# S ummary of Bioenergy Greenhouse Gas Accounting Stakeholder Group Discussions

In January and February 2010, a series of three meetings were held among a diverse group of stakeholders to foster a better understanding of the net flux of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the atmosphere from the growth, production and combustion of biomass for heat and electricity and transportation fuels. (Throughout this summary, the inclusive term “bioenergy” is used to encompass biopower

– electrical, thermal or both

– an d liquid biofuels .) The meetings were designed to work towards a common understanding of the underlying science that should inform the accounting of GHG emissions related to the growth, production and combustion of biomass for bioenergy. This was accompl ished by discussing the terminology and key concepts and then exploring a set of energy production scenarios in an effort to establish a common understanding of the underlying science and accounting issues associated with GHG emissions related to bioenergy

.
The organizer of the meetings, the Environment Defense Fund, acknowledged that strategic

level scenarios

- that is, those taking into account changes in real

- world biomass inventories over time and space, driven by economic drivers as well as other f actors such as domestic energy security, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and ecosystem health

– should also ultimately be considered in shaping domestic policy. However, in order to keep the discussion manageable, the meetings focused on the bioenergy scenarios and their effects on the carbon cycle rather than a full range of strategic, economic and policy considerations.

A diverse set of stakeholders participated, representing perspectives of forest landowners, agricultural producers, biofuel produc ers, bioenergy trade associations, environmental organizations, and scientists from academic institutions (see Attachment A for a list of attendees ). The meetings were facilitated by Timothy Mealey, Senior Partner of the Meridian Institute.



### Meeting Object ives

1. Establish a better understanding of the underlying science and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions related to bioenergy by focusing on the impacts from the production and combustion of biomass for bioenergy on net greenhouse gas emissions. The sc enarios were hypothetical and did not include the economic and policy drivers that might influence them.Summar y of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13 , 2010 Page 2 of 16

2. Identify and discuss key concepts and terms needed to understand the science required to define the net impact of the production and use of bioenergy on rates of climate change.
3. Conduct a structured conversation around a representative set of bioenergy production pathways in order to accomplish objective number one.
4. Draw insights from the discussion of the diverse perspectives of each scenario to eluc idate differences or similarities in the views that exist on bioenergy

- related GHG accounting.
5. Discuss lessons learned from the exercise and possible next steps for the group.



### Overview

The expanding market for bioenergy creates new opportunities for sustai nable management of private lands as well as potential markets for additional products from these lands, which may increase harvest ing rates. The unique opportunity provided in the still early stages of the bioenergy industry is to understand whether bioen ergy creates benefits through the entire supply chain, including for land owners, as well as for the environment.

In recent months an article was published in Science (October, 2009) with EDF staff as co

authors. This article was written with the intent ion of raising scientific and accounting issues associated with biomass for bioenergy. The stakeholder meetings were designed, in part, to address issues raised by the article and further explore key scientific aspects of GHG accounting associated with bi oenergy use

.
The goal of the meetings was not to develop a consensus but rather to create a deeper understanding of the scientific and accounting issues surrounding GHG emissions associated with bioenergy. Definitive answers were not sought. Participan ts were urged to look through a scientific lens as much as possible in order to begin building a foundation that could later inform a policy discussion. The overarching purpose of this effort was to gain a better understanding of the underlying science an d accounting that could eventually be applied in a policy context.

The first meeting reviewed definitions and scientific terminology associated with the carbon cycle and GHG emission accounting issues that are applicable to both fossil and bio

- based
energ y. The se were not introduced to provide consensus on terminology but to draw as much as possible from well

- regarded sources, including re ports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The group was asked to identify any terms that raised serious questions from a scientific perspective or caused concern or disagreement. In addition, a series of questions were posed for discussion during the first meeting to help the group explore key aspects of the accounting challenge such as the spatial and temporal scope.

