Editor’s Note: This is the fourth and final post in a four-part blog series analyzing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on March 5. The first post provides an overview of the markup process and the bill as a whole. The second post provides a deep dive analysis of the bill’s potential impacts on local and regional food systems. The third post offers an analysis of its impacts on the farm safety net, farms’ ability to access land and capital, and fair competition. This post covers conservation, climate resilience, and sustainable and organic research. 

The past eleven years have been the hottest on record, and for American farmers and ranchers, the effects of climate change continue to pose a severe, even existential, threat. Farmers and farmworkers continue to face unprecedented heat and drought, more intense weather from heavy rains to erratic freezes, increasing pest pressures, and rising hospitalizations and fatalities from heat. In the face of these challenges, significant policy improvements and robust financial investments are critical to ensuring successful farms and a resilient agricultural economy for future generations. 

As the weather becomes more volatile, the need to fund technical assistance, conservation projects, and research that supports farmers in preparing for and bouncing back from extreme events is increasingly urgent. While Americans, more than ever before, recognize the impact of extreme weather on farmers, unfortunately, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA) fails to fully grasp the challenges and consequently falls short. 

The farm bill should seize the moment by prioritizing long-term solutions that build a resilient future. This includes solutions that improve access to on-farm conservation programs for all farmers who steward our environment and serve our communities, and that prioritize investments into diversified farming systems and agroecological approaches that work with our natural resources, such as agroforestry, organic, and regenerative production systems. While the FFNSA includes some policies that head in the right direction, the bill categorically falls short of the moment. Its shortcomings are especially disappointing given the recent abandonment of targeted support to help farmers deal with the impacts of climate change and increasingly severe weather, USDA’s extreme staffing reduction that weakens its ability to deliver conservation assistance, and the administration’s cancellation and disincentivization of climate research. The following analysis is divided into two primary sections addressing:

• Conservation Programs and Funding
• Research, Education, and Extension Programs

Conservation Programs and Funding

Funding

The FFNSA largely maintains recent investments in conservation programs from 2025’s budget reconciliation bill, which moved the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) climate-smart conservation funding into programs’ permanent baseline budgets. There are, however, two major exceptions.

First, FFNSA siphons off $1 billion in Conservation Stewardship Programs (CSP) funding over 10 years for a new grant program supporting states and Tribes administering soil health programs (Section 2303). While the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) has championed providing federal support for state and Tribal soil health programs, the FFNSA’s iteration of that idea is a non-starter. Currently, only about 53% of farmers applying to CSP have been able to secure contracts. It makes little sense to further stretch already limited and clearly popular resources across new purposes and subprograms. Doing so would ensure that farmers interested in CSP continue to get left behind.

Further, CSP is capable of delivering funds to farmers quickly, as was demonstrated by the speed with which IRA investments flowed through the existing CSP infrastructure within nine months of IRA’s passage. Conversely, brand new programs take time to set up and require procedural steps such as rulemaking before the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) can administer them, which can take years. As the agricultural economy writ large continues to struggle and farmers need all available forms of support right now, it would be a poor decision at this moment in history to disinvest in an existing, successful program that can quickly provide producers with five years of financial support for their ongoing conservation efforts to experiment with a new program. Now is not the time to rob a helpful Peter to pay a new Paul.

Placing a state and Tribal soil health assistance program in CSP makes even less sense, given that other conservation programs, such as the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), are already designed to provide federal support for conservation work led by non-federal partners. NSAC hopes that Congress continues to see the wisdom of authorizing state and Tribal soil health programs, either as a new stand-alone program with its own funding source, as proposed in the Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA), or as part of RCPP as proposed in the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act in the Senate. NSAC opposes diverting CSP funding for subprograms or initiatives.

The second proposed change to funding is in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The FFNSA proposes reducing EQIP’s budget authority (BA) by just over $1 billion over the first five years of its 10-year implementation window. This means farmers would experience an immediate cut to EQIP funding in the field, since BA is the total amount of money that NRCS is authorized to spend. When NRCS is fully staffed and there are no administrative disruptions to programs, EQIP often obligates all available funding every year. However, since BA was left intact for the final five years of the budget window, or the “out years”, EQIP’s long-term increased baseline was not reduced in the FFNSA. This means that the next time Congress tinkers with EQIP, whether in a farm bill extension, budget reconciliation, or a full farm bill reauthorization, EQIP’s budget will remain as high as it is today. NSAC strongly supports maintaining a strong long term baseline budget for EQIP, though it questions the wisdom of the proposed reductions in near term BA.

