The Clean Power Plan (CPP): The Treatment of Biomass

Updated February 12, 2016

The Clean Power Plan (CPP): The Treatment of Biomass

The Clean Power Plan

On August 3, 2015, the Obama Administration issued its

final rule for carbon dioxide (CO2) emission reductions

from existing fossil fuel-fired electric power plants,

commonly referred to as the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers

the CPP under an authority granted to the agency in Section

111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA; 42 U.S.C. 7411). In

general, the CPP requires states to devise a plan that—by

reducing CO2 emissions from the affected facilities in

accordance with guidance established by EPA—allows

them to reach a state-specific emission reduction goal by

2030. States are required to submit their plans by

September 6, 2016, although they may request a two-year

extension. A federal plan will be used to implement the

CPP for states that do not submit a plan. Further, states are

required to implement their plans in 2022. EPA says the

CPP offers states “broad flexibility and latitude in

complying with their obligations” by providing multiple

strategies that states may undertake to meet their goal,

including increased use of non-fossil fuel energy sources,

such as renewable energy. On February 9, 2016, the

Supreme Court granted a stay of EPA’s CPP, pending the

Court’s consideration of whether to hear the case.

How Is Biomass Accounted for in the CPP?

EPA specifies that “qualified biomass” may be included in

a state’s plan. EPA defines qualified biomass as a biomass

feedstock that has been demonstrated to be a method to

control increases of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. EPA

defines biomass as biologically based material that is living

or dead above and/or below ground and is available on a

renewable or recurring basis. EPA states that it will “review

the appropriateness and basis for determining qualified

biomass feedstocks or feedstock categories in its review of

the approvability of a state plan.” While EPA explicitly

states that “not all forms of biomass are expected to be

approvable as qualified biomass,” it gives some indication

as to what exactly may qualify (e.g., waste-derived

feedstock, certain forest and agriculture-derived industrial

byproducts).

One reason EPA may be unable to give additional

information about the specific biomass types that may

qualify could be the agency’s ongoing efforts to determine

the carbon status of biomass (e.g., carbon neutrality). One

such effort referred to in the final rule is the EPA Science

Advisory Board (SAB) draft 2014 report Framework for

Assessing Biogenic Carbon Dioxide for Stationary Sources

(Framework). The Framework maintains that it is “not

scientifically valid to assume that all biogenic feedstocks

are carbon neutral, but that the net biogenic CO2

atmospheric contribution of different biomass feedstocks

can vary and depends on various factors, including

feedstock type and characteristics, production practices,

and, in some cases, the alternative fate of the feedstock.” It

is not known when a final Framework may be released.

Another effort is the proposed federal plan for the CPP—

the federal plan to be implemented if a state does not

submit an approvable plan by the assigned deadline. It was

released concurrently with the CPP final rule. The proposed

federal plan requests comments on the inclusion of biomass

and its treatment within the federal plan (e.g., a list of

preapproved qualified biomass fuels). Comments received

may impact which biomass types the EPA deems eligible

for the CPP or why the use of biomass should be restricted.

The CPP final rule requires additional accounting and

reporting requirements should a state decide to use qualified

biomass. For instance, states will have to submit the

biomass type they propose to use and explain why this

biomass should be considered qualified biomass, along with

biomass monitoring, reporting, and verification measures.

For some biomass types, the plan must include measures

the state will take to verify the biomass type, its origin, and

any associated sustainability practices. EPA asserts that the

approval of biomass for a state plan is contingent upon

whether the “measures for qualified biomass and related

biogenic CO2 benefits are quantifiable, verifiable,

enforceable, non-duplicative and permanent.”

Clean Energy Incentive Program

In the final rule, EPA announced a Clean Energy Incentive

Program (CEIP)—an optional program in which states may

participate. EPA says it is establishing the CEIP to

encourage early investments in renewable energy (RE) and

demand-side energy efficiency (EE) by the states. Biomass

is excluded from the CEIP. While details about the program

are forthcoming, EPA specifies that the only RE options

available to states are power from wind and solar resources

(see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Demand-side EE—generally

described as a technique to affect consumer behavior that

results in a reduction in electricity use—does not apply to

energy supply activities such as producing power.

