Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
Kelsi Bracmort
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
January 2, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41603
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Congressional
Briefing Conference:
Capitol Hill Workshop
Politics, Policy, and Process
The definitive overview of
how Congress works.
This intensive course is offered as a
3-day public Briefing and as a tailored
on-site 3, 4 or 5-day program.
Public Briefings are offered throughout the year in Washington, DC.
Space is limited.
Dates, Agenda, Previous Faculty, and Secure Online Registration:
TCNCHW.com
On-site Congressional Briefings and
Capitol Hill Workshops for agencies:
CLCHW.com
703-739-3790 TheCapitol.Net
All of our courses and workshops include extensive
interaction with our faculty, making our courses
and workshops both educational as well as mini-
consulting sessions with substantive experts.
Our Upcoming Schedule of Courses can be seen
Non-partisan training and publications that show how Washington works.™
online on our web site or at TCNCourses.com.
PO Box 25706, Alexandria, VA 22313-5706
All of our courses and any combination of their
703-739-3790 • www.thecapitol.net
topics can be customized for on-site training for
TheCapitol.Net is on the
your organization—we are on GSA Advantage,
GSA Schedule, 874-4,
Contract GS02F0192X.
for custom on-site training.
GSA Contract GS02F0192X
thecapitol.net
Courses approved for CEUs from George Mason University
703-739-3790
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
Summary
Congress has expressed interest in biopower—electricity generated from biomass. Biopower, a
baseload power source, has the potential to strengthen rural economies, enhance energy security,
and improve the environment, proponents say. Biopower could be produced from a large range of
biomass feedstocks nationwide (e.g., urban, agricultural, and forestry wastes and residues). One
challenge to biopower production is a readily available feedstock supply. At present, biopower
requires tax incentives to be competitive with conventional fossil fuels. If Congress considers a
renewable electricity standard or other measures (e.g., farm bill energy programs) that include
biopower, there may be concerns about the carbon neutrality of biopower. Congressional support
for biopower has aimed to promote energy diversity and improve energy security, and has
generally assumed that biopower is carbon neutral. An energy production activity is typically
classified as carbon neutral if it produces no net increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on a
life-cycle basis. The premise that biopower is carbon neutral has come under scrutiny as its
potential to help meet U.S. energy demands and reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is more
closely examined.
Whether biopower is carbon neutral depends on many factors, including the definition of carbon
neutrality, the feedstock type, the technology used, and the time frame examined. Carbon flux
(emission and sequestration) varies at each phase of the biopower pathway, given site- and
operation-specific factors. A life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a common technique to calculate the
environmental footprint, including the carbon flux, of a particular biopower pathway. However,
past legislation has not required a standardized LCA.
Interest in the carbon classification of biopower is in part due to sustainability and air quality
concerns. Where the feedstock supply for biopower originates, if it is managed in a sustainable
manner, and whether the associated air quality impacts from biopower generation are tolerable
are questions that are part of the biopower carbon-neutrality debate. Congress may decide
whether the current carbon-neutral designation for biopower is accurate, or whether additional
carbon accounting for biopower is warranted and what impact this accounting might have on
renewable energy, agricultural, and environmental legislative goals.
Rulings by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have raised questions about the carbon
neutrality of biopower. For instance, the 2010 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule did not exempt emissions from biomass combustion. Some view
EPA’s decision as equating biomass emissions with fossil fuel emissions. EPA decided in 2011 to
defer for three years GHG permitting requirements for carbon dioxide emissions from bioenergy
and other biogenic stationary sources in order to conduct a detailed examination of the science
associated with these emissions. EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board conducted an independent
review of the agency’s biogenic accounting framework and released its findings in September
2012. The board acknowledged the “daunting task” of assessing the greenhouse gas implications
of bioenergy, and the “narrow regulatory boundaries” within EPA’s purview that limit the
consideration of greenhouse gas flux at various points along the bioenergy pathway.
State perspectives on the tailoring rule are divided. Some states contend that treating biomass
combustion the same as fossil fuel combustion will result in excessive permitting requirements
and fees that jeopardize renewable energy development. Other states argue that not treating it the
same will aggravate climate change over time.
Congressional Research Service
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
Congressional Research Service
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Biomass Carbon Cycle..................................................................................................................... 2
Greenhouse Gas Accounting for Biopower Production ................................................................... 3
Recent Developments Affecting Biopower Assessment .................................................................. 6
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule ..................................................................................... 7
Manomet Biomass Study ......................................................................................................... 10
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral? It Depends ...................................................................................... 12
Legislative Implications ................................................................................................................. 13
Figures
Figure 1. Bioenergy CO2 Balance vs. Fossil Fuel CO2 Balance ...................................................... 4
Figure 2. Biopower and Biofuel Pathways ...................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Cumulative GHG Flux for Biomass and Fossil Fuel ...................................................... 12
Tables
Table 1. Years to Achieve Equal Cumulative Flux with Fossil Fuels ............................................ 11
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 14
Congressional Research Service
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
Introduction
Biomass energy, or bioenergy, is receiving increased attention as an alternative to fossil fuel
energy because of its potential to improve the environment, provide energy security, and promote
economic development. Biomass is organic matter—woody biomass, agricultural biomass,
animal wastes, aquatic biomass—that can be converted to energy (e.g., heat, electricity, or liquid
transportation fuels). A substantial supply of biomass feedstocks may be required to produce
bioenergy, depending on current and future renewable energy mandates. A large biomass
feedstock requirement could lead to water, land use, sustainability, and economic concerns.1
Federal support for bioenergy is available via tax incentives, loan guarantees, technical and
financial assistance, and mandated use requirements.
