# (Congressoft4rUniteb*#tttrs tts4ingtun,BT29515 June 16, 2010 Lisa Jackson Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room3426ARN Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator Jackson: We are writing to express our deep disappointment and concern over the EPA's decision in its final PSD Tailoring Rule to depart fromthe government's consistent past practice of excluding biomass combustion emissions in calculating GHGemissions. This decision contradicts federal precedent regarding the carbon neutrality of biomass combustion andwill discourage the responsible development and utilization of renewable bz.omass that could and should play a more significant role in our nation's energy policy. The PSDTailoring Rule defines what stationary sources will be subject to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission controls and regulations in a phase-in process beginning on January 2, 2011. In the draft Tailoring Rule, the EPA proposed to calculate a source's GHGemissions relying on the EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. In the final rule, EPA ignored its own inventory and equated biogenic GHG emissions with fossil fuel emissions. The EPA's proposal at a minimumimplied, if not made it clear, that emissions frombiomass combustion would not be included in the final Tailoring Rule because the EPA Inventory states biomass combustion emissions are of "biogenic origin" and are not currently included in national emissions totals. The Inventory explicitly excludes biogenic emissions because "it is assumed that the carbon released 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 reversal of this established position by including biomass combustion emissions in the final PSDTailoring Rule appears to directly contradict previous EPA policy. The decision also contradicts long-standing federal and international precedents. Emissions fromthe combustion of biomass are not included in the Department of Energy's voluntary greenhouse gas emissions reporting programs, the EPA's greenhouse gas reporting rule, or calculations of international bodies including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the European Union. Moreover, when the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security bill (H.R. 2454) in June, 2009, Congress clarified that biomass material fromboth private and public lands qualify as a renewable energy source. Asimilar definition of renewable biomass is included in the recently released discussion draft of Senator Kerry and Senator Lieberman's American Power Act. While improvements should be made

PRINTEDONRECYCLEDPAPERto the definition on federal lands,,these definitions clearly demonstrate

Congress's commitment to and support of biomass utilization. EPA's new interpretation undermines these objectives by arbitrarily eliminating the greenhouse gas benefits of biomass compared to conventional fossil fuels. There is enormous potential to generate renewable energy fromwaste products gathered on public and private lands. This includes byproducts of preventive treatments that are removed to reduce hazardous fuels, to reduce or contain disease or insect infestation, or to restore forest health. Millions of acres of public andprivate forests generate hundreds of thousands of wood chips, slash, brush, and thinning each year. Current practice is to pile and burn this material in the open. Using biomass to produce local energy in a controlled environment at a facility outfitted with air scrubbers that complywith the Clean AirAct makes more sense than burning it in the open. Further, this would help stimulate the economies of rural communities surrounded by federal lands by creating jobs.

Including biomass combustion emissions in the final PSDTailoring Rule and potentially imposing newregulations on biomass combustion facilities will discourage the collection and transportation of woody biomass frompublic and private lands. Instead of encouraging _the recovery of a clean, carbon neutral energy source frompublic and private forests, the EPA's decision will likely result in the continuation of burning biomass material in the open. Beyond the policy and pragmatic ramifications of EPA's newdecision, it is also inconsistent with and contradictory to the well established science regarding biomass combustion. In light of the EPA's decision to reverse federal and international precedent and ignore clear Congressional intent regarding biomass utilization, we respectfully request a writtendetailed response explaining your plan to reconsider the treatment of emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide under the PSDand Title Vprograms. In particular, we would like to understand your agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture to seek further comment on the greenhouse gas benefits of bioenergy'and the specific timeline when this will take place. We expect that you will conduct this reviewpromptly in order to avoidany adverse consequences to biomass combustion facilities. We urge you to stay the application of the rules to such facilities, pending su.ch review . Your written response should include: 1) specific details regarding your agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture to seek further comment on the GHGbenefits of bioenergy; 2) a specific timeline detailing in months when this will take place; and 3) whether you will stay the application of the rules to biomass combustion facilities pending your review

.Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. We look

forward to your timely and substantive response. Sincerely,

Peter DeFa~,r'Co ~ Kurt Schrader Brian-Zaird Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress Cathy McMorris Rogets (f Wally Herger Member of Congress

vis Childers 'Tteanie HexVeth S ndli Walter Jones Member of Congress ~ Memb r of Congress Member of Congress

teve Cohen /Michae'T-Simoson Member of Congress Member of Congress



# -1400,AAe-- Rick Larsen TimHolden Member of Congress Member of Congress U-9 

# -11e~~ WilliamOwens Frank Lucas Bart Stupak Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of CongressRoy-Blunt

Member of Congress Member of Congress Member .of Congress 

### Thomas Perriello Bob Goodlatte

Denny~Reh4Serg 4CS Ann%Kirkpatri~k Member of Congress Member of Congress

Scott Murphy John Barrow Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

Rick Boucher Member of Congress

imMarshall V Ann Emerson David Wu Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress 

# A~Nlr&

Member of Congress Member of Congress 

# /914 Mike Rogers Member of Congress 9

; 

# mtr... 40 

# . Mike McIntyre Gregg Harper Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress 

# S~ t~- Shelley Moore Capito Roscoe Bartlett Jo Bonner



# -no-4m . n Sullivan NormDicks mber of Congress member of CongressMember of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

.., 

### harles Wilson TomCole `V-~ laul Modes

David Reichert 

### /

Robert Aderholt Member of Congress Member of Congress



# 144~w AdamSmith 

### Member of Congress

RodneyLPlexalider -Dffke Ross" Member of Cdngress , M&nber of Congress

Member of.Congress CC: Secretary vilsack U.S. Department of Agriculture 21.2AWhitten Building 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20250~