What Do We Think About?: Forest Biomass Emissions Act of 2024

First, it seems to me that the southern experience with biomass shipping to Europe has sucked all the air out of the room for folks in the west who have a great deal of material and want to do something with it besides burning it in situ.  You’ll remember that  ENGOs like TNC and Defenders signed on to these agreements about forest biomass in the Sierra Nevada, with many caveats. So when some national folks say “forest biomass” they don’t think the Sierra and TNC, they think the South and the Dogwood Council.  Completely different conditions, needs, and “what will happen to the material if there are no markets for biomass.”

Given that we in the West are junior partners in this discussion,  here’s a link to the announcement.  First of all, we note that the concern is from Senators from Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey about forest biomass in the southern US. Usually we think of Congressfolk passing bills to support their own industries, not to critique other areas industries.  I’ve told this story before, but in the mid 90’s I worked on Rep. Carrie Meek of Florida’s staff, and was the representative from our staff to the Democratic Environmental Caucus.  We supported wilderness in Idaho, but not bills that would affect development along Florida’s coasts.  The DEC person told me “we can usually count on you” and I just looked at him.  I couldn’t figure whether he really didn’t get it (the DC occupational disease, believing your own hype) or was shining me on.

There are more than 20 wood pellet mills from Texas to Virginia, with over a dozen more planned. Many of these facilities have benefitted from grants and tax breaks in addition to increased international demand due to subsidies. At the same time, the consequences of this energy production have not been fully measured. Over a million acres of U.S. forest have been cut and combusted to supply the biomass industry, releasing millions of tons of carbon dioxide as well as harmful co-pollutants that impact air quality and health.

When I researched this, I found it not to be actually true that forests are cut to feed the biomass industry. At least in North Carolina, landowners sell trees to the timber industry and have leftover material. Here’s their side of the story, and they even had on their website exactly where they sourced the material.

It is very important to understand that Enviva’s pellets are made from low-value wood that is a byproduct of a traditional timber harvest. Enviva creates an additional market for private forest landowners to sell their low-value wood, such as “thinnings,” limbs, tops, or low-grade trees (deceased, crooked) that would otherwise go unused, and an incentive to keep their land as forests. We’re talking about material that is a relatively small source of revenue for a landowner, so it’s not driving their decision to harvest in the first place.

Meanwhile, Enviva declared bankruptcy in April.

Here’s the legislation:

legislation that would direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with forest biomass combustion for electricity and study the impact of the industry on communities living in direct proximity to forest biomass industrial areas, including mills.

address concerns related to combustion of forest biomass for electricity generation and its impact on both the environment and public health. This includes examining the impact on air quality, noise pollution, and other environmental factors that may affect the health and well-being of people living in close proximity to these facilities. Wood pellet biomass mills have been expanding particularly in low-income, majority-Black communities across the South.

If you think about it, probably the FS or others have done LCAs on forest biomass.  I tend to be skeptical of LCA’s unless there’s some kind of public process to arrive at assumptions and accompanying sensitivity analysis.  Actually, that would be the way to do it, making sure to include people on the ground familiar with practices.  When I worked on genetically engineered plants, we had unpleasant surprises because EPA scientists weren’t familiar with how farmers actually work with seed. I’d involve the forest departments at the southern universities, and the FS’s Southern Research Station, for sure.  Of course, EPA may be the experts on other topics, but health aspects of noise pollution, but wouldn’t that be a .. public health research agency?

*********

Sidenote, a group that supports this bill, SELC (yes, the one who litigates the Forest Service) also received money to pass-through to other groups via the Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program Cooperative Agreements.

The Grantmakers will provide subgrants to community-based nonprofits and other eligible subrecipients for assessment, planning, and project development activities. Grantmakers will alleviate much of the burden that the federal grants process places on small, resource-constrained community-based organizations supporting underserved communities and marginalized population

Another alternative would be to look at the federal grantmaking process, and simplify it so it would be easier for everyone to access.  But then we wouldn’t need pass-through entities, and we would save applicants and  taxpayers, time and money.  I’m sensing a grift opportunity here.

**********

Back to the bill..

The Forest Biomass Emissions Act of 2024 would:

• Require the EPA to account for the full life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of electricity from forest biomass when enactingrelevant rules and regulations.
• Task the EPA with conducting an evaluation of the impacts on communities living in the direct proximity of facilities involved in the production of electricity from forest biomass, including forest biomass harvesting areas, pellet mills, and power facilities.
• Mandate the EPA to collect data on air and noise pollution considering the race and socioeconomic status of impacted individuals, and to submit a report to Congress.

The Forest Biomass Emissions Act of 2024 is endorsed by the following organizations: Natural Resources Defense Council, Southern Environmental Law Center, National Wildlife Federation, Clean Air Task Force, Sierra Club, Dogwood Alliance, Concerned Citizens of Northampton County, North Carolina, Concerned Citizens of Cook County, Georgia, Greater Greener Gloster, Mississippi, Mississippi ACLU, and Earthjustice.

**********

If I were a Senator from those coastal states, I might be more interested in noise and pollution (like fiberglass) from offshore wind, and ask EPA to study that.  For example, this group, Save Long Beach Island, asked the US Senate to hold hearings on the offshore wind energy program.  It wouldn’t be hard to be responsive to my own voters’ environmental concerns -or would it?