Grain Ecosystem

On December 10, we hosted a live webinar bringing together Jason Dodier, Co-Founder of Grain Ecosystem, and Maureen Walsh, Executive Director of the U.S. Biochar Coalition, for an in-depth conversation on the policy forces shaping biochar’s path in 2026.  

The session explored how recent federal disruptions, shifting administrative priorities, and emerging state-level leadership are influencing funding, incentives, and market development for biochar projects across the United States. You can watch the full webinar recording here: 

Navigating federal policy after the shutdown: what actually changed 

As the federal government reopens after a prolonged shutdown, the instinct is often to ask whether things are “back to normal.” According to Maureen, that framing misses the point. What matters far more than the reopening itself is how different agencies are funded and what political priorities shape their actions. 

Not all programs shut down equally, and not all recover at the same pace. Agencies relying on annual appropriations —where funding must be renewed every fiscal year— tend to grind to a halt during shutdowns, with staff furloughed and processes paused. When operations resume, those teams return to overflowing inboxes, unpaid bills, and months of backlog before they can even begin addressing new opportunities. 

Other programs, particularly those funded through multi-year authorizations like the Farm Bill, continue to exist through shutdowns, but often in a diminished form. Funds may technically remain available, yet staffing is minimal and execution slows dramatically. In practice, this means approvals, reimbursements, and technical assistance often lag well beyond their original timelines. 

A third category —programs with “no-year” funding, such as certain Department of Energy research initiatives— can continue operating until allocated funds are exhausted. These programs proved more resilient during the shutdown, though even they were affected by limited personnel and shifting internal priorities. 

The result is a fragmented landscape where progress depends less on whether the government is “open” and more on where a specific project sits within these funding structures. For biochar developers, this distinction is critical. Understanding whether a program is discretionary, mandatory, or no-year funded can determine whether a project is delayed by weeks, months, or indefinitely. 

Framing biochar for the current administration 

Beyond mechanics, Maureen emphasized that language itself has become a policy tool. Certain terms that once opened doors in Washington now close them. Climate, sustainability, and clean energy —while still valid— do not resonate uniformly with this administration. Others, however, remain powerful. 

Biochar, she argued, is uniquely adaptable to this reality. When framed as a tool for waste management, resilience, rural jobs, and public health, it aligns more naturally with current federal priorities. The challenge is not changing what biochar does, but changing how it is described. 

One example that resonated strongly is PFAS contamination. These “forever chemicals” are increasingly recognized as a serious problem in biosolids, digestate, and contaminated lands. Biochar’s ability to adsorb and immobilize contaminants positions it as a remediation solution, not a climate talking point. Similarly, discussions around forest health, wildfire risk reduction, and hazardous fuels management have gained traction where climate language has stalled. 

In short, policy success today depends on meeting decision-makers where they are, rather than where the climate conversation was five years ago. 

Incentives in focus: 45Q, conservation programs, and energy on the farm 

As the conversation turned to specific incentives, Maureen made clear that few programs are as widely misunderstood —or as frequently overestimated— as the 45Q tax credit. 

While 45Q remains active and politically durable, biochar is not explicitly named in the statute. Some projects may have secured eligibility through private letter rulings with the Treasury Department, but these rulings apply only to individual projects and do not establish precedent for the industry. As a result, developers should be cautious about assuming 45Q eligibility without rigorous legal and tax analysis. 

USBC’s long-term strategy is to advocate for a more technology-neutral framework, one that focuses on outcomes rather than enumerating specific technologies. This approach mirrors reforms made to other federal credits and could eventually allow biochar to qualify based on verified performance, life-cycle analysis, and durable carbon outcomes. While progress is being made, Maureen emphasized that this is a multi-year effort rather than an immediate solution. 

On the agricultural side, conservation programs remain one of the most tangible near-term opportunities for biochar. NRCS Code 336 already recognizes biochar as a soil carbon amendment, but USBC is actively working to expand biochar’s role into nutrient management under Code 590. This shift reflects growing recognition that biochar can improve nutrient retention, reduce runoff, and support more efficient fertilizer use. 

If successful, this change would allow producers to stack conservation practices, making biochar more financially viable and more deeply integrated into farm-level planning. Importantly, USBC is engaging USDA early in this process, providing technical data before formal rulemaking begins, rather than reacting after standards are finalized. 

Programs like REAP, which support rural energy systems, also remain relevant, particularly as farmers face rising energy costs and competition for power from data centers and other industrial loads. Yet here again, framing matters. While farmers continue to defend the program, its association with “renewable energy” requires careful positioning under current political conditions. 

