From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

To: Suzanne Kocchi/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jennifer

            Jenkins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/02/2011 12:01 PM

Subject: Summary of interagency comments under EO12866 on Biomass

            Deferral and Biomass BACT

Hello,

Attached is a summary of interagency comments received during EO12866 review.

More comments may be submitted cob today.

Best regards,

Heidi

(See attached file: Summary of Interagency Comments on EPA's GHG Biomass Deferral

and BACT Guidance.docx)
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Submitted during EO 12866 Review        

Subject to Further Policy Review

1) Could EPA confirm whether Peat (soil) is included in the definition of a fuel? 

2) A couple of comments on the rate of decomposition: 

Some may disagree with the analysis that states “utilizing mill residue (e.g. sawdust, 

planar shavings, panel trim) to generate energy, rather than leaving the residue to 

decompose, likely would not cause emissions over and above that which would have 

taken place if the energy use did not occur. Given that this material would have 

decomposed under natural circumstances in a short period of time (e.g., less than 10-15 

years) in the absence of utilization as bioenergy, this conclusion appears credible.” 

In fact, federal fire agencies have experience with sawdust pile fires in the west that were 

100 years old; On the whole this statement is true, if the time scale is adjusted to “10-100 

years”, and that the proportion of the mill residue that would fall outside the analysis, is 

insignificant. 

o This sentence would also need to be corrected to address the same time frame for 

decomposition... “Furthermore, in the case of residue material that would 

otherwise decompose in a 10-15 year time frame, the net carbon cycle impact of 

this biomass fuel is expected to be negligible. 

I would add “wildfire” to this (?) section “generate energy from the combustion of dead 

trees, especially those killed due to a widespread event like the mountain pine beetle 

epidemic (that would emit CO2 anyway through natural decomposition, “and wildfire”). 

This is the same issue as above. Dead timber in dry environments does not decompose 

on the time scaled implied or emit CO2 solely through decomposition. 

 

3) To avoid confusion, the word "current" should be placed before "biogenic source(s)." It 

is critical to this whole issue that "current biogenic carbon sources," such as perennial 

grasses, trees, manure, municipal organics etc. be clearly separated from "prehistoric 

biogenic carbon sources," such as coal, petroleum and underground natural gas. The 

distinction between current and prehistoric is something that is prehistoric is generally 

considered 5000 or more years old. Given only a very few tree species that live for more 

than 5000 years, in general, any current biogenic source that is referred to in the deferral 

document is less than 5000 years old and is born and decomposed back into the carbon 

system within that time. As the document stands now coal, being "biogenic," I do not 

believe, is intended to be included under this "deferral." If the critical temporal distinction 

is not addressed, I anticipate continued confusion and more insidiously, the ability to 

purposely misunderstand the true intention of the document.

4) As part of determining the amount and impact of CO2emissions - recommend that further 

research be conducted to determine the specific bulk density of biomass fuels and the 

relative amount of CO2 based on genus and species. There is only a small number of 

species that have had research completed and additional research is needed to understand 

the complexities of CO2 balances by the type of material being used for biogenic – 

bioenergy. The research also needs to factor in the effects of mixing different sources of 

biomass and the amount of CO2 produced either individually by species or mixed 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Submitted during EO 12866 Review        

Subject to Further Policy Review

materials. This burden should not be passed on to the users but should be applied 

nationally through EPA as a regulatory agency.

5) We disagree with the characterization that . . . . activities such as prescribed fires have 

had “significant” contribution to the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. [However, 

human activities, such as prescribed fires and land management practices, can also 

influence the release of CO2 from natural systems (i.e., anthropogenic biogenic CO2

emissions) and these activities have certainly contributed to the buildup of CO2 in the 

atmosphere.]

We recommend that further research be conducted to understand the amount of fires that 

burned historically either through natural or by anthropogenic methods to promote the 

state of flora, fauna, etc that comprise many of the goods, services, and experiential 

benefits that we as peoples use and partake of in life. The assumption that prescribed 

fires are contributing to CO2 build up in the atmosphere relative to the amount of CO2

from these historical processes may indeed and is most likely incorrect. From the science 

and research conducted to date the number, extent, and magnitude of fires has drastically 

been reduced from the historical amount necessary to conserve flora, fauna, etc that rely 

on fire as a life cycle event. 