Legislative support for bioenergy, particularly for biopower (electricity generated from biomass),2
has thus far been granted under the premise that it is carbon neutral. As more public and private
resources are spent—or as greater spending is debated—on biopower, more attention is being
directed to the rationale for designating biopower as carbon neutral. The carbon-neutral
designation is typically assigned to an energy production activity that essentially produces no net
increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on a life-cycle basis (or one in which the amount of
carbon dioxide emitted during the power production cycle is absorbed).3 Where biopower stands
among the other renewable energy sources with respect to GHG emissions may affect the level of
future legislative support granted to it. Is biopower carbon neutral? If it is not, should it receive
the same type and amount of federal resources as carbon-neutral or less carbon-intensive energy
sources? How might the federal government account for carbon associated with biopower
ventures? How Congress addresses biopower’s carbon neutrality could shape how Congress treats
biopower in general.
Many views exist about whether biopower is carbon neutral. Some contend that biopower is
carbon neutral because the carbon released during bioenergy production comes from a carbon-
neutral feedstock—biomass. Some argue that biopower is not carbon neutral because the amount
of GHG emissions released per unit of energy during simple biopower combustion may be higher
for certain biomass fuels than for fossil fuels; or, if the GHG emissions from certain biomass fuels
are lower than fossil fuels, they are still not zero. These perspectives are often based on differing
assumptions, technologies, and time frames.
The debate concerning biopower’s designation as carbon neutral may intensify, given possible
congressional and Administration decisions. Congress may consider legislation involving
biopower (e.g., a renewable electricity standard, a clean energy standard, or the next farm bill).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already promulgated regulations involving
biopower (e.g., the 2010 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule) and may consider further regulatory actions. Although EPA deferred for three
years GHG permitting requirements for carbon dioxide emissions from biomass-fired and other
1 For more information, see CRS Report R41440, Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues,
by Kelsi Bracmort.
2 Biopower is a baseload power source offering “firm” power without the need for power storage. Combustion—the
burning of biomass in a power plant—is the dominant technology used to produce biopower.
3 The life cycle of a bioenergy pathway includes all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution, from
feedstock generation or extraction through distribution, delivery, and use of the finished fuel by the ultimate consumer.
The mass values for all greenhouse gases are adjusted to account for their relative global warming potential.
Congressional Research Service
1
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
biogenic sources,4 Congress may still decide to examine how the widely accepted premise of
biopower’s carbon neutrality contributes to energy, environmental, and economic development
goals.
This report discusses some of the most relevant factors to take into account when considering if
biopower is carbon neutral. It does not discuss carbon accounting for other bioenergy pathways.5
Biomass Carbon Cycle
The carbon cycle encompasses the many pathways through which carbon is exchanged between
the atmosphere and the land and water.6 Human activities (also called anthropogenic activities)
contribute to the carbon cycle by emitting carbon dioxide (CO2). The human contribution of CO2
to the carbon cycle is relatively small compared to other contributions, but CO2 released to the
atmosphere from human activities is taken up by soils, vegetation, and the ocean at a rate that is
relatively slower than the rate at which human activities are emitting CO2. If the excess carbon is
not stored in land and ocean sinks, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, potentially
impacting the Earth’s climate.
One significant anthropogenic source of CO2 in the carbon cycle is energy production. The net
effect of an energy activity on the carbon cycle can be classified in one of three ways. A “carbon-
positive” activity releases CO2 into the atmosphere. A “carbon-negative” activity removes more
CO2 from the atmosphere than it emits. A “carbon-neutral” activity is one where the CO2 releases
and absorption are in balance. There is no commonly accepted definition for a “carbon-neutral”
activity in the biopower arena. Indeed, multiple assertions about carbon neutrality have been put
forth by those involved with biomass energy, including the following:7
• Biomass energy is carbon neutral because biomass is naturally carbon neutral.
• Biomass energy is neutral if the activity removes as much CO2 as was emitted
into the atmosphere.
• Biomass energy is neutral only if the net life-cycle emissions are zero.8
• Biomass energy is neutral if it achieves lower net increases in atmospheric GHGs
when compared to alternative energy activities.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Deferral for CO2 Emissions From Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs: Final Rule,” July 1, 2011.
http://www.epa.gov/NSR/documents/Biogenic_Deferral_pre-pub.pdf.
5 Congress addressed carbon accounting for another major bioenergy pathway—liquid transportation biofuels—with a
life cycle emission analysis (a requirement within the Renewable Fuel Standard). 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.
6 For more information, see CRS Report RL34059, The Carbon Cycle: Implications for Climate Change and Congress,
by Peter Folger. Carbon is an elemental building block of molecules that make up all organisms on Earth. Carbon
cycling is the process by which living things absorb carbon from the atmosphere, carbonate rocks and ocean deposits,
dead organic matter in the soil, or food and return it to the atmosphere or soil by respiration, combustion, or decay.
7 R. Miner, “Biomass ‘Neutrality’ in the Context of Forest-based Fuels and Products,” USDA Bioelectricty and GHG
Workshop, Washington, DC, November 15, 2010. Some of the definitions are not mutually exclusive.
8 GHGs from bioenergy production can be accounted for using a life-cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA is further
discussed in “Greenhouse Gas Accounting for Biopower Production,” below.
