11/19/2024 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 11/19/2024 14:33
This article shows that selling biomass collected from wildfire fuel treatment could not cover treatment costs in regions of Idaho and Montana unless prices of small-diameter material were to rise significantly.
Date
Nov. 19, 2024
Authors
Publication
Journal Article in Forest Policy and EconomicsReading time
1 minuteThe cost of fuel removal needed in the western United States exceeds available federal funding; therefore, meeting fuel treatment goals may require engaging the private sector to market treatment biomass. To assess the economics of fuel treatments in the western United States, we develop a spatially explicit model of the revenues and costs of fuel removal in Idaho and Montana. We find that fuel treatment sales would not be economically feasible across most of the study region unless prices of small-diameter material were to rise significantly. However, the area of feasible treatments could be dramatically expanded under current market conditions by bundling treatments with sawtimber harvest or subsidizing fuel treatment sales, perhaps through the allowance for negatively priced sales. In many places, required subsidies would be much lower than the cost of noncommercial alternative fuel treatments, indicating their potential to extend the impact of appropriated funding.