The Clean Power Plan (CPP): The Treatment of Biomass

The Clean Power Plan (CPP): The Treatment of Biomass

link to page 2 link to page 2

Updated February 12, 2016
The Clean Power Plan (CPP): The Treatment of Biomass
The Clean Power Plan
and, in some cases, the alternative fate of the feedstock.” It
On August 3, 2015, the Obama Administration issued its
is not known when a final Framework may be released.
final rule for carbon dioxide (CO2) emission reductions
Another effort is the proposed federal plan for the CPP—
from existing fossil fuel-fired electric power plants,
the federal plan to be implemented if a state does not
commonly referred to as the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The
submit an approvable plan by the assigned deadline. It was
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers
released concurrently with the CPP final rule. The proposed
the CPP under an authority granted to the agency in Section
federal plan requests comments on the inclusion of biomass
111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA; 42 U.S.C. 7411). In
and its treatment within the federal plan (e.g., a list of
general, the CPP requires states to devise a plan that—by
preapproved qualified biomass fuels). Comments received
reducing CO2 emissions from the affected facilities in
may impact which biomass types the EPA deems eligible
accordance with guidance established by EPA—allows
for the CPP or why the use of biomass should be restricted.
them to reach a state-specific emission reduction goal by
2030. States are required to submit their plans by
The CPP final rule requires additional accounting and
September 6, 2016, although they may request a two-year
reporting requirements should a state decide to use qualified
extension. A federal plan will be used to implement the
biomass. For instance, states will have to submit the
CPP for states that do not submit a plan. Further, states are
biomass type they propose to use and explain why this
required to implement their plans in 2022. EPA says the
biomass should be considered qualified biomass, along with
CPP offers states “broad flexibility and latitude in
biomass monitoring, reporting, and verification measures.
complying with their obligations” by providing multiple
For some biomass types, the plan must include measures
strategies that states may undertake to meet their goal,
the state will take to verify the biomass type, its origin, and
including increased use of non-fossil fuel energy sources,
any associated sustainability practices. EPA asserts that the
such as renewable energy. On February 9, 2016, the
approval of biomass for a state plan is contingent upon
Supreme Court granted a stay of EPA’s CPP, pending the
whether the “measures for qualified biomass and related
Court’s consideration of whether to hear the case.
biogenic CO2 benefits are quantifiable, verifiable,
enforceable, non-duplicative and permanent.”
How Is Biomass Accounted for in the CPP?
EPA specifies that “qualified biomass” may be included in
Clean Energy Incentive Program
a state’s plan. EPA defines qualified biomass as a biomass
In the final rule, EPA announced a Clean Energy Incentive
feedstock that has been demonstrated to be a method to
Program (CEIP)—an optional program in which states may
control increases of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. EPA
participate. EPA says it is establishing the CEIP to
defines biomass as biologically based material that is living
encourage early investments in renewable energy (RE) and
or dead above and/or below ground and is available on a
demand-side energy efficiency (EE) by the states. Biomass
renewable or recurring basis. EPA states that it will “review
is excluded from the CEIP. While details about the program
the appropriateness and basis for determining qualified
are forthcoming, EPA specifies that the only RE options
biomass feedstocks or feedstock categories in its review of
available to states are power from wind and solar resources
the approvability of a state plan.” While EPA explicitly
(see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Demand-side EE—generally
states that “not all forms of biomass are expected to be
described as a technique to affect consumer behavior that
approvable as qualified biomass,” it gives some indication
results in a reduction in electricity use—does not apply to
as to what exactly may qualify (e.g., waste-derived
energy supply activities such as producing power.
feedstock, certain forest and agriculture-derived industrial
byproducts).
The Role of Biopower in the CPP
It is not clear how pronounced a role biopower—the
One reason EPA may be unable to give additional
generation of electric power from biomass feedstocks—will
information about the specific biomass types that may
qualify could be the agency’
play in state plans to meet state-specific emission reduction
s ongoing efforts to determine
goals. First, EPA has placed the onus on states to
the carbon status of biomass (e.g., carbon neutrality). One
demonstrate the eligibility of biomass for the CPP, with
such effort referred to in the final rule is the EPA Science
EPA making the final decision. Thus far, EPA has provided
Advisory Board (SAB) draft 2014 report Framework for
little direct guidance on biomass in the final rule. This
Assessing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide for Stationary Sources
could be due to multiple reasons, including a wait-and-see
(Framework). The Framework maintains that it is “not
approach to find out what states propose, to review
scientifically valid to assume that all biogenic feedstocks
comments received about biomass for the proposed federal
are carbon neutral, but that the net biogenic CO2
plan, or to obtain additional information from the SAB. The
atmospheric contribution of different biomass feedstocks
many requirements states must adhere to in order to include
can vary and depends on various factors, including
biomass in their plans, without clear direction on what will
feedstock type and characteristics, production practices,
and will not be approved, may deter some states from
https://crsreports.congress.gov