Congressional Research Service
2
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
There are pros and cons for each assertion. For instance, declaring that biomass energy is carbon
neutral because biomass is naturally carbon neutral does not account for GHG emissions released
due to management of crops grown for energy production (e.g., fertilizer). There may need to be
additional plantings of certain biomass feedstocks to remove the CO2 emitted from biomass
cultivated for energy production.
The carbon cycles for a bioenergy system and a fossil fuel system differ in at least two ways: the
carbon source (finite versus renewable) and the atmospheric carbon concentration (potentially
stable versus additional; see Figure 1). Three main factors contribute to the amount of carbon
emitted from biopower generation: feedstock production (cultivation and harvest), feedstock
transport, and the biopower technology type. However, as noted by many sources, feedstock
production also absorbs carbon during growth.
Greenhouse Gas Accounting for Biopower
Production
Whether and how to conduct GHG accounting for biopower is an issue at the forefront of the
bioenergy movement. GHG accounting can be used to compare the environmental footprint of a
biopower operation with that of conventional fossil fuel (e.g, electricity from coal). The
environmental footprint is often calculated using a life-cycle assessment (LCA), an analytic
method for identifying, evaluating, and comparing the environmental impacts of emissions and
the resource depletion associated with a specific process.9 An LCA generally uses observed data
and assumptions to model what GHGs are being released at each phase of the process. Ideally, an
LCA would encompass economic and social factors for a more comprehensive assessment.
Alternatively, an LCA can be one element used in assessing a preferred energy approach, along
with cost and performance data. In some cases, even if LCA results favor a particular approach,
an LCA alone might not be the deciding factor when choosing an energy process; financial
objectives, policy goals, and other factors may influence which approach is selected.
An LCA has four major stages: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment,
and interpretation.10 While an LCA can be performed to meet various goals, the goals most
applicable to the biopower arena are to support broad environmental assessments, support public
policy, and provide information and direction to decision-makers. The goal and scope definition
stage determines the amount of resources and time needed to conduct an LCA. The inventory
analysis stage of an LCA quantifies energy and raw material requirements, atmospheric
emissions, waterborne emissions, solid wastes, and other releases for the entire life cycle of a
product, process, or activity. The impact assessment stage evaluates the potential human health
and environmental impacts of the environmental resources and releases identified during the
inventory analysis stage. The interpretation stage identifies, quantifies, checks, and evaluates the
results of the inventory analysis and impact assessment stages, and communicates the results.
9 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Energy Analysis, October 2010, http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/
tech_bio_analysis.html.
10 U.S. Environmental Projection Agency, Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice, EPA/600/R-06/060,
Cincinnati, OH, May 2006, http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/lcaccess/pdfs/600r06060.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
Figure 1. Bioenergy CO2 Balance vs. Fossil Fuel CO2 Balance
Source: International Energy Agency, IEA Bioenergy Task 38, Greenhouse Gas Balances of Bioenergy and
Bioenergy Systems, 2002. Adapted by CRS.
Notes: The magnitude of the carbon flows, as indicated by the width of the arrows, is a significant part of the
debate over the carbon neutrality of bioenergy.
Congressional Research Service
4
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Decl U.S
ar
.
I
at
C
ncl
on
i
By Bradford Fitch
on
u
st
d
of
i
es
tu
I
t
n
ion
dep an
en
d
dence
Citizen’s
Handbook
To Influencing
Elected Officials
Citizen Advocacy in
State Legislatures and Congress
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
GHG accounting with an LCA can be performed at each phase of the biopower pathway: biomass
cultivation and harvest, biomass transport, electricity generation, electricity transmission and
distribution, and electricity end use (Figure 2). The first three phases of the biopower pathway
(cultivation and harvest, transport, and electricity generation) are where the bulk of GHG
emissions occur. GHG flux during the first three phases is site- and operation-specific, and
depends on many factors, including the biomass type, management strategies, and the biopower
generation technology.
Figure 2. Biopower and Biofuel Pathways
Source: Q. Zhang, K.R. Goldstein, and J.R. Mihelcic, “A Review of Life Cycle Assessment Renewable Energy
Derived from Forest Resources,” in Renewable Energy from Forest Resources in the United States, ed. B.D. Solomon,
C. A. Luzadis (New York: Routledge, 2009). Adapted by CRS.
Published LCAs for biopower are limited and, as noted above, may not be applicable to specific
cases.11 The LCAs performed are often tailored to one feedstock and one biopower technology
type, and LCA results vary depending on assumptions such as the time frame of the assessment.
The LCAs presented in this section are based on both a long time frame (e.g., cradle to grave) and
a relatively short time frame (e.g., cradle to gate).12 Different LCA time frames can lead to
radically different, even contradictory, results.
Although biopower LCAs are scarce compared to liquid transportation biofuel LCAs, certain
trends appear in existing assessments. For instance, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) conducted a review and analysis of 57 biopower LCAs. The NREL review shows that
biopower reduces greenhouse gas emissions when compared with fossil-based generation of
electricity.13 And based on a separate review of more than 25 LCAs, biopower is in the top tier of
bioenergy pathways that avoid the most GHG emissions and replace the largest amounts of fossil
energy.14 Approximately 15 of the LCAs reviewed included electricity as an end product, of
which at least 10 had an LCA time frame of cradle to gate.
