BIOMASS ENERGY: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND EMERGING

REGULATION

Mary S. Booth, PhDPartnership for Policy Integrity

www.pfpi.net

KIUC Energy Conference, Lexington, KY

March 13, 2014

“BIOMASS ENERGY”

– Combustion of wood and other biological materials to produce steam and generate heat and power; or gasification of fuel to drive a turbine.

– Combustion at “direct-fired” plants or as co-firing with coal

– “Biomass” = wood. Few facilities using agricultural residues or energy crops

– Considered “renewable energy”: eligible for same incentives and subsidies as wind and solar power.

– Has been considered “carbon neutral” – now changing

2

3

OUTLINE

• Biomass power plants emit more CO2 and key “conventional” pollutants than fossil-fueled plants

• New policies and regulatory decisions recognize these impacts

4

WOOD-FUELED BIOPOWERAND ITS EMISSIONS

McNeil Power Plant, Burlington, Vermont

Photo: Chris Matera, Massachusetts Forest Watch 5

PROPOSED ECOPOWER PLANT, HAZARD

• ~58 MW gross; likely less than 52 MW net (parasitic load)

• 745 MMBtu boiler • Air cooled, low-efficiency• Will harvest trees for fuel• “Synthetic minor” source under Clean Air

Act: allowable particulate matter emissions 2x greater than coal; no air quality modeling; no short term emissions limits

6

ECOPOWER WEBSITE

7

BIOMASS POWER EMITS MORE CO2 PER MWH THAN COAL OR GAS

A biomass plant emits~150% the CO2 of a coal plant~250% the CO2 of a gas plant~ 340% the CO2 of a combined cycle plant

Fuel CO2 per heat content (lb/mmbtu)

Facility efficiency

Fuel mmbtu required to

generate 1 MWh Lb CO2/MWh

Gas combined cycle 117.1 0.45 7.54 883

Gas steam turbine 117.1 0.33 10.40 1,218

Coal steam turbine 205.6 0.34 10.15 2,086

Biomass steam turbine 213 0.24 14.22 3,029

Fuel CO2 per heat content data are from EIA. Efficiency for fossil fuel facilities calculated using EIA heat rate data (http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p4.html); biomass efficiency value is common value for utility-scale facilities.

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Biomass ST

Coal ST

Gas ST

Gas CC

lb CO2 emitted per MWh

8

BIOPOWER AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ARE GREATER THAN

COAL OR GAS

-

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

Carbon monoxide Nitrogen oxides Filterable PM10 Sulfur dioxide Volatile organic compounds

Poun

ds p

er m

egaw

att-h

our

COAL: Santee Cooper Pee Dee Generating Station, SC

BIOMASS: Gainesville Renewable Energy, FL

GAS: Pioneer Valley Energy Center, MA

9

BIOMASS ENERGY IS OPPOSED BY HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS

Massachusetts Medical Society resolution: (December, 2009)

• “biomass power plants pose an unacceptable risk to the public’s health by increasing air pollution”

American Lung Association Energy Policy: (June 11, 2011)

• The American Lung Association does not support biomass combustion for electricity production, a category that includes wood, wood products, agricultural residues or forest wastes, and potentially highly toxic feedstocks, such as construction and demolition waste. 

• The American Lung Association strongly opposes the combustion of wood and other biomass sources at schools and institutions with vulnerable populations.

10

– The “waste” argument: Materials burned are waste and would decompose and emit CO2 anyway

– The “resequestration” argument: Ongoing or future forest growth re-sequesters carbon that’s released by burning.• Bioenergy “offsetting”

Neither argument acknowledges time-lag between burning biomass and

offsetting emissions.

11

WHY HAS BIOMASS ENERGY BEEN TREATED AS “CARBON NEUTRAL”?

SIMPLISTIC EXPLANATION

• “Carbon in biomass is part of the natural carbon cycle” - versus fossil fuels.

• But again: timing matters

12

Fossil fuel scenario

Biopower scenario

Time

Less stack CO2

More stack CO2

Less forest biomass

More forest biomass

WHERE’S THE CARBON?

14

NET BIOPOWER NET CO2 EMISSIONS EXCEED EMISSIONS FROM NATURAL

GAS FOR DECADES

“Waste” wood that would decompose

anyway

Trees that otherwise continue growing

Slash that would be burned in the

woods

CU

MU

LATIV

E E

MIS

SIO

NS

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

YEARS

Natural gas (stack emissions

only)

ECOPOWER WILL BURN WHOLE TREES FOR FUEL

“Within a 55-mile radius of the Project, there are more than 400,000 green tons of mill residuals and over 67 million green tons of standing low-grade wood with a growth rate of over 1 million green tons annually.”

15

16

60-MILE FUEL-SOURCING RADIUS

BIOMASS HARVESTING THREATENS FORESTS AND BIODIVERSITY

18

NEW REGULATORY AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS FOR BIOENERGY

19

EPA’S “DEFERRAL” FOR COUNTING BIOENERGY CO2 UNDER CLEAN AIR

ACT DEEMED UNLAWFUL• U.S. Court of Appeals: EPA should

not exclude bioenergy CO2 emissions from counting toward Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) triggering threshold

20

FUTURE REGULATION OF BIOMASS CO2

UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT?

• Science Advisory Board: “Bioenergy is not a priori carbon neutral”

• July, 2014: Bioenergy exemption ends

EPA’S POWER PLANT RULE FOR CO2

Suggests standards may be set for bioenergy CO2 eventually:

“the overall net atmospheric loading of CO2 resulting from the use of a biogenic feedstock by a stationary source will ultimately depend on the stationary source process and the type of feedstock used, as well as the conditions under which that feedstock is grown and harvested.”

Again – bioenergy not automatically carbon neutral

MASSACHUSETTS RULES ELIMINATE LARGE-SCALE BIOMASS

POWER FROM RPSEfficiency 50% efficiency to qualify for ½ REC/MWh (60% for full REC)

GHG emissions accounting Framework accounts for carbon debt of whole tree

harvesting Requires 50% reduction in GHGs over 20 yrs compared to

combined cycle natural gas facility

Harvesting standards Allowable removals depend on soil conditions Protects old growth, slopes, downed woody material Requires harvest plans

Other states have similar plans to restrict biopower eligibility for RPS: MD, DC

23

VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD DENIES BIOMASS PLANT “CERTIFICATE

OF PUBLIC GOOD” BASED ON CO2 EMISSIONS

• “the Project would release  as much as 448,714 tons of CO2e per year, and that sequestration of those greenhouse gases would not occur until future years, possibly not for decades, and would not occur at all in the case of forest-regeneration failures.  This annual level of greenhouse gas emissions is a significant burden to be weighed in determining whether the Project would promote the general good.”

• Plant will interfere with ability of state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

24

INVESTOR COMPLAINT LETTER TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON BIOENERGY

“GREENWASHING”• Signed by investors with over $100b in

assets• Calls out “carbon neutral” claims and other

misrepresentations by Dominion, Southern Company, Covanta

• Shareholder resolution on ballot at Dominion, calling for study of bioenergy climate and investment risks

Mary S. Boothmbooth@pfpi.net