wood chips, and other
plant or waste matter. Current production consists of a few small scale pilot projects—and
significant hurdles must be overcome before industrial-scale production can occur.
Ethanol produced from corn starch and biodiesel produced from vegetable oil (primarily soybean
oil) are currently the primary U.S. biofuels.2 High oil and gasoline prices, environmental
concerns, rural development, and national energy security have driven interest in domestic
biofuels for many years. However, the volume of fuel that can be produced using traditional row
crops such as corn and soybeans without causing major market disruptions is limited; to fulfill
stated goals, biofuels must also come from other sources that do not compete for the same land
used by major food crops. Proponents see cellulosic biofuels as a potential solution to these
challenges and support government incentives and private investment to hasten efforts toward
commercial production. Some federal incentives—grants, loans, tax credits, and direct
government research—attempt to push cellulosic biofuels technology to the marketplace.
Demand-pull mechanisms such as the renewable fuel standard (RFS) mandate the use of biofuel
blends—creating an incentive for the development of a new technology to enter the marketplace.
In contrast, petroleum industry critics of biofuel incentives argue that technological advances
such as seismography, drilling, and extraction continue to expand the fossil-fuel resource base,
which has traditionally been cheaper and more accessible than biofuel supplies. Other critics
argue that current biofuel production strategies can only be economically competitive with
existing fossil fuels in the absence of subsidies if significant improvements to existing
technologies are made or new technologies are developed. Until such technological
breakthroughs are achieved, critics contend that the subsidies distort energy markets and divert
research funds from the development of other renewable energy sources not dependent on internal
combustion technology, such as wind, solar, or geothermal, which offer potentially cleaner, more
bountiful alternatives. Still others debate the rationale behind policies that promote biofuels for
energy security, questioning whether the United States could ever produce and manage sufficient
feedstocks of starches, sugars, vegetable oils, or even cellulose to permit biofuel production to
meaningfully offset petroleum imports. Finally, there are those who argue that the focus on
development of alternative energy sources undermines efforts to score energy savings through
lower consumption.
The Renewable Fuel Standard: A Mandatory Usage Mandate
Principal among the cellulosic biofuels goals to be met is a biofuels usage mandate—the
renewable fuel standard (RFS) as expanded by the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140, Section 202)—that includes a specific carve-out for cellulosic
biofuels.3 The RFS is a demand-pull mechanism that requires a minimum usage of biofuels in the
nation’s fuel supply. This mandate can be met using a wide array of technologies and fuels.
1 Cellulose is the structural component of the primary cell wall of green plants.
2 For more information on ethanol, see CRS Report R40488, Ethanol: Economic and Policy Issues, by Randy Schnepf.
3 For more information on the RFS, see CRS Report R40155, Selected Issues Related to an Expansion of the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), by Randy Schnepf and Brent D. Yacobucci.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Although most of the RFS is expected to be met using corn ethanol initially, over time the share
of advanced (non-corn-starch derived) biofuels in meeting the mandate increases. The RFS
specifies three non-corn-starch carve outs: cellulosic biofuels, biomass-based diesel fuel, and
other (or unspecified), which could potentially be met by imports of sugar-cane-based ethanol.
The RFS mandate for cellulosic biofuels begins at 100 million gallons per year in 2010 and rises
to 16 billion gallons per year in 2022 (Figure 1). This mandate represents a prodigious challenge
to the biofuels industry in light of the fact that no commercial production of cellulosic biofuels
yet exists in the United States.
Figure 1. Renewable Fuel Standard Under EISA as of November 2009
40
35
s
30
n
Other
o
ll
25
a
G
20
Bio-diesel Cellulosic
n
io
15
ill
Corn-
B
10
starch
5
0
09
10
11
2
3
4
5
6
18
19
20
21
2
20
20
20
201
201 201 201
201 2017 20
20
20
20
202
Source: EISA, (P.L. 110-140, Section 202).
Notes: Corn-starch ethanol volume is a cap, whereas other categories are floors. Biodiesel includes any type of
biomass-based diesel substitute.
The RFS also mandates maximum lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for each type of biofuel.
Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions encompass emissions4 at all levels of production, from the
field to retail sale, including emissions resulting from land use changes, that is, the clearing of
forests for cropland due to increased energy crop production elsewhere. Under the law, GHG
emissions for cellulosic biofuels qualifying for the RFS are limited to 60% of the GHG emissions
from extracting, refining, distributing, and consuming gasoline.5
Challenges Facing the Industry
Cellulosic biofuels have potential, but there are significant hurdles to overcome before
competitiveness is reached. In his 2007 State of the Union Address, President Bush announced
the “Twenty in Ten” initiative, calling for the rapid expansion of renewable biofuels production as
4 Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (CO2, CH4, and N2O respectively).
5 For more information on the lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions under the RFS, see CRS Report R40460,
Calculation of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), by Brent D. Yacobucci
and Kelsi Bracmort.
Congressional Research Service
2
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
a major part of an effort to reduce U.S. gasoline use by 20% through biofuels and conservation.
This goal was given substance in December 2007, when Congress passed EISA, mandating the
RFS for the use of specific volumes of renewable biofuels through 2022 and setting a goal of
commercial-scale cellulosic biofuels production by 2012.
This report provides background on the current effort to develop industrial-scale, competitive
technology to produce biofuels from cellulosic feedstocks. It outlines the three major challenges
faced in the context of the RFS: (1) feedstock supply, (2) extraction of fuel from cellulose, and (3)
biofuel distribution and marketing issues. It then examines the current role of government (in
cooperation with private industry) in developing that technology. Finally, the report reviews the
role of Congress with respect to the emerging cellulosic biofuels industry, reviews recent
congressional actions affecting the industry, and discusses key questions facing Congress.
Cellulosic Feedstock Supplies
Feedstocks used for cellulosic biofuels are potentially abundant and diverse. Initially it was
thought that a major advantage of cellulosic biofuels over corn-starch ethanol was that they could
be derived from potentially inexpensive feedstocks that could be produced on marginal land.6
Corn, on the other hand, is a resource-intensive crop that requires significant use of chemicals,
fertilizers, and water, and is generally grown on prime farmland. However, field research now
suggests that establishment costs, as well as collection, storage, and transportation costs,
associated with the production of bulky biomass crops are likely to be more challenging than
originally thought.7
Cellulose, combined with hemicellulose and lignin, provides structural rigidity to plants and is
also present in plant-derived products such as paper and cardboard. Feedstocks high in cellulose
come from agricultural, forest, and even urban sources (see Table 1). Agricultural sources include
crop residues and biomass crops such as switchgrass; forest sources include tree plantations,
natural forests, and cuttings from forest management operations. Municipal solid waste, usually
from landfills, is the primary urban source of renewable biomass.
Cellulosic feedstocks may have some environmental drawbacks. Some crops suggested for
biomass are invasive species when planted in non-native environments. Municipal solid wastes
may likely require extensive sorting to segregate usable material and may also contain hazardous
material that is expensive to remove. In general, calculation of the estimated cost of biofuels
production does not reflect environmental or related impacts, but such impacts are relevant to
overall consideration of biofuels issues.
