Sponsors
Want the short version? I can break this bill down for you
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Repeals Title IX of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, removing the statutory authority for Department of Agriculture bioenergy subsidy programs and other related subsidy programs. The change eliminates those programs from federal law, which would end the USDA’s ability to run or fund the specified bioenergy subsidy activities unless replaced by new law.
Repeal Title IX of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8101 et seq.), as stated in the section text and title. This removes the statutory authority identified as Title IX, which the section title describes as covering Department of Agriculture bioenergy subsidy programs and other related subsidy programs.
Who is affected and how:
Biofuel producers and biorefineries: Facilities that relied on USDA bioenergy subsidies could lose expected program payments or technical assistance, reducing near-term revenue, threatening economics of marginal plants, and discouraging new investment.
Farmers and agricultural feedstock suppliers: Farmers who sold feedstocks (e.g., energy crops, corn for ethanol, oilseeds) into programs tied to the repealed authorities could face lower demand or price risk if program-driven purchases end.
Rural communities and local economies: Communities with jobs tied to bioenergy facilities or program-funded infrastructure may see reduced economic activity, employment risk, and lower local investment.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and federal administrators: USDA would need to stop authorizing new activity under the repealed Title, assess existing contracts/grants, provide transition guidance, and possibly reassign staff or close program offices. Legal review will be necessary to determine treatment of ongoing obligations.
Renewable energy and clean‑energy developers: Some developers who leveraged the programs for project feasibility or financing may need to revise project plans or seek alternative incentives.
Federal budget and taxpayers: Repeal could reduce statutory authority for subsidies and, depending on appropriations and actual outlays, could lower future federal spending obligations tied to those programs. However, administrative closure, contract settlements, or transitional costs could offset some near‑term savings.
Broader considerations:
Market adjustments: Removing subsidies may shift market competitiveness between bioenergy and fossil fuels, affecting fuel prices and investment signals.
Environmental outcomes: Changes in subsidy support could slow adoption of certain bioenergy projects that contribute to renewable fuel production and greenhouse gas reduction goals, depending on market responses and replacement policies.
Legal and contractual complexity: Grants, cooperative agreements, loan guarantees, or multi‑year contracts entered under the repealed authority may require settlement or reauthorization if continuation is intended; absent that, recipients face funding uncertainty.
Timeline and implementation risks:
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced January 3, 2025 by Andrew S. Biggs · Last progress January 3, 2025
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House