« Domestic
PHOTO: STOCK
STAYING THE COURSE A milestone for achieving the historically elusive parity of biomass heat with other renewables, the BTU Act has finally passed. Now, industry stakeholders must strategize and collaborate to capitalize on momentum.
W
hen the BTU Act was first introduced roughly a decade ago, its rightful passage seemed imminent. Solar, wind and other technologies had already been receiving a federal investment tax credit of 30% for several years per the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and modern wood heat had been inadvertently left out. Surely, an oversight that would be rectified, granting modern wood heat parity with other competing technologies. That, however, was far from the case. Year after year since then, the BTU Act was brought before Congress, where it eventually
16 PELLET MILL MAGAZINE | ISSUE 1 2021
BY ANNA SIMET
died. While some grew wary and resolved to dismiss it as a pipe dream, those who staunchly believed in the bill’s purpose and potential continued to rally behind it. And, in December, they finally succeeded. “I think that credit is due to those of us who persisted in the face of industry skepticism and hopeful optimism only to be dashed at the last minute multiple times,” says Charlie Niebling, one of the bill’s advocates largely credited with its passage. “Lots of people just said to heck with it, but a lot of us didn’t, and the result is a credit worth many tens of millions of dollars to the residential wood heating industry.” Niebling, partner at Natural Resource
Solutions LLC and consultant to wood pellet manufacturer Lignetics, says there are a number of shortlist items that the industry should immediately focus on in order to maximize the tax credit’s potential. “First, the industry needs to promote the heck out of it to consumers,” he says. “We need to do everything through all means available up and down the value chain.” Another priority is getting the tax credit extended. “We’re hoping that with this new focus on climate and energy policy, there will be an opportunity to revisit the period of authorization,” he says. “The original BTU Act always envisioned a minimum of five years