Biomass feedstocks are bulky and difficult to handle, presenting the industry with a major
challenge. Whether feedstocks are obtained from agriculture or forests, specialized machinery
would need to be developed to harvest and handle large volumes of bulky biomass. For instance,
harvesting corn for both grain and stover would be more efficient with a one-pass machine
capable of simultaneously segregating and processing both—a combination forage and grain
6 Breaking the Link between Food and Biofuels, Bruce A. Babcock, Briefing Paper 08-BP 53, July 2008.
7 Preliminary draft of the feedstock and technology chapters from a Purdue University study on “Cellulosic Biofuels:
Technology, Market, and Policy Assessment,” September 7, 2009. This study is being conducted by Purdue University
under contract with CRS and is supported by Joyce Foundation funding.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
harvester. Currently, machines such as these are being developed to handle biomass crops, but
few are commercially available.8 Storage facilities capable of keeping immense volumes of
cellulosic material in optimal conditions must also be developed, if an industry is to grow.
Table 1. Potential Cellulosic Feedstock Sources
Source Feedstock
Agricultural crop residues
Crop residues—stover, straw, etc.
Agricultural commercial crops
Perennial prairie grasses
Forest woody biomass
Logging residues from conventional harvest operations and forest management
and land clearing operations
Removal of excess biomass from timberlands and other forest lands
Fuelwood from forest lands
Perennial woody crops
Agricultural or forest processing
Food/feed processing residues
by-products
Pulping (black) liquor from paper mills
Primary and secondary wood processing mill residues
Urban
Municipal solid waste
Packaging wastes and construction debris
Source: CRS.
Crop Residues
Crop residues are by-products of production processes (such as producing grain), and so their
production costs are minimal. Corn stover9 and rice and wheat straw are abundant agricultural
residues with biomass potential.10 Among different residues, corn stover has attracted the most
attention for biofuels production. However, an important indirect cost associated with using crop
residue as a biomass feedstock is a potential loss of soil fertility. When harvesting stover,
sufficient crop residue must be left in place to prevent erosion and maintain soil fertility. Research
suggests that under the right soil conditions up to 60% of some residuals can be removed without
detrimental soil nutrition or erosion effects. Results from early trials suggest the potential ethanol
yield from corn stover (not including the grain harvested, which could be used for feed or fuel) is
approximately 180 gallons of ethanol per acre. This compares with roughly 425 gallons of corn-
starch ethanol11 (from grain) and 662 gallons per acre of sugar cane (in Brazil), when grown as
dedicated energy crops.12
8 Growing and Harvesting Switchgrass for Ethanol Production in Tennessee, Clark D. Garland, Tennessee Biofuels
Initiative, University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, UT Extension SP-701a.
9 Corn stover consists of the cob, stalk, leaf, and husk left in the field after harvest.
10 Bioenergy Feedstock Information Network, Biomass Resources, http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/main.aspx.
11 USDA Economic Research Service, Ethanol Reshapes the Corn Market, Amber Waves, April 2006,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Features/Ethanol.htm.
12 Cellulosic Ethanol: A Greener Alternative, by Charles Stillman, June 2006, http://www.cleanhouston.org/energy/
features/ethanol2.htm.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Prairie Grasses
Perennial prairie grasses include native species, which were common before the spread of
agriculture, and non-indigenous species, some of which are now quite common. Switchgrass is a
native perennial grass that once covered American prairies and is a potential source of biomass.
Its high density and native immunity to diseases and pests have caused many to focus on its use
as a cellulosic feedstock. According to research at the University of Tennessee, the 10-foot tall
grass, if harvested after frost, will produce for 10 to 20 years. However, like other perennials,
switchgrass takes some time to establish—according to field trials, in the first year of production,
yields are estimated at 30% (two tons per acre) of the full yield potential. In the second year, yield
is about 70% (five tons per acre), and in the third year yields reach full potential at seven tons per
acre,13 the equivalent of 50014 to 1,000 gallons of ethanol.15
Miscanthus is another fast-growing perennial grass. Originally from Asia, it is now common in
the United States. Miscanthus produces green leaves early in the planting season and retains them
through early fall, maximizing the production of biomass.16 Like switchgrass, it grows on
marginal lands with minimal inputs. Research in Illinois shows miscanthus can produce 2½ times
the volume of ethanol (about 1,100 gallons) per acre as corn—under proper conditions.17
At South Dakota State University, field trials with mixtures of native grasses produced biomass
yields slightly lower than switchgrass monocultures, but suggest that such mixtures result in
better soil health, improved water quality, and better wildlife habitat.18 Similar research at the
University of Minnesota with mixtures of 18 native prairie species resulted in biomass yields
three times greater than switchgrass.19
Forest Sources of Biomass
Forest resources for biomass include naturally occurring trees, residues from logging and other
removals, and residue from fire prevention treatments. Extracting and processing forest biomass
can be expensive because of poor accessibility, transportation, and labor availability. More
efficient and specialized equipment than currently exists is needed for forest residual recovery to
become cost effective.20
13 Growing and Harvesting Switchgrass for Ethanol Production in Tennessee, Clark D. Garland, Tennessee Biofuels
Initiative, University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, UT Extension SP-701a.
14 Ibid.
15 “DuPont Danisco and University of Tennessee Partner to Build Innovative Cellulosic Ethanol Pilot Facility,” press
release, Nashville, TN, July 23, 2008.
16 Science News, “Giant Grass Miscanthus Can Meet US Biofuels Goal Using Less Land Than Corn Or Switchgrass,”
Science Daily, August 4, 2008, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080730155344.htm.
17 Ibid.
18 Perennial Bioenergy Feedstocks Report to Chairman Collin Peterson—House Agriculture Committee, April 5, 2007,
North Central Bio-economy Consortium.
19 Carbon-Negative Biofuels from Low-Input High-Diversity Grassland Biomass, by David Tilman, Jason Hill, and
Clarence Lehman, Science, December 8, 2006: vol. 314, p. 1598.
20 Biomass as a Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton
Annual Supply, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2005,
http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pdf, p36.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Commercial tree plantations (perennial woody crops) are another source of woody biomass.
Compared to prairie grasses, perennial woody crops such as hybrid poplar, willow, and
eucalyptus trees, are relatively slow to mature and require harvesting at long intervals (2-4 year
intervals for willow or 8-15 years for poplar). Using specialized equipment, harvesting usually
occurs in the winter, when trees are converted to chips on site and then transported to the refinery
for processing. Some trees, such as willow, re-sprout after cutting and can be harvested again
after a few years.21 An acre of woody biomass (i.e., hybrid poplar) yields an estimated 700
gallons of biofuel on an annual basis.22
Secondary and Tertiary Feedstocks
Secondary and tertiary feedstocks are derived from manufacturing (secondary) or consumer
(tertiary) sources. In many cases their use as feedstocks recovers value from low- or negative-
value materials. Food and feed processing residues such as citrus skins are major agricultural
residues often suitable as renewable biomass. Residues from wood processing industries such as
paper mills or from feed processing are major secondary sources. Tertiary sources include urban
wood residues such as construction debris, urban tree trimmings, packaging waste, and municipal
solid waste. One ton of dry woody biomass produces approximately 70 gallons of biofuels.23
Feedstock Issues
Volumes Required
Ethanol plants are intended to operate 24/7, that is, year-round with only a brief temporary
stoppage for maintenance. As a result, accumulating and storing enough feedstock to supply a
commercial-scale refinery producing 10-20 million gallons per year (mgpy) would require as
much as 700 tons of feedstock a day—nearly the volume of 900 large round bales of grass or
hay—or about 240,000 tons annually.24 In contrast, a (much larger) 100 mgpy corn ethanol plant
requires about 2,500 tons of corn per day, but corn is much denser and easier to handle than most
renewable biomass sources.25 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is currently focusing
research efforts on harvest and collection, preprocessing, storage and queuing, handling, and
transportation of feedstocks.26 These are major challenges facing an emerging biofuels industry
due to the sheer bulk of the biomass and divergent growth cycles of different biomass crops.
