Only 5 min BigStock Photo
What’s in that Durn-tootin’ US Farm Bill, anyhow?
For the harried taxpayer, some relief. For energy security and rural economic development, targeted investments that now head to the legislative floor.
Here are the need-to-knows.
In Washington, the House and Senate Agricultural committees have now passed their respective versions of the proposed 2013 farm bill, which would take effect for fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2018.
Both bills have energy titles meaning that, should they find passage, as expected this summer, in the House and Senate, the measures in the Energy title will come up for negotiation in the House-Senate conference, but not the existence of the title itself. In today’s Digest, we look at the two different versions of the Energy title what’s getting funding, what’s not and how much, and how.
Weighing the bills
The Senate’s bill weighs in at 1150 pages, no ounces the House Bill at a comparatively light 576 pages.
The Overall Farm Bill
The Senate version reduces spending by $18B over the previous Farm Bill ($24.4B if the sequestration provisions are repealed by Congress, which itself slashed $6.4B), to $955B over a 10 year period between 2014 and 2023.
The Energy Title
Overall spending on the Energy Title is increased by $780M (2014-2023) under the proposed Senate version.
By section, the changes are
Biorefinery Assistance $216M
Biomass R&D $130M
Other programs $20M
Timeline to passage
House Ranking Minority Member Collin Peterson said, “With today’s action, I’m optimistic the farm bill will continue through regular order and be brought to the House floor in June. If we can stay on track, I think we should be able to conference with the Senate in July and have a new five-year farm bill in place before the August recess.”
The House Bill does not add language to include renewable chemicals under the provisions of an Energy title the Senate does.
Biobased Markets Program
Both the Senate and House include a biobased markets program. The House voted $2 million in discretionary funding (e.g. subject to annual appropriations). The Senate expanded the program’s scope to include assembled products, expands outreach and educational efforts, a study on market impact and adds $3 million in mandatory funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation in addition to the $2M in discretionary funding offered by both the House and Senate.
The House offered $75M per year here in discretionary funding, while the Senate offered $100M in for 2014 in mandatory funding and $58M in each of 2015 and 2016. The Senate also broadened the language to include renewable chemicals and biobased materials.
Repowering Assistance Program
The House authorized $10M for the program per year in discretionary funds, while the Senate did not vote funding.
Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels
The Senate Bill authorizes $20M annually in discretionary funds, while the House authorizes $50M per year, also discretionary.
Biodiesel fuel education program
The Senate version keeps this program intact, but changes it from discretionary to mandatory funding. The House version doubles discretionary funding to $2M per year.
Rural Energy for America Program (REAP)
Both the Senate and House versions ask the Secretary to develop a three-tiered application process (for projects costing up to $80K, 80-2200K, and over 200K) and structure the comprehensiveness of the information required according to the cost of the program. The House version authorizes $45M per year in discretionary funding. The Senate offers $20M in annual discretionary funds, and $68M in mandatory funds via the Commodity Credit Corporation.
Biomass Research and Development
The Senate version offers $30M in annual discretionary funding, and $26M in mandatory annual funds. The House version authorizes $20M in annual discretionary funding.
Feedstock Flexibility Program
Both the Senate and House voted to extend this little-known, no-cost program through 2018. It’s purpose:
For each of the 2013 through 2018 crops, the Secretary shall purchase eligible commodities from eligible entities and sell such commodities to bioenergy producers for the purpose of producing bioenergy in a manner that ensures that section 7272 of this title is operated at no cost to the Federal Government by avoiding forfeitures to the Commodity Credit Corporation.
Biomass Crop Assistance Program
The House version eliminates the prohibition on animal, food or yard waste, and algae and strikes the authorization to “assist agricultural and forest land owners and operators with collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material for use in a biomass conversion facility.” The House also increases funding from $20M to $75M per year, but changes this from mandatory to discretionary funding.
The Senate version adds a prohibition on funding “invasive species” and restricts use of lands enrolled in the conservation reserve program or is native sod and generally prohibits food crops. The Senate version also sets a maximum BCAP term of 5 years for annuals or perennial crops and 15 years for woods.
Towards collection and harvesting, a maximum of $20 per ton for up to four year, on a matching dollar basis.
The Senate authorizes $38.6M per year in mandatory funding.
Forest Biomass for Energy program
The Senate voted to repeal the program, while the House version simply ignores and thereby effectively kills by de-funding.
Community wood energy program
The Senate voted to keep this program at $5M per year in discretionary funding, while the House version votes to reduce annual funding to $2M.
The Senate also creates a new category of ‘biomass consumer cooperative’ ”a consumer membership organization the purpose of which is to provide members with services or discounts relating to the purchase of biomass heating products or biomass heating systems.’’ and offers grants of up to $50K towards the establishment of expansion of such cooperatives.
The Bottom Line
It’s not a visionary Farm Bill for Energy more about fine-tuning and maintaining provisions that were originally introduced in 2002 and 2008. But there’s a lot more meat on the bone, so to speak, with $780M in increased funding over a 10-year period.
On the other hand, it’s not a hugely expensive program when seen in the context of the federal budget representing an addition expenditure of $0.26 per capita, per year.
There isn’t all that much for a House-Senate conference to bicker about primarily, the status of renewable chemicals on the downstream side, and the inclusion of various new types of crops on the upstream side.
And there are funding differences that need to be ironed out – in particular, the balance between mandatory funding and discretionary embraced in the Senate version – while the House generally opts for a discretionary approach, especially for high ticket items.
There’s language in the BCAP program that will need to be settled out.
The Digest continues to point to opportunities for the creative use of Conservation Reser
ve program land sensitive to and subject to hunting and environmental uses for bioenergy projects, and thereby highlights the prohibition on BCAP funds being used for CRP lands, as envisioned in the Senate version of the bill (but not the House bill). We hope the House and Senate come to a creative mutual approach on this provision.
- The relevant current US law is here.
- The House Bill is here.
- The Senate Bill is here.
- CBO Analysis of the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013