6) We support the information and rationale which states, “Subjecting biogenic CO2

emissions to permitting may be counterproductive because it could discourage utilization 

of the biomass feedstock as fuel.” This type of action could indeed have unforeseen 

consequences relative to fire management, fire control, and use of carbon in supporting 

energy needs. 

7) Disagree with the assessment that states “the rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.” This rule has the potential to 

dramatically adversely affect local and rural communities and economies that have had 

years of uses of biomass as an important source material to small businesses through the 

timber industry and local energy needs. 

Comments on Deferral: 

8) Change LUCF to LULUCF throughout this document and the guidance document to 

represent Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry. 

9) A definitional note here --- we think that the terminology in the deferral and guidance 

documents need to refer to “biogenic-origin” CO2 emissions and fuels, instead of simply 

just “biogenic” CO2 emissions. Biogenic emissions are from living things; whereas 

biogenic-origin emissions come from living things or the combustion of previously living 

things. This is consistent with IPCC and previous EPA documents (e.g., 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch14/). 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Submitted during EO 12866 Review        

Subject to Further Policy Review

10) Page 9: “Third, concurrent with this rulemaking, we are providing an interim guidance 

document (discussed further in section III.D.3) to help permitting authorities establish a 

basis for concluding that BACT for biogenic CO2 emissions at stationary sources can

simply be combustion of biomass fuels.” 

11) Page 9: “Fourth, EPA will be conducting a detailed examination of the science associated 

with biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources, including engaging with partners 

within the federal government, such as the US Department of Agriculture and the 

Department of Energy, as well as scientists outside of it with relevant expertise to 

consider scientific and technical issues that the Agency must resolve in order to account 

for biogenic CO2 emissions in ways that are scientifically sound and also manageable in 

practice (discussed further in section II.C and II.D).” 

12) Page 11: “In this action we are addressing only the CO2 emissions from biogenic-origin

sources, not emissions of other GHGs or non-GHG pollutants. The term “biogenic-origin

CO2 emissions” is defined here as emissions of CO2 from a stationary source directly 

resulting from the combustion or decomposition of biologically-based materials other 

than fossil fuels. Examples of “biogenic-origin CO2 emissions” include, but are not 

limited to: 

13) CO2 from the combustion of biogas collected from biological decomposition of waste in 

landfills, wastewater treatment or manure management processes; 

 CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction of municipal solid waste or biosolids; and 

 CO2 from fermentation during ethanol production; 

 CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction of tire-derived fuel. 

14) Page 16: While we are presenting this information for context, as explained in that 

section and in latter parts of this preamble, the Inventory is an annual report that tracks 

US GHG emissions and sinks at the national scale. 

15) Page 18: “Stored carbon can be released naturally back into the atmosphere as CO2

through decomposition or plant respiration. When biological material such as plant 

biomass is harvested or cleared from the land and then burned for energy, used as an 

input to an industrial process, or biodegraded as part of waste treatment process, the 

material acts as a source of carbon, releasing its stored carbon back into the atmosphere 

as CO2.” 

16) Page 21: “The Inventory is a comprehensive report of emissions and sinks at the national 

scale. All biogenic CO2 emissions and sinks, as defined in this deferral, are also included 

in the Inventory...” 

17) Page 23: “As noted earlier, when trees are harvested and combusted to generate

bioenergy the CO2 combustion emissions do not occur in the forest but rather in a power 

plant or industrial facility. Following the convention established by the IPCC in the 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Submitted during EO 12866 Review        

Subject to Further Policy Review

Guidelines, EPA counts those emissions as part of the forestland sector for the official 

US Inventory submission...” 

18) Page 26-27: “Another way in which biogenic CO2 differs from fossil CO2, as well as 

from other regulated pollutants, is the sometimes ambiguous link between the net 

emissions caused by human activities and those that occur as part of the natural 

background emission fluxes. For example, natural fires, decomposition, and plant 

respiration all result in substantial short-lived biogenic emissions of CO2. These transfers 

of CO2 between land and atmosphere are critical to the maintenance of life on Earth. 

However, human activities, such as as prescribed fires and land and forest management 

practices, can also influence the flux (i.e., release and uptake) of CO2 from natural 

systems (i.e., anthropogenic biogenic CO2 emissions) and these activities have certainly 

contributed to the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. . There are challenges in 

categorizing the biogenic CO2 emissions that would have occurred naturally and those 

attributable to human activity. While the Inventory accounts for all anthropogenic 

biogenic CO2 emissions at the national level, this deferral and the Agency’s intent to 

collaborate with federal partners and the scientific community to conduct a detailed 

examination of the science associated with biogenic CO2 emissions and technical issues 

in accounting for those emissions at stationary sources is an effort to better characterize 

these distinctions and the associated impacts...” 