This general discussion established the basis for the second and third meetings during which the group explored a number of hypothetical scenarios related to the use of biomass for energy and liquid fuels. The scenario exercises wer e intended for illustrative purposes only, to helpSummar y of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13 , 2010 Page 3 of 16

participants understand the ch allenges associated with GHG accounting. Thus, both the description of the scenarios and t he resulting numbers were unit

- less, meaning only the relative relationships were of interest and not absolute values . They were used solely as a means to guide the conversation and explore the underlying rationale for how GHG accounting reflects our understanding of the carbon cycle

.


### Initial Questions and Issues

Early in the dialogue f ive key scientific questions were posed to help provide the basis for more detailed discussion of hypothetical scenarios. The questions included:

1. What overarching metric is most appropriate in evaluating the climate change impacts of different forms of bi oenergy (e.g. net greenhouse gas emissions for x years after combusted; net radiative forcing over the next century)?

2. What time interval is most appropriate for evaluating the climate change impacts of production and combustion of bioenergy feed stocks (e .g. 1 year, 5 years, 100 years)?

3. What spatial context should be used for the climate change impact of different types of biomass for bioenergy (e.g. the field/forest stand where the material is grown, the nation, the earth)?

4. What factors need to be consi dered when evaluating the climate change effects of the production and combustion of biomass for bioenergy /biofuels ? Factors may include:

**•** Carbon flux from net primary productivity (photosynthesis

– respiration) of the vegetation;

**•** Carbon flux from decompo sing vegetation;

**•** Carbon emissions from combustion of the bioenergy feedstock and the fossil fuels they potentially displace ;

**•** Storage of carbon in products;

**•** Carbon emissions associated with processing/transporting the bioen ergy/fossil fuel of feedstocks

.

5. Are the metrics, timeframe, and factors identified above the same for bioenergy as they are for fossil

- based energy? For example, are there differences among carbon stocks (such as between soils, biomass, or fossil fuels) that impact how the climate chang e impacts of energy produced from these stocks should be compared? Aside from economic drivers, d oes the physical stability of a carbon stock matter when considering the climate change implications of storing carbon among different stocks, e.g. between

ca rbon stored in wood products and carbon stored in coal ?Summar y of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13 , 2010 Page 4 of 16


### Metrics, Measurement and Accounting

Several interrelated and complex concepts were mentioned during the course of a wide ranging discussion of these questions, including:

**•** Net GHG emission s: t otal emissions or sequestration of GHGs relative to agreed upon temporal, spatial, and/or policy baseline s , boundaries or measurement scale as appropriate;

**•** Net radiative forcing : c hange in radiative balance at the surface of the earth resulting from an activity , usually measured as W/m 2 ;

**•** The convention of measuring GHGs as CO 2 Equivalents (CO 2 e) : a methodology that accounts for the differential impacts of different GHGs ;

**•** Global Warming Potential (GWP) : r elies upon the concept of CO 2 e and sums the global warming impacts of all the greenhouse gas fluxes which occur over a specified time period (e.g.; fluxes over 50 years or 100 years);

**•** Fuel Warming Potential (FWP) : a framework to aggregate net radiative forcing effects that occur over a significant span of time int o a global warming intensity metric that better represents the climate effects of fuel substitution (from O’Hare , “Proper accounting for time increases crop

- based biofuels’ greenhouse gas deficit versus petroleum” );

**•** The need for evaluation of biomass produ ction and use taking into account spatial and temporal dimension s in accounting;

**•** The need to account for other factors affecting climate change including, for example, volcanic activity, water vapor and changes in Earth surface albedo;

**•** The need to account for the influence and impact of economic and policy drivers on bioenergy related GHG emissions;

**•** The difference between accounting for flows (of GHGs into the atmosphere) and stocks (quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere or in biomass); and

**•** The appropriate acc ounting for a potential “pulse s ” of emissions from changes in land use, and how that accounting would change over different time frames and spatial dimensions and in different economic and policy scenarios

.
Several participants noted that it is not clear what the overarching purpose for a core metric is. Specifically, are we trying to produce a metric that is useful for policy

