3 min read

Definition of Renewable Energy Sources in Proposed Federal RES

The importance of a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) to wood-to-energy markets cannot be overstated. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, because the RES is a market-based program, it:

  • Achieves policy objectives at a relatively modest cost (ratepayer impacts range from less than 1 percent increases to 0.5 percent savings)
  • Spreads compliance costs among all customers
  • Minimizes the need for ongoing government intervention
  • Functions in both regulated and unregulated state electricity markets
  • Provides a clear and long-term target for renewable energy generation that can increase investors' and developers' confidence in the prospects for renewable energy

In late September, a bipartisan group of 26 senators led by Democrat Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico and Republican Sam Brownback from Kansas introduced a bill that would create a federal renewable electricity standard (RES). This standard—which would gradually build to 15 percent by 2021—would require major utilities to source part of their electricity from renewable sources.

Realistically, the bill has only a slim chance of being passed. (As Paul Harvey once said, “ If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?”)

Most of the disagreement about the bill has to do with what “renewable sources” will be allowed to meet the standards. The bill as written includes solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, ocean, landfill gas, incremental hydropower, hydrokinetic, new hydropower at existing dams and waste. Opponents would like to make sure that both nuclear and clean coal are included as well.

To date, the most vocal support of this effort has come from states with abundant wind resources and organizations that lobby for favorable treatment for wind projects. Those states and organizations focused on forest resources, however, have not been as supportive.

The primary reason is the unnecessarily complicated definition of biomass in the bill. The definition is so obtuse, that I’m not even going to try to summarize it here. Here is the overly complicated piece, directly from the bill, S.3813:

“Slash, brush, trees, and other vegetation that is harvested from non-Federal land or Indian land—

That is, at the time of harvest—

  •  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

That is—

  • 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.”

Policy experts at the National Alliance of Forest Owners have analyzed this language and have posted the following comments on their website:

" S. 3813’s definition of qualifying biomass discourages biomass use by excluding biomass from large portions of private, managed lands.

  • 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.”