Hazardous Fuels Transportation Assistance Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]
- Committees
- Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill establishes a new grant program to subsidize the transportation of hazardous fuels from federal lands, aiming to reduce wildfire risk and support the forest products industry.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to create a competitive grant program to help eligible entities cover the costs of transporting materials removed from hazardous fuels management activities on National Forest System lands. The goal is to incentivize the removal and utilization of these materials, which are often uneconomical to transport, thereby reducing wildfire risk and supporting forest product infrastructure.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill addresses a critical barrier to effective wildfire prevention: the high cost of transporting hazardous fuels like timber and biomass from remote areas. By providing financial assistance, the program will incentivize more hazardous fuels management activities, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and support rural economies by creating demand for forest products and maintaining processing infrastructure.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that while the goal of wildfire reduction is laudable, directly subsidizing transportation costs could distort market dynamics and create dependency on federal funds rather than fostering sustainable, market-driven solutions. Concerns could also be raised about the administrative burden of the grant program and whether the funds will be allocated to the most impactful projects.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and easy to understand its core provisions.
Section 2(b)
Hazardous Fuels Transportation Grant Program Establishment
This provision mandates the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a competitive grant program within 180 days of the Act's enactment. The grants are intended to incentivize the removal of materials resulting from hazardous fuels management activities conducted under contracts or agreements with the Forest Service. Eligible recipients include for-profit and non-profit entities, states, local governments, Indian Tribes, and institutions of higher education.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that establishing this program is crucial for addressing the economic barriers to effective hazardous fuels removal, which is essential for wildfire prevention and forest health. It directly targets a key cost component that often prevents the utilization of removed materials.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that creating a new grant program adds to federal bureaucracy and could lead to inefficient allocation of resources if not carefully managed. They might prefer market-based solutions or other forms of regulatory relief.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the immediate need to address wildfire risk through financial incentives and the potential for market distortion or administrative overhead associated with a new federal grant program.
Section 2(c) and 2(d)
Eligible and Ineligible Uses of Grant Funds
This section specifies what grant funds can and cannot be used for. Eligible uses include the transportation of byproducts (roundwood, chips, biomass), costs associated with woodyards and loading facilities, purchasing or leasing equipment for efficient transport, equipment maintenance, and workforce development. Ineligible uses explicitly prohibit construction or capital improvements (like processing facilities), stumpage or timber purchases, and other expenses deemed ineligible by the Secretary.
Section 2(e)
Grant Prioritization Criteria
This provision outlines eight criteria the Secretary must use to prioritize grant applications. These include treating hazardous fuels in high-risk firesheds, maximizing acres treated and volume transported, retaining existing and developing new wood processing facilities, increasing long-term forest product utilization, and utilizing materials from projects under specific existing federal programs (e.g., Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership) or agreements (e.g., good neighbor agreements, stewardship contracts, Tribal agreements).
Section 2(f)
Funding Authorization and Limitations
This provision authorizes $25,000,000 to be appropriated annually for fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to carry out the grant program. It sets a maximum grant amount of $3,000,000 per grant per fiscal year and limits equipment purchasing under the grant to $250,000 per fiscal year. Additionally, it establishes cost-share requirements: a maximum of 75 percent federal funding for most eligible recipients, but a more generous 90 percent for Indian Tribes.
Limits the amount of grant funds that can be used for purchasing equipment to $250,000 in any one fiscal year.
Section 2(f)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include specific financial caps within the funding details, rather than in the general 'eligible uses' section, to manage budget allocations for capital expenditures.
Case for: Supporters argue this cap prevents grant funds from being primarily used for large capital investments in equipment, ensuring that the majority of the grant goes towards the direct costs of transportation and related operational expenses, aligning with the bill's core purpose.
Case against: Critics might argue that a $250,000 cap could be insufficient for entities needing to acquire specialized, heavy-duty equipment necessary for efficient hazardous fuels transport, especially for larger-scale operations or in areas with limited existing infrastructure.
Estimated impact: This limits the capital expenditure component of individual grants, potentially redirecting funds towards operational costs or requiring recipients to secure additional financing for larger equipment purchases.
Establishes a higher federal cost-share of 90 percent for Indian Tribes, compared to 75 percent for other eligible recipients.
Section 2(f)(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice to include specific carve-outs or preferential treatment for Indian Tribes within general funding provisions, reflecting federal trust responsibilities and unique circumstances.
Case for: Proponents argue this higher federal share acknowledges the unique financial challenges and historical underinvestment faced by Indian Tribes, facilitating their participation in hazardous fuels management and supporting tribal self-determination in land stewardship.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it aligns with broader federal policy to support Indian Tribes. However, some might generally argue for uniform cost-share requirements across all recipient types for administrative simplicity.
Estimated impact: This provision makes it significantly easier for Indian Tribes to secure funding for hazardous fuels transportation projects by reducing their required matching contribution.