- making purposes or are we trying to determine the appropriate metric for assessing the impacts of a specific project or product? This question came up repeatedly and eventually led to discussion of the distinction between attributional life cycle assessments (LCAs) and consequential LCAs . Attributional LCA aims at describing the environmental impacts of a life cycle within system b oundaries defined by the energy and material flows directly connected to the functional unit being studied. ASummar y of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13 , 2010 Page 5 of 16

consequential LCA generates information on the consequences of actions, even if they occur outside the boundaries of the studied systems. 1

Sever al participants suggested that the criteria that should be applied to the selection of an overarching metric should include: a) measurability (can the phenomenon be easily measured); and b) understandability (is the metric easily understood).



### Temporal Di mension

Several aspects of the time dimension were recognized as being particularly challenging to incorporate into an overarching metric. These aspects include the net GHG/ CO 2 e emissions over the short

- term and net warming effect of those emissions on the atmosphere over the long

- term taking into account both emissions and sequestration . It was also pointed out that the appropriate length of time for the long

- term dimension may differ depending on the source of the biomass and the types of GHGs that ar e emitted. Some participants suggested it was important to consider the net flux of GHGs over an extended period of time

– preferably 100 years or more. Over a shorter period of time, such as five years, net CO 2 implications for the atmosphere may not b ecome apparent. This led to a discussion of the differences between simply accounting for the net flux of GHGs to and from the atmosphere and accounting for net radiative forcing implications of the residence of those GHGs in the atmosphere. Others
sugge sted a timeframe of at least 50 years to account for the half

- life of methane (CH 4 ) and the transformation of methane into CO 2 in the atmosphere.

Ultimately the group emphasized it is important to assess and understand the climate change effects of the ac cumulation of GHG emissions in the atmosphere (which is typically measured by net radiative forcing and/or changes in the net radiative balance). However, because of the impossibility of directly measuring radiative forcing caused by specific energy proce sses

– especially in combination with other important physical phenomena that affect the climate such as albedo

– surrogate measures such as net GHG emissions (expressed as CO 2 e) or GWP are reasonable starting points for an appropriate metric to measure an d account for the climate impacts from the production and combustion of biomass for bioenergy. However, participants also recognized that such metrics can only account for the climate impacts of biomass used for bioenergy in conjunction with some underlyi ng assumptions about treatment of the time dimension. In the case of GWP, the eventual radiative forcing of an atmospheric gas emitted into the atmosphere and leaving at a known rate is typically integrated over a standard time horizon, commonly 100 years , although other periods can be used. There was some discussion around the fundamental problem with simply summing the net flux of GHGs to the atmosphere is that a sum of zero (total emissions over some time equal to total sequestration over that time) s uggests absence of global warming effect, whereas the

1 Ekvall, T., Weidema, B.P., Int. J. of LCA 9(3): 161 (2004)Summar y of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13 , 2010 Page 6 of 16

GHGs have been in the atmosphere for some period and had a warming effect. In other words, simply summing greenhouse gas flux over some period does not accurately tell us about the climate change effec t of those gases. This would suggest that frequent assessments, such as every 5 years, over an extended time period are necessary for accounting for GHG emissions from bioenergy. In addition to knowing how much greenhouse gas went into and out of the

atmo sphere, it's also necessary to consider the effect it had when it was there. The net effect will be impacted by the spatial scale at which these emissions are examined.

O thers noted that GHG molecules are dispersed in the atmosphere rather than “hovering ” over the site of the emission and, therefore, bioenergy emissions from a specific location are coupled with carbon sequestration from other locations. Thus, they suggested the effect of the GHGs removed from the atmosphere should be considered in tandem with the effect of those emitted into the atmosphere.

