In 2008, members of Congress did an exceptionally rare thing. They approved legislation that could actually benefit both timber harvesters and landowners interested in growing biomass for renewable energy production. They titled it the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, or BCAP. It remained dormant until May 5, 2009, when President Obama issued a directive to federal agencies that established a Biofuels Interagency Working Group to aggressively accelerate the development of advanced biofuels.

One aspect of the larger effort outlined in the memorandum is the issuance of guidance and support related to the collection, harvest, storage and transportation of eligible materials for use in biomass conversion facilities-a component of BCAP. On June 11, 2009, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) published a BCAP Notice Of Funds Availability (NOFA) in the Federal Register for the collection, harvest, storage and transportation of materials (CHST).

In the 2008 Farm Bill, it was clearly the intent of Congress that BCAP be established to help stimulate investment and growth in the growing and harvesting of biomass, which would lead to more efficient operations and the ability to compete with traditional fossil fuels, thus reducing our nation's dependence on foreign oil while helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions-all good and noble intentions.

But ever since the funds availability notice was published, the reality is that many well established forest products corporations, and perhaps some agriculture-based companies as well, have devised ways to get their hands on BCAP funds. They have reduced the price of biomass delivered to their mills, thus skimming any gain or incentive rightfully intended to go to landowners and producers (loggers). They have effectively created a substitute program: Bilk Cash Away from Producers. It will be impossible to meet the intent of Congress to stimulate growth in the "collection, harvesting, storage and transportation" of biomass if those receiving and "converting" the biomass to energy products are the primary ones benefiting.

While circumventing the intent of the program-much like what certain paper companies did in 2009 to reap billions in questionable "black liquor" tax credit payments from the U.S. Treasury-by dropping biomass prices and absorbing BCAP funds, these companies are exhibiting classic hypocritical behavior. Some of the corporations that cry the loudest over federal and/or state subsidies for alternative fuels development now nurse contentedly at the public teat.

Evidently there is nothing illegal about their conduct, but we should certainly question their sincerity to be upright corporate neighbors. Is corporate morality a good thing only as long as there is no new manufacturing feedstock competition on the horizon that could weaken control of both stumpage prices and cut and haul rates?

These same corporations use the sustainability issue to help defeat legislation that might benefit the nascent wood-to-energy industry. Hear the plaintive cry: "A wood-fired power plant can't go here; there's not enough wood as it is." (These same companies in recent years chose to sell their timberlands, remember?) And they conveniently do not acknowledge a pulp and paper industry whose capacity has declined sharply for years and continues to do so. As a real time example, legislation was recently defeated in Virginia that would have elevated the volume of woody biomass eligible for the state's Renewable Portfolio Standards credits for generating electricity. The pulp and paper lobby, along with labor unions, helped stymie this proposal, even though the nation's largest paper company plans to soon close its Franklin mill, which uses almost 2 million tons of round wood and chips each year.

The only sustainability the industry appears to be truly worried about is its ability to sustain control over prices paid for wood fiber delivered across the scales. This impacts both cut and haul rates and stumpage prices. We see protectionist clauses everywhere, including this one: "renewable woody biomass does not include products from the forest that have higher value uses." Why does that need to be stated? Wouldn't it be foolish for a logger or landowner to sell timber to a lesser market than one that is paying a higher price and available? But what if we found that fiber was worth more converted to energy than it is to wood products or paper? Or even more insightful, what if we found that these same corporations that set the price for wood could pay a higher price if competition existed?

These are the same companies that also preach that we need to let the markets dictate who will survive and who will have to diversify. Following its acceptance as a qualified biomass conversion facility, one letter from a struggling paper corporation stated: "Effective January 25, 2010, this is your new residue price delivered to the ________ [fill in the blank] mill. It is imperative to our company to get the cost down as we are trying to come out of bankruptcy."

We can certainly understand the necessity to be profitable, but should taxpayers be funding the recovery of the corporation through the BCAP program? This same company shuttered one of its operations at the end of 2009 following the disbanding of the black liquor tax credit program. That was an unforgettable Christmas present to the employees at the facility, as well as the hundreds who worked in the raw material supply chain. This mill's owner fed at the government trough until the money was gone, then defecated on the taxpayers for the subsidies that it opposes because such subsidies might cause unfair competition for the feedstock that this mill no longer uses. Fare thee well Titanic, fare thee well!

Our concerns about these BCAP practices have not gone unheard in the local and Washington, DC offices of the FSA. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism within the BCAP program, as outlined in the 2008 Farm Bill that gives the FSA the authority to track prices and look at irregularities that may prohibit the intent of Congress from being met. We do know that a few previously certified receiving facilities have had their eligibility suspended while they are being investigated for abuses. We do know that the FSA has issued a BCAP-10 directive, which specifically illustrates what would be considered an abuse of BCAP funding.

On February 8, 2010, the FSA posted the proposed rules for the BCAP program, which will have a 60-day comment period open to the public, as well as a subsequent period during which the agency will consider all comments submitted. Loggers and forest landowners alike should submit comments that address the abuses that are taking place in the program, with the argument that the intent of Congress is not being met. If we are truly going to have competitive markets for what we are growing and producing, and wish to move away from markets dominated by just a few players, then this will be a good first step to making that a reality. Take the time to talk to your Congressman and your Senators. Unless they hear from you, chances are they don't even know their well intended program is getting screwed up right out of the gate.