Last month’s passage of the Waxman-Markey bill in the U.S. House of Representatives brought the subject of the proposed Renewable Energy Standard (RES) to the forefront of the national discussion on renewable energy.  While the bill is far-reaching and covers many facets of energy policy, one aspect of the bill creates a RES that would require large utilities in each state to produce an increasing percentage of their electricity from renewable sources.  Should a similar bill pass the Senate and be signed into law by President Obama, the bill would unify state level directives to increase renewable energy into one national law.

But what is considered a renewable resource?  The devil is truly in the details.  What is included as “renewable” has much to do with regional politics, advocacy groups, and historical precedent.  One of the most interesting and contentious renewable resources to define has been Renewable Biomass.   The political wrangling over what is defined as Renewable Biomass was a central issue of negotiation and through lengthy discussion, produced a well-reasoned and impactful definition that will lead to greater adoption of this important renewable resource in the U.S.

You might be surprised that the definition of what constitutes Renewable Biomass is not always clear and differs depending on who you talk to.   Logically, Renewable Biomass should include things that grow in the ground: wood and wood products, crops, grains, grasses, fruits, veggies, and the like.  However, the politics of renewable energy are complicated and there are a number of competing views on what should be included:

1. Agricultural interests tend to support an inclusive approach – they would love for all their crops, forestry products and by-products to be included as Renewable Biomass.
2. Energy industry interests would like to make the definition narrow and specific, allowing a limited level of biomass-fueled electricity, but trying not to displace other fuels in large quantity.
3. Environmental groups have a mixed view on Biomass – support for greater use of Biomass in order to move away from fossil fuels, but a distaste for some components of Biomass, such as waste-to-energy projects because of their history of harmful air emissions.

These interests fought it out in Washington during the recent debate over the Waxman-Markey bill, and those competing views were embodied by regional political interests – agricultural states in the Midwest and South, along with coal-rich states with few renewable resources, were pushing for a wide inclusive definition of Renewable Biomass.   The established Washington opinion took the traditional view of a limited and narrow definition.  Finally, the environmental community argued important but nuanced points, like insisting that sustainable forestry practices be mandated for wood use and that all new renewable energy facilities meet federally mandated environmental standards for their energy to be considered renewable.

After much debate behind the scenes, a more inclusive definition of Renewable Biomass was adopted, based on the Department of Agriculture’s definition that includes the full extent of wood, agricultural materials and by-products as Renewable Biomass.  Notably, construction waste, which has traditionally been excluded from the definition of Renewable Biomass, despite its composition being primarily made up of wood, is included in the Waxman-Markey bill.   This draws attention to the politics surrounding Biomass, as well as the importance of details and definitions in legislating renewable energy standards.

Finally, Congress is taking an inclusive approach to our nation’s renewable resources and including the full gamut of the wood, crops, plant materials, by-products, and waste materials we have available.  As we look at the country’s abundant natural resources, the Waxman-Markey bill seems to be a sincere effort to find new ways of making beneficial use of alternative resources.  It better defines the broad array of alternatives to fossil fuels, sets a national goal for their adoption, and creates incentives for development.