This reduction in EQIP BA appears to be paying for two things: a small list of other conservation programs that also needed funding; and policy reforms across FFNSA’s conservation title (Title II) that are projected to increase outlays for a given program, or were “scored as a cost” by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Starting with smaller conservation programs that receive funding, totals are clearly listed in the text of the FFNSA:

• Conservation Reserve Program – Transition Incentive Program – $50 million
• Conservation Reserve Program – Forest Management Incentive Program = $12 million
• Forest Conservation Easement Program = $240 million
• Feral Swine Eradication & Control Program = $150 million  

Total new baseline authority = $452 million 

This accounts for just under half of the lost EQIP BA. For the CRP TIP program in particular, NSAC is glad to see efforts to find funding for one of the primary tools in Title II of the farm bill for improving land access for beginning producers. Access to land remains one of the most significant challenges for new and beginning producers, and Congress should seek to invest in and improve these tools at every opportunity. However, EQIP can also be a useful tool for beginning producers, who may be making major purchases for the first time, such as buying fencing to support a new rotational grazing business. As such, this again seems like an unnecessary instance of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

For the second source of EQIP BA reductions, the picture is less clear. As of posting, there’s no reliable indicator on which specific provisions increased outlays and therefore drove the reduction in EQIP BA, though it is clear that outlays increased. CBO’s summary cost estimate for the FFNSA showed increased outlays for all major conservation programs, indicating that many policy provisions sought in this bill “cost” money that could otherwise be going to farmers interested in the EQIP program as it exists right now. NSAC strongly encourages Congress to be more transparent regarding trade offs like these, so producers and agricultural stakeholders can make informed choices about the trade offs being proposed.

Precision Agriculture

The FFNSA dramatically increases support for precision agriculture technologies in conservation programs (Section 2202, 2204, 2302). While NSAC recognizes that precision agriculture has demonstrable benefits for some operations, it remains a relatively high-cost conservation solution that does not serve all farmers. Conservation program funding is limited, and providing overly robust support for practices unsuitable for all operations leads to a small set of farms consuming an outsized portion of program resources. This is an irresponsible use of limited government funding, especially when there are size- and scale-neutral management alternatives that serve far more farmers and deliver greater environmental benefits per dollar spent. NSAC calls on Congress to consider a fairer and more balanced approach to supporting precision agriculture in this farm bill.

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)

CSP is perhaps the most impactful tool available to address climate change on farms today. The program rewards producers who build holistic conservation systems across their entire operation, investing in new practices and practice permanence over the long term – both of which are necessary to address the climate crisis. CSP is the only conservation program designed to achieve both goals. Unfortunately, the FFNSA proposes some negative changes to CSP.

While proposed diversions of CSP funding are discussed above in the funding section, the FFNSA also proposes creating Supplemental Activity Payments (SAP) for adopting and acquiring precision agriculture technologies through CSP. Currently, CSP only offers SAPs for Resource Conserving Crop Rotations, Improved Resource Conserving Crop Rotations, and Advanced Grazing Management. Each of these three conservation activities represents a holistic approach to improving conservation across an entire operation, either by requiring producers to adopt multiple practice enhancements on the same acres or to pursue ambitious, measurable soil health goals, such as increasing organic matter (OM) over the life of their CSP contract. NRCS offers 150% of a normal activity payment through SAPs for these high level activities because of the increased conservation benefits they create and the additional labor it takes to plan and manage such holistic systems. 

However, purchasing or utilizing precision agriculture technology does not rise to the same level of stewardship as these holistic practices, nor does it require the same level of increased labor. Further, CSP already offers sufficient support for precision agriculture through five separate precision agriculture bundles that compensate producers at 115% of the normal activity payment rate. These bundle payments reflect the value of using precision agriculture technologies in concert with other base conservation practices, and NRCS already has the authority to create additional precision agriculture bundles at any time. Therefore, NSAC opposes FFNSA’s proposal to create additional, outsized payments for precision agriculture in CSP.