Pelletizing and other methods for compressing feedstocks reduce transportation costs but increase
processing costs. According to a Purdue University study, the total per ton costs for transporting
biomass 30 miles range from $39 to $46 for corn stover and $57 to $63 for switchgrass—
21 IAE Bioenergy, Sustainable Production of Woody Biomass for Energy, March 2002,
http://www.energycommission.org/files/finalReport/IV.4.c%20-%20Cellulosic%20Ethanol%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.
22 “Fast-Growing Trees Could Take Root as Future Energy Source,” press release of Purdue University Study funded
by DOE, http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2006/060823.Chapple.poplar.html.
23 Producing Ethanol from Wood, presentation by Alan Rudie, USDA Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory,
Madison, WI, http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/plants/pdfs/rudie.pdf.
24 DOE refinery feedstock estimates and CRS calculations into large round bales.
25 Analysis of the Efficiency of the U.S. Ethanol Industry 2007, by May Wu, Center for Transportation Research
Argonne National Laboratory Delivered to Renewable Fuels Association on March 27, 2008.
26 From Biomass to Biofuels, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; NREL/BR-510-39436, August 2006,
http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/.
Congressional Research Service
6
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
compared with roughly $10 for corn.27 The USDA-DOE goal is to reduce the total feedstock cost
at the plant (production, harvest, transport, and storage) from $60 per ton (the 2007 level) to $46
per ton in 2012.28
A 2005 USDA-DOE study undertaken by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimates that just
over 1.3 billion tons of biomass (Figure 2) could be available annually in the United States for all
forms of bioenergy production (including electricity and power from biomass, and fuels from
cellulose).29 If processed into biofuel, this 1.3 billion tons of biomass could replace 30% of U.S.
transportation fuel consumption at 2004 levels, according to USDA. However, this estimate has
been heavily criticized for several reasons, including the claim that it ignores the costs and
difficulties likely to be associated with harvesting or collecting woody biomass and urban waste,
as well as that it uses optimistic yield growth assumptions to achieve its biomass tonnages. The
USDA estimate also predates the definition of renewable biomass eligible for the RFS. Current
provisions restrict the use of woody biomass to trees grown in plantations or pre-commercial
thinnings from non-federal lands, while USDA’s study included woody biomass from federal and
private forests as well as commercial forests. As a result, the potential volume of biomass
available for conversion is substantially less than the USDA-DOE estimate of 1.3 billion tons.
Figure 2. Annual Biomass Resource Potential According to USDA
Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2005.
Note: Total is roughly equivalent to 42 billion gallons of gasoline.
27 The Economics of Biomass Collection, Transportation, and Supply to Indiana Cellulosic and Electric Utility
Facilities, Working Paper #08-03, by Sarah Brechbill and Wallace Tyner Purdue University, April 25, 2008.
28 Biomass Multi-Year Plan, DOE Office of the Biomass Program, March 2006. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/
pdfs/biomass_program_mypp.pdf.
29 Biomass as a Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton
Annual Supply, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2005,
http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Impacts on Food Supplies
Compared with corn, cellulosic feedstocks are thought to have smaller impacts on food supplies.30
By refining corn into ethanol, food markets are indirectly affected via cattle and dairy feed
markets. In contrast, cellulosic feedstocks are non-food commodities and thus do not reduce food
output unless they displace food crops on cropland.31 However, many cellulosic feedstocks do not
need prime farmland. Waste streams such as municipal solid waste, most crop residues, wood
pulp residues, and forest residues are potential sources of biomass that have no impact on food
crop acreage.32 Corn stover, removed in appropriate quantities, could also be refined into ethanol
without affecting food supplies. Feedstocks such as switchgrass and fast-growing trees appear to
do well in marginal conditions and would likely have a minimal impact on food supplies,
particularly in the case of woody biomass feedstocks from forested areas not suitable for crops.33
Establishment Costs and Contracting Arrangements
In the United States, crops are traditionally grown on an annual basis. Thus, contracts, loans, and
other arrangements are generally established for a single growing year. Arrangements for
producing perennial crops would necessarily reflect their multi-year cycles. Producers, whether
they own or rent land, can expect reduced returns while the crop becomes established. Producers
renting land would need long-term agreements suitable for multi-year crops. Some suggest a legal
framework would have to be developed for multi-year harvests. For example, the University of
Tennessee has entered into three-year contracts with producers to ensure switchgrass availability
for a pilot refinery scheduled to have started ethanol production in 2009.34
Extracting Fuel from Cellulose: Conversion
Breaking down cellulose and converting it into fuel requires complex chemical processing—
technology that is now rudimentary and expensive (see Table 2). Starches (such as corn) and
sugars (such as cane sugars) are easily fermented into alcohol, but cellulose must first be
separated from hemicellulose and lignin and then broken down into sugars or starches through
enzymatic processes.35 Alternatively, biomass can be thermochemically converted into synthesis
gas (syngas),36 which can then be used to produce a variety of fuels. Regardless of the pathway,
as discussed below, at the present time processing cellulose into fuels is expensive relative to
other conventional and alternative fuel options.
30 Breaking the Link between Food and Biofuels, Bruce A. Babcock, Briefing Paper 08-BP 53, July 2008, Center for
Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, http://www.card.iastate.edu.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 For more information on biofuels and food supplies see CRS Report RL34474, High Agricultural Commodity Prices:
What Are the Issues?, by Randy Schnepf.
34 “DuPont Danisco and University of Tennessee Partner to Build Innovative Cellulosic Ethanol Pilot Facility,” TN,
July 23, 2008, http://www.utbioenergy.org/NR/rdonlyres/7D4527E3-00F7-4574-92B1-E6749851AA41/1262/
072308FINALUTDDCEPressReleaseDDCELetteralllogos.pdf.
35 Biofuels Energy Program 2007, DOE http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/publications.html#vision.
36 A mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide.
Congressional Research Service
8
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Table 2. Basic Steps Required to Produce Ethanol
Cost
(per
Product
Feedstock
Refining Required after Milling
gal.)
Sugar ethanol
Sugar cane
Fermentation into ethanol
$0.30
Corn-starch
Corn starch
Hydrolysis
Fermentation into ethanol
$0.53
ethanol
makes
fermentable
sugars
Cellulosic ethanol Switchgrass, corn
Pre-treatment
Hydrolysis makes
Fermentation into
$1.59
(biochemical
stover, woody bio-
makes cellulose
fermentable sugars ethanol
process)
mass, municipal solid accessible
waste
Cellulosic ethanol Switchgrass, corn
Pre-treatment
Syngas production
Conversion of
$1.21
(therm-chemical
stover, woody bio-
makes cellulose
through therm-
syngas to products
process)
mass, municipal solid accessible
chemical
including ethanol
waste
processes
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Research Advances in Cellulosic Ethanol, costs from the
Economic Feasibility of Ethanol Production From Sugar in the United States, Hosein Shapouri, USDA, and Michael Salassi,
Nelson Fairbanks, LSU Agricultural Center, March 2005.
Production Processes
Three basic methods can be used to convert cellulose into ethanol: (1) acid hydrolysis (dilute or
concentrated), (2) enzymatic hydrolysis, and (3) thermochemical gasification and pyrolysis.
There are many different variations on these, depending on the enzymes and processes used.
Currently all these methods are limited to pilot or demonstration plants, and all comprise the “pre-
treatment” phase of ethanol production.
