Wildfire Reduction Market Expansion Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bentz, Cliff [R-OR-2]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 22, 2026
Bottom line
The bill expands the eligible feedstocks for renewable fuel production under the RFS, primarily by including more types of forest-derived biomass, with an explicit goal of incentivizing wildfire risk reduction.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Clean Air Act to broaden the definition of 'renewable biomass' under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). It expands the types of forest and wood products manufacturing residuals, as well as materials from managed non-Federal, Federal, and Indian lands, and vegetation from wildfire risk reduction activities, that can be used to generate renewable fuel credits. The aim is to create new markets for biomass, particularly from forest management and wildfire mitigation efforts.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that expanding the definition of renewable biomass will create new economic incentives for sustainable forest management and wildfire risk reduction. By providing a market for materials currently considered waste, the bill could help reduce hazardous fuel loads, improve forest health, and support rural economies, all while contributing to renewable energy goals without increasing carbon emissions from new forest clearing.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that broadening the definition of renewable biomass, particularly to include certain forest materials, could inadvertently incentivize practices that are not truly sustainable or carbon-neutral, potentially leading to increased logging or land-use changes that harm ecosystems. Concerns could also be raised about the overall effectiveness and environmental impact of the RFS itself, and whether this expansion truly aligns with climate goals.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward for those familiar with environmental legislation, making it accessible for a quick review.
Section 2(3), amending Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(1)(I)(II)
Expansion of Forest and Wood Product Manufacturing Residuals
This provision broadens the types of materials from forest and wood products manufacturing that qualify as 'renewable biomass.' It specifically lists 'wood residuals, paper residuals, sawdust, wood, wood chips, shavings, bark, sanderdust, and paper recycling residuals' as eligible, explicitly excluding paper commonly recycled. This expands upon the previous, more general definition of 'materials generated from the processing of wood or paper products.'
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this expansion provides a clear and comprehensive list of eligible waste materials, reducing ambiguity and encouraging their use in renewable fuel production. This helps manage waste, supports the forest industry, and diversifies renewable energy sources.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision as it primarily clarifies and expands the use of existing waste streams, which is generally seen as beneficial for waste management and resource utilization.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is ensuring that the expanded definition does not inadvertently incentivize the diversion of materials that could be more efficiently recycled or used in higher-value products, though the exclusion of commonly recycled paper aims to mitigate this.
Section 2(4), amending Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(1)(I)(IV)(aa)
Inclusion of Non-Federal Forest Land Materials
This provision allows trees, shrubs, and parts thereof from non-Federal land to qualify as renewable biomass if the land is managed under a forest sustainability certification program, classified for property tax as forest/timberland, or if the landowner certifies management for long-term timber production. This provides specific criteria for how non-Federal forest materials can be deemed sustainable for RFS purposes.
Section 2(4), amending Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(1)(I)(IV)(bb)
Inclusion of Federal Land Management By-products
This provision allows materials from National Forest System lands or public lands to qualify as renewable biomass if they are by-products from land management activities (like fuel reduction, ecological restoration, or pre-commercial thinning), not suitable for sawlogs, and sourced consistent with Federal laws and the applicable forest/resource management plan. The Secretary of Agriculture or Interior must certify these materials.
Section 2(4), amending Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(1)(I)(IV)(cc)
Inclusion of Indian Land Materials
This provision explicitly includes trees, shrubs, and parts thereof from land owned by an Indian tribe or held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe or individual Indian as renewable biomass. This ensures that biomass from tribal lands can also participate in the RFS market.
Section 2(4), amending Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(1)(I)(V)
Inclusion of Wildfire Risk Reduction Vegetation
This provision adds vegetation obtained from within the 'defensible space' of structures (residential, commercial, public facilities) or from 'wildfire risk reduction activities within the wildland-urban interface (WUI)' to the definition of renewable biomass. This directly links biomass eligibility to efforts to protect communities from wildfires.
A savings clause clarifying that Federal forest plans or resource management plans do not need to explicitly identify renewable fuel or biomass energy as an intended end use for materials to qualify, provided the underlying project or material disposition is otherwise authorized and consistent with the plan.
Section 2(5), adding Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(1)(I)(iii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for clarifying intent and avoiding unintended conflicts with existing regulations. It ensures that current forest management plans don't need to be rewritten to accommodate the new RFS eligibility.
Case for: This clause streamlines implementation by removing a potential bureaucratic hurdle. It ensures that materials from authorized forest management activities can be utilized for renewable fuel without requiring specific amendments to complex, long-term forest plans, thereby accelerating the availability of biomass.
Case against: Critics might argue that by not requiring explicit identification of renewable fuel as an end-use, there's less transparency or specific consideration of the implications of biomass energy production within forest management planning processes. This could be seen as weakening environmental oversight.
Estimated impact: This provision has a significant procedural impact, easing the administrative burden for federal agencies and biomass producers seeking to utilize materials from federal lands.