11 Most LCAs for bioenergy have focused on GHG emissions from biomass used for liquid transportation fuels and its
impact on climate.
12 A cradle to grave time frame generally includes all phases from feedstock production to energy end use. A cradle to
gate time frame generally includes a fraction of the complete biopower pathway which may include feedstock
production, feedstock cultivation, feedstock transport, and electricity generation.
13 The analysis did not consider land use change. NREL, Biopower Greenhouse Gas Emissions inthe LCA Literature,
October 5, 2011, http://lcacenter.org/lcaxi/final/446.pdf.
14 Q. Zhang, K. R. Goldstein, and J. R. Mihelcic, “A Review of Life Cycle Assessment Renewable Energy Derived
from Forest Resources,” in Renewable Energy from Forest Resources in the United States, ed. Barry D. Solomon,
Calerie A. Luzadis (New York: Routledge, 2009). Information regarding the feedstocks, conversion processes, end
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
Biopower LCAs are usually limited to two biopower technology types: combustion and
gasification. Both technologies have strengths and weaknesses.15 The technology to co-fire (or
combust) biomass with coal is available at commercial scale and is in use today. A cradle-to-grave
DOE LCA found that a co-firing power plant, at both the 15% and 5% biomass levels (with a 350
and 354 MW plant capacity, respectively), compared with a power plant with no co-firing, led to
a reduction in GHG emissions by roughly 18% and 5%, respectively.16 Gasification technology is
in the development and demonstration phase.17 A cradle-to-grave DOE LCA for a hypothetical
113 MW biomass plant—performed in part to identify CO2 emissions from a biopower plant
using gasification technology—concluded that more than half of all net CO2 emissions came from
feedstock production, primarily the use of fossil fuels in farming operations.18 The LCA was
performed only on the biomass system and not for an immediate comparison with fossil-fueled
power options.
Recent Developments Affecting Biopower
Assessment
Certain actions have propelled the biomass carbon-neutrality issue to the center of the bioenergy
debate. Most notable are the EPA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, finalized in June 2010, and the June 2010 release of the
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study.19
Also, many scientists contributed to the discussion with the submission of two letters to Members
of Congress. The first letter provided the authors’ reasons for supporting legislation that
differentiates GHG emissions from bioenergy based on the source of the biomass.20 The second
letter provided the authors’ reasons why equating biogenic carbon emissions (or bioenergy
emissions) with fossil fuel emissions in the tailoring rule could hinder development of bioenergy
technologies and may not be scientifically valid for certain sources of biomass.21
(...continued)
products, system boundaries, allocation methods, and impact metrics for each LCA is available in Table 8.1.
15 D. Peterson and S. Haase, Market Assessment of Biomass Gasification and Combustion Technology for Small- and
Medium-Scale Applications, U.S. Dep. of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-7A2-46190, July
2009, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46190.pdf.
16 M. K. Mann and P. L. Spath, “A Life Cycle Assessment of Biomass Cofiring in a Coal-Fired Power Plant,” Clean
Technologies and Environmental Policy, vol. 3, no. 2 (2001).
17 Some coal gasification plants are under consideration to be constructed over the next few years.
18 M. K. Mann and P. L. Spath, Life Cycle Assessment of Biomass Gasification Combined-Cycle System, Department of
Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory, December 1997, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/23076.pdf.
19 There are other studies that examine carbon classification and feedstock sustainability for biopower. The Manomet
Study is profiled in this section because it has received the most media attention thus far.
20 May 17, 2010, http://www.saveamericasforests.org/Forests%20-%20Incinerators%20-%20Biomass/Documents/
Forests-Carbon%20Sequestration/90scientistsletter.pdf.
21 Society of American Foresters, Scientist/Academic Letter on Biomass Energy, July 20, 2010, http://www.safnet.org/
documents/biomass_science_letter_SENATE7-20-10.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
The designation of biomass combustion as carbon neutral has come under scrutiny partly due to
the tailoring rule finalized by EPA. The tailoring rule was developed by EPA to limit the number
of facilities that would be required to obtain permits for greenhouse gas emissions under the
Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permit programs.22 By
statute, the PSD program requires any new or modified facility emitting more than 100 tons or
250 tons of pollutants subject to regulation to obtain a permit prior to construction or operation.
Title V sets a statutory 100-ton threshold for operating permits and applies to existing as well as
new facilities. These thresholds limit the applicability of the permit requirements to the largest
emitters of most pollutants that have traditionally been covered by the Clean Air Act; but when
applied to carbon dioxide emissions, they would not serve the same limiting function. EPA
estimates that a 100-ton threshold for GHGs would ultimately require more than 6 million sources
to obtain Title V permits, with administrative costs for the state and local permitting authorities in
the billions of dollars annually. Faced with these “absurd results” of following the letter of the
law, EPA developed the tailoring rule to focus first on the largest emitters of GHGs. The rule sets
a 75,000 ton per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)23 threshold initially, allowing the
agency to decide over a six-year period what to do about smaller sources.24
The tailoring rule does not exempt emissions from biomass combustion.25 The rule grants
exemptions based not on source category (e.g., fossil fuels, biomass) but on carbon tonnage
emitted from a facility. 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.26 EPA issued a call for
information in July 2010 to request comment on possible accounting approaches for biogenic
emissions under the tailoring rule.27 EPA received over 7,000 comments in response
(approximately 600 were detailed responses). The two central themes for the comments reviewed
by EPA included the request for certainty when it comes to biomass energy, and the recognition
that all biomass is not the same.28
22 Environmental Protection Agency, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring
Rule,” 75 Federal Register 31514, June 3, 2010.