Acid Hydrolysis
Dilute and concentrated acid hydrolysis pre-treatments use sulphuric acid to separate cellulose
from lignin and hemicellulose. Dilute acid hydrolysis breaks down cellulose using acid at high
temperature and pressure. Only about 50% of the sugar is recovered because harsh conditions and
further reactions degrade a portion of the sugar. In addition, the combination of acid, high
temperature, and pressure increase the need for more expensive equipment.
On the other hand, concentrated acid hydrolysis occurs at low temperature and pressure and
requires less expensive equipment. Although sugar recovery of over 90% is possible, the process
is not economical, due to extended processing times and the need to recover large volumes of
acid.37 38
37 J. D. Wright and C. G. d’Agincourt, “Evaluation of Sulfuric Acid Hydrolysis Processes for Alcohol Fuel
Production,” Biotechnology and Bioengineering Symposium, no. 14, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1984), pp 105-
123, http://qibioenergy.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/acid-hydrolysis/.
38 P. C. Badger, “Ethanol From Cellulose: A General Review,” in J. Janick and A. Whipkey, eds., Trends in New Crops
and New Uses (ASHS Press, 2002).
Congressional Research Service
9
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Enzymatic Hydrolysis
DOE suggests that enzymatic hydrolysis, a biochemical process that converts cellulose into sugar
using cellulase enzymes, offers both processing advantages as well as the greatest potential for
cost reductions.39 However, the cost of cellulase enzymes remains a significant barrier to the
conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to fuels and chemicals. Enzyme cost primarily depends on
the direct cost of enzyme preparation ($/kg enzyme protein) and the enzyme loading required to
achieve the target level of cellulose hydrolysis (gram enzyme protein/gram cellulose). According
to DOE, the near-term goal is to reduce the cost of cellulase enzymes from $0.50 to $0.60 per
gallon of ethanol to approximately $0.10 per gallon.40 The National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) of DOE is conducting research to lower enzyme costs by allowing cellulase
yeasts and fermenting yeasts to work simultaneously—with significant savings.
The total conversion cost (excluding feedstock cost) for biochemical conversion of corn stover to
ethanol is estimated to be about $1.59 per gallon41—compared with the USDA-DOE goal of
$0.82 per gallon in 2012.42
Thermochemical Gasification and Pyrolysis
Thermochemical processes such as gasification and pyrolysis convert lignocellulosic biomass into
a gas or liquid intermediate (syngas) suitable for further refining to a wide range of products
including ethanol, diesel, methane, or butanol.43 Recovery rates of up to 50% of the potentially
available ethanol have been obtained using synthesis gas-to-ethanol processes. Two-stage
processes producing methanol as an intermediate product have reached efficiencies of 80%.
However, developing a cost-effective thermochemical process has been difficult.44 The Fischer-
Tropsch (FT) process uses gasification to produce syngas that is then converted into biofuels such
as diesel, methane, or butanol. It is possible to produce diesel and other fuels using syngas from
coal or natural gas, but biomass-derived syngas is technically challenging because of impurities
that must be removed during processing.
The cost of gasification conversion (excluding the cost of feedstock) in 2005 was estimated at
$1.21 per gallon (2007 dollars).45 The USDA-DOE goal for 2012 is $0.82 cents per gallon.
39 DOE, EERE, Biomass Program, “Cellulase Enzyme Research,” at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/
biomass_feedstocks.html.
40 Development of New Sugar Hydrolysis Enzymes: DOE, Novozymes Biotech, Inc. http://search.nrel.gov/cs.html?url=
http%3A//www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/fy04/new_sugar_hydrolysis_enzymes.pdf&charset=utf-8&qt=
cellulase+enzymes&col=eren&n=2&la=en.
41 Biomass Multi-Year Plan, DOE Office of the Biomass Program, March 2006. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/
pdfs/biomass_program_mypp.pdf.
42 Biomass Multi-Year Plan, DOE Office of the Biomass Program, March 2006. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/
pdfs/biomass_program_mypp.pdf.
43 J. D. Wright, “Evaluation of Sulfuric Acid Hydrolysis Processes for Alcohol Fuel Production,” in Biotechnology and
Bioengineering Symposium, no. 14, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1984), pp 103-123.
44P. C. Badger, “Ethanol From Cellulose: A General Review,” in J. Janick and A. Whipkey, eds., Trends in New Crops
and New Uses (ASHS Press, 2002)..
45 Biomass Multi-Year Plan, DOE Office of the Biomass Program, March 2006. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/
pdfs/biomass_program_mypp.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Distribution and Absorption Constraints
Distribution and absorption constraints may hinder the use of cellulosic biofuels even if they are
ultimately produced on an industrial scale. In the coming years, greater volumes of advanced
biofuels (i.e., cellulosic or non-corn-starch ethanol, biodiesel, or imported sugar ethanol) would
need to be blended into motor fuel to fulfill the rising advanced biofuel mandate.
Distribution Bottlenecks
Distribution issues may hinder the efficient delivery of ethanol to retail outlets. Ethanol, mostly
produced in the Midwest, would need to be transported to more populated areas for sale. It cannot
currently be shipped in pipelines designed for gasoline because it tends to attract water in
gasoline pipelines.
In addition, ethanol must be stored in unique storage tanks and blended prior to delivery to the
retail outlet, because it tends to separate if allowed to sit for an extended period after blending.
This would require further infrastructure investments.
The current ethanol distribution system is dependent on rail cars, tanker trucks, and barges.
Because of competition, options (especially rail cars) are often limited. As non-corn biofuels play
a larger role, some infrastructure concerns may be alleviated as production is more widely
dispersed across the nation. If biomass-based diesel substitutes are produced in much larger
quantities, some of these infrastructure issues may be mitigated.
The Blend Wall46
The blend wall refers to the volume of ethanol required if all gasoline used in the United States
contained 10% ethanol (E-10)47—or roughly 14 billion gallons. However, because of
infrastructure issues associated with transporting and storing midwestern ethanol in coastal
markets, the effective blend wall is probably about 12 billion gallons per year. U.S. ethanol
production is rapidly approaching this level. Once the blend wall is reached, the market will have
difficulty absorbing further production increases, even if they are mandated by the RFS. Although
greater use of E-85 could absorb additional volume, it is limited by the lack of E-85 infrastructure
(including the considerable expense of installing or upgrading tanks and pumps) and the size of
the flex-fuel fleet. These concerns could be sidestepped if additional non-ethanol biofuels are
introduced into the market, especially “drop-in” fuels that are chemically similar to petroleum
fuels and could be blended directly with those fuels.48
To maximize ethanol use, proposals to raise the ethanol blend level for conventional vehicles
from E-10 to E-15 or E-20 are being considered by EPA. DOE is conducting tests to determine
46 For more information on the blend wall, see CRS Report R40445, Intermediate-Level Blends of Ethanol in Gasoline,
and the Ethanol “Blend Wall”, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
47 E-10 refers to a fuel blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline. Likewise, E-15 is a blend of 15% ethanol, 85%
gasoline; E-20 is 20% ethanol, 80% gasoline; and E-85 is 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline.
48 Potential drop-in fuels include synthetic gasoline or diesel fuel produced from biomass, as well as butanol or other
chemicals that may not have some of the blending limitations faced by ethanol.
Congressional Research Service
11
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
different blends’ compatibility with conventional automobiles. These blends could potentially be
supplied by existing conventional infrastructure (storage tanks and fuel pumps)49 but would
require U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval, as well as approval by
automakers (using higher blend ratios could currently void a manufacturer’s warranty), fuel pump
manufacturers, and other equipment suppliers.