19) Page 29: “The EPA has reiterated these CAA requirements in its long-standing 

regulations that implement PSD, although it interpreted these requirements narrowly so 

that they apply only with respect to air pollutants that are subject to regulation under the 

CAA. Specifically, under EPA’s regulations,...” 

20) Footnote 19: “Though this proposed rule concerns emissions from stationary sources, we 

note that various motor vehicle fuels are derived from plant material. For example, 

ethanol can be produced from plant starch or cellulose, and diesel fuel can be produced 

from various plant oils. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) 

required EPA, in the context of implementing the renewable fuel program under section 

211(o) of the CAA, to evaluate the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of these and other 

motor vehicle fuels. EISA defines lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as “...the 

aggregate quantity of greenhouse gas emissions (including direct emissions and 

significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes), as 

determined by the Administrator, related to the full fuel lifecycle, including all stages of 

fuel and feedstock production and distribution, from feedstock generation or extraction 

through the distribution and delivery and use of the finished fuel to the ultimate 

consumer...”. EPA’s analysis of the various fuels demonstrated that multiple factors, 

including the type of feedstock used, resulted in a wide variation in their associated 

lifecycle GHG emissions. For example, from a lifecycle perspective some of the 

analyzed motor vehicle fuels result in very large reductions in GHG emissions compared 

to the fossil fuel they replace, while others do not. The lifecycle analyses of the motor 

vehicle fuels took into account a wide range of factors, including the carbon sequestration 

associated with the biomass. See 75 FR 14670, 14764-799 (March 26, 2010). 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Submitted during EO 12866 Review        

Subject to Further Policy Review

21) Page 58: “As part of that examination we intend to engage with partners within the 

federal government, such as the US Department of Agriculture and the Department of 

Energy, as well as scientists outside of it with relevant expertise to ensure a robust review 

of the scientific and technical issues associated with this type accounting...” 

22) Page 59: “While the interim guidance described in section III.D will help alleviate some 

of this burden in Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule (which runs from January 2, 2011 to July 1, 

2011), we expect that more and more diverse users of biomass combustion or other 

biogenic CO2 sources are likely to be affected under Step 2...” 

23) Page 62: “...In light of the way these regulations are currently written and interpreted, 

EPA is unable to exclude biogenic-origin CO2 emissions from PSD review. Stationary 

sources of air pollutants, including sources of biogenic-origin CO2 emissions, are 

currently subject to PSD requirements because they emit more than 100 or 250 tpy of a 

regulated NSR pollutant other than GHG and have triggered PSD as a result of these 

emissions. We call these sources “anyway” PSD sources, and bioenergy and other 

sources of biogenic-origin CO2 emissions may be among them based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHG. Under the Tailoring Rule, as of January 2, 2011...” 

24) Page 64: “...Tailoring Rule), and as a result, emissions of GHG, including biogenicorigin CO2 emissions, are considered in determining whether a source is subject to Title 

V as of July 1, 2011...” 

25) Page 65: “...Therefore, absent some further regulatory action, EPA is unable to exclude 

biogenic-origin CO2 emissions from the applicability of Title V...” 

26) Page 70: “...For example, this includes residue material (such as sawdust from milling 

operations) that would have decomposed under natural circumstances in a relatively short 

period of time (e.g., 20 years)...” 

27) Page 79: “...Because other non-GHG pollutants and non-CO2 GHGs do not participate in 

natural biogeochemical carbon cycles as CO2 does, this frame of reference – in which 

sequestration outside the facility is considered as part of the...” 

28) Page 83: “...Thus, states that cannot interpret their PSD SIP or Title V requirements to 

incorporate the three-year deferral are strongly encouraged to submit SIP revisions or 

Title V program revisions to adopt the three-year deferral. Doing so would allow these 

states to avoid applying PSD requirements to biogenic-origin CO2 emissions during the 

period needed for further study. 