23 Carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2 eq. or CO2e) is the principal unit of measurement across the greenhouse gases.
Different gases are converted into CO2e by multiplying a quantity of the gas by its Global Warming Potential (GWP).
GWP is an estimate of the relative greenhouse effectiveness over time relative to CO2 which has a GWP value of 1.
24 For more information on the history of the tailoring rule, see CRS Report R41103, Federal Agency Actions
Following the Supreme Court’s Climate Change Decision in Massachusetts v. EPA: A Chronology, by Robert Meltz
25 Environmental Protection Agency, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring
Rule,” 75 Federal Register 31590-31591, June 3, 2010. For more information on the final rule, see CRS Report
R41212, EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases: Congressional Responses and Options, by James E. McCarthy.
26 U.S. EPA, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration,” 75 Fed. Reg. 31590, June 3, 2010.
27 U.S. EPA, 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.
28 D. Kruger, EPA, “Panelist, Carbon Neutrality,” oral presentation at Ag Energy Symposium, Washington, DC,
November 4, 2010. EPA’s response to the comments received is provided in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Deferral for CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs Summary of Public Comments and Responses, Washington, DC, June 28,
2011, http://www.epa.gov/NSR/documents/RTC_6-30_final_comb.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
In July 2011, EPA announced that it would defer for a period of three years GHG permitting
requirements for CO2 emissions from biomass-fired and other biogenic sources.29 Some are
concerned the deferment may lead to delays in biomass energy investments, due to uncertainty
about how EPA will address these types of facilities in three years. However, data is not available
to determine if the ruling is inhibiting investment. EPA is using the time to conduct a detailed
examination of the science associated with biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources to
determine how to treat emissions from biomass-fired and biogenic sources. EPA charged a
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) with reviewing and commenting on (1) EPA’s characterization
of the science and technical issues relevant to accounting for biogenic CO2 emissions from
stationary sources; (2) EPA’s framework, overall approach, and methodological choices for
accounting for these emissions; and (3) options for improving upon the framework for accounting
for biogenic CO2 emissions, among other issues. 30 The SAB conducted the independent review of
the agency’s biogenic accounting framework and released its findings in September 2012.31 The
SAB acknowledged the “daunting task” of assessing the greenhouse gas implications of
bioenergy, and the “narrow regulatory boundaries” within EPA’s purview that limit the
consideration of greenhouse gas flux at various points along the bioenergy pathway. The SAB
identified multiple factors (e.g., time scale, spatial scale, leakage) that require further assessment
by EPA and provided recommendations to revise the biogenic accounting framework. The SAB
“found that quantification of most components of the framework has uncertainties, technical
difficulties, data deficiencies and implementation challenges.” The SAB recommended an
alternative biogenic accounting factor based on feedstock category, region, land management, and
prior land use. Additionally, a dissenting opinion from one of the SAB members was included in
the report that would abandon the proposed framework process.
EPA also noted in the PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases issued in 2010
that certain types of biomass could be considered a best available control technology (BACT)—a
pollution control standard mandated by the Clean Air Act—after taking into account
environmental, energy, and economic considerations and state and federal policies that promote
biomass for energy-independence and environmental reasons. EPA provided guidance in early
2011 on how to consider the unique GHG attributes of biomass as fuel in the BACT selection
process.32 PSD permits require that facilities apply the BACT, but BACT is determined by
individual states with EPA guidance on a case-by-case basis.33
State perspectives on the inclusion of emissions from biomass combustion in the tailoring rule are
divided.34 Some states contend that the inclusion of biomass combustion will lead to excessive
29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Deferral for CO2 Emissions From Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs: Final Rule,” July 1, 2011,
http://www.epa.gov/NSR/documents/Biogenic_Deferral_pre-pub.pdf. Biogenic includes facilities that emit CO2 from
sources originating via biological processes, such as landfills.
30 The agency’s charge for the SAB, review documents including the accounting framework, and meeting materials are
available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/2f9b572c712ac52e8525783100704886!OpenDocument&
TableRow=2.2#2.
31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, SAB Review of EPA’s Accounting Framework for Biogenic CO2 Emissions
from Stationary Sources, EPA-SAB-12-011, September 28, 2012.
32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for Determining Best Available Control Technology for Reducing
Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Bioenergy Production, Washington, DC, March 2011, http://www.epa.gov/NSR/
ghgdocs/bioenergyguidance.pdf.
33 Environmental Protection Agency, PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance For Greenhouse Gases, November 2010,
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/epa-hq-oar-2010-0841-0001.pdf.
34 Energy Washington, States Split on Whether Biomass Should Be Exempt from GHG Permits, September 22, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
8
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
permitting requirements and fees that jeopardize renewable energy development. Other states
argue that not including biomass combustion will contribute to GHG emissions over time.
Advocates of not exempting biomass combustion from the tailoring rule assert that not all
biomass is carbon neutral.35 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, they assert that 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 carbon neutrality over the life cycle.
Advocates of a complete biomass combustion exemption from the tailoring rule contend that
biopower plant emissions add no new carbon to the atmosphere because biopower plants would
use only residuals, byproducts, and thinnings, or waste materials that would decay.36 Furthermore,
they argue that CO2 released during biomass combustion is carbon neutral because it is re-
absorbed by growing biomass. Thus, they say, measuring the emissions released during biomass
combustion does not capture the entire biomass emission portfolio.