Perhaps the most positive change to CSP proposed in the FFNSA, compared to the previous version of the bill, is the codification of a $4,000 minimum payment option. Raising the minimum payment has long been a priority for NSAC to reduce administrative burden and ensure adequate cost share for smaller farms enrolling in the program. NSAC is pleased to see FFNSA adopt our position and create in statute a $4,0000 minimum CSP payment. This mirrors the minimum payment that NRCS began offering to producers in recent years, and would ensure producers will have that option going forward. NSAC strongly supports including this provision in any final farm bill.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

EQIP is a voluntary conservation program that offers farmers and ranchers financial cost-share and technical assistance to implement conservation practices on working agricultural land. EQIP assistance is available through both a general pool and special initiatives. EQIP’s special initiatives highlight specific practices or natural resources, such as the Organic Initiative, which provides separate funding pools for transitioning and certified organic producers. Beyond the funding reductions discussed above, the FFNSA makes several modifications to EQIP, some of which are deeply concerning.

The most meaningful and problematic changes to EQIP in the FFNSA adjust which practices and farmers stand to gain the most from the program. Once again, the bill plays favorites by offering an excessive cost share – increased to 90% – for acquiring or adopting precision agriculture technology. Current EQIP payments cover 75% of costs associated with planning, design, materials, equipment, installation, labor, management, maintenance, or training needed for conservation activities that involve precision agriculture technologies. Raising the rate to 90% is an unnecessary overinvestment with the potential to exacerbate trends in farmers being turned away from the program due to insufficient funding. Further, individual states can already raise cost share rates for precision agriculture conservation activities if they deem such activities to be among their top 10 priorities for the year (16 USC 3839aa(2)(d)(7)). Therefore, mandating that all states raise cost share rates for precision agriculture to 90% is not only excessive, but it also stands in stark opposition to the locally-led conservation planning process that House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-PA-15) has championed. 

The FFNSA maintains the existing carveout that ensures livestock producers will receive 50% of total EQIP funding during the life of the farm bill. This long standing set aside has led to significant portions of EQIP spending going towards infrastructure practices of questionable environmental value. This is a major loss, as the ARA proposed retargeting two-thirds of this carveout towards sustainable grazing practices, which have been shown to help mitigate climate change and build increased resilience to drought and floods on farms and ranches around the nation.

Additionally, the FFNSA fails to make a series of important improvements to EQIP that were proposed in former Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow’s Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act (RPFSA), leaving in place long standing obstacles barring certain producers and stakeholder groups from meaningful participation in EQIP. The FFNSA fails to create a funding set-aside for small farms, as proposed in the Small Farms Conservation Act (bill #) and the RFPSA, signaling loudly and clearly the FFNSA’s bias toward farmers and ranchers who have amassed a minimum amount of acreage. Similarly, the FFNSA does not add a requirement that NRCS State Technical Advisory Committees consult with Tribes when determining the top 10 priority practices that will receive increased cost share support through EQIP, as proposed in the RPFSA. This leaves in place a barrier for Tribes seeking to ensure EQIP addresses the most pressing natural resource concerns impacting their communities. Finally, FFNSA leaves in place a discriminatory lower payment limit for organic producers accessing EQIP. While it does increase the limit to $200,000, a small step up from the existing $140,000 organic payment limit, the FFNSA still falls well short of providing organic producers with the same payment limit of $450,000 to which all other producers are subject. The RPFSA, on the other hand, would establish equal payment limits for both organic and non-organic producers.

Elsewhere, the FFNSA does make a few changes to EQIP that are not outright harmful. The bill authorizes a producer enrolled in EQIP to receive a loan or loan guarantee through the Conservation Loan Program to cover costs for the same practices on the same land covered by the EQIP contract. Further, FFNSA requires the Secretary to notify producers participating in EQIP that they may be eligible to participate in the Conservation Loan Program. While this policy comes dangerously close to paying for the same conservation practices twice with different pools of public funds, if well implemented, it has the potential to be a more judicious option for providing increased support to producers without building outsized cost share rates into EQIP. NSAC is hopeful that this concept can be refined and improved as the farm bill debate continues.

