Bioenergy Accounting Challenges
by Jeffrey Frost
Bioenergy is like the little engine that could. Given the fixed land supply and the imperative to produce our food, feed, fiber and bioenergy feedstocks, astute observers have long noticed that even under optimistic biomass supply estimates, bioenergy can only fulfill one piece of our low carbon renewable energy future. And while solar, wind, and hydro will ultimately, by necessity, be forced to absorb an increasing share of the total renewable energy resource demand, today’s available bioenergy – in the form of liquid biofuels, and electrical and thermal biopower – can help to reduce fossil fuel consumption before the forces of climate change create unimaginable dislocations to 21st century life.
Within the context of this transition away from fossil fuels, bioenergy faces push-back from both embedded fossil fuel forces and from its environmentally-conscious allies, who, lacking appropriate analyses, fear that bioenergy must threaten ecosystem sustainability. See Models versus Common Sense for a critique of an analysis which makes fundamental misjudgments and thereby fosters regulatory limits on bioenergy.
Environmental accounting, the field that the AgRefresh team and I have been helping to pioneer for the past twelve years, objectively differentiates between positive and negative environmental impacts via the rigorous development of consensus quantification methodologies. When it comes to bioenergy, these environmental accounting methodologies impact nearly every conceivable type of renewable energy policy, and all related forms of greenhouse gas accounting: national inventories under UNFCCC; entity level inventories from biorefiners and others; life cycle based liquid biofuels accounting under the Renewable Fuels Standard and low carbon fuel standards; project based accounting under an offset system; qualification rules under a Renewable Energy Standard (RES, aka RPS); and, most recently, the EPA’s responsibilities for greenhouse gas control under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Given the ubiquitous policy and practice consequences of bioenergy accounting methodologies, AgRefresh has been collaborating on many fronts with like-minded individuals and organizations to develop science-based methods and rational policy principles.
One example of this collaboration: a client requested that we convene a group of experts, the Comparative Bioenergy Accounting Work Group (CBAWG), to identify a comprehensive list of significant bioenergy accounting issues. We used the rich texture of ideas garnered from a two-day, intensive CBAWG meeting to craft the 25x’25 Steering Committee’s response to the recent EPA Call for Information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources. As we teased out the subtleties of these complex issues, we arrived at 56 separate bioenergy accounting and policy issues! The final document, produced for 25x’25, is not for the faint-hearted. And note too, that there were hundreds of other responses filed with EPA before the September 13th deadline (see regulations.gov and search for “EPA Call for Information” and select “public submissions”).
If you or someone you know is looking for a master’s degree topic about climate change and bioenergy emissions, please call me, Jeffrey Frost at (802)859-0099. This blog does not begin to convey the urgency that we at AgRefresh feel about the fulcrum set of considerations encompassed by the geeky-sounding phrase “bioenergy accounting”. We need a lot more attention to this contentious issue, which contains many thorny policy ramifications and the usual assortment of players–from ruthlessly objective to radically misguided– on both sides of the issue. And of course the powerful fossil fuel interests are always well funded, with a demanding presence at the table, and creative ways to impede our urgently needed move to a low carbon renewable energy future.
