This study analyzes the possibility that biopower in the U.S. is a cost-competitive option to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2009, net greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted in the United States was equivalent to 5,618 million metric tons CO<
sub>
2<
/sub>
, up 5.6% from 1990 (EPA 2011). Coal-fired power generation accounted for 1,748 million metric tons of this total. Intuitively, life-cycle CO<
sub>
2<
/sub>
emissions in the power sector could be reduced by substituting renewable biomass for coal. If just 20% of the coal combusted in 2009 had been replaced with biomass, CO<
sub>
2<
/sub>
emissions would have been reduced by 350 million metric tons, or about 6% of net annual GHG emission. This would have required approximately 225 million tons of dry biomass. Such an ambitious fuel substitution would require development of a biomass feedstock production and supply system tantamount to coal. This material would need to meet stringent specifications to ensure reliable conveyance to boiler burners, efficient combustion, and no adverse impact on heat transfer surfaces and flue gas cleanup operations. Therefore, this report addresses the potential cost/benefit tradeoffs of co-firing 20% specification-qualified biomass (on an energy content basis) in large U.S. coal-fired power plants. The dependence and sensitivity of feedstock cost on source of material, location, supply distance, and demand pressure was established. Subsequently, the dependence of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) on feedstock costs, power plant feed system retrofit, and impact on boiler performance was determined. Overall life-cycle assessment (LCA) of greenhouse gas emissions saving were next evaluated and compared to wind and solar energy to benchmark the leading alternatives for meeting renewable portfolio standards (or RPS).