The FFNSA also addresses the Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) program. CIGs support the development and testing of promising new conservation technologies and approaches with the goal of making them available for use as quickly as possible by farmers and ranchers. In addition to providing funds directly to farmers and ranchers looking to adopt and enhance conservation practices on their land, NRCS also provides CIGs to fund projects that seek to develop and improve access to innovative conservation solutions for farmers and ranchers nationwide through on-farm pilots and demonstration projects. The FFNSA directs the Secretary to use CIGs for the development and evaluation of new and innovative technologies that may be incorporated into Conservation Practice Standards (CPS), including CPS that involve precision agriculture technology. NSAC sees this explicit instruction to use CIGs to improve CPS as positive. It’s a common sense policy that ensures the latest information USDA has on conservation practices is put to use when designing conservation practices on the ground across the country. However, NSAC has reservations about building an overemphasis on precision agriculture technology into conservation programs.

Further, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) set aside $37.5 million for each fiscal year for CIG projects that address air quality, an increase from the $25 million annual allocation in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill). The FFNSA preserves this allocation for air quality projects, though NSAC advocated for an increase to $50 million per year. Given the pressing climate crisis, more CIG funds need to be dedicated to addressing air quality concerns, especially if projects will be utilized more consistently to improve CPS under the next farm bill. Such a combination of policies would help build NRCS’ capacity to support farmers in mitigating climate change and building resilience in their operations through all conservation programs offering practice cost share.

Similarly, the 2018 Farm Bill established On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials (On-Farm Trials), a CIG subprogram, to provide funding directly to partners, who can then offer technical assistance and payments to producers interested in implementing innovative conservation practices on their land. On-Farm Trials support the implementation of innovative approaches that have a positive conservation effect but have not yet been widely adopted by producers. NRCS is authorized to provide $25 million per year for on-farm trials. The FFNSA continues this $25M funding for on-farm conservation innovation trials, a slim silver lining given the need for more funding. On-Farm Trials have their own subprogram, the Soil Health Demonstration Trials, which focuses exclusively on conservation practices and systems that enhance soil health and increase soil carbon. Improving soil health on farms provides producers with a host of environmental and financial benefits, and as such, NSAC has been advocating for at least $50 million in funding each year for this subprogram. As the farm bill debate continues, NSAC hopes Congress will consider increasing funding for these high impact CIG subprograms.

Finally, the FFNSA makes a few meaningful improvements to EQIP. The existing statute allows states to raise the cost share to 90% for up to 10 practices that meet at least one of four broad environmental goals (16 USC 3839aa(2)(d)(7)). The FFNSA adds carbon sequestration and GHG reduction as a new fifth goal that states can seek to address when selecting priority practices that receive 90% cost share. NSAC agrees wholeheartedly with this common sense approach to targeting conservation funds to address the climate crisis, especially since it closely mirrors the program-wide targeting of EQIP funds formerly built into the IRA. NSAC encourages Congress to adopt this change in a final farm bill, as well as similar climate-targeting language for all major conservation programs.

Turning back to the CIG program, the FFNSA adds “perennial production systems, including agroforestry and perennial forages and grain crops” to the scope of CIG On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials. Perennial systems are among the most powerful agriculture systems for mitigating the climate crisis, building resilience in the landscape, and realizing a host of additional conservation benefits. As such, NSAC strongly supports an explicit focus on perennial systems in the CIG program.

Alternative Manure Management Practices (AMMP)

The FFNSA does not contain a proposal to support AMMP technologies as envisioned in the ARA or the COWS Act. NSAC is disappointed to see this omission, as shifting the technologies used to handle manure on midsized livestock operations is critical to addressing agriculture’s contributions to climate change. As many parts of the country cannot transition fully to year-round, grass-based livestock systems, it is vital to dedicate funding to AMMP technologies to ensure that instances where confinement is likely to continue are as ecologically friendly as can be. NSAC calls on the House and Senate to include the bipartisan COWS Act provisions in a final farm bill.

Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI)

The FFNSA maintains the current appropriations authorization of $60 million per year for GLCI. NSAC believes strongly that grazers need dependable access to technical assistance and that such funding should not be subject to the whims of the annual appropriations process. Therefore, GLCI needs a minimum of $50 million per year in mandatory funding to provide sufficient funding to meet the strong demand for technical assistance and ensure such assistance is provided without interruption.

