Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership | This website contains attorney advertising.
May 21, 2013

Renewable Energy - A Key Difference as House and Senate Farm Bills Move Forward

The Senate Agriculture Committee passed a Farm Bill on May 14, 2013, that would, among other things, direct $800 million in mandatory funding for renewable energy programs. Those provisions would support grants, loan guarantees and other programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). By making the funding mandatory, the programs would be guaranteed funding in the future. The bill passed with a bipartisan vote of 15-5, and is expected to come before the full Senate in the coming weeks.

The House Agriculture Committee also passed its version of the Farm Bill with a bipartisan vote of 36-10. Unlike the Senate bill, it provides no mandatory funding for energy programs and would reduce discretionary spending for them by over $500 million. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) have committed to bringing the bill to the House floor in June.

Assuming that both chambers pass their respective versions of the Farm Bill, key energy policy provisions and funding will be debated when the House and Senate convene a conference committee. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) has expressed hope that the bill will be considered and passed out of a conference committee in July and reauthorized prior to the August congressional recess. The coming weeks and months will be critical in determining Farm Bill funding for renewable energy programs.

The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.