29) Page 83: “...However, EPA recognizes that some states may not have any, or may have 

only a few, sources that combust biomass, and may have adequate information and 

resources as to the nature of biogenic emissions from those sources. For those states, the 

deferral may not be appropriate. Accordingly, EPA requests each state to advise EPA by 

letter, during the comment period for this proposal, as to the number and type of biomass 

sources in their state.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Submitted during EO 12866 Review        

Subject to Further Policy Review

30) Page 86: “This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Instead, 

this action will reduce costs incurred by any facility with biogenic-origin CO2 emissions, 

as well as permitting authorities, relative to the costs that would be incurred if EPA did 

not revise the rule. 

GUIDANCE FOR DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 

FOR REDUCING CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM BIOENERGY 

PRODUCTION 

31) Page 2: “III. EPA’s Previous Actions Relating to Application of PSD Program to 

Biogenic-origin CO2 Emissions.” 

32) Page 3: “...This guidance provides an illustration of reasoning that a Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting authority may use to support the conclusion 

that the best available control technology (BACT) for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at 

a bioenergy facility is the combustion of biogenic-origin fuels alone...” 

33) Footnote 1: A ‘bioenergy facility’ is defined, for the purposes of this guidance, as a 

facility that generates energy via the combustion of biologically-derived material other 

than fossil fuels(for example but not limited to wood, biogas, biofuels, agricultural 

products, forest slash, etc). This could be undertaken either alone or in addition to 

traditional fossil fuels. 

34) Page 4: “...Any stationary source, including a bioenergy facility, that qualifies as a major 

stationary source is required to obtain a PSD permit and must address the BACT 

requirement for GHGs if it emits or increases its emission of this regulated pollutant in 

amounts greater than 75,000 tons on a CO2e basis. This guidance on determining BACT 

for CO2 emissions from a dedicated bioenergy facility or facilities that utilize biogenicorigin fuels is intended to supplement the 2010 GHG Permitting Guidance, and not to 

supersede it...” 

35) Page 4: “...Concurrent with the release of this guidance, EPA is issuing a proposed rule 

to defer application of PSD permitting requirements to CO2 emissions from biologicallybased material (biogenic-origin CO2 emissions) for a three-year period...” 

36) Page 5: “...To the extent no such deferral is available under the PSD permitting 

regulations applicable at the time a permitting authority issues a PSD permit for a facility 

with biogenic-origin CO2 emissions, the reasoning described below may be used on an 

interim basis to support a conclusion in such a permit that BACT for CO2 is combustion 

of biomass fuels alone...” 

37) Page 5: “..However, EPA believes the analysis described below will be sufficient in most 

cases to support the conclusion that utilization of biomass fuel alone is BACT for 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Submitted during EO 12866 Review        

Subject to Further Policy Review

bioenergy facilities and can be considered as BACT for other facilities with biogenicorigin fuels CO2 emissions...” 

38) Page 5: “...It is also important to note that this guidance is meant to be interim guidance 

only and that once a pending detailed examinations of the science and technical issues 

associated with accounting for biogenic-origin CO2 emissions from stationary 

combustion sources, as discussed in the proposed deferral. 

39) Page 6: “...The term ‘CO2 emissions from bioenergy’ is used in this guidance to describe 

biogenic-origin fuel CO2 emissions from a stationary source that directly result from the 

combustion of biologically-based materials other than fossil fuels when these materials 

are used to generate energy...” 

40) Page 7: “...EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (the 

Inventory) tracks annual GHG emissions and sinks including emissions of CO2, methane 

(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and 

sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). That report estimates all anthropogenic sources and sinks of 

GHG emissions at the national scale, classified into six broad sectors: Energy, Industrial 

Processes, Solvents and Other Product Uses, Agriculture, Land Use, Land-Use Change 

and Forestry (LULUCF), and Waste. The Energy Sector includes all GHGs emitted 

during the production, transformation, handling and consumption of energy commodities, 

including fuel combustion. The LULUCF Sector includes emissions and 

sequestration...” 

41) Page 8: “...Biogenic-origin CO2 emissions are distinct from other regulated pollutants at 

bioenergy facilities because, unlike other pollutants and other GHGs, CO2 emissions can 

participate directly in the global carbon cycle through photosynthesis, which is critical for 

the maintenance of life on Earth....” 

42) Page 8: “...On the basis of the Inventory results described above and other 

considerations, stakeholders have requested that EPA exclude, either partially or wholly, 

biogenic-origin CO2 emissions for the purposes of the BACT analysis and the PSD 

program based on the view that the biological material...” 