Research, Education, and Extension Programs

In comparison to the enormous opportunity that sustainable agriculture represents for farmers and rural communities, federal investment in sustainable agriculture research, education, and extension has been minuscule. Without robust funding for public research that promotes ecologically-based production systems, scientific and technical innovation is stifled, and U.S. farmers and ranchers are unable to fully participate in and benefit from emerging markets for sustainably-produced foods. At a time when the effects of climate change on farmers are becoming ever more apparent, and the country is losing small and mid-sized family farms at an alarming rate, the FFNSA maintains the status quo. Instead of investing in research and innovation that builds on-farm resilience and moves our food and farm system forward, the bill continues down the same detrimental path for the next five years.

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program

While FFNSA meets the low bar of reauthorizing popular sustainable and organic research programs like the SARE program (Section 7201) and the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) (Section 7205), the bill does not include additional funding for either program. SARE was first created in 1988, and in 1990, Congress authorized the SARE program and determined that it should be funded at no less than $60 million a year, consistent with recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences. However, after nearly 40 years as USDA’s only farmer-driven, sustainable agriculture competitive research grant program, SARE has yet to see an increase in funding authorization. Combined with inflation, level funding for SARE in a new farm bill would effectively amount to a funding cut. 

SARE provides farmers and researchers with vital opportunities to better understand agricultural systems, increase profitability, and build resilience to climate change. Farmers and ranchers have critical insight when it comes to improving their systems. Yet, the demand for farmer-led research continues to outpace federal funding. According to SARE’s 2025-2026 Biannual Report, 60% of eligible farmer/rancher grant proposals go unfunded.

Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI)

OREI is one of a still limited number of research, education, and extension programs that provide focused support for organic systems. Strong investments in research underpin growth in numerous sectors, as all farmers – sustainable, organic, conventional, or otherwise – rely on cutting-edge research to maintain robust and thriving operations. Although FFNSA maintains level funding for OREI, it does not reflect the growth of the organic market since 2018 or the current challenges facing organic farmers. Level funding fails to provide the organic sector with the tools to create thriving businesses in the face of changing weather patterns and shifting markets. 

Organic Transitions Program (ORG)

A long time priority for NSAC has been official authorization for the Organic Transitions Program (ORG), which supports research helping farmers move from conventional to organic production. The program has historically been funded through appropriations, but has never been formally authorized in statute. Amendment 102, introduced by Representative Eugene Vindman (D-VA-07), proposed to formally authorize ORG, renaming it to the Researching the Transition to Organic Program (RTOP) and providing $7.5 million in discretionary funding. NSAC supported this amendment, and it was glad to see it approved by voice vote during markup.

Precision Agriculture

FFNSA’s focus on precision agriculture, automation, and “high risk high priority research” across the research title detracts from much needed investments in farmer-led, scale-appropriate research. Programs like the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority, a $30 million carve out in the Speciality Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) for mechanization and automation (Section 7305), and a greater emphasis on automation and precision agriculture in the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), demonstrate a continued quest for “silver-bullet” solutions to climate change and other agricultural challenges, and appear to come at the expense of more robust research investments in diversified agriculture.  

While NSAC supports research that directly contributes to “a reduction in, or improved efficiency of, inputs used in crop or livestock production,” it is clear that the prevailing narrative surrounding these types of agriculture research is aimed not at improving diversified systems, but at further enabling large-scale, monoculture agriculture. This approach is misguided given the ample evidence that scale-neutral, management-intensive practices likely yield even greater environmental benefits. USDA funding should be directed toward building an understanding of the ecological aspects of our food and farm systems and integrating the diverse knowledge and practices of agroecological farmers and farm workers, rather than continuing to explore and promote the narrow constraints of monoculture-based systems.

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)

NSAC is pleased to see some inclusion of the ARA in FFNSA’s proposal for AFRI. For example, NSAC welcomes the addition of regionally adapted cultivar and breed development, breeding for environmental resilience, and the addition of workforce training and development, including meat and poultry processing in the agriculture economics and rural communities priority area (Section 7305). However, these new additions, alongside several others – like controlled-environment agriculture production and precision agriculture – all come without any additional funding for AFRI, spreading the program across many issue areas, likely resulting in the program’s limited ability to support more agroecologically focused agricultural research.

Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach (FOTO) program

FFNSA reauthorizes FOTO and maintains $50 million in mandatory funding. FOTO was a new initiative established in the 2018 Farm Bill that combined two of USDA’s flagship training and technical assistance programs for historically underserved farmers – the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) and the Section 2501 program. However, management of BFRDP was kept under the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), while management of 2501 was moved into the newly created Office of Public Partnerships and Engagement (OPPE). In addition to maintaining mandatory funding for FOTO established in the 2018 Farm Bill, FFNSA proposes moving the management of 2501 back to NIFA.

During markup, Representative Brad Finstad (R-MN-01) introduced Amendment 19, which proposed significant changes to FOTO – affecting both 2501 and the BFRDP.  

For 2501, the amendment proposed moving the program to NIFA, altering its priority in making grants and contracts to “organizations that provide training and technical assistance in budgeting, business planning, and similar financial and management skills that focus on the ongoing economic viability of beginning farm and ranch enterprises”, and changing the peer review process by removing the requirement for review panels to include a broad representation of peers and instead include “a broad representation of individuals with demonstrated expertise in farm business management.” 

For BFRDP, similar changes were made to entities prioritized when making agreements and contracts and peer review panels. However, this amendment went one step further with BFRDP, removing prioritization in making contracts and agreements to partnerships and collaborations that are led by or include nongovernmental, community-based organizations and school-based educational organizations with expertise in new agricultural producer training and outreach, and instead prioritizing programs that provide training and technical assistance in budgeting, business planning, and similar financial and management skills that focus on the ongoing economic viability of beginning farm and ranch enterprises. 

While NSAC supports giving NIFA clearer authority to run 2501, the changes to priority areas and peer reviews with FOTO deprioritizes community based organizations, and give USDA greater authority to influence peer review panels, watering down the effectiveness of the program. NSAC opposed this amendment, and it was approved by voice vote.

1890 Land Grant Institutions

NSAC was pleased to see FFNSA provide several important investments in 1890s Institutions, including increasing mandatory funding for the 1890s Scholarship program to $100 million until expended, increasing funding for 1890s Extension from its current 20 percent to no less than 40 percent, and increasing the number of 1890 Centers of Excellence.

National Organic Program (NOP)

FFNSA caps funding for the National Organic Program (NOP) at $24 million annually and does not increase the funding level over the life of the farm bill. In addition, the bill authorizes NOP to provide technical assistance to farmers transitioning to organic, but does not provide any additional funding to support TA.  NOP currently oversees more than 46,000 operations in more than 100 countries, and the organic sector continues to grow.  NOP’s expanded authority, coupled with the growth of the organic sector, signals the need for more, not level funding, to adequately enforce organic regulations, provide TA to transitioning farmers, and tackle fraud in organic supply chains.

The post Unpacking the House Farm Bill: Part 4 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: USDA Halts Rural Energy Efficiency Investments

Washington, DC, April 1, 2026 – On March 31, the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Business Cooperative Service announced a halt to all awards for the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) until updated regulations are developed to ensure compliance with Executive Order (EO) 14315. The second Trump Administration has yet to announce new REAP grants – the most recent grants made public were awarded in early January 2025.

“At a moment when farmers and rural small businesses face converging financial pressures, bringing the Rural Energy for America Program to a standstill only increases that pressure. Countless small businesses have invested significant time and resources in this popular, bipartisan program to reduce their energy costs. USDA should implement the REAP program as quickly as possible and provide more clarity on when farmers can expect the program to resume,” said Richa Patel, NSAC Policy Specialist, in response to the USDA announcement.

The USDA announcement did not indicate when the program would resume, while separately confirming that farmers and rural small businesses who applied under the previous 2024 notice will need to reapply once new regulations are in place, and that application processing has stopped immediately. 

In 2025, REAP funding was frozen – and then somewhat reopened – however, the program has still not returned to its pre-2025 standard operating cadence. Since its inception, REAP has funded more than 19,000 grants directly supporting farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses, helping them improve energy efficiency and produce on-farm renewable energy. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has long advocated for REAP’s ability to support farmers and ranchers in implementing their own projects to produce energy on their farms and cut operational costs.

### 

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Release: USDA Halts Rural Energy Efficiency Investments appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Farmers and rural businesses are still waiting to find out if they can access one of the United State Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) most popular programs, the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). This USDA program, which provides federal grants and loan guarantees for farmers and rural small businesses to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, has endured a funding freeze, delays, and now a potentially fundamental shift in program functions.