Economic and Environmental Issues
Economic Efficiency
Cellulosic biofuels are generally thought to have favorable economic efficiency potential over
corn-starch ethanol primarily because of the low costs of production for feedstocks. However,
current NREL estimates of the total cost of producing cellulosic ethanol, including feedstock
production, marketing, and conversion, are $2.40 per gallon, more than twice the cost of
producing corn ethanol.
A major impediment to the development of a cellulose-based ethanol industry is the state of
cellulosic conversion technology (i.e., the process of gasifying cellulose-based feedstocks or
converting them into fermentable sugars).50 DOE’s goal of competitiveness in 2012 assumes
$1.30 (2007 dollars) per gallon costs for corn stover ethanol based on a feedstock price of $13 per
ton. This compares with USDA’s estimated cost of producing corn-based ethanol in 2002 of
$0.958 per gallon (about $1.07 per gallon in 2007 dollars).51 In addition, the cost of harvesting,
transporting, and storing bulky cellulosic biomass is not well understood and consequently is
often undervalued. As a result, even though cellulosic ethanol benefits from the $1.01 production
tax credit (discussed below), which is $0.56 per gallon higher than the blender’s tax credit of
$0.45 per gallon for corn ethanol, it remains at a substantial cost disadvantage compared with
corn-starch ethanol.
Energy Balance
The net energy balance (NEB) is a comparison of the ratio of the per-unit energy produced versus
the fossil energy used in a biofuel’s production process. The use of cellulosic biomass in the
production of biofuels yields an improvement in NEB compared with corn ethanol. Corn
ethanol’s NEB was estimated at 67% by USDA in 2004—67% more energy was available in the
ethanol than was contained in the fossil fuel used to produce it. This is at the upper range of
estimates for corn ethanol’s energy balance. By contrast, estimates of the NEB for cellulosic
biomass range from 300%52 to 900%.53 As with corn-based ethanol, the NEB varies based on the
production process used to grow, harvest, and process feedstocks.
49 National Biofuels Action Plan, October 8, 2008.
50 Research Advances in Cellulosic Ethanol, DOE-NREL, at http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf, NOEL/BR-
510-40742, March 2007.
51 The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update, Shapouri, Hosein; James A. Duffield, and Michael Wang. USDA,
Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Agricultural Economic Report (AER) No. 813,
July 2002; available at http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/index.htm.
52 Cellulosic Ethanol Fact Sheet, by Lee R. Lynd, presented at the National Commission on Energy Policy Forum: The
Future of Biomass and Transportation Fuels, June 13, 2003.
Congressional Research Service
12
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Another factor that favors cellulosic ethanol’s energy balance over corn-based ethanol relates to
byproducts. Corn-based ethanol’s co-products are valued as animal feeds, whereas cellulosic
ethanol’s co-products, especially lignin, are expected to serve directly as a processing fuel at the
plant, substantially increasing energy efficiencies.
Additionally, switchgrass uses less fertilizer than corn, by a factor of two or three,54 and its
perennial growth cycle reduces field passes for planting. Some suggest that ethanol from
switchgrass has at least 700% more energy output per gallon than fossil energy input.55 The same
is largely true of woody biomass that, even in plantations, requires minimal fertilizer and
infrequent planting operations.
Environment
Ethanol and biodiesel produced from cellulosic feedstocks, such as prairie grasses and fast-
growing trees, have the potential to improve the energy and environmental effects of U.S.
biofuels. As previously stated, a key potential benefit of cellulosic feedstocks is that they can be
grown without the need for chemicals. Reducing or eliminating the need for chemical fertilizers
could address one of the largest energy inputs for corn-based ethanol production. Fast-growing
trees and woody crops could offer additional environmental benefits of improved soil and water
quality, reduced CO2 emissions, and enhanced biodiversity.56
Despite potential environmental benefits, additional concerns about cellulosic feedstocks exist,
including concerns that required increases in per-acre yields to obtain economic feasibility could
require the use of fertilizers or water resources, and that availability of sufficient feedstock supply
is limited and expansion could generate additional land use pressures for expanded production
(see “Greenhouse Gas Emissions” discussion, below). In addition to these concerns, some groups
say that other potential environmental drawbacks associated with cellulosic fuels should be
addressed, such as the potential for soil erosion, increased runoff, the spread of invasive species,
and disruption of wildlife habitat.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions differ among types of ethanol because of a number of factors,
including the feedstock crop converted into ethanol, the fuel used to power the refinery (fossil or
renewable), and the original state of the land on which the feedstock was produced. For instance,
if virgin forest land were cleared and planted with switchgrass, higher greenhouse gas emissions
would result than if switchgrass were grown on previously cleared cropland, mainly because
GHG emissions associated with clearing and plowing the virgin soil would have to be included as
part of the production process. Likewise, a cellulosic refinery powered by coal or natural gas
(...continued)
53 Worldwatch Institute, Biofuels for Transportation, Global Potential and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture
and Energy in the 21st Century. Table 10-1, p. 127, June 2006.
54 Ethanol From Biomass: Can It Substitute for Gasoline? Michael B. McElroy, book chapter draft.
55 Net Energy of Cellulosic Ethanol from Switchgrass, M.R. Schimer, K.P. Vogel, R.B. Mitchell, and R.B. Perrin,
PNAS January 15, 2008, vol. 105, no. 2, available at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0704767105.
56 Timothy A. Volk, Theo Verwijst, and Pradeep J. Tharakan et al., “Growing Fuel: A Sustainability Assessment of
Willow Biomass Crops,” Frontiers in Ecology & Environment Journal, vol. 2, no. 8 (2004), pp. 411-418.
Congressional Research Service
13
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
would have higher greenhouse gas emissions than one powered by recovered feedstock co-
products.
Multi-year harvesting of perennial crops decreases greenhouse gas emissions by minimizing field
passes. Prairie grasses and woody crops require reduced inputs compared with corn—and have
lower greenhouse gas emissions. Also, because cellulosic feedstocks require less fertilizer for
their production, the energy balance benefit of cellulosic ethanol could be significant. A study by
the Argonne National Laboratory concluded that with advances in technology, the use of
herbaceous57-feedstock cellulose-based E-10 could reduce fossil energy consumption per mile by
8%, while herbaceous-feedstock cellulose-based E-85 could reduce fossil energy consumption by
roughly 70%.58
According to the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, for every unit of energy
measured by British Thermal Units (BTU) of gasoline replaced by cellulosic ethanol, the total
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions (including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) would
be reduced by an average of about 90%. In comparison, the reduction from corn ethanol averages
22%.59
Private Investment
Private investment is viewed by many to be critical to the development of the cellulosic biofuels
industry. However, the aggregate value of required private investment is difficult to determine.
Anecdotal evidence suggests the main sources of capital are venture capitalists and petroleum
companies—commercial banks have a minor role. Venture capitalists generally have an extended
(10-year) perspective, which fits well with nascent technologies and is insulated from shorter-
term financial volatility. Petroleum companies, faced with mandatory blending of biofuels with
gasoline, have been eager to invest in the cellulosic industry. Numerous partnerships have been
formed: British Petroleum (BP) and Verenium announced a partnership in August 2008 to
accelerate the commercialization of cellulosic ethanol, with BP investing $90 million in the
deal.60 In another collaboration, Royal Dutch Shell has teamed up with Imogen Corporation to
develop cellulosic ethanol processes.61 Mascoma, a major ethanol producer, raised $30 million to
support its investment in cellulosic feedstock conversion with technical support from General
Motors and Marathon Oil.62 A collaboration between Monsanto and Mendel Biotechnology Inc.
will focus on the breeding and development of crops for production of cellulosic biofuels.63
57 A herbaceous plant is a plant that has leaves and stems that die down at the end of the growing season to the soil
level.