43) Page 9: “...In response, when finalizing the Tailoring Rule, EPA acknowledged the role 

that biogenic-origin fuels and feedstocks could play in reducing anthropogenic GHG 

emissions, and did not dispute the commenters’ observations that many state, federal, and 

international rules and policies treat biogenic sources and fossil sources of CO2 emissions 

differently.[1] Nevertheless, we determined that we lacked a sufficient record at that time 

to apply the legal rationales utilized in the Tailoring Rule to exclude emissions of CO2

from biogenic sources in determining permitting applicability provisions. At that time, 

we had not requested and did not obtain public comments addressing the scientific and 

technical challenges of permitting projects that specifically involve biogenic-origin CO2

emissions from energy production...” 

                                                           

[1] See 75 FR 31514. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Submitted during EO 12866 Review        

Subject to Further Policy Review

44) Page 10: “..In order to explore the issue further following the promulgation of the 

Tailoring Rule, in July 2010 EPA solicited views from the public through a Call for 

Information (CFI) on approaches to accounting for biogenic emissions, including whether 

some or all of a source's biogenic-origin CO2 emissions could be discounted based on a 

determination that they are canceled out by the CO2 absorption associated with growing 

the fuel. Also, we solicited information on the means to estimate and measure CO2

emissions from a variety of biogenic-origin fuels...” 

45) Page 10: “...To assist permitting authorities carrying out BACT analyses for GHGs until 

EPA took further action, the guidance indicated that permitting authorities may consider 

the environmental, energy and economic benefits that may accrue from the use of certain 

types of biogenic fuels (e.g., biogas from landfills) for energy generation, considering 

these ancillary benefits is consistent with existing air quality standards. Noting that a 

variety of federal and state policies have recognized that some biogenic fuels and fuels of 

biogenic origin can be part of a national strategy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and 

to reduce emissions of GHGs, EPA determined that it is appropriate for permitting 

authorities to account for both existing federal and state policies and their underlying 

objectives in evaluating the environmental, energy and economic benefits of biogenicorigin fuels...” 

46) Page 10: “...EPA observed that, based on these considerations, permitting authorities 

might determine in the GHG component of the BACT analysis for new or modified 

bioenergy facilities, as defined in Section I, that such utilization of biogenic-origin fuels 

is inherently BACT for GHGs. ...” 

47) Page 11: “...To assist permitting authorities further in considering these factors, EPA 

announced its intent to issue guidance that will provide a suggested framework for 

undertaking an analysis of the environmental, energy and economic impacts of using 

biogenic-origin fuels in Step 4 of the top-down BACT process...” 

48) Footnote 27: “As noted above, a control option is “available” if it has a potential for 

practical application to the emissions unit and the regulated pollutant under evaluation. 

Thus, even technologies that are in the initial stages of full development and deployment 

for an industry, such as utilizing fuel mixtures with a biomass component, can be 

considered “available” as that term is used for the specific purposes of a BACT analysis 

under the PSD program. End of FN.” 

49) Page 16: “...include comparative evaluation of biogenic-origin fuels and other types of 

fuels, including fossil fuels. 

However, where a proposed bioenergy facility can demonstrate that utilizing a particular 

type of biogenic-origin fuel is fundamental to the primary purpose of the project, then at 

the first step of the top-down process, permitting authorities can rely on that to determine 

that use of another fuel would redefine the proposed source...” 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Submitted during EO 12866 Review        

Subject to Further Policy Review

50) Page 16: “...In cases where a permit applicant proposes to co-fire or combine biomass 

fuels with another primary fuel type as BACT, the list of options should include the 

option of utilizing both types of primary fuels in different combinations. If the applicant 

proposes a specific proportional allocation or fuel mix (e.g., <5 percent biomass, >95 

percent fossil fuel)...” 

51) Page 21: “Within the context of the PSD program, a potential justification that biogenicorigin CO2 emissions can be accounted for differently than non-biogenic-origin CO2

emissions at the facility relies on the argument that sequestration occurs...” 

52) Page 22: “...Because other pollutants and non-CO2 GHGs do not participate in the 

natural biogeochemical carbon cycle to the same extent that CO2 does, this frame of 

reference – in which the potential for sequestration outside the facility of pollutant 

subject to the BACT analysis is considered as part of the environmental impacts at Step 4 

– is not relevant for those other pollutants...” 