These competing interests may continue to be concerned with the designation of biomass
combustion as carbon neutral because of congressional discussions and proposals to expand the
biomass definition in energy legislation. Expanding the biomass definition could increase the
amount of land eligible for biomass removal.37 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.38 However, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 farm
bill, P.L. 110-246) 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 life cycle emissions relative to petroleum products. EPA was responsible for determining
how the LCA would be carried out. The debate about how EPA should address the LCA,
especially the land use component, was controversial.39 While the RFS focuses on liquid
transportation fuels, legislation was introduced in the 111th Congress to create a renewable
electricity standard (RES).40 If Congress debates an RES that includes biomass energy, many of
the same biomass and thus carbon-neutrality concerns may emerge.
35 N. 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.
36 Personal communication with B. Cleaves, CEO, Biomass Power Association, October 1, 2010.
37 For more information, see CRS Report R40529, Biomass: Comparison of Definitions in Legislation Through the
112th Congress, by Kelsi Bracmort.
38 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.
39 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.
40 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
9
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
Manomet Biomass Study
The Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study by the Manomet Center for Conservation
Sciences examined the use of forest biomass to generate energy for Massachusetts.41 It studied the
GHG impact of substituting one biomass feedstock type—forest biomass—for fossil fuels in the
Massachusetts energy sector. More specifically, the study addressed three concerns: atmospheric
GHG implications of forest biomass, forest biomass supply to support bioenergy development,
and potential ecological impacts (including sustainability) associated with forest biomass
harvests. Some of the study’s conclusions for Massachusetts biomass include the following:42
• For conventional technologies, more GHGs are emitted per unit of energy
produced from forest biomass than from fossil fuels.
• As a result of the excess emissions, referred to in the study as biomass “carbon
debt,” using forest biomass for energy initially can lead to increases in
atmospheric GHG levels. However, the carbon debt is reduced as the harvested
forest grows back, and at some point biomass energy yields benefits, or biomass
“carbon dividends,” in the form of lower GHG levels than fossil fuels.
• The time needed to pay off the carbon debt and accrue carbon dividends (or GHG
benefits) can vary by decades. This timing is a function of the characteristics of
the bioenergy combustion technology, the fossil fuel technology it replaces, and
the biophysical and forest management characteristics of the forests from which
the biomass is harvested.
• GHG benefits can be realized relatively quickly when only waste wood—for
example, logging debris that would otherwise have been left in the forest—is
burned for energy. But when using biomass from harvests of live trees that would
otherwise have continued to grow, GHG benefits may only be realized after
many decades. Due to their efficiency, small-scale thermal and combined heat
and power technologies generally yield GHG benefits sooner than utility-scale
biomass electricity plants. However, where biomass replaces natural gas, the time
required to achieve GHG benefits can be very long—upwards of 100 years in
some cases.
• Sustainability issues are associated with forest biomass supply at the stand level
(e.g., maintenance of soil productivity and biodiversity) and the landscape level
(e.g., aesthetics, recreation, tourism, and long-term health of the wood-products
sector).
The study’s findings received considerable press attention, but a smaller spotlight was placed on
the study’s assumptions. Critics could argue that at least one prominent assumption renders the
study irrelevant to current and future nationwide forest energy operations: the biomass feedstock
type. The analysis was limited to one type of biomass—actively managed natural forests. The
study found that woody biomass generated solely from logging debris (tops and branches) will
contribute minimally to commercial-scale biomass facilities in Massachusetts, which “implies
that the only way to meet demand would be to increase annual forest harvest.” Critics might
41 The Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences is a non-profit research organization that works to integrate society’s
social, economic, and environmental values to create sustainable systems for present and future generations.
42 Personal communication with T. Walker, November 30, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
10
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
counter that throughout the United States, a range of biomass feedstocks are available for energy
generation, many of which will have different greenhouse gas emission implications than actively
managed natural forests.43 The study stated “Our results for biomass from natural forests likely
understate the benefits of biomass energy development relative to facilities that would rely
primarily on these other wood feedstocks [tree care and landscaping sources, biomass from land
clearing, and construction and demolition materials].” In some cases, if biomass feedstock types
other than natural forest are used, such as woody matter that will decay, the GHG impact may be
alleviated by removing material that would eventually decompose and release more potent
greenhouse gases (e.g., methane). There are differing opinions on whether a single feedstock type
will be the dominant feedstock for biopower, and which feedstock type (e.g., trees from natural
forest, logging debris, dedicated energy crops) this could be. Assessment of national GHG
implications of the various feedstock options is an area for further study.
Another study assumption that may not apply to the nationwide debate is the time required to pay
off the carbon debt. GHG emission levels vary depending on the biopower pathway stage.44 The
Manomet Biomass Study compared GHG emissions per unit of energy produced by each
technology for biomass, coal, oil, and natural gas. The comparisons include both direct
combustion emissions as well as indirect emissions related to feedstock production, processing,
and transportation. The study estimated that at the fuel combustion stage of utility-scale
electricity generation, biomass emits significantly more GHGs relative to coal.45 However, over
time, biomass combustion for electricity reaches an equal cumulative GHG flux with that of fossil
fuel technology (Table 1). Cumulative GHG emissions from biomass for electricity then level off
at a rate significantly less than that of fossil fuels (Figure 3). Thus biomass combustion for
electricity may not be the most effective method to immediately reduce GHG emissions in the
short term, but may be a viable technique for GHG emission reduction over a long period. Lastly,
other aspects of the study outside the scope of this report (e.g., conversion technology, biomass
feedstock source, fossil fuel to be displaced) may require further examination if the findings are
to be applied more broadly.
