Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate passed an amendment from Senators Collins and Klobuchar to promote biomass energy.

I would like to take a couple minutes to express my support for biomass energy.

Using biomass to create energy can be significantly better than using coal. I think it is great that people use wood to heat their homes, instead of heating with fossil fuels--like oil--particularly, when they do so with clean-burning, EPA-certified wood stoves or pellet stoves, particularly, when the stoves are produced by great companies--like QuadraFire, based in Colville, WA.

Professors at University of Washington have emphasized the need for such an amendment to encourage the development of new emission-reducing energy facilities that use the types of biomass that will achieve our country's renewable energy and climate mitigation goals.

Last October, EPA recognized that the use of some biomass can play an important role in controlling increases of CO2 levels in our atmosphere. EPA stated that the use of some types of biomass can potentially offer a wide range of environmental benefits, aside from the important carbon benefits.

We have a wildfire problem in this country, and we need to encourage markets for the small trees, slash, and brush that we want to remove from our most at-risk forests. According to the EPA, the growth in U.S. forests offsets 13 percent of total U.S. CO2 emissions annually. But the Global Climate Change Office at USDA has reported that increasing wildfires are transforming our forests from ``carbon sinks'' to ``carbon sources.'' We clearly need to treat some of our forests, and we should use the biomass that is generated. We also know we also need energy.

But I think we need to continue to look at the ``highest and best use'' philosophy when talking about biomass. Clearly, trees filtering water and providing wildlife habitat is a best use. Clear-cutting our forests and burning whole trees for electricity is not a good use. But burning industrial or harvesting waste for energy is a good use.

I am excited that EPA is currently developing a world leading accounting framework for biomass-generated emissions, and we are counting on them to finish this.

I also want to say that cross-laminated timber is a particularly important ``good'' use of biomass. Building with wood uses less carbon than concrete, and CLT explicitly stores carbon, which in terms of our carbon balance is better than simply burning it.

We agree that some biomass is clearly ``carbon neutral'' and some biomass is not ``carbon neutral.'' A study by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement showed that mills using biomass residuals avoid 181 million tons of CO2 emissions. That is equivalent to removing 35 million cars from the road.

When we modified the amendment yesterday, we did so to make clear that the direction to the agencies was to establish biomass energy policies that are carbon neutral. Regrowing trees to replace those cut to produce energy is ``carbon neutral.''

But clear-cutting forests and burning them in power plants can lead to increases in atmospheric carbon levels for decades--especially when owners then sell their cut forests for housing developments, this is clearly not ``carbon neutral.'' The trees need to grow back and the forest to stay working in order to replace the carbon taken. That is why we specifically modified the amendment, prior to voting on it, to ensure we are encouraging forest owners to keep their lands in forests.

Senator Markey is another leading voice in our carbon conversation, and I am looking forward to hearing his remarks.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source