RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD: Why Isn’t Woody Biomass a Potential Fuel?
A forestry and forest products value chain issue that has emerged and become hotly debated with increasing frequency over the last couple of years is related to a long-standing liquid transportation fuel mandate known as the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). Originally enacted in 2005 and then refined in 2007 as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), the RFS requires growing volumes of biofuels to be blended into U.S. transportation fuel supplies of gasoline and diesel. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule in late March setting the annual number of renewable fuel gallons to be blended into the U.S. supply at almost 26 billion gallons.
Despite this considerable volumetric mandate, the underlying law is an anomaly. Instead of deploying an “all of the above” approach in tapping renewable feedstock sources, the statute imposes overly restrictive conditions on eligibility for fuels derived from forest-based biomass. In the law’s definition of “renewable biomass,” fiber from private tree plantations is eligible, but only on those lands cleared prior to enactment on December 19, 2007. Slash and precommercial thinnings qualify, but whole trees do not. And fiber from federal lands is strictly prohibited. These definitional restrictions were negotiated and secured by the Natural Resources Defense Council based on environmentalists’ concerns around widescale conversion of natural forests to pine plantations to fulfill anticipated renewable fuel demand.
With markets for forest fiber and residuals in a down cycle, the chorus of stakeholders urging expansion of the definition is growing louder. Private industrial forest landowners who see a potential market growth opportunity for their assets have led efforts over the years to revise the definition and open up eligibility for fuels derived from private working forestlands. The challenge politically has been that this definition is embedded deeply in the Clean Air Act and there has been consensus among legal experts that any revision would necessitate a legislative reopening of that statute. Such efforts attract a lot of attention, both from opponents and ancillary stakeholders looking to “shoehorn” in their priorities on any moving legislative vehicle. Moreover, there is very little appetite in Congress right now for moving clean air legislation. That is why forest landowners were pushing hard for EPA to try to modify the definition in its recently completed RFS rulemaking mentioned above. The agency did seek comments on the renewable biomass definition during this process but ultimately did not make any changes to it. This action officially closes the regulatory chapter of this issue for now.
So, what comes next? Advocates for an expanded renewable biomass definition – the Hardwood Federation included – will continue to push Congress to act. With recent pulp and paper mill closures in South Carolina and elsewhere in the southeast, falling demand in some of these fiber baskets has loggers, landowners, and sawmill operators viewing the situation with increased urgency. Key lawmakers understand the plight of those seeking more markets for forest fiber and residuals. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-AR), in opening remarks during his panel’s consideration of the Fix our Forests Act, underscored his belief that forest-derived liquid biofuels should be eligible under the RFS mandate. He noted, however, that his committee does not have jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act and pledged to work with Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) on a solution.
The issue takes on added complexity with the fact that the entire forest products value chain is not in agreement. While forest landowners have been pushing hard to create a market pathway in the RFS, the pulp and paper sector continues to oppose these efforts. The opposition is borne out of concern that potential demand for forest fiber, should forest-based liquid transportation fuel production actually scale, could threaten affordability and availability of their feedstock. Advocates for the pulp and paper industry have been effective in communicating these concerns with key committee chairs in Congress. In recent communications from Congressional leaders, it is clear that any viable legislative fix would have to include language protecting wood fiber sourcing areas around pulp and paper facilities. Negotiations are ongoing around specifics and whether it is even possible to fashion language that would thread the needle between the need for increased market demand and protections for existing users of forest fiber.
Despite EPA’s inaction on rewriting a RFS biomass definition, the issue shows no signs of abating. The Hardwood Federation will continue to work with our upstream supplier allies and the softwood sector in trying to find a workable solution to this problem. Healthy markets for the forest resource are the engines that power the cycle of sustainability. Without them, forestland conversion to agriculture or development is inevitable. The Hardwood Federation team will continue to work this message in our meetings with members of Congress in hopes that a compromise ultimately may be forged.
Dana Lee Cole is the executive director at the Hardwood Federation, a Washington, D.C.-based hardwood industry trade association that represents thousands of hardwood businesses in every state in the United States and acts as the industry advocacy voice on Capitol Hill. She can be reached at dana.cole@hardwoodfederation.com.
