Skip to content

New Report Seeks Securities and Exchange Commission Investigation of Misleading Climate Claims by Biomass Industry Giant

March 14, 2016
tags:

By Paul Homewood  

 

image

http://www.pfpi.net/new-report-seeks-securities-and-exchange-commission-investigation-of-misleading-climate-claims-by-biomass-industry-giant

 

More on yesterday’s Mail story about Drax and Enviva.

The Partnership for Policy Integrity have now published their report, which has been submitted to the SEC. Some of the detail from their press release below:

 

Investors With $53 Billion in Assets Call On SEC To Scrutinize Bioenergy Sector Claims That Burning Wood Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Benefits Forests

Pelham, MA and Asheville, NC.  March 14, 2016 – Citing a new report by the Partnership for Policy Integrity and Dogwood Alliance on Enviva Biomass, the largest wood pellet manufacturer in the US, 34 investment groups with over $53 billion in assets under management have requested that the SEC examine claims of climate benefits in the biomass energy sector, and enforce rules requiring companies to disclose material information, including climate-change related risks, to investors.

See the letter and the report here.

 

Enviva manufactures wood pellets from trees and forest residues at six plants in the Southern United States. The company harvests wood from tens of thousands of acres of forest yearly, with company data showing that over 50 percent is from hardwoods, not pine plantations. The wood is ground and compressed into dried pellets, then shipped overseas to customers in the UK, EU, and Asia, where wood-burning is subsidized as renewable energy. 

Renewable energy is not automatically carbon neutral, and power plant emissions data demonstrate that burning wood for fuel emits more carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity than burning coal. Forest studies and modeling confirm that while trees may ultimately grow back and offset carbon emissions from burning wood, this process takes decades to more than a century, to the extent that it occurs.

Mary S. Booth, director at the Partnership for Policy Integrity and an author of the report, analyzed documents Enviva filed with the SEC when the company went public in 2015, and subsequent SEC filings. “Enviva claims that burning their wood pellets reduces emissions by more than 80 percent, compared to coal.  However, data from Drax Power in the UK, one of Enviva’s biggest customers, show the facility emits more CO2 when burning wood and other biomass than when burning coal, a physical reality that contradicts Enviva’s claims. It’s urgent that the bioenergy industry come clean on its real carbon and forest impacts.”

Julie Gorte, Ph.D., Senior Vice President for Sustainable Investing at Pax World Management LLC, signed on to the letter calling on the SEC to monitor company claims about emissions and enforce disclosure rules that protect investors. “Climate risk is increasingly important to investors, as the Securities and Exchange Commission’s 2010 interpretive guidance on reporting climate risks and opportunities attests,” says Dr. Gorte.  “It is important that the agency is aware of the loopholes that companies employ to misrepresent their emissions.  This letter and report focuses the disinfecting power of sunlight on one such loophole for producers of wood pellets for electricity generation.  We urge the SEC and investors to pay attention to this issue.”

The report highlights misleading claims from Enviva’s SEC filings and public statements in three main areas:

1) Company claims that burning wood pellets reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal, without disclosing that emissions from burning the pellets are not included in the tally – just the emissions from pellet manufacturing and transport.

2) Complex and contradictory statements that obscure Enviva’s use of whole trees for pellets, including mature hardwoods and wetland forests that are not replanted.

3) Inaccurate and misleading portrayals of current US and European policy developments, such as incorrect statements about EPA’s regulation of wood-burning power plants, and failure to disclose decreases in bioenergy subsidies for a major Enviva customer in the UK, Drax Power.

The report concludes that Enviva’s statements about the sources of wood it uses for pellet manufacture are also misleading, because they emphasize the role of “residues,” “sawdust,” and other types of waste wood and downplay cutting of whole trees for feedstock.  Specifications for the company’s pellet plants indicate that Enviva predominantly uses large-diameter tree trunks and branches for feedstock, including mature hardwood trees from wetland forests. On-the-ground investigations also bear this out.  