From farms to factories: biochar beyond soil 

A recurring theme throughout the webinar was the need to move beyond a view of biochar as solely a soil amendment. While agriculture remains foundational, Maureen highlighted a growing set of industrial and environmental applications that are shaping policy interest. 

Biochar’s remediation potential is drawing attention in brownfields and industrial sites, where its porous structure and surface charge can bind contaminants and enable removal. In heavy industry, biochar is being explored as a substitute for fossil-based inputs, including coke in steelmaking and additives in cement and concrete. These uses not only reduce emissions but also offer pathways for embedding durable carbon into long-lived materials. 

There is also increasing interest in biochar within advanced materials, from battery technologies to specialty carbons. In these contexts, biochar is less about climate messaging and more about industrial competitiveness, particularly as global markets —especially in Europe— maintain stringent emissions and materials standards. 

Across these applications, one point remained constant: biochar turns residual materials into value. Whether sourced from agricultural waste, forestry residues, or industrial byproducts, it offers an alternative to landfilling, decay, and uncontrolled emissions. 

When federal policy stalls, states step forward 

As federal momentum fluctuates, states are increasingly driving biochar policy and market development. Maureen described this shift not as a retreat, but as an opportunity. 

In California, strong legislative support for biochar has already materialized, though execution has proven complex. Two major bills passed with broad backing, only to be vetoed by Governor Newsom, who argued that existing regulatory authority was sufficient. Funding provisions and broader fiscal positioning likely influenced those decisions. Going forward, USBC is working to align future proposals more closely with the governor’s priorities, particularly around forest management and wildfire resilience. 

New York presents a different dynamic. There, biochar is primarily viewed through the lens of carbon dioxide removal. Legislative windows are short, but interest is high, and early engagement will be critical as new proposals take shape. 

Virginia, meanwhile, emerged as a particularly promising case. With new leadership, a more unified legislature, strong forestry resources, and proximity to federal agencies, the state offers fertile ground for policy experimentation. USBC sees Virginia as a place where regulatory flexibility, economic development, and environmental goals may align more readily than in larger or more polarized states. 

Across regions, Maureen emphasized that state legislatures are often more accessible, faster-moving, and more receptive to real-world project examples than Congress. For developers, this makes state engagement not just complementary to federal work, but in some cases more impactful. 

Fix Our Forests Act: a near-term inflection point 

Among the most consequential developments discussed was the Fix Our Forests Act. Already passed by the House and advancing in the Senate, the bill represents one of the clearest near-term opportunities for biochar at scale. 

Section 301 of the legislation explicitly references biochar, soil health, and restoration, envisioning demonstration projects across Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management regions nationwide. Importantly, it emphasizes not just research, but market development, recognizing that durable impact requires viable demand, not perpetual pilots. 

While passage is not guaranteed, Maureen expressed cautious optimism. Even if final approval slips into the next session, the bill remains well-positioned. The more critical challenge, she noted, will be implementation: ensuring that agencies design programs that genuinely enable biochar projects rather than burying them in administrative complexity. 

As the conversation closed, Maureen underscored that policy progress is rarely linear. It requires persistence, coalition-building, and a willingness to engage even when the terrain feels hostile. 

Her advice to the biochar community was straightforward: stay engaged, stay informed, and stay ready. Programs will open, standards will evolve, and opportunities will emerge, often with little warning. Those who have already done the work to understand policy mechanics, document their projects, and build relationships will be best positioned to move quickly. 

At Grain Ecosystem, we see this moment not as a pause, but as a transition. The policy environment is shifting, but biochar’s value proposition —across waste, energy, agriculture, and industry— continues to strengthen. The challenge now is to translate that value into frameworks that allow projects to scale responsibly and sustainably. 

An in-depth look at the U.S. policy landscape shaping biochar in 2026, drawing on insights from Grain Ecosystem and the U.S. Biochar Coalition. 