53) Page 22: “...This type of facility-specific approach would also likely be the most 

scientifically sound approach for assessing the direct carbon cycle impact of specific 

biogenic-origin fuels used at the facility, because there is inherent variability in biological 

processes, as well as the variability in space and time common to estimates of 

sequestration. ...” 

54) Page 23: “...In the context of bioenergy and biogenic-origin emissions, where such a 

wide variety of potential feedstocks exists, the BAU case might be considered the 

emissions that “would have happened anyway.” Using this approach, a permitting 

authority would have to assess the extent to which a policy action or an activity increases 

or reduces CO2 emissions above or below what would have occurred in comparison to the 

BAU case. From the perspective of bioenergy and other biogenic-origin emissions, 

emissions that would have occurred regardless of whether or not the facility captured the 

energy from the biofuel use or carried out the process using biological material as a 

feedstock might demonstrate that the cost of additional pollutant controls is not 

justified....” 

55) Page 24: “...Given that this material would have decomposed under natural 

circumstances in a short period of time (e.g., 20 years) in the absence of utilization as 

bioenergy, this conclusion appears credible...” 

56) Page 25: “Upon further review, EPA has concluded that it requires further scientific and 

technical input from other federal agencies and outside scientific experts panel before it 

can make more qualitative characterizations beyond the one described above for residue 

material...” 

57) Page 25: “...As with other electric generating facilities, these direct costs will generally 

make the price of electricity from bioenergy used in conjunction with add-on control 

technologies for CO2 uncompetitive compared to electricity from plants with other GHG 

controls, such as bioenergy alone or use of biogenic-origin fuels. ... 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Submitted during EO 12866 Review        

Subject to Further Policy Review

58) Page 27: “...Such policies can improve the economy, especially in rural communities, by 

generating jobs, income, and taxes through demand for local biogenic-origin resources 

and construction of bioenergy conversion facilities. Specifically, an improved market for 

biogenic-origin fuels and forest land could affect economic stabilization through 

increased incomes (from new jobs), higher local tax base and possibly through the 

diversification of local energy sources, and increased competition could lower energy 

prices. ...” 

59) Page 28: “...Other potential indirect economic considerations from biomass utilization as 

BACT could include, but are not limited to, increased demand for traditional or new 

crops and reduced disposal costs for biogenic-origin materials that would otherwise be 

landfilled or destroyed...” 

60) Page 28: “...For facilities utilizing biogenic-origin fuels (e.g., biogas and sawdust), it is 

appropriate to broaden the scope of the energy impacts analysis to consider policies that 

seek to promote diversity in fuels used in a local area, within a state, or nationally...” 

61) Page 29: “...However, consideration of renewable energy policies could become part of 

the BACT analysis, especially if state policies mandate the replacement of fossil fuel with 

biogenic-origin fuel....” 

62) Page 29: “...Conversely, if the proposed biogenic-origin feedstock is scarce in the 

localized area of the proposed project, then the scarcity of available fuel for the project 

might be an energy impact suggesting that the proposed feedstock should not be selected 

as BACT....” 

63) Page 29: “...The considerations described above can support a conclusion that the 

exclusive utilization of biomass fuel is BACT for greenhouse gases at a bioenergy facility 

and can be considered as a potential BACT strategy for facilities that utilize mixed fossil 

and biogenic fuel sources...” 

64) Page 30: “...Furthermore, in the case of residue material that would otherwise 

decompose in a 20 year time frame..” 

65) Page 31:. “... as described above. Utilization of biomass fuels will can reduce 

dependence on fossil fuels and promote economic growth in areas that supply biomass 

fuels. Utilization of even a small proportion of biomass fuel use may complement 

opportunities to reduce GHG emissions by improving energy efficiency at a facility that 

still combusts a significant proportion of fossil fuels. When assessing the proportional 

allocation for biomass and other fuel types at a co-fired energy facility, a permitting 

authority may consider the relative energy efficiency of using a greater proportion of 

biomass fuels and the effect this may have on GHG emissions from an individual 

facility. Where a residue material or other biogenic-source fuel is utilized, any loss of 

energy efficiency attributable to the use of this type of biomass feedstock may be offset 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Submitted during EO 12866 Review        

Subject to Further Policy Review

by the absence of a significant net carbon cycle impact above the business as usual 

case...” 

66) Page 32: “...When setting GHG emissions limitations for sources of biogenic-origin CO2

emissions, one should conduct the same evaluation as that described in the 2010 GHG 

Permitting Guidance...