On August 19, 2025, US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins issued a press release outlining a number of changes to the REAP program, as well as to the USDA Rural Development Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program. Specific to REAP, effective immediately, the memo outlines restrictions to the loan guarantee program and deprioritization in the grant program for ground mounted solar systems larger than 50kW. The memo also includes language that has caused uncertainty about whether grants can be used to purchase solar technologies manufactured outside of the United States. The impacts of these shifting priorities could be substantial, and the USDA has yet to provide any detailed guidance on how they will be implemented.

This latest announcement comes on the heels of a previous stakeholder announcement from June 30, 2025, that delayed the opening of REAP’s first grant application window for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026. Fiscal Year 2026 applications were supposed to be open from July 1 through September 30 but instead were delayed and the new application cycle has not opened. According to USDA, the delay was attributed to the “overwhelming response and continued popularity of the program resulting in a backlog of applicants.” It was then expected that the FY26 application cycle would open on October 1, a timeline likely complicated by the current shutdown. To date, USDA has yet to issue detailed guidance for farmers, rural small businesses, and technical assistance providers concerning how the new priorities outlined by the Secretary for the REAP grant program will be implemented. 

This new uncertainty surrounding the program is compounded in light of recent events, when  farmers and rural small businesses participating in REAP endured a funding freeze that lasted several months in early 2025. The freeze was the result of an Executive Order issued on January 20, 2025 seeking to shift federal support away from renewable energy. In response, the USDA immediately froze all funding for the REAP program, including for those grants and loan guarantees that were already obligated. It was not until early April 2025 that the USDA finally began to release frozen REAP funding. This long delay led to frustrations and unanticipated expenses for farmers and rural businesses who expected the USDA to honor its commitments.

Program Uncertainty Leading to Mistrust and Delayed Farmer Support

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has been a longtime advocate for the REAP grant program’s ability to support farmers and ranchers in implementing their own projects to help them save money by becoming more energy efficient. The ongoing uncertainty and disruption to these programs have undermined the trust between farmers, rural businesses, and the USDA and threaten the future of this and other programs. During the period of frozen funding, for example, one farmer waiting on their REAP grant indicated they would “think twice about turning to USDA for help any time soon.” 

A grant writing firm that does energy audits and prepares REAP applications shared that  the current instability of REAP has taken a toll. The sudden changes and unclear guidance has put more than 100 grant applications on hold for this firm, representing over $20,000,000 in projects that have been stalled. NSAC urges USDA to provide more concrete guidance regarding how the new REAP priorities will be implemented and the program timeline. Without thoughtful guidance, USDA risks continuing to undermine this popular program. 

According to one REAP grant writing firm, “Many farmers are using decades old grain dryers this harvest because ordering new equipment was dependent upon potential grant funding that never came. Others must now restructure their finances to resubmit applications.”

REAP Is Broadly Popular

The REAP grant program is a well-liked, bipartisan program with a strong focus on smaller farmer-owned projects. Since its inception, REAP has funded more than 19,000 grants totaling more than $1.8 billion in direct support to farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses to help them improve their energy efficiency and reduce operational costs. 46% of those REAP grants were awarded to agriculture, forestry, fishing, or hunting businesses.

Because of its ability to fit in unutilized spaces, decrease utility bills, and integrate with agricultural activities in agrivoltaic systems, solar is a popular choice for REAP grant applicants. According to the data from Rural Development, 72% of all REAP grant projects are solar. There have been approximately 3,378 REAP grants for solar projects with businesses classed as agriculture, forestry, fishing, or hunting. 

Looking at the descriptions provided of past projects, it is clear that, for the most part, USDA has an interest in keeping the grant program functional and that the changes described in the August 19, 2025, memo may have minimal effects on the majority of REAP grants.  Only about 152 projects of the 3,378 REAP grants that went to farms and agricultural businesses, maximum, would have been affected by the new limitations because they had ground mounted solar installations of more than 50kW.

Even among the small number of projects that would have been affected by the new rules, it is worthwhile to note that many were still farmer-owned and not on productive farmland. Although the solar projects may be ground mounted and over 50kW, they are not on land competing with agricultural production. Rather, they are in proximity to buildings or infrastructure, such as a Colorado potato farm’s 59kW array next to their potato warehouse and a Michigan farm’s 1.2MW system for their poultry and egg barns. Instead of a blanket deprioritization of ground-mounted projects over 50kW, USDA should consider the incredibly varied operations that apply for the program and support producers with options that work best for their circumstances, including for needs over 50kW.