"There is ample evidence documenting Enviva’s reliance on large volumes of whole trees to make wood pellets; we have seen the wetland forest clearcuts and watched truck after truck loaded with trees enter their facilities," said Danna Smith, Executive Director of Dogwood Alliance. "Enviva and others in the biomass industry present the burning of forests for electricity as a positive but it’s actually harming our environment, rural Southern communities, and the climate."

Steven Heim, Managing Director at Boston Common Asset Management and a signatory on the letter, states "There is no green CO2.  In addition to producing more CO2, burning wood for electricity can destroy forest carbon sinks for generations to come.  Once regulators catch on, the basis for ‘no carbon’ biomass subsidies falls apart and investors may lose, too.”

Companies are required by the SEC to disclose information where there is a “substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important in deciding how to vote or make an investment decision, or, put another way, if the information would alter the total mix of available information.” The SEC’s climate guidance extends this requirement to climate change-related concerns, explaining that companies should disclose impacts of legislation and regulation related to climate change; impact of international accords; indirect consequences of regulation or business trends, such as decreased demand for goods that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions; and physical impacts, such as changes in feedstock availability.

http://www.pfpi.net/new-report-seeks-securities-and-exchange-commission-investigation-of-misleading-climate-claims-by-biomass-industry-giant

 

The full report includes this table:

 

image

 

In turn, these numbers come from Drax’s Annual Environmental Performance Review:

 

image

 

It would appear then that the emissions for biomass purely relate to the combustion of fuel and the chemical reaction. They do not include anything to do with the processing/transportation of wood pellets.

 

The case for biomass hinges on new trees being replacing those cut for pellet feedstock. Even then it can take 50 years or more to sequestrate the CO2 emitted by burning. But, as the report states:

 

The renewability of using trees as fuel is hypothetically valid, since in theory, new trees can replace those cut for pellet feedstock. However, the theoretical renewability of a fuel should not be conflated with having low emissions, or no emissions. Smokestack emissions from burning biomass are greater per megawatt-hour than from coal, and lifecycle emissions associated with manufacturing and transporting wood pellets overseas increase greenhouse gas emissions further. It may be inconvenient for the Company that its product, “when used as directed,” increases day to day carbon dioxide emissions, but given the importance of environmental concerns in promoting its business it is essential for the Company to avoid distortion of those benefits by omitting necessary context. While Enviva’s customers in the EU and UK may capitalize on a loophole in carbon accounting policy that exempts smokestack emissions from burning wood, Enviva itself has an obligation under US law, including SEC and FTC rules, to include sufficient additional disclosures so that its publications do not materially exaggerate environmental benefits.

 

Is there any real likelihood that bottomland hardwood forests, such as the one below, will be replanted, particularly when there will probably be no market for biomass by the time it matures? And if not, how long would it take to recover naturally?

 

image

 

It goes on:

 

Enviva’s disclosures about the sources of wood it uses are also misleading in our opinion, because they downplay the harvesting of whole trees for pellet feedstock and the general impacts of forest harvesting. The Company obtains wood from a variety of sources, including sawmill residues and low-diameter tops and limbs left over after trees are cut for sawlogs (“forestry residues”). Data from Enviva show that 50% or more of the wood processed into pellets is from naturally regenerated hardwood stands (Figure ES-4), many of them located in wetlands.11 Roundwood, rather than low-diameter forestry residues, is a major source of pellet feedstock (see Figure 4, main report)……………..

 

Enviva’s references to certification and sustainable forestry may be misleading to the Company’s investors when in fact, clearcutting and complete elimination of all standing trees is a common practice by the Company. As shown in Figure 8, while some of the higher value wood may have been sold as sawtimber, the pellet industry can take all of what is left, leaving nothing standing.
Enviva’s November 2015 “Business Overview,”  filed with the SEC, claims that the Company’s activities benefit forests. The statement about Enviva sustaining “thriving, healthy forests” (Figure 9) stands in contrast to the practice of clearcutting forests for wood, some of which, if not the majority, is used as pellet feedstock.

