HR-9827-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Cliff Bentz (R-OR)
What it does
This bill would amend the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to broaden the definition of "renewable biomass" — the category of materials that qualify for generating renewable fuel credits. It would expand eligibility to include vegetation removed from defensible space around structures, materials from wildfire risk reduction activities in the wildland-urban interface, and trees and shrubs from a wider range of non-federal and federal lands (including National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management public lands), provided certain certification requirements are met. It would also update the definition of qualifying forest products manufacturing residuals.
Who benefits
Biomass energy producers and biofuel refiners who would gain access to a larger pool of qualifying feedstocks. Timber and forest products companies whose residual materials would more easily qualify for RFS credits. Private landowners managing forests for timber who could monetize removed vegetation. Federal land managers (USDA Forest Service, BLM) who could offset costs of fuel reduction treatments by selling biomass for fuel. Homeowners and communities in wildfire-prone areas who may see increased vegetation clearing near structures. Rural communities and workers in the biomass energy supply chain. Tribal nations and individual Indians whose lands would be explicitly included as qualifying sources.
Who is hurt
Conventional fuel producers who compete with biomass-derived renewable fuels for market share under the RFS credit system. Environmental and conservation groups that argue expanded biomass burning increases net carbon emissions. Obligated parties under the RFS (refiners and importers) who must purchase renewable fuel credits and could face increased compliance costs if credit supply dynamics shift. Competing renewable fuel producers (corn ethanol, soybean biodiesel) whose relative share of RFS credits could be diluted. Communities downwind of biomass combustion facilities who may experience increased air pollution from expanded burning.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that millions of acres of overgrown federal and private forestland face catastrophic wildfire risk, and that creating a market for removed vegetation directly funds the fuel reduction work that protects lives and property. They contend that the current RFS definition arbitrarily excludes materials from federal lands and defensible-space clearing — precisely the highest-priority areas for wildfire management — leaving land managers without a revenue stream to offset treatment costs. They point to the 2023 and 2024 wildfire seasons, which burned millions of acres, as evidence that existing incentives are insufficient and that expanding biomass markets is a practical, market-based mechanism to accelerate treatment at scale.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that classifying burned forest biomass as "renewable" fuel understates its carbon emissions — combustion of woody biomass releases CO₂ immediately, while forest regrowth takes decades to recapture it, a gap documented in EPA and academic lifecycle analyses. They contend that expanding RFS eligibility to federal lands could incentivize removal of ecologically valuable material beyond what is genuinely needed for fire risk reduction, with certification requirements that rely on self-reporting by landowners or local agency offices providing insufficient oversight. They further argue that increased biomass combustion would worsen air quality in rural communities near processing facilities, disproportionately affecting populations already burdened by particulate matter exposure.
Constitutional context
The Renewable Fuel Standard is grounded in Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which forms the basis for the Clean Air Act. Because this bill directly amends the statutory definition rather than delegating new rulemaking authority to EPA, it largely sidesteps the major questions doctrine concerns raised in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and the post-Chevron heightened judicial scrutiny established in Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) — Congress itself is making the definitional change, not the agency.
Checks and balances
Congress expands the statutory definition; EPA administers the RFS credit system under the new parameters; the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior hold certification authority over federal land materials, giving the executive branch a gatekeeping role over which federal-land biomass qualifies.
Historical precedent
The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act established the current RFS and its renewable biomass definition; subsequent amendments in 2018 (America's Water Infrastructure Act) and agency rulemakings have periodically adjusted biomass eligibility criteria, though no prior statute has explicitly included defensible-space vegetation or federal land fuel-reduction byproducts.