Table 1. Years to Achieve Equal Cumulative Flux with Fossil Fuels
Fossil Fuel Technology
Harvest
Scenario
Oil (#6), Thermal
Coal, Electric
Gas, Thermal
Gas, Electric
Mixed Wood
15-30
45-75
60-90
>90
Logging Residues
<5 10 10 30
Only
Source: T. Walker, “USDA Bioelectricity and GHG Workshop,” Oral Presentation – “Manomet & Biomass:
Moving Beyond the Soundbite,” Washington, DC, November 15, 2010.
a. Cumulative flux is a tally of the emission and sequestration that occurs during the electricity pathway.
43 For more information on the different kinds of biomass available for power generation, see CRS Report R41440,
Biomass Feedstocks for Biopower: Background and Selected Issues, by Kelsi Bracmort.
44 The various biopower pathway stages are explained in the “Greenhouse Gas Accounting for Biopower Production”
section of this report.
45 T. Walker, P. Cardellichio, and A. Colnes, et al., Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study, Manomet Center
for Conservation Sciences, NCI-2010-03, June 2010, p. 103, http://www.manomet.org/sites/manomet.org/files/
Manomet_Biomass_Report_Full_LoRez.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
Figure 3. Cumulative GHG Flux for Biomass and Fossil Fuel
Source: T. Walker, “USDA Bioelectricity and GHG Workshop,” oral presentation – “Manomet & Biomass:
Moving Beyond the Soundbite,” Washington, DC, November 15, 2010. Adapted by CRS.
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral? It Depends
Carbon neutrality for biopower is most accurately calculated based on the carbon flux (GHG
emission or sequestration) of several parameters over a specified time period. These parameters
include at least the following: (1) the feedstock type; (2) the management and procurement of the
energy source (in the case of biomass, how the feedstock is managed and harvested); (3) the
feedstock transportation method; (4) the energy generation technology; and (5) the timeframe to
replenish the feedstock. Carbon flux attributed to the management and procurement of biomass
feedstock deviates according to the type or mixture of feedstocks used. For instance, agricultural
biomass entails a different nutrient management plan than woody biomass. GHG emissions may
be higher for agricultural biomass due to fertilizer treatments (e.g., nitrous oxide emissions from
biofuel-dedicated crops).46 Carbon flux will also vary given how the biomass feedstock is
harvested. For example, removal of woody biomass (e.g., thinnings) in large quantities may
reduce carbon, and some methane, emissions on a CO2 equivalent basis that would have been
released if the woody biomass had been left in the forest to decompose. Biomass feedstock
transport emits differing amounts of GHGs depending on how far the feedstock must be
transported and if fossil fuels are used.47 The carbon flux of the biopower generation technology
46 When biomass used for biopower production is agricultural waste, some GHG emissions may be attributed to crop
cultivation whereby the crop is used for other feed, fiber and fuel purposes.
47 Some make the case that fuels (e.g., ethanol) other than fossil fuels (e.g., diesel or gasoline) may be used to transport
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
will depend on the type of technology and if the emissions are captured and sequestered.48 Last,
the time frame (e.g., 40 years, 100 years) assigned for biomass feedstock replenishment will
determine CO2 sequestration rates to balance out the GHGs emitted during biomass combustion,
particularly for woody biomass, as growth periods (rotation ages for the trees) are often measured
in decades.49
It could be argued that only an LCA for each biopower operation can truly determine whether
biopower generation is carbon neutral. Such an LCA would measure carbon flux for each phase
of the biopower pathway and incorporate biomass feedstock replenishment. A standard approach
to perform a biopower LCA could ensure uniformity in GHG accounting across the biopower
sector. However, multiple LCAs can be expensive and time-consuming to complete.
Biopower’s carbon neutrality is a contentious aspect of the bioenergy debate. One reason the
topic is so controversial is the concern about unsustainable harvests of biomass feedstocks. Some
contend that if biopower proceeds with no carbon balance restrictions, large amounts of woody
biomass, for example, will be removed for energy production. Another reason for controversy is
concern about the air quality of areas surrounding biopower plants. These two concerns—
sustainability and air quality—can be, and in some cases already are, addressed through other
avenues (e.g., sustainability requirements, air quality regulations) at the federal and state level.
Legislative Implications
Biopower thus far has been included in legislation to provide energy independence and security,
and under the premise that it is carbon neutral. Recent developments may prompt Congress to
further analyze this premise. Carbon neutrality depends in part on the feedstock type, the
technology, and the time frame for feedstock replenishment. Biopower can be created using
multiple biomass feedstocks and technologies. Each feedstock and technology has its own
environmental footprint. The time frame to analyze carbon neutrality is relevant because it
incorporates feedstock replenishment, and thus CO2 removal rates, and considers technology
developments.
To the extent carbon neutrality continues to be a legislative concern, Congress faces a
determination of whether the current carbon neutral assumption for biopower is adequate, or if
additional carbon accounting for biopower is warranted and what impact this accounting might
have on renewable energy, agricultural, and environmental legislative goals, especially if
decisions concerning biopower made by the executive branch contradict legislative goals set by
Congress (e.g., RES). A scientific assessment of whether a biopower plant is carbon positive,
carbon negative, or carbon neutral may require an analysis, such as an LCA. There are time and
economic constraints in conducting an LCA for each biopower operation.
