Air resources: carbon emissions: biomass.

Senator Caballero’s measure ties climate and forest-health policy to a structured look at how forest and agricultural biomass residues move through lifecycle emissions and into carbon-removal products, including biochar, by directing key state agencies to publish targeted analyses and strategies. The California Air Resources Board would publish a lifecycle-emissions assessment of alternative uses for these biomass residues, accounting for wildfire and management actions, by early 2028, and, by early 2029, a comprehensive strategy to support beneficial carbon removal products generated from agricultural or forest biomass resources. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection would require, to the extent feasible, that state-funded forest health projects include a biomass-disposal component with a scientifically based, verifiable method to determine the amount of biomass removed and the portion that is burned by prescribed fire. The State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission would incorporate in relevant reports the value proposition of using biomass resources for low- and negative-carbon fuels, including hydrogen, produced through noncombustion conversion technologies and other emerging approaches.

To establish scope, the measure defines key terms: agricultural biomass resources as crop, orchard, or vineyard residues excluding crops grown specifically for energy production or edible produce; forest biomass resources as material removed for wildfire mitigation, forest restoration, or public-safety protection, excluding trees harvested primarily for energy; agricultural burning and prescribed burning as aligned with established regulatory definitions. It places duties on agencies without creating new regulatory standards or appropriations, instead emphasizing information generation and planning. The measure situates these actions within the broader framework of California’s climate goals and existing efforts to quantify emissions associated with biomass management, open burning reductions, and nature-based solutions.

Implementation would unfold in stages with a heavy emphasis on information dissemination and policy planning. The lifecycle-emissions assessment and the strategy would be published on agency websites within the specified dates, guiding future policy design and potential program development around biomass utilization and carbon-removal pathways. CAL FIRE’s disposal-component requirement would feed into forest-health project design and budgeting to the extent feasible, while CEC’s reporting would reflect biomass considerations in energy pathways, including low- and negative-carbon fuels and hydrogen from noncombustion technologies. The bill is framed to encourage interagency coordination and to inform forthcoming regulatory actions, research funding decisions, and market development for biomass-derived products, rather than to impose immediate standards or new funding.

Considerations and context suggest several practical implications. The measure relies on ARB to develop methodologies for assessing life-cycle emissions, potentially shaping how biomass uses are evaluated in future programs, incentives, or regulations. The qualifier “to the extent feasible” in CAL FIRE’s requirement introduces variability in application across projects, and the absence of explicit enforcement or funding means agencies would implement through planning processes and existing budgets. By anchoring findings to the state’s climate and forest-management objectives, the proposal seeks to illuminate biomass pathways for reducing wildfire-related emissions and advancing carbon-removal opportunities, while leaving room for policymaking and market development to evolve in response to the produced analyses and strategies.