Advanced Search
June 12, 2012
The Senate is expected to begin floor debate on the Farm Bill this week. In a significant victory for rural renewable energy development and the bioeconomy of the future, the bill would require spending $800 million over five years to continue many current rural energy efficiency, bioenergy, and other renewable energy initiatives and authorize up to $1.14 billion more, subject to the annual discretion of appropriators. Compared to the 2008 Farm Bill, however, mandatory funding for both conservation and energy programs would be cut significantly.
On June 7, the Senate voted 90-8 to proceed to a floor debate on the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012 (S. 3240) . The Senate, it seems, wants to get this bill done. And, indeed, many of the programs authorized in the bill are critical to advancing the common good. The bill would reauthorize and/or reorganize scores of nutrition and agriculture programs for the next five years. About four-fifths of the funding in the bill provides for nutritional assistance programs, which are much needed in today’s languishing economy. The bill would reduce overall funding by about $23.6 billion over the next ten years compared to the most recent budget baseline under current law. Reductions would come primarily from discontinued commodities programs, modifications to nutrition programs, and scaling back and consolidating conservation programs, while crop insurance programs would be significantly expanded.
At the beginning of this year, few informed observers expected to see any mandatory funding for energy title programs in the Farm Bill. Since these programs do not have automatically recurring baseline funding, funding levels were theoretically reset at zero at the beginning of the reauthorization process. The dismal budgetary environment did not offer much hope. However, thanks to strong, bipartisan leadership on the Senate Agriculture Committee , with support from a broad coalition of renewable energy and bioeconomy advocates, the outlook for assured funding for rural energy programs has changed considerably for the better.
The five-year, mandatory $800 million energy investment plan would be allocated as follows:
Additional discretionary funding would be authorized for these programs as well (totaling more than $1 billion), but it would be subject to the annual appropriations process. And, if the past two years of appropriations battles are any indication of what the future might bring, there is little chance that any of this would be appropriated.
Not all Farm Bill energy programs would be continued under the bill approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee, and overall mandatory spending for these programs would be cut by more than 20 percent compared to the 2008 Farm Bill. The Repowering Assistance Program , which provides support to corn ethanol plants to convert from fossil fuels to renewable biomass for process heat and power, would be repealed, as would the Forest Biomass for Energy Program, which was authorized but never implemented and would have provided grants for research and development into all aspects of using woody biomass for energy. Further, mandatory funding would be eliminated for the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels , which has provided important support not only to advanced liquid biofuel producers, but also to solid pellet fuel producers, who provide relatively clean and efficient biomass fuel for space heating and other heat and power applications.
Turning to the conservation title, strong conservation programs and wide participation by agricultural producers are critical to helping make bioenergy production (as well as food, feed, and fiber production) more environmentally sustainable. Under the Senate bill, conservation programs would be consolidated into fewer programs, and the cap on total acreage enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) would be gradually reduced from the current 32 million acres down to 25 million acres by 2017. Total expenditures on conservation programs would be reduced by about $6.4 billion over ten years compared to the current budget baseline. These cuts would occur despite increasing threats and environmental harm from expanding conventional row crop agriculture to the nation’s water quality, soils, water supplies, wildlife habitat, biological diversity, and climate stability. Unlike the requirements under the expiring direct payment commodity programs, participants in expanded crop insurance programs would not be required to comply with conservation provisions in order to receive public subsidies under this bill. However, despite the mounting challenges to conservation and the many weaknesses in the bill, many conservation advocates believe that this is the best that can be hoped for in the current political environment and that it is a far better outcome than many expected at the outset.
The Senate floor debate is expected to extend for the next two weeks, at least, before a final vote. The White House, in its Statement of Administration Policy , has announced its general support for S. 3240 as introduced. However, dozens of amendments are anticipated, some of which are likely to be directed against provisions in the energy title.
The House Agriculture Committee is expected to begin marking up its version of the Farm Bill reauthorization before the July 4th recess.
Advancing science-based climate solutions
Top-Rated Climate Nonprofit – 4-Star Charity