There was also discussion of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a metric that reflects all the global warming effects of fluxes that occur within a time window but does not consider the effects of fluxes that occur outside that window. GWP with a 50

- year window would sum the full warming effect over the next c entury of emissions in year 49 but no effect of emissions in year 51. This was contrasted with Fuel Warming Potential (FWP) that only measures the global warming effects that occur within the specified time window. Thus, with a 50 year window, emissions in year 1 would have 49 years to contribute to warming, while emissions in year 49 would only contribute 1 year of warming, and emissions in year 5 1 would contribute zero years of warming during this time window. Some participants noted that this approach mitigated the problem with GWP of having a sharp cutoff for quantifying impacts in one particular year

.
The group explored but did not have time to fully address the possibility of establishing a metric that utilized a “rolling average” approach whereby both the short and long

- term impacts are accounted for updated and recalculated over time based on improved understandings of the short and long

- te rm impacts. A participant emphasized that the temporal issue must be examined in the context of spatial effects. If over an area the carbon fluxes up are equal to the carbon fluxes down, the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere is not increasing, regardless of how long a period is required to grow each plot, and regardless of how long each molecule of CO 2 remains in the atmosphere.



### Spatial Dimension

Just as the temporal scope of analysis or accounting shapes the net emissions of using bioenergy , the spatial scope does as well. For example, a spatially limited analysis may overlook associated processes that are critical to understanding the actual impacts of activities on atmospheric CO 2

.Summar y of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13 , 2010 Page 7 of 16

Several participants suggested that the Forest Inventory and Asse ssment (FIA) periodically conducted and updated by the U.S. Forest Service was a reasonably effective scale and approach to measuring changes in forest biomass in the U.S. The FIA covers both public and private lands and captures land use changes in fores t cover and type at the national scale. It was noted that the net capture of CO 2 from forests is substantial for the United States as carbon stocks have been stable or increasing over time. However, a comment was made that just because a sink is positive or increasing does not mean we should not be concerned if policies reduce the rate of sequestration or cause it to increase at a slower rate. The counter point was also presented, with respect to the feedstock source and whether or not it is itself a net source or sink. It was suggested that if the feedstock source is a net sink, the energy it produces does not increase net atmospheric GHGs. It was also suggested that t he issue of whether forests overall are a net carbon sink is a separate question

. Som e argued that at the global scale it is quite evident that net emission of GHGs from forests is increasing due to rapid forest degradation and deforestation in some developing countries

. Others n oted that based on the IPCC reports, the amount of emission s that go into the atmosphere and into the ocean means that the net flux going into the land is positive

– meaning the land serves as a net “sink” of carbon rather than a net source of carbon. How should we account for the so

- called missing carbon sink? Do we discount it because it is not fully understood?

Many participants noted that market

- mediated or market

- induced changes in land use are also important and should be considered in an accounting system, in order for a more complete understanding of t he impacts to be gained . Other participants responded that the inclusion of indirect land use change raises significant questions of causation. There are numerous factors that determine land

- use change, and it is difficult or impossible to definitively i solate any one factor from another factor. Some participants expressed that t he notion of attributing land

- use changes that occur in one part of the globe (in the U.S., for example) as a result of increases in the use of biomass for bioenergy or biofuel to land use changes that occur in far distant parts of the globe is both unfair and impossible to verify.



### Purpose of the Accounting System

The group discussed the distinction between attributional and consequential life cycle assessments (referred to ear lier) and to the question of what is the appropriate spatial scale for evaluating climate impacts of bioenergy. This question caused the discussion to return to the broad question of what is the overarching purpose of the accounting system. Several part icipants said that product level accounting is necessary and important but cautioned that it is also important to ensure that the accounting is accurate in order to avoid unfair impacts to certain groups or sectors.

Others questioned whether the accountin g approach suggested by the list of factors relied upon a flow accounting framework rather than a stock accounting framework. Some expressed a preference for stock accounting as it would take into account change in the pools of carbon over time and help d etermine what might happen over a 100 year period. OthersSummar y of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13 , 2010 Page 8 of 16

noted a “flux was just a change in stocks” and emphasized the need to identify the right pools and suggested the group might want to consider the rebound effect as well (i.e., adding more biofuel i nto the national fuel mix, affects the price of fuel, thereby affecting supply and consumption of fuels in general). Others indicated that stock and flow accounting both provide useful insights. Flow accounting makes it clear where in the life cycle th e uptake and emissions occur. Stock accounting makes it clear where in the life cycle activities occur that account for any net sequestration of carbon. It was suggested that b oth should be encouraged in assessments where net sequestration is of interest

. 