58 Wang, et al., table 7.
59 Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Expanded Renewable and Alternative Fuels Use, EPA Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, EPA-420-F-07-035, April 2007.
60 BP and Verenium Partner To Commercialize Cellulosic Ethanol, RenewableEnergy-World.com, August 11, 2008,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=53280.
61 Shell Boosts Second Generation Biofuels, by Ed Crooks, Financial Times, July 16, 2008, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/
7f9f1ee8-52d0-11dd-9ba7-000077b07658.html.
62 U.P. Biofuel Plant Lands $50m in State, Fed Aid, by Gary Heinlein and David Shepardson, The Detroit News,
October 8, 2008, http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081008/BIZ/810080393.
63 Monsanto Company and Mendel Biotechnology, Inc. Announce Cellulosic Biofuels Collaboration, BioSpace.com,
April 28, 2008, http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?NewsEntityId=94113.
Congressional Research Service
14
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Federal Cellulosic Biofuels Policies
USDA and DOE are currently engaged in a variety of activities to encourage development and
demonstration of cellulosic biofuels technologies. The Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140), the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill,
P.L. 110-246), and other legislation support research and development of a broad range of
cellulosic technologies through USDA and DOE programs. Many of these programs extend the
goals of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct, P.L. 109-58) and President Bush’s 20 in 10
initiative.64 The Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI) coordinates federal
interagency technology-push efforts, such as R&D, loans, and grants, under the guidance of the
Biomass Research and Development Board. The Board was authorized in the Biomass Research
and Development Act of 2000 and is co-chaired by USDA and DOE. BRDI plays a major role in
R&D for the cellulosic biofuels industry.65
In October 2008, then-USDA Secretary Ed Schafer and DOE Secretary Samuel W. Bodman
released the National Biofuels Action Plan (NBAP), which provided an outline of the major
challenges facing the cellulosic biofuels industry: feedstock production and logistics; conversion
science and technology; distribution infrastructure and blending. The plan reflects current federal
and industry efforts to develop the cellulosic biofuels industry.66
Direct Federal Spending on R&D
Recognizing that cellulosic biofuels can contribute to improving national energy security,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and boosting rural economic development, discretionary
DOE spending on bioenergy R&D (including a major cellulosic component) under the Biomass
and Biorefinery Systems Program (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs) was
$196 million in FY2007.67 DOE appropriations for this purpose totaled $198 million in FY2008,
of which 33% was spent on conversion R&D, 7% on feedstock infrastructure, and 52% on
biorefinery development.68 DOE appropriations for 2009 amounted to $217 million, of which
$215 million was directed toward cellulosic biofuels, plus an FY2009 stimulus of $786 million.
DOE appropriations for FY2010 are $220 million.69 Approximately $3 million in congressionally
directed spending for FY2010 will be directed toward cellulosic biofuel initiatives.70
USDA discretionary outlays for Bioenergy and Renewable Energy Programs, which funded
cellulosic biofuels in part, were nearly $100 million in FY2008, and the FY2009 budget request is
64 “2007 State of the Union Address” 20 in 10: Strengthening America’s Energy Security, http://www.whitehouse.gov/
stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html.
65 For more information on federal biofuels incentives see CRS Report R40110, Biofuels Incentives: A Summary of
Federal Programs, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
66 The National Biofuels Action Plan is available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/nbap.pdf.
67 FY2009 DOE Budget Request to Congress, available at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/09budget/
start.htm#Detailed%20Budget%20Justifications.
68 Presentation at Platts Cellulosic Ethanol Conference, by Valri Lightner, DOE Biomass Program, October 2008,
http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/platts-conference-doe-presentation/1099010/.
69 CRS Report R40669, Energy and Water Development: FY2010 Appropriations, coordinated by Carl E. Behrens.
70 U.S. Congress, House, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, conference
report to accompany H.R. 3183, 111th Cong., 1st sess., September 30, 2009, H.Rept. 111-278, pp. 282, 283, 290.
Congressional Research Service
15
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
$82 million.71 USDA R&D expenditures were estimated at $39 million in FY2008, and budgeted
at $59 million in FY2009. Commercialization outlays (primarily the Bioenergy Program) totaled
an estimated $59 million in FY2008, and are budgeted at $18 million in FY2009. These totals are
modest in comparison to the $5 to $8 billion in annual federal support for corn ethanol. Over
time, as the corn ethanol industry matures, the focus of USDA efforts is likely to increasingly
shift to cellulosic biofuels.
Federal-Private Partnerships
Private sector investment received a substantial federal policy boost on February 28, 2007, when
the DOE announced the awarding of up to $385 million in mandatory cost-share funding for the
construction of six cellulosic ethanol plant projects over a four-year period under Section 932 of
the EPAct of 2005 as expanded by EISA of 2007. When fully operational, the six plants combined
were expected to produce up to 100 mgpy of cellulosic ethanol. These demonstration-scale
biorefinery projects focus on near-term commercial processes. The combined cost-share plus
federal funding for the projects represents total planned investment of more than $1.2 billion.
The uncertainties of moving an industry from laboratory to commercial reality were highlighted
when two recipients with total grant funding of $113 million dropped out of the program, one
because of a substantially higher offer from the Canadian government,72 and the other after
determining that the risks involved outweighed any anticipated benefits.73
Renewable Energy Provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill
(P.L. 110-246)
Renewable energy policy in the 2008 farm bill (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L.
110-246) builds on earlier programs originally authorized in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) or
the EPAct of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) but provides greater emphasis on cellulosic biofuels.74 Title IX,
the energy title, authorizes or reauthorizes grants, loans, and loan guarantees to foster research on
agriculture-based renewable energy, to share development risk, and to promote the adoption of
renewable energy systems.75 Implementation of the farm bill provisions is underway, and
regulations for new programs have not been finalized. Funding for the cellulosic component of
renewable energy programs is difficult to determine because most provide support to a wide
range of biofuels. Title VII, the research title, contains provisions supporting R&D in cellulosic
biofuels, and Title XV, the tax and trade title, contains tax incentives and tariffs. The following
programs provide support to cellulosic biofuels research, demonstration, and production.
For information on additional related provisions in the 2008 farm bill, see CRS Report RL34130,
Renewable Energy Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill, by Megan Stubbs.
71 The values in this paragraph are from personal correspondence with USDA’s Office of Budget and Policy Analysis.
72 “Iogen Suspends U.S. Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Plans,” Earth2tech, http://earth2tech.com-/2008/06/04/iogen-
suspends-us-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-plans/.
73 “Alico to Discontinue Ethanol Efforts,” June 2, 2008, press release, http://www.aliconinc.-com/june208.asp.
