S-5087-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
What it does
This bill would amend the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to broaden the definition of "renewable biomass," making more types of forest and vegetation material eligible to generate renewable fuel credits. It would add materials from certified private forestlands, National Forest System lands, and Bureau of Land Management public lands — provided federal land managers certify the material comes from fuel reduction, ecological restoration, or pre-commercial thinning activities. It would also add vegetation cleared from defensible space around structures and from wildland-urban interface wildfire risk reduction activities.
Who benefits
Biofuel and biomass energy producers who would gain access to a larger pool of feedstocks eligible for RFS credits. Timber and forest products companies whose wood residuals and manufacturing byproducts would qualify more broadly. Private landowners managing certified forestland who could sell biomass material for fuel credit value. Tribal nations and Alaska Native Corporations whose lands would be explicitly included. Homeowners and communities in wildfire-prone areas who may see reduced vegetation removal costs if a market develops for cleared material. Federal land managers (USDA Forest Service, BLM) who could potentially offset costs of fuel reduction treatments by enabling biomass sales.
Who is hurt
Conventional fossil fuel blenders who compete with RFS-credited biofuels and would face a larger pool of qualifying competitors. Environmental and conservation groups that oppose expanded biomass combustion on carbon accounting or air quality grounds. Competing renewable energy sectors (solar, wind) that do not benefit from RFS credits and may face a relatively less favorable policy environment. Recycling industries, to the extent paper residuals are redirected to fuel rather than recycling streams. Communities near biomass combustion facilities who may experience localized air quality effects. Taxpayers and fuel consumers who bear the indirect cost of the RFS credit system through blending obligations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that millions of acres of overstocked, fire-prone federal and private forestland generate vast quantities of small-diameter trees and brush that currently have no economic market, leaving them as fuel for catastrophic wildfires. By qualifying this material for RFS credits, the bill would create a financial incentive for private investment in fuel reduction treatments — reducing wildfire risk at no direct appropriations cost. They point to the 2020–2023 wildfire seasons, which burned tens of millions of acres and caused hundreds of billions in damages, as evidence that existing removal incentives are insufficient and that market-based mechanisms are needed to scale up treatment capacity.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that burning forest biomass for fuel releases carbon stored in trees immediately, while regrowing forests takes decades to recapture it — making biomass combustion a net carbon emitter in the near term, contrary to the climate rationale of the RFS. They contend that expanding the biomass definition could incentivize removal of ecologically valuable vegetation under broad certification standards, and that the attestation-based compliance mechanism for private landowners is difficult to verify and enforce. Critics also point to studies, including work published in Nature Climate Change, finding that forest biomass energy can have a larger carbon footprint per unit of electricity than coal over a 40-year horizon.
Constitutional context
The Renewable Fuel Standard rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which has long supported Clean Air Act regulation of fuel composition. Because this bill directly amends the statutory definition rather than delegating new interpretive authority to EPA, it largely sidesteps the major questions doctrine concerns raised in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and the post-Chevron independent judicial review framework 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 directly; EPA administers RFS credit generation under the new terms; USDA and Interior retain gatekeeping authority over federal land certifications, preserving executive branch checks on which public-land materials qualify.
Historical precedent
The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act established the current RFS and its renewable biomass definition; subsequent rulemakings and legislative proposals have repeatedly debated the scope of qualifying forest biomass, but no prior statute has specifically added wildland-urban interface fuel reduction material as a qualifying feedstock.