origination

internal

carbon_partner_plus

member

free

<p></p><p>On December 10, we hosted a live webinar bringing together Jason Dodier, Co-Founder of Grain Ecosystem, and Maureen Walsh, Executive Director of the U.S. Biochar Coalition, for an in-depth conversation on the policy forces shaping biochar’s path in 2026.  </p><p>The session explored how recent federal disruptions, shifting administrative priorities, and emerging state-level leadership are influencing funding, incentives, and market development for biochar projects across the United States. You can watch the full webinar recording here: </p><p><iframe width="1265" height="468" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AlcMKy97xnQ" title="From Shutdown to Scale-Up | Webinar with Maureen Walsh (U.S. Biochar Coalition)" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p><p><a href="https://youtu.be/AlcMKy97xnQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>(If the player isn’t visible, click to watch it directly on YouTube.)  </em></a></p><h2>Navigating federal policy after the shutdown: what actually changed </h2><p>As the federal government reopens after a prolonged shutdown, the instinct is often to ask whether things are “back to normal.” According to Maureen, that framing misses the point. What matters far more than the reopening itself is how different agencies are funded and what political priorities shape their actions. </p><p>Not all programs shut down equally, and not all recover at the same pace. Agencies relying on annual appropriations —where funding must be renewed every fiscal year— tend to grind to a halt during shutdowns, with staff furloughed and processes paused. When operations resume, those teams return to overflowing inboxes, unpaid bills, and months of backlog before they can even begin addressing new opportunities. </p><p>Other programs, particularly those funded through multi-year authorizations like the Farm Bill, continue to exist through shutdowns, but often in a diminished form. Funds may technically remain available, yet staffing is minimal and execution slows dramatically. In practice, this means approvals, reimbursements, and technical assistance often lag well beyond their original timelines. </p><p>A third category —programs with “no-year” funding, such as certain Department of Energy research initiatives— can continue operating until allocated funds are exhausted. These programs proved more resilient during the shutdown, though even they were affected by limited personnel and shifting internal priorities. </p><p>The result is a fragmented landscape where progress depends less on whether the government is “open” and more on where a specific project sits within these funding structures. For biochar developers, this distinction is critical. Understanding whether a program is discretionary, mandatory, or no-year funded can determine whether a project is delayed by weeks, months, or indefinitely. </p><h2>Framing biochar for the current administration </h2><p>Beyond mechanics, Maureen emphasized that language itself has become a policy tool. Certain terms that once opened doors in Washington now close them. Climate, sustainability, and clean energy —while still valid— do not resonate uniformly with this administration. Others, however, remain powerful. </p><p>Biochar, she argued, is uniquely adaptable to this reality. When framed as a tool for waste management, resilience, rural jobs, and public health, it aligns more naturally with current federal priorities. The challenge is not changing what biochar does, but changing how it is described. </p><p>One example that resonated strongly is PFAS contamination. These “forever chemicals” are increasingly recognized as a serious problem in biosolids, digestate, and contaminated lands. Biochar’s ability to adsorb and immobilize contaminants positions it as a remediation solution, not a climate talking point. Similarly, discussions around forest health, wildfire risk reduction, and hazardous fuels management have gained traction where climate language has stalled. </p><p>In short, policy success today depends on meeting decision-makers where they are, rather than where the climate conversation was five years ago. </p><h2>Incentives in focus: 45Q, conservation programs, and energy on the farm </h2><p>As the conversation turned to specific incentives, Maureen made clear that few programs are as widely misunderstood —or as frequently overestimated— as the 45Q tax credit. </p><p>While 45Q remains active and politically durable, biochar is not explicitly named in the statute. Some projects may have secured eligibility through private letter rulings with the Treasury Department, but these rulings apply only to individual projects and do not establish precedent for the industry. As a result, developers should be cautious about assuming 45Q eligibility without rigorous legal and tax analysis. </p><p>USBC’s long-term strategy is to advocate for a more technology-neutral framework, one that focuses on outcomes rather than enumerating specific technologies. This approach mirrors reforms made to other federal credits and could eventually allow biochar to qualify based on verified performance, life-cycle analysis, and durable carbon outcomes. While progress is being made, Maureen emphasized that this is a multi-year effort rather than an immediate solution. </p><p>On the agricultural side, conservation programs remain one of the most tangible near-term opportunities for biochar. NRCS Code 336 already recognizes biochar as a soil carbon amendment, but USBC is actively working to expand biochar’s role into nutrient management under Code 590. This shift reflects growing recognition that biochar can improve nutrient retention, reduce runoff, and support more efficient fertilizer use. </p><p>If successful, this change would allow producers to stack conservation practices, making biochar more financially viable and more deeply integrated into farm-level planning. Importantly, USBC is engaging USDA early in this process, providing technical data before formal rulemaking begins, rather than reacting after standards are finalized. </p><p>Programs like REAP, which support rural energy systems, also remain relevant, particularly as farmers face rising energy costs and competition for power from data centers and other industrial loads. Yet here again, framing matters. While farmers continue to defend the program, its association with “renewable energy” requires careful positioning under current political conditions. </p><h2>From farms to