74 CRS Report RL34130, Renewable Energy Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill, by Megan Stubbs
75 Title IX cites are amendments to the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171).
Congressional Research Service
16
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Tax Credit for Cellulosic Biofuels (Section 15321)
Tax and trade provisions in the 2008 farm bill benefit cellulosic biofuels. One significant
incentive is a production tax credit of $1.01 per gallon that applies to cellulosic biofuels
production, more than twice the blenders’ tax credit of 45 cents per gallon that applies to corn
ethanol. In the case of cellulosic ethanol, the $1.01 credit amount is reduced by (1) the ethanol
blender’s credit and (2) the small ethanol producer credit, making the total value of tax incentives
for cellulosic ethanol equal $1.01.76
Ethanol Tariff Extension (Section 15333)
In addition to tax credits, an ethanol tariff benefits the U.S. industry by reducing the
competitiveness of imported ethanol sold in this country. Domestic ethanol benefits from a
54-cent-per-gallon duty (and a smaller ad valorem tariff) on imported ethanol (except for limited
imports under the Caribbean Basin Initiative).77 The original intent of the tariff was to prevent
imported ethanol from benefitting from the U.S. tax credit.
Agricultural Bioenergy Feedstock and Energy Efficiency Research and
Extension Initiative (Section 7207)
This new program awards competitive matching (up to 50%) grants for projects supporting on-
farm biomass crop research and the dissemination of results to enhance the production of biomass
energy crops and their integration with the production of bioenergy. It consists of elements of
earlier initiatives that were moved to the research title (Title VII) in the 2008 farm bill.
Discretionary funding of $50 million annually is authorized for FY2008 through FY2012, subject
to appropriations. Funding has not been appropriated for this program in FY2008, FY2009, or
FY2010.
Biorefinery Assistance (Section 9003)
This initiative provides loan guarantees for the development, construction, and retrofitting of
commercial-scale biorefineries and provides grants to help pay for the development and
construction costs of demonstration-scale biorefineries. Loan guarantees are limited to $250
million per project, subject to the availability of funds. The program received mandatory funding
of $320 million ($75 million for FY2009 and $245 million for FY2010) for commercial-scale
biorefinery loan guarantees, and discretionary funding, subject to appropriations, of $150 million
annually for FY2009 through FY2012 for both demonstration and commercial-scale biorefineries.
This program was originally authorized by the 2002 farm bill, but received no funding from
FY2002 through FY2007.
Of the five applications (worth over $1 billion) received in FY2009, USDA funded two. In
January 2009, USDA funded the first cellulosic biofuels plant under the Biorefinery Program with
a loan guarantee of $80 million. The recipient, Range Fuels Inc., in Soperton, GA, also received a
76 For more information, see CRS Report R40110, Biofuels Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs, by Brent D.
Yacobucci.
77 For more information about ethanol imports under the CBI, see CRS Report RS21930, Ethanol Imports and the
Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), by Brent D. Yacobucci.
Congressional Research Service
17
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
$76 million grant from DOE for this plant. The biorefinery project will use wood chips to
produce a projected output of 20 million gallons of ethanol annually, beginning in 2010. The
second application under this program was approved on June 24, 2009, for a $25 million
biodiesel plant. USDA anticipates receiving and reviewing applications in FY2010, but not
awarding funds until FY2011, pending regulations.
Repowering Assistance (Section 9004)
The Repowering Assistance program encourages existing biorefineries to replace fossil fuels used
to produce heat or power at their facilities by making payments for installing new systems that
use renewable biomass, or to produce new energy from renewable biomass. The 2008 farm bill
provided mandatory funding of $35 million in FY2009 to remain available until expended. The
program is also authorized to receive $15 million in discretionary funding for each of FY2009
through FY2012, pending appropriations. On June 12, 2009, USDA issued a Notice of Funding
Availability in the Federal Register to make $20 million in payments to biorefineries converting
to renewable biomass.78 The remaining $15 million of mandatory funding is expected to be
available in FY2010 pending regulations. There has been no appropriation of discretionary
funding.
Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels (Section 9005)
The Bioenergy Program is the lead program under Title IX providing support for the development
of conversion technologies for cellulosic biofuels. It was originally established by Executive
Order in 1999 and provided Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) incentive payments to ethanol
and biodiesel producers on the basis of yearly increases in production. Eligibility is now limited
to producers of advanced biofuels. Eligible producers entering into a contract with USDA are
paid based on quantity and duration of advanced biofuel production and on net renewable energy
content of the advanced biofuel. Under the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171), the Bioenergy Program
received total funding of $426 million during FY2003 to FY2006 but no appropriations for
FY2007 or FY2008. The 2008 farm bill provides a total of $300 million in mandatory funding for
FY2009 to FY2012 ($55 million annually in FY2009 and FY2010, $85 million in FY2011, and
$105 million in 2012), and also authorizes $25 million annually, subject to appropriations, from
FY2009 to FY2012.
The first Notice of Contract Proposals was published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2009.79
Over 180 applications were received and 161 were deemed eligible. USDA anticipates making
payments totaling $30 million to eligible biorefineries in early 2010. The remaining $25 million
unexpended from FY2009 and the $55 million of mandatory funding for FY2010 will be
available for payments in FY2011 following publication of proposed regulations.80
78 USDA, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, “Notice of Funding Availability for Repowering Assistance Payments
to Eligible Biorefineries,” 74 Federal Register 112, June 12, 2009.
79 Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA, “Notice of Contract Proposal for Payments to Eligible Advanced
Biofuel Producers,” 74 Federal Register 112, June 12, 2009.
80 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Statement of Dallas Tonsager, Under Secretary for Rural Development, USDA, hearing to review the next generation
biofuels, 111th Cong., 1st sess., October 29, 2009, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
18
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Biomass Research and Development Initiative (Section 9008)
This program was originally authorized in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) and is administered
jointly by USDA and DOE. It supports research on and development and demonstration of
biofuels and biobased products, and the methods, practices, and technologies for their production.
The 2008 farm bill provides mandatory funding of $118 million for FY2009 to FY2012 ($20
million for FY2009, $28 million for FY2010, $30 million for FY2011, and $40 million for
FY2012). The farm bill also authorizes the appropriation of $35 million for each of FY2009
through FY2012. The program received $5 million in FY2002, $14 million for each of FY2003,
FY2004, and FY2005, and $12 million for FY2006, and was not funded in FY2007 and FY2008.
On January 30, 2009, USDA and DOE announced the FY2009 funding opportunity of $25
million ($20 million of mandatory funding from the 2008 farm bill and $5 million from DOE).
Award recipients have been selected, but no announcement has been made.
Biomass Crop Assistance Program (Section 9011)
This is a new program intended to help farmers establish and produce crops for conversion to
bioenergy and assist with the collection, harvest, storage and transportation of eligible material
for use in a biomass conversion facility that produces heat, power, biobased products, or
advanced biofuels. The program is implemented by the Farm Service Agency with support from
other federal and local agencies and has mandatory CCC funding of such sums as necessary.
The program is implemented in two phases. On June 11, 2009, a Notice of Funds Availability was
published in the Federal Register announcing the implementation of the 2009 collection, harvest,
storage, and transportation (CHST) portion of the program.81 As of October 23, 2009, 114
biomass conversion facilities have been qualified and listed as approved. Over 125 facility
agreements and applications are pending at the FSA national office with another 72 in progress at
FSA state offices. A total of $23.6 million was obligated in FY2009 and $514 million is requested
for FY2010. The FSA has also issued a draft environmental impact statement82 and is expected to
implement the final phase of the program following the publication of a proposed rule in 2010.83
Forest Biomass for Energy (Section 9012)
Under this new program, USDA’s Forest Service is authorized to conduct a comprehensive
research and development program to use forest biomass for energy. Other federal agencies, state
and local governments, Indian tribes, land-grant colleges and universities, and private entities are
eligible to compete for program funds. No mandatory funding is available, but discretionary
appropriations of $15 million annually for FY2009 to FY2012 are authorized. This program has
not yet been implemented or appropriated funding. Priority research projects include the
following:
81 Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA, “Notice of Funds Availability for the Collection, Harvest, Storage, and
Transportation of Eligible Material,” 74 Federal Register 11, June 11, 2009.
