Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Biomass Energy Recs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to expand Pacific Northwest biomass RECs draws support from facility operators and opposition from clean-power advocates
Summary
House Bill 17-12 would allow certain older biomass facilities in the Pacific Northwest to qualify renewable energy credits for Washington utilities under the Energy Independence Act; operators said the change could keep facilities operating and reduce wildfire fuel.
House Bill 17-12, aimed at changing how "qualified biomass energy" is counted under the state Energy Independence Act (EIA), drew sharply divided testimony at a committee hearing.
Megan McFadden, committee staff, summarized the bill: the EIA requires utilities with 25,000 or more customers to meet renewable targets, and biomass is an eligible renewable resource when it meets specific conditions. The proposed change would alter the geographic and delivery requirements for older biomass facilities so that electricity from certain Pacific Northwest facilities could count for Washington utilities’ compliance.
Representative Kevin Waters, the bill’s sponsor, said targeted changes would help small biomass facilities remain viable in a difficult market and described regional benefits such as wildfire-mitigation by using forest residues and wood waste as fuel. "It makes sense to me to try to make some targeted changes to help this facility stay viable in the face of a challenging market," Waters said, noting the facilities can turn wildfire-mitigation wood waste into energy.
Operators and counsel for biomass facilities testified in support. Greg Blair, managing general partner of Biomass 1 in White City, Oregon, said his plant generates enough electricity for about 25,000 homes from nearly 350,000 tons of forest residues and wood waste and pointed to the facility’s role in reducing wildfire risk. Kurt Lumpkin, Biomass 1’s general manager, said he employs 75 people and urged the committee to expand revenue options that could keep the plant operating.
Irene Sanger, attorney for Biomass 1, described the bill as "a discreet and narrowly tailored amendment" that would treat legacy qualified biomass like other renewable resources by allowing facilities located in the Pacific Northwest to supply RECs to Washington utilities; she emphasized the amendment would still require the purchaser to be a qualifying Washington utility.
Opponents warned the change could broaden an exception created for a single facility. Charley Thompson of the Northwest Energy Coalition opposed removing the requirement that a qualified biomass facility "contribute to the utility's load," saying the original carve-out for legacy biomass was narrow and intended to apply only to a specific Washington facility. Thompson said it is not clear the bill would yield benefits to Washington customers who would effectively pay for RECs for electricity they would not receive.
The committee took testimony and recessed; no committee vote on HB 17-12 was recorded at this meeting. Supporters asked the committee to consider the bill as one piece of a regional solution to maintain small biomass operations, while opponents urged narrower language or additional protections to ensure Washington ratepayers see direct benefit.
