U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden’s proposal to jump-start thinning our overburdened federal forests has a key element that needs to be emphasized: a new market for the wood from these forests.

Why import massive amounts of liquefied natural gas or repair aging coal-fired plants when a renewable resource is readily available to make a major contribution to fulfilling Oregon’s energy requirements?

Oregon uses about 6,000 megawatts of electrical generation today. The Oregon Forest Resources Institute report, Biomass Energy and Biofuels from Oregon’s Forest of 2006 identifies nearly 2,000 megawatts of potential electrical generation, with 20 years of fuel, from the same forest thinning proposed in Wyden’s draft proposal. More is available from private woodlands and Westside forests.

The reason this resource was discounted in the report was the low cost of competing energy sources. The rapid run-up of oil prices, and the fact that natural gas pricing is following the same steep increase, has changed the economics so that electricity from forest waste-fueled electrical generation is very competitive to fossil-fueled generation.

What is missing is an incentive for utilities and private power companies to build biomass fueled generation. Power purchase agreements from the Bonneville Power Association and Investor Owned Utilities for a block of electricity produced from these resources would supply to the market forces necessary to mobilize a crippled timber industry to harvest wood for a different market.

Similar incentives spurred the rapid implementation of wind generation. Every existing mill site would be a potential biomass generation site. Existing timber industry resources could be mobilized in a manner that would allow the market to replace revenues lost when large timber was depleted and when lumber markets are depressed. The huge negative impact of reduced federal timber payments could be reversed. Sweden has made such a commitment, and is well on the way to eliminating all oil and gas imports by 2020. Why can’t Oregon do the same?

We can revive Oregon’s forests, contribute significantly to our energy security and make significant reductions in greenhouse gas pollution, while sequestering massive amounts of carbon in fast-growing rejuvenated forests.

Wyden’s bill can be faulted for its limited scope. The OFRI report identifies more than 610,000 acres a year that need to be thinned. Wyden’s proposal is for significantly less. The market-based incentive of generating electrical energy from these wastes vastly expands the potential for cost-effective remediation of our federal forests.

Paul Sansone

Gales Creek