### Accounting Factors

Participants expressed concern that the list of possible accounting factors seemed to be static rather than dynamic. They asserted that an accounting system should be capable of measuring a dynamic situation where bioenergy productio n increases over time. Static numbers will be difficult to extrapolate into the policy arena at a later date. Others remarked that a static approach missed market

- mediated impacts of the use of biomass and said that changes in land use have significant c limate effects. It was also pointed out that dynamic assessments often require assumptions about future conditions and interactions between various factors. These assumptions may not be widely accepted and can significantly impact the results.

Caution wa s expressed against creating an imbalanced approach where some emissions to the atmosphere are counted and others are not, and asked that the scenarios exercise be as inclusive and explicit as possible (i.e., include all impacts). From this perspective, i t is important to take into account the large, spatial picture (whether national or global) to account for the full impacts. Others indicated that it is also important to stay flexible and find a way to be product and project focused as well as national an d globally focused to get the best results.



### Scenarios Exercise

The group discussed a series of hypothetical scenarios to better understanding the net flux of GHG emissions to the atmosphere from the production and combustion of biomass for bioenergy. T he assessments did not include the economic or policy drivers behind the scenarios and hence did not assess their likelihood of occurring. These scenarios include d :

**•** Forestry related scenarios:

 Feedstocks from slash generated in a stem

- only clearcut

 Feedst ocks from short rotation dedicated woody biomass (e.g. willow coppice) planted on land that was formerly managed industrial forest

 Feedstocks from a whole

- tree harvest of a mature forest (Note: this was considered implausible by many in the group).

**•** Agricu lture related scenarios:

 Feedstocks from switchgrass grown on degraded former pastureSummar y of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13 , 2010 Page 9 of 16

 Transportation liquid fuel produced from corn grain (plant is natural gas dry mill that uses corn stover for some power generation)

 Transportation liquid fuel produced fr om corn stover

For each of the scenarios
, participants were asked to identify the potential sources and relative magnitude of the net flux in GHG emissions , based on the assumptions given in the scenario
, using the template in Appendix B. For each bioener gy scenario, the participants were also asked to fill out a comparison fossil fuel scenario considering production of the same amount of energy and the alternative use of the same units of land in the absence of their use for bio e nergy.


### Challenges Identif ied

T here was much discussion over assumptions that had been provided for each scenario
, the most important factors that needed to be considered
, and the basis for different outcomes when individuals completed the scenarios exercise . For example, the star ting state of the forest (e.g. mature and not managed for timber harvest or managed for timber harvest on a sustainable basis , the management regime, and whether other product lines are served by the harvest ) made a difference in terms of the amount carbon would be released/sequestered. There was agreement that the appropriate treatment of time was critical. The extent to which emissions from extracting and producing incremental (“marginal”) units of fossil energy are likely to increase in the future was also identified as an important factor determining emissions from fossil energy.

Perhaps the most significant challenge the group identified is whether it is possible to create a carbon accounting system without having a specific policy or economic con text in mind. EDF indicated that scenario exercise was intended to assess the greenhouse gas flows into and out of the atmosphere (as opposed to an assessment of net stocking levels and trends) from a
p urely scientific perspective. However, s everal part icipants stressed that , among other things, the question of who is responsible for doing carbon accounting, as well as what approach they should utilize, are policy specific. They emphasized the importance of considering geographic location, the varying c apacity of the land , the management regime used, and other product lines served by biomass

. In some scenarios they argued it is more efficient to produce biomass for electricity than it is to produce biomass for biofuels. The nature of the land use that may occur in order to produce different types of biomass is an important factor in understanding the effect of various types of policy incentives . Others mentioned the desire to spend more time on the carbon cycle prior to discussing policy, as they did no t think the group had a clear enough understanding of where in the carbon cycle emissions and/or sequestration was occurring. They felt it is import ant to find agreement on what is happening at different stages of the carbon cycle before attempting to fur ther pursue different approaches to accounting depending on the policy context.

