• Naturally regenerated forest land;
• Forest land that was planted for the purpose of restoring land to a naturally regenerated forest; or
• If harvested in quantities and through practices that maintain or contribute toward the restoration of the species, ecological systems, and ecological communities for which the conservation forest land was identified, conservation forest land; or

• At the time of harvest, planted forest land; and
• On the date of enactment of this section, cropland (including fallow land), pastureland, or planted forest land.”

• The language creates four separate categories of private forests that produce qualifying biomass – 1) planted forest land that was planted or was cropland at the time of enactment; 2) naturally regenerated forest land; 3) forest land planted to “restore” naturally regenerated forests; and, 4) conservation forest land.
• The categories do not mesh with practiced forestry, creating confusion and severely limiting supply:
  • “Natural regeneration” would not allow any planting of trees in areas that are not planted now. A significant portion of private forests are reforested through a combination of planted and naturally growing trees. These forests would not qualify as a source of renewable forest biomass.
  • “Planted to restore a naturally regenerated forest” would mean you plant a forest today and never again. Planting is a significant up-front investment done on forests that will continue to be managed over time. The practice suggested in this provision will rarely happen and will consequently produce little biomass.
  • “Conservation forestland,” as defined in the bill, has no legal precedent, creating a broad new overlay of new federal land use regulations on top of the existing framework of well–established federal, state and local laws, like the ESA, Clean Water Act and successful state and local policies and programs. This new overlay will create redundancy, confusion and litigation exposure, all of which will discourage the use of biomass.
  • “Planted forest land” is similar to the definition in the Energy Independence and Security Act which set in place the Renewable Fuel Standard. This confines the use of biomass to planted forests and prohibits the use of biomass from forests where trees are planted to create a more desirable or ecologically beneficial species mix (i.e. replacing invasive or inferior species).
• Placing biomass into separate categories of “qualifying” and “ ineligible” material creates new and costly verification complexities that will discourage biomass use in an already low-margin market. Because biomass comes from thousands of different (mostly small) landowners, even the most sophisticated private sector wood-tracking systems used today are not able to trace most wood back to its origin.”

The definition of biomass will continue to be a source of controversy whenever a renewable electricity standard is being contemplated. While Congress will undoubtedly fail to act on this issue in the near term, states continue to forge their own paths. North Carolina’s recent clarification of the definition of biomass is one example (see story in this issue).

Another is last week’s decision by Louisiana’s Public Service Commission to implement a pilot RPS program, which will require 350 MW, or 2 percent, of the state’s electricity to come from renewable sources is another. According to the draft implementation plan, the Louisiana standard has a very clear definition of biomass: “Any organic material not derived from fossil fuels, including agricultural crops, agricultural wastes and residues, waste pallets, crates, dunnage, manufacturing and construction wood wastes, landscape and right-of-way tree trimmings, mill residues, biosolids, sludge derived from organic matter, and wood and wood waste from timbering operations.”

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