The debate over whether woody biomass from public lands should be included in the renewable energy standards in the American Clean Energy and Security Act continues. I am not even going to attempt to predict what the federal government will do. In the meantime, many officials from states and counties with an abundance of public forest lands are appealing to their congressmen to include public lands in the standard. It sounds like they want the House to vote on it today (June 26) so we may know more later today or next week.

Some environmentalists like to remind us of the days when forests were clear-cut and not replanted. I'd like to think that we've learned our lessons from that experience. That being said, I guess I would like to see public lands included in the legislation, but there should be come sort of management or oversight so that forest resources aren't strained.

I do worry that there won't be enough woody biomass to feed all of the biomass power plants that are being proposed, but I believe there are ways to protect the nation's forest lands. For example, Massachusetts has decided to have a study conducted to determine if the wood needed to fuel several biomass power facilities proposed in the state can be sustainably harvested from the state's forests. In Massachusetts' Pioneer Valley alone, the development of three large biomass power plants have been announced-a $165 million, 50-megawatt plant in Russell, a $250 million, 47-megawatt plant in Greenfield and a $150 million, 38-megawatt plant in Springfield.

As I indicated in an earlier blog post, the Russell plant has its share of opponents and proponents, and I'm sure the other projects have a contingent of people to deal with as well. Hopefully this study will put the whole process into perspective and provide enough information so state officials can balance the need for renewable power, economic development and sustainability.

This probably won't put an end to the raging debate because some people just aren't going to be satisfied with the results of this study, or any number of studies, and nothing can be done to change their minds. But that shouldn't stop states such as Massachusetts from conducting these types of studies and I hope other states will follow their lead.

Biomass Magazine associate editor Lisa Gibson wrote a story about another way that biomass companies themselves can ensure that the feedstocks they are using are responsibly and sustainably obtained. The story is about Curran Renewable Energy of Massena, N.Y, being the first biomass plant in the U.S. to receive Forest Stewardship Council chain-of-custody certification from the Rainforest Alliance's SmartWood program. This certification lets consumers of Curran's products know that the material used in its process was obtained from forestry operations that meet "a set of environmental, social and economic criteria covering compliance with laws and international treaties, land use and indigenous peoples' rights, community relations, biodiversity conservation and maintenance of high-conservation value forests, among other criteria. I congratulate Curran on its efforts and I hope to see more programs and stories like this as the biomass industry matures.

I'm all for building more biomass power plants, however, none of these plants will survive if they don't have a steady supply of woody biomass.

In the meantime, we'll all be waiting and watching to see how the federal government plans to deal with the public forest land.