(WASHINGTON, DC) -- It sounds like a
simple question, but it's proven anything but: Should wood pellets, paper mill
residues or dead and decaying trees be considered a carbon-neutral source of
electricity? As Pro's Esther Whieldon reports, the EPA has spent five years trying
to determine whether burning trees to generate electricity can help power
plants reduce their carbon footprint but still hasn't reached an answer.
Now lawmakers are prodding the agency
to deliver an answer that would favor the biomass industry, including through pending energy
and appropriations bills that may receive more attention when Congress returns
after the election. Industry supporters say national policy declaring biomass
to be carbon neutral would give the technology a much needed boost because
states would know they could include the fuel source in their compliance plans
for environmental regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan. "I believe
the science is firmly on our side that biomass is carbon neutral," Rep. Bruce Westerman ,
co-chair of the Congressional Biomass Caucus, tells Esther.
Environmental advocates are fighting congressional efforts to declare biomass carbon neutral while the science is still out at EPA, and they warn lawmakers risk repeating some of the same mistakes that they made more than a decade ago with corn ethanol. "It doesn't really lend itself to sweeping legislation about something like biomass carbon neutrality because it is so feedstock specific and it really is best left to the EPA, which is charged with determining the carbon impacts of these different fuels," Sasha Stashwick, a senior advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said.
Environmental advocates are fighting congressional efforts to declare biomass carbon neutral while the science is still out at EPA, and they warn lawmakers risk repeating some of the same mistakes that they made more than a decade ago with corn ethanol. "It doesn't really lend itself to sweeping legislation about something like biomass carbon neutrality because it is so feedstock specific and it really is best left to the EPA, which is charged with determining the carbon impacts of these different fuels," Sasha Stashwick, a senior advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said.