Participants remarked that the scenarios exercise made it evident that there are many moving parts and that several factors are relevant and interconnected in ways that are not evident atSummar y of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13 , 2010 Page 10 of 16

first glance or adequately captured by the framework used to evaluate the scenarios. The time and spatial elements were considered critical, especially in the forestry context. One participant noted that it is important to ask what is the val ue of reducing CO 2 to day vs. 100 years in the future ? EDF responded that the Science article (October, 2009) emphasized this very point: that by only looking at the net carbon implications for a limited part of the carbon cycle there may be unintended con sequences. Others responded that the outcomes were highly variable depending on the spatial and temporal scale used and where a flow or stock accounting method was applied.

Several participants expressed an interest in spending additional time on carbon c ycle metrics, and a closer look at both flow and stock accounting approaches to gain a better understanding of the information generated by each. Some said that they welcomed further discussion on the implications of increasing agricultural yields and how an increase in yields would increase biomass and fuel production, while others questioned the relevance for evaluating bioenergy of agricultural efficiency improvements that would occur anyway

– regardless of bioenergy practices. Others emphasized the im portance of delineating specific pathways for future bioenergy development in order to identify varying assumptions and improve the analytics. They mentioned that it is important to understand the carbon cycle before answering questions on proper accounti ng.
The issue of gaining a better understanding of cost effectiveness of carbon reduction strategies was raised as part of the lessons learned, as some types of bioenergy are more cost effective from an economic perspective for a specified use than other s. Participants stressed the need to use science to inform the accounting system, but it did not make sense to lump all biomass, or bioenergy, or biofuels together.



### Next Steps

Most participants stated that they saw value in continuing the discussion, taki ng into account the lessons learned from the first set of meetings, keeping a mix of sectors and structuring next steps to explore specific policies issues framed from real world experiences and circumstances.

It was agreed that before deciding to go fur ther it is important to establish a clear objective, and a set of “first principles” or common goals that participants could support and agree upon as the basis for going forward. Participants agreed that biomass can play a positive role in the future and that, if developed properly, it should have net positive impact on the climate. There was also a strong desire to avoid unintended negative consequences from bioenergy development. Others requested that the group not start from scratch but rather build o n the conversations of the last three meetings.

Tim Mealey thanked everyone for their candid input and indicated that Meridian will work with both EDF and all of the participants to determine whether it will be possible to agreeSummar y of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13 , 2010 Page 11 of 16

upon a clear objective and the first principles that should guide the next phase of the dialogue

– should the participants decide it is warranted. He suggested formation of a Steering Committee might be appropriate to help share in the planning and securing of financial support for the effort, should participants wish to continue. He asked that the group to think about what stakeholder mix they would like to include if they decide to continue.Summar y of Bioenergy GHG Accounting May 13 , 2010 Page 12 of 16

APPENDIX A: B ioenergy GHG Accounting Stakeholder Group Participant List

Forestry Sect or Edie Sonne Hall Manager, Sustainable Forests and Products Weyerhaeuser PO Box 9777 Federal Way, WA 98063 phone: 253

- 924

- 3292

e

- mail: edie.sonnehall@weyerhaeuser.com

Greg Johnson
Director
, Forest Research Weyerhaeuser PO Box 9777 Federal Way, WA 98063 phone: 253

- 924

- 6933

e

- mail: greg.johnson8 @weyerhaeuser.com

Andrew Jones Senior Engineering Fellow Manufacturing Technology Center International Paper
6285 Tri

- Ridge Boulevard Loveland
, OH 45140 phone: 513

- 248

- 6412

e

- mail: andrew.j ones@ipaper.co m

Chris Keuleman International Paper 1101 Pennsylvania Ave nue NW
, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20004 phone: 202