 

image

image

 

 

It is not clear what action the SEC might take. They may fine Enviva, or ensure that they clarify future documents and declarations. If so, it will prove a huge embarrassment to Drax.

In the meantime, it looks a foregone conclusion that the SBS in this country will give Enviva the necessary certification to carry on supplying Drax. If it did not, the latter would be left with an unviable operation.

And the green juggernaut will simply lumber on.   

12 Comments leave one →
  1. Joe Public permalink
    March 14, 2016 5:50 pm

    I’m sure the Tar Heels won’t miss a few trees …..

    • March 15, 2016 1:32 pm

      When working on my PhD in botany at The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, our Ecosystematics class to my major professor, the late Dr. A. E. Radford (Flora of the Carolinas) worked along the Roanoke River. What magnificent forests. The bottom land forests along rivers are important to flood control, erosion control, wildlife, etc. Personally, I find this devastation of the riverine forests of the southeastern US for supplying a hoax to be criminal. Joe Public’s photo is from the Blowing Rock area of far western North Carolina and that is a very different vegetation formation in the Appalachian Mountains.

  2. Don Keiller permalink
    March 14, 2016 5:56 pm

    As I keep banging on anything that says it is “Green” and involves money = “Fraud”.

  3. March 14, 2016 6:33 pm

    The report should be sent to SBS. SEC may well fine the company for its misrepresentations. This is the sort of stuff they definitely frown on, incomplete or misleading or factually erroneous disclosure. Only thing worse is misaccounting.

  4. John F. Hultquist permalink
    March 15, 2016 12:49 am

    “. . . will simply lumber on.

    I see what you did there.

  5. March 15, 2016 4:43 am

    They claim this is Carbon friendly, who is that stupid, Lets see, cut down trees that use CO2, haul the trees to be ground up and compressed into pellets,(Seriously). Then ship it across the ocean and burn it, Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid and seriously stupid and somebody invested in this?

    • homercidel permalink
      March 15, 2016 4:52 am

      Hard to believe Phil….. It’s just unbelievable that this is the supposed cure

  6. tom0mason permalink
    March 15, 2016 8:18 am

    Let see, isn’t coal just compacted very old dead trees and vegetation?
    So exactly why is coal not considered ‘biomass’ again?

    • March 15, 2016 1:37 pm

      You are correct. Coal is actually a vast fossil. The plants which make up the coal fields are giant forms of our current ground pines and horse tails. They are very primitive spore-producing species. While they were tree-sized, they had no wood (secondary growth) as do our current angiosperm/gymnosperm tree species.

  7. roger permalink
    March 15, 2016 10:33 am

    Where does all the wood ash go? Presumably not back to the ground from whence it came?
    Do the foresters fertilize the clear fell before replanting? If so what with and what CO2 costs result from that exercise?
    If butterflies could know the repercussions that emanate from their beating wings they might think twice before flying.

  8. Jack Broughton permalink
    March 15, 2016 1:13 pm

    If there was any sense in reducing CO2, the greenies would just plant trees and prevent them from being cut down. In fact, I’d be glad to support the saving of woodland, but not for CO2 reasons!

    • March 15, 2016 1:46 pm

      There needs to be various aged forests. Wildlife, for the most part, does not live in “old growth” forests–nothing to eat. You need to have a lot of “edge” areas. Clear-cutting is good in most instances as you have to begin with bare, “mineral” soils for regeneration. The first to come in are pines, tulip poplar (here), sumacs, black cherry, locust and other of the “weedy” species which require full sunlight to germinate and grow. These are fast-growing, but not terribly long-lived species. They provide the shade necessary for the maples, oaks, hickories and other hardwoods to grow. Eventually, the hardwoods take over. Clear-cutting, wind-throw, fire, etc. provide the bare surface for the cycle to begin again. So forests are really a patchwork of various aged stands. This is necessary to maintain the diversity of the original forests. Of course there are high elevation ridge and mountain top areas where the forests are exclusively conifer. Here that is red spruce in the north and Fraser fir in the south. In WV we have red spruce and balsam fir (blister pine).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: