While several of the FY23 supporting budget documents have yet to be released, we’re encouraged to see some small steps forward toward reining in wasteful subsidies for bioenergy in this year’s request.

For starters, the sustainable aviation fuel credit is notably absent. Last year’s budget request included a new aviation fuel credit that would have cost taxpayers up to $7 billion over ten years. With companies using food crops such asfor so-called “sustainable” aviation fuel, new subsidies could continue to prop up corn-based biofuels, which, despite four decades of taxpayer support, have failed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as once intended.

The FY23 budget does include additional spending on the Rural Energy for American Program, but other bioenergy programs receive no discretionary funding, meaning some will not be funded if Congress agrees with the President’s proposals, given they only rely on discretionary funded provided through the farm bill. Taxpayers can hope that additional subsidies for biofuels infrastructure are halted for good as well (if the US Department of Agriculture forgoes funding more biofuels infrastructure projects), given they primarily benefit corn ethanol and soy biodiesel. Specifically, the FY23 budget proposes the following spending levels for US Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs subsidizing bioenergy (with links to more information):

• Rural Energy for America Program (REAP): $50 million in mandatory funding (from farm bill), plus another $50 million in discretionary funding (for grants and loans) (* note that discretionary funding means optional funding that is provided by Congress each year through the annual appropriations process)
• Biorefinery for Advanced Biofuels: $7 million in mandatory funding (from farm bill)
• Funding for other wasteful farm bill bioenergy programs would be zeroed out, such as the Biorefinery Assistance Program and Biomass Research and Development Initiative
• Higher Blends Infrastructure Program: $100 million for FY22, $0 proposed for FY23 (* however, please note Commodity Credit Corporation funding is sometimes announced throughout the year even though Congress never authorized taxpayer dollars to be spent on ethanol blender pumps and other biofuels infrastructure)

Speaking of alternative fuel infrastructure, the budget proposes $1.4 billion for the Dept. of Transportation “to deploy a nationwide, publicly-accessible network of electric vehicle chargers and other alternative fueling infrastructure.” At first glance, this doesn’t include more subsidies for biofuels infrastructure.

Other parts of the budget (at the Dept. of Energy, for instance) propose increased R&D investments for “sustainable aviation fuel from biomass,” but specific funding levels haven’t yet been released. Other priorities for R&D funding would include “waste carbon resources and low-GHG options for off-road vehicles, rail, and maritime transport” and “hydrogen use for industrial decarbonization and energy storage, including sustainable biomass to achieve reduced GHG from the agricultural sector.”

As more details are released on these programs, we will update this post.

Historically, federal biofuels and biomass programs were intended to deliver climate and environmental benefits. However, academic researchers and independent analysts found that federal subsidies have failed to achieve their intended goals. Bioenergy subsidies, mandates, loan guarantees, tax credits, and other federal supports scattered throughout various agencies and the tax code have done more harm than good for the climate. Continued subsidies for these industries – via sustainable aviation credits, for instance – will waste taxpayer dollars on false climate solutions.

Biofuels such as corn ethanol, once promised to be a bridge to non-food-based advanced biofuels, may actually be linked to higher GHG emissions. Companies producing alternative aviation fuels are beginning to use corn as a feedstock despite proponents once promising that next-generation bioenergy feedstocks would be derived from perennial grasses, agricultural residues, algae, and other advanced feedstocks.

Through various federal programs, taxpayers have historically subsidized large agribusinesses to increase production of corn- and soy-based biofuels, which have numerous unintended consequences for the climate, environment, consumers, etc. when food/feed crops are used for fuel, impacting crop and fuel prices in addition to land use decisions.

Let’s hope that as we did through the rest of the budget documents, the aviation biofuels credit, biofuels infrastructure subsidies, and other wasteful supports for bioenergy don’t pop up.