|
Missing farm bill energy title
Story Date: 4/25/2018
| |
Source: POLITICO'S MORNING AGRICULTURE, 4/24/18
Since 2002, the farm bill has contained a separate title dedicated to promoting the production and use of biofuels, including corn-based ethanol. The version (H.R. 2) approved out of the House Agriculture Committee last week, however, lacks such title - as several Democrats pointed out during the markup - and programs previously found there were shifted over to the rural development section. This is primarily because most of the energy programs are implemented by the USDA rural development mission areas, committee spokeswoman Rachel Millard told MA.
While the elimination of the energy title may not be a source of controversy, a potential flashpoint might be the impact on funding for energy programs. The House farm bill would not authorize any mandatory funding for them, instead setting discretionary caps that let congressional appropriators decide each year how much to spend.
Under current law, for example, the Rural Energy for America Program, which finances renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements, gets $50 million a year in mandatory money, plus an additional $20 million in discretionary funding. Under the House farm bill, REAP would be allowed only up to $45 million annually through the annual appropriations process. REAP provides assistance via a combination of grants and guaranteed loans.
In total, the 2014 farm bill authorized nearly $700 million in new mandatory spending on biofuel initiatives over five years, paying farmers to produce advanced biofuels and develop new renewable energy technologies. That money has been their main source of support because appropriators largely haven't provided discretionary funds, according to a 2017 report by the Congressional Research Service.
Millard told MA that House farm bill proposals typically haven't included mandatory funding for energy programs, and also noted that over the past few years, lawmakers have used a budget tool known as CHIMPs - or changes in mandatory programs - to strip away much of that money. CHIMPs essentially allows appropriators to dip into mandatory spending to offset bumps in discretionary spending.
Organizations like the American Energy Coalition and Environmental Law & Policy Center have called on Congress to reinstate mandatory spending for REAP and other energy programs because the appropriations process has become unreliable as lawmakers jump from one temporary spending fix to the next.
|
|
|
|
