Wildfire Reduction Market Expansion Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 22, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to create new markets for forest-derived biomass, particularly from wildfire mitigation efforts and sustainable forestry, by making these materials eligible for the Renewable Fuel Standard.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Clean Air Act to significantly expand the definition of "renewable biomass" for purposes of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). It includes a broader range of materials from forest products manufacturing, sustainable forest management on non-Federal, Federal, and Indian lands, and vegetation cleared for wildfire risk reduction in defensible spaces and the wildland-urban interface.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill will incentivize critical forest health treatments and wildfire risk reduction activities by creating an economic market for the resulting biomass. They contend it will support rural economies, reduce the severity of wildfires, and contribute to renewable energy goals by utilizing materials that would otherwise be disposed of or contribute to fuel loads.
Opponents contend
Opponents may express concerns that expanding the definition of renewable biomass could lead to increased logging or unsustainable forest practices, potentially exacerbating carbon emissions rather than reducing them. They might also argue that burning biomass, even from waste products, contributes to air pollution and diverts focus from other, less carbon-intensive renewable energy sources.
The bill is concise and relatively straightforward for those familiar with environmental legislation, allowing for a quick and accessible evaluation of its core provisions.
Section 2(1), (2)
Technical Reorganization of Renewable Biomass Definition
This provision reorganizes the existing definition of "renewable biomass" within the Clean Air Act by redesignating current clauses as subclauses and introducing a new general introductory clause. This is a structural change designed to accommodate the subsequent additions and modifications to the definition, improving the overall readability and organization of the statutory language.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that these technical amendments are standard legislative practice to ensure clarity and logical structuring of statutory text, making future amendments or interpretations more straightforward.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against technical reorganization provisions, as they do not alter the substantive policy of the law.
Tradeoffs
There are no significant tradeoffs or tensions associated with this purely technical reorganization.
Section 2(3)
Expansion of Manufacturing By-products in Renewable Biomass Definition
This section modifies the definition of renewable biomass to explicitly include a wider array of materials generated from forest products manufacturing and wood products manufacturing. Specifically, it lists wood residuals, paper residuals, sawdust, wood, wood chips, shavings, bark, sanderdust, and paper recycling residuals (excluding commonly recycled paper) as eligible. This broadens the scope of industrial waste products that can be used to generate renewable fuel credits.
Section 2(4), amending subclause (IV)
Inclusion of Forest Management Materials from Various Land Types
This provision significantly expands the definition of renewable biomass to include trees, shrubs, and parts thereof (such as slash and storm debris) sourced from various land categories. This includes non-Federal lands managed sustainably or for long-term timber production, Federal lands (National Forest System, public lands) where materials are by-products of specific management activities (fuel reduction, ecological restoration, pre-commercial thinning) and not suitable for sawlogs, and lands owned by or held in trust for Indian tribes. Specific certification or attestation requirements apply depending on the land type.
Section 2(4), amending subclause (V)
Inclusion of Wildfire Risk Reduction Vegetation
This provision specifically adds vegetation obtained from two key wildfire mitigation activities to the definition of renewable biomass. First, it includes materials cleared from the reasonably established defensible space around structures (residential, commercial, public facilities) in accordance with local law or the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code. Second, it includes vegetation from broader wildfire risk reduction activities within the wildland-urban interface (WUI), as defined by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
Section 2(5), adding new clause (ii)
Streamlined Certification and Attestation Requirements
This provision establishes the administrative process for the certifications and attestations required under the expanded renewable biomass definition. It specifies that for non-Federal land managed for long-term timber production, the attestation can be a letter from the landowner. For Federal and public lands, the certification can be a letter from the local office of the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior with authority over the relevant forest or resource management plan. This aims to simplify the documentation process for generating RFS credits.
Section 2(5), adding new clause (iii)
Inclusion of Alaska Native Corporation Lands
This provision clarifies that for the purposes of the expanded renewable biomass definition, the term "non-Federal land" explicitly includes land owned by a Native Corporation, as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This ensures that forest management activities on these specific landholdings are eligible for the benefits and requirements outlined in the bill.
Section 2(5), adding new clause (iv)
Savings Clause for Forest Plans
This provision includes a savings clause stating that the expanded definition of renewable biomass does not require an applicable forest plan or resource management plan to expressly identify renewable fuel or biomass energy as an intended end use of the material. It clarifies that as long as the underlying project, removal, sale, or disposition of the material is otherwise authorized and consistent with the existing forest plan, it can be considered eligible biomass.
This provision details the specific administrative requirements for certifications and attestations needed to qualify materials as renewable biomass. It allows for a simple letter from the non-Federal landowner for long-term timber production attestations, and a letter from the local office of USDA or DOI for Federal land certifications.
Section 2(5), adding new clause (ii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for detailing administrative procedures related to a new definition or eligibility criteria. It's consequential because it dictates the ease or difficulty of compliance.
Case for: Supporters argue that this streamlined approach reduces bureaucratic burdens, making it easier and more cost-effective for landowners and agencies to participate in the biomass market, thereby promoting the bill's objectives.
Case against: Critics might argue that a simple letter from a landowner or local office could lack sufficient rigor or independent verification, potentially opening the door to less sustainable practices or misrepresentation of biomass sources.
Estimated impact: This provision will significantly influence the practical accessibility and uptake of the expanded renewable biomass definition, affecting the number of participants and the volume of eligible material entering the RFS market.
This savings clause clarifies that existing forest plans or resource management plans do not need to be explicitly amended to identify renewable fuel or biomass energy as an intended end use. As long as the material's removal is otherwise authorized and consistent with the plan, it qualifies.
Section 2(5), adding new clause (iv)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to prevent unintended administrative burdens or conflicts with existing regulations. It's crucial for ensuring smooth implementation without requiring extensive revisions of current management plans.
Case for: Proponents argue it prevents significant delays and costs for federal agencies by avoiding the need for widespread forest plan amendments, thereby accelerating the utilization of eligible biomass from authorized activities.
Case against: Some critics might suggest that this clause reduces transparency, as the public might not be aware that materials from a forest plan not explicitly mentioning biomass energy could still be used for that purpose. They might prefer explicit planning for all end-uses.
Estimated impact: This provision will significantly streamline the process for federal land managers to make biomass available for the RFS, potentially increasing the volume of eligible material from federal lands more quickly than if plan amendments were required.