AB 1891 would create the Beneficial Fire Capacity Program within the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to expand training, organizational capacity, and implementation support for community-led beneficial fire programs. The bill defines beneficial fire broadly to include cultural fire, cultural burning, prescribed fire, prescribed burning, good fire, and managed fire, and it frames these practices as an important tool for reducing catastrophic wildfire risk, improving ecosystem health, and supporting greenhouse gas reduction goals.
The program would require CAL FIRE to dedicate at least 10% of the state’s continuous Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund appropriation for healthy forest and fire prevention programs to this new effort each year. Those funds would be used for direct awards, block grants, subawards, and competitive grants supporting training, capacity building, research, innovation, and project implementation. The bill also requires at least 25% of the program’s funds to go to California Native American tribes or tribally led or indigenous-led organizations, and it gives priority to proposals involving those entities. In addition, the department would have to provide technical assistance, help grantees find additional funding, reduce administrative burdens, use longer grant terms, and publish program information and outcomes online.
In terms of state law, AB 1891 adds a new chapter to the Public Resources Code and directs how a portion of existing climate/forest-health funding must be spent. It does not create a new tax or fee, but it does reallocate a defined share of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund money already continuously appropriated to CAL FIRE for healthy forest and fire prevention work. The bill also relaxes some procedural requirements by allowing the department to issue guidance without being subject to the Administrative Procedure Act for that guidance.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive. The committee vote on March 23, 2026 was unanimous, 14-0, to pass the bill and re-refer it to Appropriations with a recommendation to place it on the consent calendar. The bill’s findings emphasize urgency, ecological benefits, and the need to scale up beneficial fire, and the absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials suggests broad agreement with its goals.
The main points of contention are likely to be about funding allocation, implementation, and metrics rather than the concept of beneficial fire itself. The bill commits a fixed 10% share of a major existing appropriation to this program, which could draw scrutiny from stakeholders competing for the same forest-health dollars. It also prioritizes tribal and indigenous-led organizations and reduces reliance on acres-treated metrics, which may be welcomed by proponents but could raise questions from those seeking more traditional performance measures or broader access to grants. The bill’s emphasis on longer grant terms and reduced reporting requirements also suggests a policy choice to favor capacity-building over short-term output tracking.
AB 1891 would add Chapter 6.5 to the Public Resources Code and establish a new CAL FIRE program governing the use of a portion of existing Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund appropriations for beneficial fire work. It would require annual spending of not less than 10% of the specified forest-health appropriation on training, organizational capacity, and support for community-led beneficial fire programs, with at least 25% of those funds directed to California Native American tribes or tribally led or indigenous-led organizations. The bill would also require public reporting, technical assistance, grant flexibility, and reduced administrative burdens for recipients, affecting CAL FIRE, grant applicants, tribes, nonprofits, local districts, universities, and other beneficial fire practitioners.
The bill appears to have favorable momentum and little visible opposition in the available record. It received a unanimous 14-0 do-pass vote in committee and was advanced with a recommendation for the consent calendar, indicating broad support among voting members. The bill’s findings and structure reflect a policy consensus that beneficial fire is an important wildfire resilience strategy, with particular support for tribal and community-led implementation.
The likely areas of contention are how much of the existing Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund appropriation should be reserved for this program, how the department should measure success, and how funds should be distributed among eligible entities. Some stakeholders may question the mandatory 10% set-aside, while others may focus on the bill’s requirement that at least 25% of funds go to tribal or indigenous-led organizations. The bill’s direction to reduce application and reporting requirements and to rely less on acres-treated metrics may also be debated by those who prefer more conventional accountability measures. However, the provided materials do not show recorded opposition or specific disputed amendments.