– by Cole Rosengren, June 21, 2018, Waste Dive
Photo: Jerry Jackson / Baltimore Sun
The New York State Assembly failed to pass A11214, meaning efforts to advance this proposed law are effectively stalled until the legislature returns for regular session in 2019. The last action on this bill was unanimous approval from the Assembly Ways and Means committee on June 19.
Circular enerG heralded this result and pushed back in a detailed statement, calling the bill’s claims “science fiction” and “bogus.”
– by Erin Voegele, August 21, 2018, Biomass Magazine
Photo: Biomass Magazine
On Aug. 21, the U.S. EPA released a proposed rule to create the Affordable Clean Energy program, which aims to establish emissions guidelines for states to develop plans to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. The ACE rule would replace the Clean Power Plan, which the EPA proposed to repeal last year.
The CPP was first proposed by the EPA in June 2014 under the Obama administration. Final rules for the program were released in August 2015. In March 2017, an executive order signed by President Trump ordered a review of the program. A few months later, in October 2017, the EPA issued a proposed rulemaking to repeal the CPP.
– by Erin Voegele, June 29, 2018, Biomass Magazine
On June 28, the U.S. Senate passed its version of the 2018 Farm Bill with a strong bipartisan 86-11 vote. The legislation, titled “The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018,” includes mandatory funding for Energy Title programs. The Agricultural Energy Coalition has spoken out to applaud the senate for its action.
The Energy Title includes a variety of programs that benefit the bioenergy and biofuels industries, including the Biomass Research and Development Initiative; the Biobased Markets Program; the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical and Product Manufacturing Assistance Program; the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels; the Rural Energy for America Program; and the Biomass Crop Assistance Program.
To access this issue, please subscribe to quarterly issues of The Biomass Monitor.
[SUMMER 2018] On Neutral Ground
FEATURE ARTICLE: “Did Trump’s Quest for ‘Energy Dominance’ Factor into EPA’s Carbon Neutral Biomass Decision?” by Josh Schlossberg
OPINION (PRO): “Biomass Energy is Carbon Neutral” by Tim Echols, Vice Chair, Georgia Public Service Commission
OPINION (CON): “Biomass Energy is NOT Carbon Neutral” by Scot Quaranda, Communications Director, Dogwood Alliance
– by Mark Lisheron, May 7, 2018, Texas Monitor
For almost six years, Austin Energy customers have been paying about $54 million a year for a power plant in East Texas not to produce biomass energy.
Those customers also paid $128 million to build the plant.
Nearly two years ago, the city of Austin hired a staff of attorneys to see if Austin Energy could get out from under a 20-year contract that even supporters of the wood-burning power plant came to see as a terrible deal for utility customers.
– by Rukhushan Mir, May 10, 2018, Urdu Point
Photo: Urdu Point
Electricity generation from solar resources in the United States reached 77 million megawatthours (MWh) in 2017, surpassing annual generation from biomass resources for the first time, the U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) said. According to the EIA, among renewable sources, only hydro and wind generated more electricity in 2017, at 300 million MWh and 254 million MWh, respectively.
Biomass generating capacity has remained relatively unchanged recently, while solar generating capacity has consistently risen. Annual growth in solar generation often lags annual capacity additions because generating capacity tends to be added late in the year.
– by Steve Mistler, April 5, 2018, Maine Public Radio
Photo: Maine Public Radio
The Maine Public Utilities Commission voted Wednesday to approve a $1.2 million taxpayer subsidy to an embattled biomass company operating two plants in West Enfield and Jonesboro.
The vote by the three-member commission largely followed the recommendation of PUC staff, which found last month that Stored Solar LLC met only one of its three contract obligations, while falling well short of the other two.
It maintained the agreed upon number of jobs, but purchased less than 40 percent of the waste wood it promised, and it spent $1 million less on capital expenditures than it was supposed to.