- 628

- 7251

e

- mail: chris.keuleman@ipaper.com

Rita Neznek Vice President, Public Affairs American Forest Foundation 1111 19th Street NW, Suite 7 80 Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202

- 463

- 2594

e

- mail: rneznek@forestfoundation.org Cassie Phillips Vice President, Sustainable Forests and Products Weyerhaeuser PO Box 9777 Federal Way, WA 98063 phone: 253 924

- 4166

e

- mail: cassie.phillips @weyerhaeuser. com

David Tenny President and C hief Executive Officer National Alliance of Forest Owners 2025 M Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, D C 20036 phone: 202

- 367

- 1251

e

- mail: dtenny@nafoalliance.org

Agriculture Sector Jessica Bennett Director of Public Polic y National Corn Growers Association 122 C Street NW, Suit e 510 Washington, DC, 20001 phone: 202

- 628

- 7001

e

- mail: bennett@dc.ncga.com

Paul Bertels
Director of Agricultural Economic Analysi s and Environmental Impacts National Corn Growers Association
63 2 Cepi Drive Chesterfield MO 63005 phone: 636

- 733

- 9004

e

- mail: bertels@ncga.comSummary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting April 30, 2010 Page 13 of 16

Jimmy Dauk a s Managing Director, Agriculture and the Environment American Farmland Trust 1200 18th Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202

- 331

- 7300

e

- mai l: jdauk a s@farmland.org

Mark Gaede Director of Government A ffairs for Environmental Policy National Association of Wheat Growers
415 Second S treet NE, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20002 phone: 202

- 547

- 7800

e

- mail: mgaede@wheatworld.org

Brittany Jablonsky Government Relations Representative National Farmers Union 400 North Capitol St reet NW, Suite 790 Washington, DC 20001 phone: 202

- 554

- 1600

e

- mail: bjablonsky @nfudc.org

Jeremy Peters Government Relations Representative National Farmers Union 400 North Ca pitol St reet NW, Suite 790 Washington, DC 20001 phone: 202

- 554

- 1600

e

- mail: jpeters @nfudc.org

Bioenergy Sector Kevin Adams Technical Operations Manager Abengoa Bioenergy 16150 Main Circle Drive Chesterfield, MO 63017 phone: 636

- 728

- 0508

e

- mail: kevin.a dams@ bioenergy.abengoa.com Doug Berven Director of Corporate Affairs POET 4615 North Lewis Avenue Sioux Falls, SD 57104 phone: 605

- 965

- 3560

e

- mail: doug.berven@poet.com

Robert Cleaves President Biomass Power Association PO Box 9729 Portland, ME 041 04 phone: 202

- 228

- 7376

e

- mail: rcleaves@stratexenergy.com

John Howe Vice President, Public Affairs
Verenium 55 Cambridge Parkway Cambridge, MA 02142 phone: 617

- 674

- 5318 email: john.howe@verenium.com

Greg Krissek Director of Governmental Affairs ICM
P O Box 397 Colwich, KS 670 30 phone: 316

- 977

- 6549

e

- mail: gregory.krissek@icminc.com

Gregg Morris Director Green Power Institute Pacific Institute 2039 Shattuck Avenue Suite 402 Berkeley, California 94704 phone: 510

- 644

- 2700

e

- mail: gmorris@emf.netSummary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting April 30, 2010 Page 14 of 16

Nathan S c hock Public Relations Director POET 4615 North Lewis Avenue Sioux Falls, SD 57104 phone: 605

- 965

- 6428

e

- mail: nathan.schock@ poet .com

Mark Stowers Vice President, Research and Development POET
4615 N o rth Lewis Avenue Sioux Falls, SD 57104 phone: 605

- 965

- 6438

e

- mail: mark.stowers@poet.com

Environmental Organizations Peter Ashcroft Transportation Policy Analyst Environmental Defense Fund 1875 Connecticut Ave nue NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20009 phon e: 202

- 572

- 3355

e

- mail: pashcroft@edf.org

Joe Fargione Lead Scientist North America Region The Nature Conservancy 1101 West River Parkway, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55415 phone: 612

