Renewable Fuel Standard: Why Isn’t Woody Biomass a Potential Fuel?

One forestry and forest products value chain issue has become increasingly hotly debated over the last couple of years: the long-standing mandate for liquid transportation fuels known as the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). Originally enacted in 2005 and then refined in 2007 as part of the Energy In-dependence and Security Act (EISA), the RFS requires growing volumes of biofuels to be blended into U.S. transportation fuel supplies of gasoline and diesel. The EPA finalized a rule in late March setting the annual (2026) number of renewable fuel to be blended into the U.S. supply at almost 26 billion gallons. Despite this consider-able volumetric mandate, the underlying law is an anomaly. Instead of adopting an “all of the above” approach to renewable feedstock sources, the statute imposes overly restrictive eligibility conditions on fuels derived from forest-based biomass. Under the law’s definition of “renewable biomass,” fiber from private tree plantations is eligible, but only on lands cleared before December 19, 2007. Slash and pre-commercial thinnings qualify, but whole trees do not. And fiber from federal lands is strictly prohibited. These definitional restrictions were negotiated and secured by the Natural Resources Defense Council in response to environmentalists’ concerns about the widespread conversion of natural forests to pine plantations to meet anticipated renewable fuel demand.

With markets for forest fiber and residuals in a down cycle, the chorus of stakeholders urging expansion of the definition is grow-ing louder. Private industrial forest landowners who see a potential market growth opportunity for their assets have led efforts over the years to revise the definition and open up eligibility for fuels derived from private working forestlands. The challenge, politically, has been that this definition is deeply embedded in the Clean Air Act, and legal experts have reached consensus that any revision would necessitate reopening that statute. In Washington, amending a landmark statute like the Clean Air Act or the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act in a rifle-shot fashion is nearly impossible. Such efforts attract a lot of attention, both from opponents and ancillary stake-holders looking to “shoehorn” in their priorities on any moving legislative vehicle. Moreover, there is very little appetite in Congress right now for moving clean air legislation. That is why forest landowners were pushing hard for the EPA to try to modify the definition in its recently completed RFS rulemaking mentioned above. The Agency did seek comments on the renewable biomass definition during this process, but ultimately did not make any changes to it. This action officially closes the regulatory chapter of this issue for now.

So, what comes next? Advocates for an expanded renewable biomass definition—Hardwood Federation included—will continue to push on Congress to act. With recent pulp and paper mill closures in South Carolina and elsewhere in the Southeast, falling demand in some of these fiber baskets has loggers, landowners, and sawmill operators viewing the situation with increased urgency. Key lawmakers also understand the plight of those seeking more markets for forest fiber and residuals. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Booz-man (R-AR), in opening remarks during his panel’s consideration of the Fix Our Forests Act, underscored his belief that forest-derived liquid biofuels should be eligible under the RFS mandate. He noted, however, that his committee lacks jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act and pledged to work with Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) on a solution.

The issue even becomes more complex because the entire forest products value chain is not in agreement. While forest landowners have been pushing hard to create a market pathway in the RFS, the pulp and paper sector continues to oppose these efforts. The opposition is borne out of concern that, if potential demand for forest fiber, should forest-based liquid transportation fuel production actually scale, could threaten the affordability and availability of their feedstock. Advocates for the pulp and paper industry have been effective in communicating these concerns with key committee chairs in Congress. In recent communications from Congressional leaders, it is clear that any viable legislative fix would have to include language protecting wood fiber sourcing areas around pulp and paper facilities. Negotiations are ongoing over specifics and whether it is even possible to craft language that threads the needle between the need for increased market demand and protections for existing users of forest fiber.

Despite the EPA’s inaction on rewriting the RFS biomass definition, the issue shows no signs of abating. The Hardwood Federation will continue to work with our upstream supplier allies and our brethren in the softwood sector in trying to find a workable solution to this problem. Healthy markets for the forest resource are the engines that power the cycle of sustainability. Without them, forestland con-version to agriculture or development is inevitable. The Federation team will continue to work on this message in our meetings with Members of Congress in hopes that a compromise may ultimately be forged.

By DANA COLE, Executive Director of the Hardwood Federation