82 Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA, “Notice of Availability of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for the Biomass Crop Assistance Program,” 74 Federal Register 152, August 10, 2009.
83 Office of Budget and Program Analysis, Highlights: Farm Bill Working Group, USDA, Title IX - Energy, October
26, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
19
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
• the use of low-value forest biomass for energy from forest health and hazardous
fuels reduction treatment;
• the integrated production of energy from forest biomass into biorefineries or
other existing manufacturing;
• the development of new transportation fuels from forest biomass; and
• the improved growth and yield of trees for renewable energy production.
Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343)
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343), which incorporates the
Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, contains tax and trade incentives for renewable
energy production. Enacted on October 3, 2008, it expands federal benefits for renewable energy
to fuels and processes that previously did not qualify and limits trade practices that benefit
foreign producers but do not enhance U.S. energy independence.
Expansion of the Allowance for Cellulosic Ethanol Property (Division B,
Section 201)
Previous federal tax law limited the eligibility for first-year bonus depreciation of cellulosic
biofuels to facilities producing ethanol; those producing non-ethanol fuels from cellulosic
feedstocks did not qualify for the allowance. P.L. 110-343 does not limit the allowance to any
particular type of cellulosic fuel or production process. Taxpayers can immediately write off 50%
of the cost of facilities that produce cellulosic biofuels if such facilities are placed in service
before January 1, 2013.
Legislative Proposals
Congress has shown a strong interest in the development of biofuels in general and cellulosic
biofuels in particular. Debate may continue on the appropriate level of incentives needed to jump
start the industry. Perhaps the most critical emerging issue is the federal mandate for cellulosic
biofuels under the RFS—and the industry’s potential to meet that mandate. In the long term,
Congress might also consider the ongoing level of government support that is appropriate for the
cellulosic biofuels industry—considered by some to be essential, especially if the RFS is to be
met. Others contend such support could distort market signals. The general level of support in the
form of grants and loans has been determined in the 2008 farm bill but will be revisited as
appropriations are considered. The cellulosic biofuels tax credit applies to fuel produced from
2009 through 2012 and extension of this credit could be the subject of debate during the 111th
Congress. In addition, Congress has considered the definition of biofuels and biofuel feedstocks
that qualify for federal incentives.
Legislative Changes in the RFS Volume
Citing the RFS and corn ethanol production as contributing to rising food prices and high input
costs for livestock and poultry producers, some are calling for a reduction of the RFS. During the
110th Congress, S. 3031 was introduced in May 2008, to limit the corn-starch component of the
Congressional Research Service
20
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
RFS to 9 billion gallons compared with 15 billion under the current law. Opponents of the
reduction claim it would set back efforts to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and
achieve environmental goals. Reducing the corn-starch component of the RFS would increase the
importance of advanced fuels, primarily cellulosic biofuels, in meeting the mandate. Legislation
to alter RFS volume requirements has not been introduced in the 111th Congress.
Expanding Biomass Eligible under the RFS
The definition of forest-based renewable biomass under the RFS is considered by some to be too
restrictive because it limits eligible woody biomass to privately planted trees and tree residue
from actively managed tree plantations, and slash84 and pre-commercial thinnings from non-
federal forests.
The definition of renewable biomass specifically excludes biomass from federal forests. Some
suggest that this exclusion eliminates much potential biomass and creates regional disparities.
One-third of the 755 million acres of forest in the United States is owned by the federal
government—and this acreage is concentrated in the western states. Likewise, the exclusion of
private, naturally regenerated forests affects the northern and southeastern parts of the country
where other feedstocks eligible under the RFS may not be as readily available. According to
some, biomass extraction could become a powerful tool for improving federal land
management.85 Markets for small-diameter trees would enable a wider range of options for
management of wildlife habitat, forest hydrology, hazardous fuels reduction, and pest
infestations. These markets are not likely to appear if federal forests remain excluded from the
RFS.
The House Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and
Research held hearings during July 2008 on producer eligibility under the RFS. The
subcommittee heard from government officials, researchers, and producers who provided an
update on the implementation of the RFS and shared concerns on barriers to eligibility for many
agricultural producers. Subsequently, a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee field
hearing on forest waste for biofuels was held in South Dakota on August 18, 2008.
During the 111th Congress, H.R. 2454 would allow for modification of the non-federal lands
portion of the definition of “renewable biomass.” Low-value materials are frequently removed
during fire or disease reduction efforts or ecosystem health supporting activities. Waste materials
such as wood waste and wood residues from private forests are also included.
Also during the 110th Congress, the House passed the Comprehensive American Energy Security
and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 6899). It contained a sense of Congress provision
recommending a broad definition of renewable biomass to “encourage cellulosic biofuels ...
produced from a highly diverse array of feedstocks, allowing every region of the country to be a
potential producer of this fuel.” No Senate action was taken. No similar action has been taken in
the 111th Congress thus far.
84 The accumulation of limbs, tops, and miscellaneous residue left by forest management activities, such as thinning,
pruning, and timber harvesting.
85 Federal Forests and the Renewable Fuel Standard Factsheet, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, July 17,
2008.
Congressional Research Service
21
.
Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress
Time Frame for Cellulosic Biofuels Production
Estimates for commercial production of cellulosic biofuels vary widely. At least 16 plants are
under construction as planned for the United States, bringing projected cumulative capacity to
389 mgpy by 2013. However, the pace of plant construction falls short of DOE’s stated goal to
make cellulosic ethanol competitive as a mature technology by 2012.86 Some analysts have
predicted a growth trend for the cellulosic ethanol industry similar to that for corn-starch ethanol.
However, there is a major difference between the two: the basic process for making corn-starch
ethanol (fermentation) is thousands of years old, whereas that for cellulosic is very new.
The USDA Office of Energy and New Uses projects that cellulosic biofuels are not expected to be
commercially viable on a large scale until at least 2015.87 However, the cellulosic biofuel portion
of the RFS mandate is set at 3 billion gallons by 2015, a substantial amount. In its January 2009
baseline, the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) of the University of
Missouri assumes cellulosic biofuel production will fall behind the RFS and, as a consequence,
the mandate will be waived by EPA.88 In an August 2009 baseline update, FAPRI projects
cellulosic ethanol production in 2013 at 245 mgpy, about a third of the 1 billion gallons in the
RFS for that year.89
Author Contact Information
Kelsi Bracmort
Megan Stubbs
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
Resources Policy
kbracmort@crs.loc.gov, 7-7283
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707
Randy Schnepf
Brent D. Yacobucci
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
rschnepf@crs.loc.gov, 7-4277
byacobucci@crs.loc.gov, 7-9662
86 Biomass Multi-year Program Plan, DOE, March 2008, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/
publications.html#vision.
87 U.S. Biobased Products: Market Potential and Projections Through 2025, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of
Energy Policy and New Uses, USDA, the Center for Industrial Research and Service of Iowa State University, Informa
Economics, Michigan Biotechnology Institute, and The Windmill Group. OCE-2008-1, http://www.oce.usda.gov.
88 FAPRI, Iowa State University, and University of Missouri-Columbia, FAPRI 2009: U.S. and World Agricultural
Outlook, Report 09-FSR 1, January 2009.
89 Baseline Update for Agricultural Markets, FAPRI, FAPRI MU-Report #06-09, August 2009.
http://www.fapri.missouri.edu.
Congressional Research Service
22