SB 88 tasks the State Air Resources Board (CARB) with two analytic products: an assessment of life‑cycle emissions from alternative uses of forest and agricultural biomass residues, and a follow‑on strategy to support beneficial carbon removal products (explicitly including biochar). The bill also directs the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) to require, where feasible, that state‑funded forest health projects include a biomass disposal component with a scientifically based, verifiable method to allocate material between physical removal and prescribed burning, and it asks the California Energy Commission (CEC) to document the value proposition for noncombustion conversion of biomass into low‑ and negative‑carbon fuels, including hydrogen.
The measure is primarily analytic and planning‑oriented: it creates definitional boundaries for ‘agricultural’ and ‘forest’ biomass, forces cross‑agency coordination on measurement and strategy, and pushes state program design toward building markets for carbon removal products and noncombustion fuel pathways. For practitioners—forest project managers, biochar developers, energy planners, and regulators—the bill signals upcoming requirements for project reporting, methodological choices that will shape accounting and funding, and new evidentiary standards around what counts as ‘beneficial’ biomass use.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires CARB to publish a life‑cycle emissions assessment of alternative uses for forest and agricultural biomass residues and then to publish a strategy to support biomass‑derived carbon removal products. It requires CalFire to build a biomass disposal component into state‑funded forest health projects (with verifiable methods for quantities removed vs burned) and directs the CEC to incorporate the value proposition of noncombustion conversion routes into its analyses.
Who It Affects
Primary obligations fall on state agencies (CARB, CalFire, CEC). Downstream impacts will touch state‑funded forest restoration contractors, agricultural managers, biochar and negative‑emissions technology developers, and entities proposing fuel conversion projects using biomass residues.
Why It Matters
By forcing standardized assessment and a strategy, the bill will influence how biomass is treated in climate accounting, grant scoring, and program design—potentially redirecting material from burning toward engineered carbon removal products and low‑carbon fuels and creating market signals for new value chains.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 88 draws a tighter coupling between wildfire mitigation, agricultural residue management, and the state’s carbon accounting and energy planning. It first narrows what counts as ‘biomass’ for the statute: agricultural biomass is limited to residues from crops, orchards, and vineyards (not crops grown specifically for energy), and forest biomass covers material removed for wildfire mitigation or restoration (excluding trees harvested primarily for energy).
Those definitions set boundaries around what CARB’s analyses and the agencies’ subsequent actions will cover.
Instead of prescribing regulatory limits, the bill asks CARB to produce two public documents: an assessment comparing life‑cycle emissions across alternative uses of residues (explicitly factoring in wildfire and land‑management emissions) and a comprehensive strategy to support beneficial carbon removal products made from those residues. The assessment is intended to ground future accounting and spending decisions; the strategy is meant to identify deployment pathways, potential uses for products like biochar, and actions the state can take to support market development.On the ground, CalFire must ensure state‑funded forest health projects include a disposal plan that, where feasible, uses scientific, verifiable methods to quantify how much biomass will be removed versus burned in prescribed fires.
That creates a new expectation for project designs, reporting, and contractor practices and ties operational choices to measurable outcomes. Finally, the CEC must begin treating noncombustion conversion methods (including routes to hydrogen and other liquid or gaseous fuels) as part of its analytical toolkit, so future energy and resource planning will reflect the potential role of biomass‑derived low‑ or negative‑carbon fuels.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill limits ‘agricultural biomass resources’ to residues (crop, orchard, vineyard) and explicitly excludes crops grown for energy production.
CARB’s assessment must consider wildfire emissions and management actions when comparing life‑cycle emissions of alternative biomass uses.
CARB’s required strategy is explicitly scoped to support ‘beneficial carbon removal products’ and lists potential biochar uses including sequestration, agricultural amendment, construction materials, and water treatment.
CalFire must, to the extent feasible, require every state‑funded forest health project to include a biomass disposal component with a scientifically based, verifiable method to determine quantities removed versus burned.
The CEC must include analysis of noncombustion conversion pathways—including low‑ and negative‑carbon fuels and hydrogen from biomass residues—in its reports and agency‑sponsored documentation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Rationale linking wildfire emissions, biomass management, and climate targets
The findings tie the bill to multiple statewide goals: cutting greenhouse gases, reducing short‑lived climate pollutants, and meeting acreage targets for fuel treatments. Practically, this section frames biomass not as waste but as a resource that, if redirected, could reduce emissions from wildfires and pile burning while supporting new industries—an explicit policy signal that future program design should treat biomass disposal and utilization as climate tools.
