The use of biomass from forests, grasslands and other organic material to produce electricity has
been expected to be a major contributor to meeting clean energy goals in the United States and
around the world. Yet recently, the combustion of biomass for electricity has caused some
scientists and environmental advocates to raise concerns about its long-term impact on forests
and climate change. In at least one state, these questions have led regulators to temporarily
suspend consideration of applications for renewable energy incentives for biomass power
projects. Developers of several biomass power plants cannot proceed with financing until they
receive clarification on what new requirements will apply to their plants. Those requirements,
when they are finally known, will not only determine the ability of biomass plants to contribute
to meeting that state’s renewable energy goals, but may well set important precedents for state
and federal clean energy policies in the future.

Biomass burning power plants have been expected to play a large role in meeting renewable
energy goals across the United States because wood, grass and other organic matter are both
renewable and plentiful. The increasing concentration of populations in urban areas, not to
mention increasingly efficient farming techniques, are causing a substantial transformation of
previously developed land to forests or grasslands. In addition, power plants that combust
organic matter can operate whenever they are needed and therefore have very high productive
capacity. In many cases, these plants operate more than 90 percent of the time. Power
generating facilities that use other renewable fuels can only operate intermittently, for example,
when the wind blows or the sun shines, and therefore have much lower productive capacity.
Windmills generally produce electricity between 24 and 36 percent of the time while solar
photovoltaic panels operate between 12 and 16 percent of the time. In the competition to meet
renewable energy goals, the advantage that investments in wind or solar generating capacity gain
by avoiding the need to purchase fuel, which biomass must purchase, is more than offset by the
much greater productive efficiency of capital invested in biomass generating capacity.
On the other hand, electricity production from biomass requires combustion, and that releases
carbon dioxide from the stack to the atmosphere. Advocates for, and developers of, biomass
plants have long argued that since all or most of the wood and grass harvested for biomass grows
back, it eventually sequesters an amount of carbon dioxide equal to that released in the
combustion process. Recently, some scientists have questioned the accounting methods by
which biomass is automatically considered to be carbon neutral.1/ They point to instances where
biomass use for power generation (or, in some cases, for production of bio-fuels) resulted in
land-use changes or wood harvesting methods that are not likely to achieve full re-growth of the
biomass material. In that case, biomass re-growth would sequester less carbon than was released
in the original combustion process. They argue that “carbon neutrality” can only be determined
on a case-by-case basis using sound metrics for measuring carbon emitted and carbon
sequestered. These considerations have caused renewable energy advocates and government
regulators to seek to limit carbon emissions on a lifecycle basis from biomass in order for it to
qualify for renewable

To read complete article go to:  http://www.mintz.com/newsletter/2010/Special/CleanEdge-April/BiomassUnderAttack.pdf