(...continued)
the feedstock.
48 There are no commercial carbon capture and sequestration(CCS) projects in operation at the moment. Therefore,
CCS is not likely to impact carbon flux at the biopower generation stage in the near-term.
49 For more information on carbon sequestration in trees, see CRS Report R40562, U.S. Tree Planting for Carbon
Sequestration, by Ross W. Gorte.
Congressional Research Service
13
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net
Learn how Capitol
Legislative Series
Legislative
Drafter’s Deskbook
Hill really works
A Practical Guide
By Tobias A. Dorsey
All of our programs and any combination of their topics
GOVERNMENT SERIES
can be tailored for on-site training for your organization.
The Federal
Budget
Process
For more than 30 years, TheCapitol.Net and its predecessor, Congressional Quarterly Executive
A Description of the Federal and
Congressional Budget Processes,
Including Timelines
Conferences, have been training professionals from government, military, business, and NGOs on
the dynamics and operations of the legislative and executive branches and how to work with them.
Our training and publications include congressional operations, legislative and budget process,
communication and advocacy, media and public relations, research, testifying before Congress,
legislative drafting, critical thinking and writing, and more.
A Practical Guide to Preparing and Delivering
Testimony Before Congress and Congressional
• Diverse Client Base
Hearings for Agencies, Associations, Corporations,
—We have tailored hundreds of custom on-site training programs
Military, NGOs, and State and Local Officials
By William N. LaForge
for Congress, numerous agencies in all federal departments, the military, law firms,
lobbying firms, unions, think tanks and NGOs, foreign delegations, associations and
corporations, delivering exceptional insight into how Washington works.TM
Testifying
• Experienced Program Design and Delivery—We have designed and delivered
Before
hundreds of custom programs covering congressional/legislative operations, budget
Congress
process, media training, writing skills, legislative drafting, advocacy, research,
testifying before Congress, grassroots, and more.
• Professional Materials—We provide training materials and publications that show
how Washington works. Our publications are designed both as course materials
and as invaluable reference tools.
• Large Team of Experienced Faculty—More than 150 faculty members provide
independent subject matter expertise. Each program is designed using the best
Congressional
Directory
faculty member for each session.
Includes Capitol Hill and District maps
• Non-Partisan—TheCapitol.Net is non-partisan.
• GSA Schedule—TheCapitol.Net is on the GSA Schedule,
We help you understand Washington and Congress.™
www.TheCapitol.Net
874-4, for custom on-site training: GSA Contract GS02F0192X.
Winning Strategies, Recommendations,
We help your staff, members, and executives better understand Washington and Congress.
Resources, Ethics and Ongoing Compliance
TM
for Lobbyists and Washington Advocates:
The Best of Everything Lobbying
and Washington Advocacy
Please see our Capability Statement on our web site at TCNCS.com.
Lobbying
Custom training programs are designed to meet your educational and training goals, each
and
led by independent subject-matter experts best qualified to help you reach your educational
Advocacy
objectives and align with your audience.
Deanna R. Gelak
As part of your custom program, we can also provide classroom space, breaks and meals,
receptions, tours, and online registration and individual attendee billing services.
For more information about custom on-site training for your organization,
A Practical Guide to Parlaying an Understanding of Congressional
please see our web site: TCNCustom.com or call us: 703-739-3790, ext 115.
Folkways and Dynamics into Successful Advocacy on Capitol Hill
How to Spend
Less and Get More
from Congress:
Candid Advice
for Executives
By Joseph Gibson
Persuading
PO Box 25706, Alexandria, VA 22313-5706
Congress
www.TheCapitol.Net 703-739-3790
Is Biopower Carbon Neutral?
Congress could decide to use existing legislative authorities to address carbon accounting for
biopower. Federal environmental regulatory controls exist for the three chief environmental
concerns associated with a biopower plant—air quality, land use, and water discharges. GHG
emissions may be accounted for with federal regulations regarding air quality. In addition, a
biopower plant also has to meet state regulatory standards, which in some cases may be stricter
than the federal regulatory controls.
A full carbon accounting for biopower may result in slowing the achievement of multiple
renewable energy, agricultural and environmental goals. Alternatively, the carbon neutrality
debate for biopower may lead to requests for carbon accounting of some or all energy ventures—
renewable and conventional. Lastly, an ill-defined carbon accounting assessment for biopower
may limit public and private investment, feedstock production, and more. Scientists, investors,
biomass producers, and others may hesitate to expend time and money on expanding biopower
efforts if they are not provided certainty about the future contribution of biopower to U.S. energy
and environmental goals.
If Congress chooses to address energy security and GHG emission increases, some have argued
that these goals could be met through the creation of a national RES or a clean electricity standard
(CES). The mandate of a potential national RES or CES may require substantial quantities of
baseload power which some see as achieved by using biopower. If biopower is a part of an RES
or CES, and if Congress continues its ongoing debate about some farm bill energy programs, the
carbon neutrality designation of biopower may need to be reconsidered in response to
environmental and sustainability concerns.
Author Contact Information
Kelsi Bracmort
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
kbracmort@crs.loc.gov, 7-7283
Congressional Research Service
14
TheCapitol.Net – Teaching how Washington and Congress work.TM 202-678-1600 www.thecapitol.net