Narrow definitions to focus analysis on residues, not energy crops or timber-for-energy
The bill draws clear boundaries: agricultural biomass excludes purpose‑grown energy crops, and forest biomass excludes trees harvested primarily for energy. That prevents the analyses and strategies from being broadened to cover large‑scale energy plantations or traditional timber harvesting for fuel, concentrating attention on residues generated by management, restoration, and agricultural operations.
Mandated life‑cycle emissions assessment that integrates wildfire dynamics
CARB must produce a lifecycle emissions comparison of alternative uses of residues and explicitly account for wildfire and management emissions. The mechanics matter: CARB will need to choose modeling approaches, baseline scenarios, and accounting boundaries (e.g., biogenic CO2, avoided wildfire emissions), decisions that will influence which uses appear most climate‑beneficial and how grants and projects are scored.
Strategy to develop markets for biochar and other carbon removal products
Beyond the assessment, CARB must publish a strategy to support beneficial carbon removal products generated from biomass. The bill lists applicable uses for biochar and frames the strategy as a tool to identify deployment pathways, uses, and possibly market or procurement interventions. The strategy’s content will shape incentives, verification needs, and whether such products can feed into existing carbon accounting frameworks.
Project‑level disposal component with verifiable measurement
CalFire must require that state‑funded forest health projects include an ‘appropriate’ biomass disposal component and a scientifically based, verifiable method to determine how much material is removed versus burned. Implementation will affect grant applications, contractor scopes, and monitoring protocols: agencies must decide acceptable measurement methods, tolerances, and consequences for noncompliance.
Integration of noncombustion conversion pathways into energy planning
The CEC must incorporate the value proposition for converting residues to low‑ and negative‑carbon liquids and gases (including hydrogen) via noncombustion technologies into its reports. This creates a formal analytic pathway for those technologies to be considered in energy planning and funding decisions, potentially influencing future investment priorities and technology demonstrations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Biochar and carbon‑removal technology developers — the strategy and assessment create a state‑level demand signal, clearer use cases, and a foundation for eligibility in public procurement or grant programs.
- Grant recipients and project managers for forest health work — a standardized requirement for disposal components and verifiable accounting can make proposals more fundable and comparable, reducing uncertainty in funding decisions.
- Agricultural managers and growers with residue streams — the bill encourages options beyond open burning, which can lower permitting barriers and public health risks where market routes develop.
- Energy planners and technology investors — the CEC’s mandated analysis brings noncombustion biomass conversion into mainstream energy planning, potentially unlocking demonstration funding and policy support.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) — adding verification requirements and contract conditions will increase administrative workload and may require new measurement protocols or monitoring capacity.
- Project implementers and contractors — providers of forest restoration and biomass removal will face new reporting, measurement, and potentially disposal or transport costs to meet verifiable removal standards.
- State agencies (CARB and CEC) — producing robust lifecycle assessments and strategies that genuinely account for wildfire dynamics and novel technologies will demand technical resources, stakeholder processes, and ongoing maintenance.
- Local governments and air districts — if material diversion from burning is incentivized without sufficient local processing capacity, districts may face continued or shifted air quality impacts and pressure to regulate new pathways.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against one another: scaling up beneficial, marketable uses of biomass to capture carbon and create value, versus preserving prescribed burning and on‑site combustion as essential, efficient tools for ecological health and wildfire risk reduction. Policies that divert too much material into markets could undermine the practical need for burning at scale and raise costs or logistical hurdles for land managers; policies that protect burning risk perpetuating air‑quality and climate impacts the bill seeks to reduce.
SB 88 is mostly a planning and analytic bill, but the operative details it requires touch complex measurement and market questions that the statute does not resolve. The lifecycle assessment must reconcile competing accounting choices: whether to treat biogenic CO2 as carbon neutral, how to credit avoided wildfire emissions, and what temporal horizon to use for sequestration in products like biochar.
Different methodological choices will materially change which biomass uses appear climate‑beneficial and therefore which projects receive support.
The CalFire requirement for a ‘scientifically based, verifiable method’ to allocate removed versus burned biomass raises practical challenges. Field measurement of pile sizes, decomposition, prescribed‑burn consumption rates, and transport losses is technically difficult and costly.
Without detailed protocol standards, verification may be inconsistent across projects or favor simpler but less climate‑beneficial outcomes (for example, greater removal numbers that shift emissions offsite). The bill also leaves open how existing incentives (grants, carbon protocols, low‑carbon fuel standards) will align with the new strategy, and it provides no dedicated funding for the monitoring and market‑building activities it envisions, creating an implementation gap.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.