The Clean Power Plan (CPP): The Treatment of Biomass
including biomass. Second, the final rule primarily focuses
Figure 2. 2014 Renewable Electricity Generation
on feedstock types and not technologies, and it appears
(million kilowatt-hours)
tethered to the idea that the predominant biopower
technologies will be direct combustion or co-firing with
Million Kilowatt-hours
fossil fuels. For instance, the CPP regulatory impact
300,000
analysis contains a CO2 emission factor for biomass that
250,000
accounts for combustion only. But other biopower
technologies exist (e.g., gasification, pyrolysis)—albeit
200,000
some may argue that these technologies are not as fully
established as combustion and co-firing—where biomass
150,000
could be the sole or primary feedstock and that could yield
100,000
lower CO2 emissions. Therefore, it is not clear if EPA is
concerned only with biopower technologies that are widely
50,000
used at present or also with forthcoming biopower
technologies that with certain incentives could have less of
0
a carbon impact. It could be argued that, given the CPP
implementation time frame, it is unlikely to expect certain
biopower technologies (not yet proven at commercial scale)
to ramp up to the levels needed to meet a final state-specific

Source: EIA, Monthly Energy Review July 2015, Table 7.2a, DOE/EIA-
goal.
0035(2015/07), Washington DC, July 2015.
Figure 1. 2014 U.S. Electricity Generation Portfolio
Notes: 2014 Total Renewable Production = 539.8 million kilowatt-
and CO
hours.
2 Emissions
(billion killowatt-hours)
Congressional Interest
Billion Kilowatt-hours
CO2 Emissions
Congress has expressed interest in many biomass-related
1,800
1800
issues, particularly biopower and biomass carbon neutrality.
1,600
1600
For instance, some Members in both chambers have
1,400
1400
expressed to the executive branch their support for
1,200
1200
consistent federal policies pertaining to biomass and argued
1,000
1000
that certain biomass feedstocks should be deemed carbon
800
800
neutral. Proposed legislation addresses EPA handling of
600
600
carbon emissions from forest biomass.
400
400
200
200
Congressional support for and opposition to biopower
0
0
differs for many reasons. Biopower can contribute to
economic growth, environmental improvements, and
energy independence. It also can be cost and energy
intensive, may be susceptible to encouraging the use of
unsustainable management practices, and may be difficult
Billion Kilowatt-hours
Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide
to produce at commercial scales similar to the fossil fuel
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Monthly
industry. Some assert that biopower offers the opportunity
Energy Review July 2015, Table 7.2a and Table 12.6, DOE/EIA-
to protect and revitalize existing markets and to stimulate
0035(2015/07), Washington DC, July 2015.
support for new markets in regions of the country that could
Notes: 2014 Total Production = 4.09 billion kilowatt-hours; 2014
benefit from such activity. Others maintain that biopower
Total Emissions = 2.05 million metric tons CO
may cause environmental harm if robust measures are not
2.
enforced to protect natural resources and human health.
Competing Interests
Congressional oversight regarding biomass and its inclusion
The inclusion of biomass in the CPP could lead to
in environmental, energy, agricultural, and natural
competing interests among the different forms of bioenergy
resources policies and programs may continue in the 114th
(i.e., biopower, biofuels, and biothermal). As the fuel for all
Congress.
bioenergy, biomass feedstock supply may be a concern to
some. However, not all biomass can be used or is readily
For more information, see CRS Report R41440, Biopower:
accessible for all bioenergy types. Market forces also will
Background and Federal Support and CRS Report R44145,
likely continue to partially determine which feedstock goes
EPA's Clean Power Plan: Highlights of the Final Rule.
to which energy application. Further, demand for bioenergy
via any federal program may help some regions where
Acknowledgment: Andre Miller prepared the graphics
biomass loads are abundant (e.g., wildfire-prone areas). In
displayed in this document.
addition, multiple programs and tax incentives exist for the
Kelsi Bracmort, Specialist in Natural Resources and
different bioenergy types (e.g., the Renewable Fuel
Standard). Federal support—financial and technical—could
Energy Policy
be stretched thin or bolstered by a new focus on biopower
IF10280
under the CPP.
https://crsreports.congress.gov

The Clean Power Plan (CPP): The Treatment of Biomass

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10280 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED