Q.

nngtvøø uf ff¡e lflnit¿ù Ðtatw

lflfiuøf¡ingtun, Ð9, ¿t515
June 16, 2 010
l,í sa Jackson
Admlni strator
Environment.al ProtecLion Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave,, NW, Room 3426 ARN
t¡lashi ngton, DC 20460

Dear: Administrator Jackson :

üle are writ.ing to express our deep disappointment and concern over
the EPA's decision in its final PSD Tailoring Ru_Ie to depart from the
government's consistent past practice of excfuding biomass coÍLbustion
emissions in calcurating cHc emissions. This decision contradicts federal
precedent regarding the carbon neutrality of b.iomass combustion and will
discourage the responsible development and utilization of renewab.Le
biomass that could and should play a more significant ro.le .in our nation's
energy poticy.
The PSD Taiforing Rule defines what stationary sources wiLf be
subject to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission controfs and regulat.ions in a
phase-.in process beginning on Jãnuary 2t 2011. In the draft Tailoring
Rule, the EPA proposed to calculate a source's GHG em.issions relying on
the EPA's fnventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. In the
final rule, EPA ignored its own inventory and equated biogenic cHc
enissíons with fossil fuel emissíons.
The EPA' s proposal at a minimum lmpÌied, if not made it cLear, that
emissions from biomass combustion hroufd not b,e included in the final
TaiLo¡ing Rule because the EPA fn"entory- states biomass combustion
emlssions are of "biogenic origin,, and are not currentfy included in
nationaf emissions totâls. The lnventory explícitly excludes biogenlc
em.iss.ions because "it ls assumed that the carbon refeased during the
consumption of biomass is recycled as U.S. forests and crops regenerate,
causing no net addition to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.,, The EpA's
reversaf of this establíshed position by includj.ng biomass coÍì-bustioil
emissions ín the final PSD Tailoring Rule appears to directly contradict
previous EPA policy.
The decision also contradicts long-standing federaf and
international precedents. Emissions from the combustion of biomass are not
included in the Department of Energy's vo.Luntary greenhouse gas emissions
reportinq progrâms/ the EPA, s greenhouse qas reportlng rufe/ or
calculations of internationaf bodies incruding the fntergovernmenta f panel
on Climate Change and the European Union.
Moreover, hthen the House of Representatives passed the American
Clean Energy and Security bilf (H.R. 2454J ín June, 2009, Congress
clar:ified that biomass materiaf from both privâte and pubÌic lands quatify
as a renewâbfe enerqy source. A similar definition of renewable biomass
is included in the recently released discussion draft of Senator Kerry and
Senator l,ieberman's American Potrer Act. [^IhiIe imp.rovements should be made

PÂINTEO ON RECYCLEO PAPEA

to the definition on federal lands, these definitions cfearly demonstrate
Congress's commitment to and support of biomass utilization. EPA's new
interpretation undermines these object.ives by arbitrarily eliminating the
greenhouse gas benefits of biomass compared to conventionaf fossif fuefs.
There is enormous potential to generate rener^¡able energy from waste
products galhered on public and private Ìands. Thls inc.Ludes byproducts
of preventive treatments that are removed to reduce hazardous fue]s, to
reduce or. contain disease or insect infestat.ion, or to restore forest
health.
Miflions of acres of public and private forests generate hundreds of
thousands of wood chips, sfash, brush, and thinning each year. current
practlce is to pÍ]e and burn thís material in the open.
Using biomass to produce local energy in a controlled environment at a
facility outfitted with air scrubbers that compfy with the clean Air Act
makes more sense than burning it in the open. Further, th.is would help
stimulate the economies of rural communities surrounded by federal lands
by creaLing jobs.
lncluding biomass combustion emissions in the final PSD Taiforing
Rule and potentialfy imposing new regulations on biomass combustlon
facilities will discourage the collection and transportation of woody
biomass from public and private lands. Instead of encouraging i:.he
recovery of a clean, carbon neutral energy source from public and private
forests, the EPA's decision will likely resuÌt in the continuation of
burning b,iomass materlal in the open. Beyond the policy and pragmatic
ramifications of EPA's new decision, it is also inconsistent with and
contradictory to the well established science regarding biomass
r:omhn sr i on -

ln liqht of the EPA's declsion to reverse federal and internationa.I

precedent and ignore cÌear Congressiona.l intent r:egarding biomass
utilizatlon, we respectfully request a written detailèd response
explaining your plan to recons.ider the treatment of emissions of b.iogen.ic
carbon dioxide under the PSD and Title V programs. ln particular, we
would like to understand your aqreement with the Secretary of Agriculture
to seek further conment on the greenhouse gas bìenef.its of bioenergy and
the specific timeline when this will take place. tie expect that you wil.L
conduct this review promptly in order to avoid any adverse consequences to
biomass comL'ustion facilities. We urge you to stay the application of the
rules to such facilities. pending such review.
Your written response should include: 1) specific details regarding
your agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture to seek further comnlent
on the cHc benefits of bioenergy; 2) a specific timeline detaifing in
months when this will take place; and 3) whether you will stay the
application of the rules to biomass combustion facilities pend.ing your
review.
 Thank youin advance for your attention to this matter. We Ìook
forward to your timely and substanLive response.
Sincerely,

,?.¿h fu"¿fu
Member of Congress Member of Congress Menùcer of Congres s

Cathy
Member of Congress Member cif conqress

//. /,æ U- €rl",,qr-',

/(-/¿M.ichaud
Michaef Glenn Thompson an Boren
MeÍìber of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congres s

T:s*,w^
Member of Congres s
nie
r of
Herlseth
Congres s
WaIter Jones
of
ß
Congres s

Ldalt Minnr
Member of
A*.. l^- en
MenÙ3er of Congress
Simdson
of Congress

ES Bobby ight
MeÍì.lcer of Congr:es s Member Member of Congr.es s

ñ g4¿-
?kqpk Rick Larsen
of Congres
MeÍìber. s
Tim Holden
Member of Congres s

koûrr,,-ffiY-^et@
william oweàs
Menber of Congre s s
Frank T,ucas
Member of Conqres s
BartStupak
Member of Congre ss
 Chri
7&æl?tw
Member
s
of Congres s
Thomas
Mefiìber
Perriel.lo
of Congr.ess
Bob Goodtacte
Member of Congress

ørw"f ?Îd
MeÍìber of Congress
ljenny
Member of
RenÐe

ynthia 1S
Member of Congres s

\¿ú^
Rick Boucher
Member of congres s MeÏrìber of Congres s MeÍìber of Conqres s

/7
/-
/k/h(/
/n
Ø¿u,n^e^at *
/ þi^ ^ Marshal f
(---,/ ttembe r ot Congress
o.'.- Emerson
þlMember ot congress
David
Member
Wu
of Congres s

furyî(truCq,ù,
Shelley Moore Caprto Roscoe
Member
Bartlett
of Congres s
l,th'*
Jo Bonner
MeÍÌlcer of Congres s

Tt+n**f Mf^
/dK
Member of Congres s
Míke McTntyre
Member of Congres s
6"pp
Gregg Harper
Member of Congre s s

mber
W5"*- (nØ+ 4**#**
of Congres s Member of Congress Menber of Congres s
fu**
MeÍlber of Congres s
flc<
Tom Co]e
Member of Con<jres s
Pauf Hodes
Mefiìber of Congr.ess

/#,^""á^,#,
"h:eÞ Congress

qUiß.AÅ,ñ
Reichert
f Congre s s
Robert Aderholt
MeÍìbeï of Congress ":^MLj
MeÍìber of Congres s

Rodney Atexa
|,rì)
Ros s
r of Congre s s

ti
k* B.i
of
shop
Congres

CC: Secretary Vilsack,

ï
Michael Arcuri
tuémber of congress

U. S. Department of Agriculture
2I2A \thl tten Buildj ng
1400 lndependence Avenue, SW
t^]a sh ington. DC 2Q250