Assembly committee advances bill urging state to study biomass products, biochar in climate plan

SB 88, a bill that would direct state agencies to evaluate using woody biomass to produce fuels and carbon‑stable products, was given a due‑pass recommendation as amended by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on an author’s request Wednesday. The committee advanced the measure to the Appropriations Committee.

The bill’s sponsors and co‑sponsors said converting agricultural and forest residuals into products such as biochar and hydrogen would reduce open‑burning emissions and provide economic opportunities in rural communities. Opponents said existing evidence shows many biomass conversion processes emit greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants and cautioned against mandating state endorsement without further study.

Alberto Ayala, air pollution control officer and executive director of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, testified the district co‑sponsors SB 88. Ayala said the measure would ask the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to include a biomass strategy in its next scoping plan update and ask the California Energy Commission to include biomass fuel pathways in relevant reports. “If we don’t burn biomass and utilize it, we can increase economic development, especially in rural California, allowing farmers to be part of the state’s clean energy transition,” Ayala said.

Christiana Darlington of the Placer County Air Pollution Control District said a 2011 district study showed that diverting wood that otherwise would be open‑pile burned to a biomass facility could reduce fine particulate matter by about 98 percent and nitrogen oxides by about 60 percent, with larger benefits when advanced controls such as ceramic filters are used. She emphasized the bill targets forest biomass removed for wildfire mitigation, not trees grown for energy.

Shay Wolf, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, testified in opposition and asked the committee to amend SB 88 into a study bill. Wolf argued that combustion, gasification and pyrolysis used to make biomass products are “major emitters of carbon dioxide and air pollution,” that the approach risks industrializing forests and harming environmental‑justice communities, and that investment priorities should focus on structure hardening and ignition‑zone vegetation management.

Industry and agriculture groups filed support letters and spoke in favor of the bill, including the California Bioenergy Association, Humboldt Redwood Company and the Almond Alliance. A number of environmental and conservation organizations — including Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club California, Earthjustice and others — submitted opposition or oppose‑unless‑amended positions and were listed in a consolidated opposition presentation.

Committee members asked questions about pyrolysis and the emissions profile of conversion technologies. At the close of the item, the bill’s presenter said the author would accept amendments and asked for an aye vote. The motion to refer SB 88 to Appropriations as amended passed on a roll call; one member recorded as not voting. The committee record shows the measure “is out.”

SB 88 will now proceed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for further consideration.