- 331

- 0745

e

- mail: jfargione@tnc.org

Nathanael Greene Director of Rene wable Energy Policy Natural Resource Defense Council 40 West 20th Street New York, NY 10011 phone: 212

- 727

- 2700 x 482

e

- mail: ngreene@nrdc.org Steve Hamburg Chief Scientist Environmental Defense Fund 1875 Connecticut Ave nue NW, Suite 600 Washington, D C 20009 phone: 202

- 387

- 3500

e

- mail: shamburg@edf.org

Sara Hopper Agricultural Policy Director Environmental Defense Fund 1875 Connecticut Ave nue NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20009 phone: 202

- 572

- 3379

e

- mail: shopper@edf.org

Dan Lashof Director, Clima te Center Natural Resources Defense Council 1200 New York Ave nue NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 phone: 202

- 289

- 2399

e

- mail: dlashof@nrdc.org

Ruben Lubowski Senior Economist Environmental Defense Fund 1875 Connecticut Ave nue NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20009 phone: 202

- 572

- 3341

e

- mail: rlubowski@edf.org

Britt Lundgren Agriculture Policy Specialist Environmental Defense Fund 1875 Connecticut Ave nue NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20009 phone: 202

- 572

- 3394

e

- mail: blundgren@edf.orgSummary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting April 30, 2010 Page 15 of 16

Julie Sibbing
Director
, Global Warming, Agriculture

a nd Wildlife National Wildlife Federation 901 E Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 phone: 202

- 797

- 6832

e

- mail: sibbing@nwf.org

Jimm ie Powell Energy Team Lead The Nature Conservancy 4245 North Fairfax Dr ive, Suite 100 Arlington, VA 22203 phone: 703

- 841

- 7416

e

- mail: jpowell@tnc.org

Scientists /Economists Sarah Davis Bioenergy Analyst Energy Biosciences Institute University of Illinois at Urbana

- Champaign 1206 West Gregory Drive Urbana, IL 61801 phone: 217

- 244

- 5952

e

- mail: davissc@illinois.edu

Evan Delucia Professor, Department of Plant Biology University of Illinois at Urbana

- Champaign 505 South Goodwin Avenue 265 Morrill Hall Urbana, IL 61801 phone: 217

- 333

- 6177

e

- mail: delucia@life.uiuc.edu

Jeff rey Frost AgRefresh Executive Director
25 x ‘25 29 Church Street PO Box 843 Burlington, VT 05402 phone: 802

- 859

- 0099

e

- mail: jfrost@25x25.org Reid Miner Vice President
, Sustainable Manufacturing National Council of Air and Stream Improvement PO Box 13 318 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 phone: 919

- 941

- 6407

e

- mail: rm iner@ncasi.org

Rich Plevin Energy and Resources Group University of California, Berkeley 310 Barrows Hall Berkeley, CA 94720 phone: 510

- 868

- 5288

e

- mail: p levin@berkeley.edu

Roger Sedjo Senior Fellow Resources for the Future 1616 P Street NW Washington, DC phone: 202

- 328

- 5065

e

- mail: sedjo@rff.org

Facilitation Tim Mealey Senior Partner 1920 L Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202

- 354

- 6454

e

- mail: tmealey@merid.o rg

Kerri Wright Platais Mediator 1920 L Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202

- 354

- 6456

e

- mail: kwplatais@merid.orgSummary of Bioenergy GHG Accounting April 30, 2010 Page 16 of 16

Time Period APPENDIX B

. Potential sources of greenhouse gas flux under HYPOTHETICAL energy scenarios

(units C/year) (C /year times total
years )

Combustion

of energy feedstock

(+) Net primary productivity

(sequestra

tion) of vegetation

(

- ) Decompos

- ing vegetation

(+) Soil carbon

(+/

- ) Carbon storage in products

(+) Processin g/

Transport

(+) Any other

source

(+/

- ) Emissio ns leakage

(+) Net total/
year

(sum over row) Net cumulative total

Year 1

Year 5

Year 50

Year X