factories: biochar beyond soil </h2><p>A recurring theme throughout the webinar was the need to move beyond a view of biochar as solely a soil amendment. While agriculture remains foundational, Maureen highlighted a growing set of industrial and environmental applications that are shaping policy interest. </p><p>Biochar’s remediation potential is drawing attention in brownfields and industrial sites, where its porous structure and surface charge can bind contaminants and enable removal. In heavy industry, biochar is being explored as a substitute for fossil-based inputs, including coke in steelmaking and additives in cement and concrete. These uses not only reduce emissions but also offer pathways for embedding durable carbon into long-lived materials. </p><p>There is also increasing interest in biochar within advanced materials, from battery technologies to specialty carbons. In these contexts, biochar is less about climate messaging and more about industrial competitiveness, particularly as global markets —especially in Europe— maintain stringent emissions and materials standards. </p><p>Across these applications, one point remained constant: biochar turns residual materials into value. Whether sourced from agricultural waste, forestry residues, or industrial byproducts, it offers an alternative to landfilling, decay, and uncontrolled emissions. </p><h2>When federal policy stalls, states step forward </h2><p>As federal momentum fluctuates, states are increasingly driving biochar policy and market development. Maureen described this shift not as a retreat, but as an opportunity. </p><p>In California, strong legislative support for biochar has already materialized, though execution has proven complex. Two major bills passed with broad backing, only to be vetoed by Governor Newsom, who argued that existing regulatory authority was sufficient. Funding provisions and broader fiscal positioning likely influenced those decisions. Going forward, USBC is working to align future proposals more closely with the governor’s priorities, particularly around forest management and wildfire resilience. </p><p>New York presents a different dynamic. There, biochar is primarily viewed through the lens of carbon dioxide removal. Legislative windows are short, but interest is high, and early engagement will be critical as new proposals take shape. </p><p>Virginia, meanwhile, emerged as a particularly promising case. With new leadership, a more unified legislature, strong forestry resources, and proximity to federal agencies, the state offers fertile ground for policy experimentation. USBC sees Virginia as a place where regulatory flexibility, economic development, and environmental goals may align more readily than in larger or more polarized states. </p><p>Across regions, Maureen emphasized that state legislatures are often more accessible, faster-moving, and more receptive to real-world project examples than Congress. For developers, this makes state engagement not just complementary to federal work, but in some cases more impactful. </p><h2>Fix Our Forests Act: a near-term inflection point </h2><p>Among the most consequential developments discussed was the Fix Our Forests Act. Already passed by the House and advancing in the Senate, the bill represents one of the clearest near-term opportunities for biochar at scale. </p><p>Section 301 of the legislation explicitly references biochar, soil health, and restoration, envisioning demonstration projects across Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management regions nationwide. Importantly, it emphasizes not just research, but market development, recognizing that durable impact requires viable demand, not perpetual pilots. </p><p>While passage is not guaranteed, Maureen expressed cautious optimism. Even if final approval slips into the next session, the bill remains well-positioned. The more critical challenge, she noted, will be implementation: ensuring that agencies design programs that genuinely enable biochar projects rather than burying them in administrative complexity. </p><h2>Looking ahead to 2026 </h2><p>As the conversation closed, Maureen underscored that policy progress is rarely linear. It requires persistence, coalition-building, and a willingness to engage even when the terrain feels hostile. </p><p>Her advice to the biochar community was straightforward: stay engaged, stay informed, and stay ready. Programs will open, standards will evolve, and opportunities will emerge, often with little warning. Those who have already done the work to understand policy mechanics, document their projects, and build relationships will be best positioned to move quickly. </p><p>At Grain Ecosystem, we see this moment not as a pause, but as a transition. The policy environment is shifting, but biochar’s value proposition —across waste, energy, agriculture, and industry— continues to strengthen. The challenge now is to translate that value into frameworks that allow projects to scale responsibly and sustainably. </p><h2>Watch all Grain Webinars </h2><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/691204e28d0fcf646bb45360" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carbon Removal Meets Compliance: Navigating the Legal Landscape for Biochar Projects</a> with Peter Mayer.</li><li value=2><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/68e6a74f3933aa4c973a0716" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biochar in Bloom: Lessons from Okaw Valley Orchard</a> with Mike Mitchell. </li><li value=3><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6883a7802492b585355e77ee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Green Bridge: Non-Traditional Finance for Biochar</a> with Adam Fraser. </li><li value=4><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67b75ae223e6759660f119ad" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Advancing CDR: From Start-Up to Scale-Up</a> with Robert Höglund. </li><li value=5><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6751f73e593a512d338ee036" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Building Biochar Markets for Value & Scale: Webinar Recap</a> with Myles Grey and Bernardo Del Campo. </li><li value=6><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67092f5e79685344119a953f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dirt to Dollars. Unearthing the Science of Sustainable Investment</a> with Ryan Letourneau, Alicia Klepfer and Jason Dodier. </li></ul>

From Shutdown to Scale-Up: What Federal and State Policy Means for Biochar in 2026