Closing the Gap: Defining Biomass

From the June 2009 Forest2Fuel newsletter.

In order to close the gap between biomass supply (what is available for removal and delivery) and demand (how much biomass will be consumed by energy producers) a legislative tight rope must first be crossed. Currently, anyone who is planning to develop or invest in a bioenergy project must wade through four laws and one proposed bill, all of which contain different definitions of forest biomass. Until the definition of biomass is appropriately broad and consistent, it’s difficult to see how this new industry will stabilize and mature.

Two critical pieces of legislation, because they involve renewable energy standards, are the December 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which set a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), and the proposed American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (also known as Waxman-Markey), which if passed would set a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES).

The definition of biomass in the first draft of the Waxman–Markey bill was a word-for-word replication of the definition used in EISA to identify feedstocks that qualify for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). According to that definition only bioenergy produced from three categories of biomass would meet the requirements:

  • Planted trees and tree residue from actively managed tree plantations in place prior to the enactment of the legislation.
  • Slash and pre-commercial thinnings from non-federal forestlands.
  • Biomass obtained from the immediate vicinity of buildings and other areas regularly occupied by people, or of public infrastructure, at risk from wildfire. (This material is the only biomass from federal forests that can be used to make biofuels, according to EISA.)

Many in the industry were dismayed to see this restricted definition of biomass make an encore performance in Waxman–Markey. For those already operating in the industry, it was immediately clear that the definition would benefit some industry groups and constrain the participation of others. In addition, the bills contradict themselves. On one hand, they are designed to encourage the development of bioenergy facilities; on the other hand, the definition of biomass is so limited that it threatens to derail the industry before it is up and running under its own steam.

Because of the seriousness of the issues, 67 industry advocacy groups—representing landowners, loggers, forest products companies, environmental groups, conservation districts, state foresters, bioenergy companies and think tanks—quickly came together to inform Congress of the importance of a broader definition of biomass. Thanks to the efforts of these groups, including the National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO), the Society of American Foresters (SAF)and the American Forest Foundation (AFF), when the Energy and Commerce Committee met to discuss amendments to the proposed legislation, a compromise that expands the definition was agreed upon. The new definition includes:

  • Trees, brush, slash, residues, or any other vegetative matter removed from within 600 feet of any building, campground, or route designated for evacuation or from within 300 feet of a paved road, electric transmission line, utility tower, or water supply line.
  • Residues from or byproducts of milled logs.
  • Any of the following removed from forested land that is not Federal or high conservation priority land:
    • Trees, brush, slash, residues, interplanted energy crops, or any other vegetative matter removed from an actively managed tree plantation established prior to January 1, 2009; or on cultivated or fallow land that is reforested after that date.
    • Trees, logging residue, thinnings, cull trees, pulpwood, and brush removed from naturally-regenerated forests or other non-plantation forests
    • Logging residue, thinnings, cull trees, pulpwood, brush and species that are non-native and noxious, from stands that were planted and managed after January 1, 2009, to restore or maintain native forest types.
  • Dead or severely damaged trees removed within 5 years of fire, blow down, or other natural disaster, and badly infested trees. Materials, pre-commercial thinnings, or removed invasive species from National Forest System land and public lands, including those that are byproducts of preventive treatments (such as trees, wood, brush, thinnings, chips, and slash), that are removed as part of a federally recognized timber sale, or that are removed to reduce hazardous fuels, to reduce or contain disease or insect infestation, or to restore ecosystem health, and that are:
    • Not from protected, old growth or mature forest stands;
    • Harvested in environmentally sustainable quantities, as determined by the appropriate Federal land manager; and
    • Harvested in accordance with Federal and State law and applicable land management plans.
This language is not as inclusive as the definition of biomass that appears in the 2008 Farm Bill, which allows a broader range of material from federal forests and does not separate plantation and naturally regenerated forests into separate buckets that might cause some issues with forests that do not fit neatly into either of the categories. But it is leaps and bounds above the intitial definition, limiting outright only material removed from old growth, mature or protected Federal forests. (The committee declined to define old growth and mature, leaving this to be decided during the implementation stage.) Also a positive, the bill contains a provision that, if signed into law, would make the same changes in the definition of biomass in EISA.

The expanded definition carries with it significant benefits. In addition to making it possible for many states—those without abundant sun and wind—to meet the standards, more available biomass will mean less disruption to the supply chain and less pressure on prices for both biomass and other feedstocks that may need to be substituted for it.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the bill on May 21. But Waxman–Markey is still a long way from law. Six other House committees, including Ways and Means and Agriculture, have to pass the bill in order for a full vote to take place on the House floor. Expectations are that the full House vote will take place before the August congressional recess, perhaps before the July 4 recess.

If the bill makes it through the House, it will still need to go through the sausage grinder known as the Senate, where additional changes will most certainly be made. Ultimately, the odds the bill will pass in its current form are slim. But the version of the bill currently being considered is testament that the forestry and bioenergy industries are being heard in Washington. Those interested should make sure to contact their legislators and check in with their advocacy groups to ensure Washington continues to support a broader definition of biomass.


To register and read more about the Forest2Fuel e-Newsletter, click here.