AN ACT TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 48-23-185 SO AS TO DEFINE "BIOMASS" AND OTHER RELEVANT TERMS; TO REQUIRE THAT ENERGY PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN SOURCES BE CONSIDERED CARBON NEUTRAL AND FROM OTHER SOURCES CARBON NEGATIVE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Summary
H. 3967 would add a new section to Title 48 of the South Carolina Code to define “biomass” and related terms for purposes of state energy law. The bill lists a broad range of qualifying biomass sources, including forest products manufacturing residuals, harvest residues, downed wood from storms or natural disasters, municipal and landscape trimmings, invasive-species plant material, landfill gas, timber-harvest byproducts, certain forest management materials, EPA-recognized biomass fuels, and some wood products such as lumber, crates, and pallets. It also defines “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” as the capture and permanent storage of carbon dioxide from biomass energy generation.
The bill further declares that bioenergy produced from biomass is renewable and carbon neutral, and that when paired with carbon capture and storage it is carbon negative. It applies the same treatment to bioenergy produced from agricultural harvesting. The act would take effect upon approval by the Governor.
Impact
The bill would create a statutory definition framework in South Carolina for biomass and bioenergy, which could affect how state agencies, utilities, developers, and other stakeholders classify certain energy projects and feedstocks. By expressly labeling qualifying biomass-based energy as renewable, carbon neutral, or carbon negative, it could influence permitting, incentives, reporting, procurement, and other energy-related policy decisions under Title 48 and related programs.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong bipartisan support and little opposition. The House passed the bill 110-0, and the Senate passed second reading 43-0, indicating broad agreement with the bill’s approach to biomass and forest-products energy policy. No committee transcript or recorded debate is provided, so the public record here reflects consensus rather than documented controversy.
Contention
No specific points of contention are shown in the provided materials. Potential policy questions implied by the bill include whether the state should predefine biomass as carbon neutral or carbon negative, how broadly to classify eligible feedstocks, and whether agricultural harvesting should receive the same treatment as forest-based biomass. However, the unanimous votes and lack of transcript evidence suggest these issues did not generate visible opposition in the recorded proceedings.