The Role of Biopower in the CPP

It is not clear how pronounced a role biopower—the

generation of electric power from biomass feedstocks—will

play in state plans to meet state-specific emission reduction

goals. First, EPA has placed the onus on states to

demonstrate the eligibility of biomass for the CPP, with

EPA making the final decision. Thus far, EPA has provided

little direct guidance on biomass in the final rule. This

could be due to multiple reasons, including a wait-and-see

approach to find out what states propose, to review

comments received about biomass for the proposed federal

plan, or to obtain additional information from the SAB. The

many requirements states must adhere to in order to include

biomass in their plans, without clear direction on what will

and will not be approved, may deter some states from

https://crsreports.congress.gov

The Clean Power Plan (CPP): The Treatment of Biomass

including biomass. Second, the final rule primarily focuses

on feedstock types and not technologies, and it appears

tethered to the idea that the predominant biopower

technologies will be direct combustion or co-firing with

fossil fuels. For instance, the CPP regulatory impact

analysis contains a CO2 emission factor for biomass that

accounts for combustion only. But other biopower

technologies exist (e.g., gasification, pyrolysis)—albeit

some may argue that these technologies are not as fully

established as combustion and co-firing—where biomass

could be the sole or primary feedstock and that could yield

lower CO2 emissions. Therefore, it is not clear if EPA is

concerned only with biopower technologies that are widely

used at present or also with forthcoming biopower

technologies that with certain incentives could have less of

a carbon impact. It could be argued that, given the CPP

implementation time frame, it is unlikely to expect certain

biopower technologies (not yet proven at commercial scale)

to ramp up to the levels needed to meet a final state-specific

goal.

Figure 1. 2014 U.S. Electricity Generation Portfolio

and CO2 Emissions

(billion killowatt-hours)

Billion Kilowatt-hours

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Billion Kilowatt-hours

CO2 Emissions

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Monthly

Energy Review July 2015, Table 7.2a and Table 12.6, DOE/EIA0035(2015/07), Washington DC, July 2015.

Notes: 2014 Total Production = 4.09 billion kilowatt-hours; 2014

Total Emissions = 2.05 million metric tons CO2.

Competing Interests

The inclusion of biomass in the CPP could lead to

competing interests among the different forms of bioenergy

(i.e., biopower, biofuels, and biothermal). As the fuel for all

bioenergy, biomass feedstock supply may be a concern to

some. However, not all biomass can be used or is readily

accessible for all bioenergy types. Market forces also will

likely continue to partially determine which feedstock goes

to which energy application. Further, demand for bioenergy

via any federal program may help some regions where

biomass loads are abundant (e.g., wildfire-prone areas). In

addition, multiple programs and tax incentives exist for the

different bioenergy types (e.g., the Renewable Fuel

Standard). Federal support—financial and technical—could

be stretched thin or bolstered by a new focus on biopower

under the CPP.

Figure 2. 2014 Renewable Electricity Generation

(million kilowatt-hours)

Million Kilowatt-hours

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

Source: EIA, Monthly Energy Review July 2015, Table 7.2a, DOE/EIA0035(2015/07), Washington DC, July 2015.

Notes: 2014 Total Renewable Production = 539.8 million kilowatthours.

Congressional Interest

Congress has expressed interest in many biomass-related

issues, particularly biopower and biomass carbon neutrality.

For instance, some Members in both chambers have

expressed to the executive branch their support for

consistent federal policies pertaining to biomass and argued

that certain biomass feedstocks should be deemed carbon

neutral. Proposed legislation addresses EPA handling of

carbon emissions from forest biomass.

Congressional support for and opposition to biopower

differs for many reasons. Biopower can contribute to

economic growth, environmental improvements, and

energy independence. It also can be cost and energy

intensive, may be susceptible to encouraging the use of

unsustainable management practices, and may be difficult

to produce at commercial scales similar to the fossil fuel

industry. Some assert that biopower offers the opportunity

to protect and revitalize existing markets and to stimulate

support for new markets in regions of the country that could

benefit from such activity. Others maintain that biopower

may cause environmental harm if robust measures are not

enforced to protect natural resources and human health.

Congressional oversight regarding biomass and its inclusion

in environmental, energy, agricultural, and natural

resources policies and programs may continue in the 114th

Congress.

For more information, see CRS Report R41440, Biopower:

Background and Federal Support and CRS Report R44145,

EPA's Clean Power Plan: Highlights of the Final Rule.

Acknowledgment: Andre Miller prepared the graphics

displayed in this document.

Kelsi Bracmort, Specialist in Natural Resources and

Energy Policy

https://crsreports.congress.gov

IF10280

The Clean Power Plan (CPP): The Treatment of Biomass

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to

congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.

Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has

been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the

United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be

reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include

copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you

wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10280 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED