Please consider signing this letter to Congressional leaders opposing the
biomass "poison pill" budget rider that has once again been included in the
Senate Interior & Environment appropriations bill. This rider falsely
declares that burning wood from forests to produce biomass energy is carbon
neutral.

The letter can be found
<https://nrdc1-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/slyutse_nrdc_org/EUHc109h0yB
HgcO3FwHlxjgBG8vsVqSrjljZjl5tGRcfTA?e=T7xgbf&CID=598AD668-84DD-4944-9F80-83D
AFAF90586&wdLOR=c11E40222-F4BC-4AD8-97F6-8DE49CCA8568> here and pasted
below.

To sign the letter, please email Sasha Stashwick at slyutse@nrdc.org
<mailto:slyutse@nrdc.org>  by 5 pm EST Tuesday, December 1st.

Thank you!

Laura Haight

U.S. Policy Director

Partnership for Policy Integrity

518-949-1797   <mailto:lhaight@pfpi.net> lhaight@pfpi.net

 <http://www.pfpi.net/>

Re: Oppose Forest Biomass Carbon Rider, Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies

Appropriations Bill (S. XXXX, Sec 434)

November 23, 2020

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi,
Minority Leader McCarthy,

On behalf of our millions of members, we write you to strongly oppose the
inclusion of any anti-environment riders in the FY 2021 Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Including damaging
legislative provisions in a must-pass funding bill harms our public health
and environment, and it undermines the democratic process. As we transition
to a new President, we have the chance to take a look at the various
'legacy' riders inappropriately included in previous years' funding bills
and still included in the base text.

Specifically, we have concerns with language contained within Sec. 434 of S.
XXXX, "POLICIES RELATING TO BIOMASS ENERGY" to legislate the science of
biomass energy and its impacts on climate change. This provision has wrongly
been interpreted by EPA to declare that, as a matter of law, all biomass
energy generated using biomass taken from managed forests is categorically
"carbon neutral." Any effort to broadly characterize forest bioenergy as
"carbon neutral" is scientifically indefensible and incorporating this
characterization into government policy will have large, damaging impacts on
the climate and our native forest ecosystems. It risks increasing emissions,
rewarding poor forest management and undermining current and future
emissions permits and regulations.

EPA's own Scientific Advisory Board has rejected the conclusion that forest
bioenergy is "carbon neutral." Its final report finds that, "not all
biogenic emissions are carbon neutral nor net additional to the atmosphere,
and assuming so is inconsistent with the underlying science," underscoring
that different biomass feedstocks have varying carbon impacts. Moreover,
multiple credible and deliberative scientific bodies have rejected the
notion that biomass energy is categorically carbon neutral. On the contrary,
they have demonstrated that in many cases, using forest biomass for energy
can have significant climate impacts.1

Congress's efforts to legislate carbon neutrality have emboldened the EPA to
further advance the Trump administration's anti-climate and anti-science
policies. In its May 2018 Statement of Agency Policy, issued by
then-Administrator Pruitt, the EPA proposes treating all forest biomass from
managed forests as carbon neutral, which directly contradicts the outcome of
the EPA's own science-based process intended to determine the extent of any
carbon benefits.

Further, we have serious concerns with report language included in the
Senate explanatory statement for the bill, which signals a desire to include
slash and pre-commercial thinnings from naturally regenerating forests as
renewable biomass based on a definitional "clarification" published by the
EPA in the context of the Renewable Fuels Standard. That "clarification" of
the definition of slash and precommercial thinning is overly permissive and
damaging. It constitutes a perversion of the customary understanding of
precommercial thinning, removing important distinctions among precommercial
thinning, commercial thinning, and typical, non-thinning, timber harvest
practices. As such, it must be rejected.

We urge you to reject all anti-environment riders in the final negotiated
package, particularly the damaging biomass provision found in Section 434.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

Center for Sustainable Economy

Dogwood Alliance

Forest Carbon Coalition

John Muir Project

Partnership for Policy Integrity

Natural Resources Defense Council

Sierra Club

(list in formation)