Confusion Remains Over Implementation of these Changes

Without clarifying guidance, it remains possible that the REAP grant program could lose much of its functionality. In the press release, Secretary Rollins says USDA “will no longer fund taxpayer dollars for solar panels on productive farmland or allow solar panels manufactured by foreign adversaries to be used in USDA projects” and, in supportive quotes, Members of Congress refer to “foreign-made solar panels.” The Department of Energy estimates that 85% of the solar modules installed in the US are imported, the majority from China. If guidance is implemented immediately in the next grant application cycle that limits imported solar materials, there are significant concerns that REAP will be impacted. With China responsible for a majority of the global solar market, domestic sourcing requirements could dramatically increase project costs, potentially pricing out the small farmers that REAP is supposed to serve.

Right now, producers are facing some of the toughest economic conditions in decades, and they need USDA programs like REAP that help diversify revenue and reduce costs to remain functional, reliable, and available. In the long run, investing in domestic solar manufacturing would benefit farmers and the US energy sector alike, but until such capacity is in place, restrictions risk cutting off affordable, proven technologies that farmers rely on. The press release also justified these revisions as a means of preventing solar development from displacing productive farmland. However, REAP grant data indicate that only a very small share of projects involved ground-mounted systems larger than 50kW, and among those, most were not located on high-value cropland. Farmers, especially those running small and midsized operations, cannot afford to lose access to cost-saving technologies at a time of historic economic pressure. If USDA wants REAP to remain functional, revisions must be carefully tailored to support domestic innovation without undermining farmer access.

The post REAP Must Remain Functional and Accessible to Farmers appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

On September 22, 2025, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) submitted comments opposing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s proposal to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding – one of the United States’ most critical tools in the fight against climate change. The Endangerment Finding established the scientific and legal basis requiring Clean Air Act regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to protect public health and welfare, and it underpins most US climate rules. Depending on EPA’s final approach, the rescission could impact regulations far beyond motor vehicle emissions.

The EPA proposal ignores decades of comprehensive, peer-reviewed science and relies almost exclusively on a draft report from the Department of Energy’s ‘Climate Working Group’, a since-disbanded group of five climate skeptics who do not represent scientific consensus. In their chapter on agriculture, the report’s authors go so far as to claim that “there is reason to conclude that on balance climate change has been and will continue to be neutral or beneficial for most US agriculture.”

The reality of farming in the United States tells a different story. Climate change is already disrupting agricultural production across most major crops and regions.

Due to climate change and depending on the region, farmers and farmworkers nationwide face:

• Unprecedented heat and drought that have led to crop and livestock stresses, yield losses, and depleted surface and groundwater resources;
• More intense weather and changing precipitation patterns, heavy rains, hurricane winds, and floods, as well as increasing pest pressures;
• Decrease in quality and availability of forage; and
• Rising hospitalizations and fatalities from heat and more airborne pollution (including wildfire smoke). These hazards disproportionately affect the 3 million farmworkers who do two-thirds of the labor to put food on American tables.

The EPA’s rationale contradicts both established science and farmers’ on-the-ground reality. As NSAC details further in its comment – joining tens of thousands of others highlighting the proposal’s departure from evidence – the Endangerment Finding should remain in place and the rescission proposal should be withdrawn. 

Read NSAC’s full comment here.

The post NSAC Counters DOE Claim: Climate Change is Harming, Not Helping, US Agriculture appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: Agriculture Resilience Act Advances Bold, Farmer-Driven Vision

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition Proudly Endorses Critical Climate and Agriculture Bill

Washington, DC, April 22, 2025 – Today, on Earth Day, Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME-1) and Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) introduced the Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA). The ARA outlines farmer-driven, incentive-based strategies for how the next farm bill can support farmer livelihoods and build climate resilience. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) is proud to endorse a bill delivering a bold vision for the future of agriculture. The ARA would adapt the Farm Bill to the current reality by ensuring conservation, research, renewable energy, and rural economic development programs empower farmers and ranchers who are eager to drive climate solutions on the ground.

Through the first hand experiences of the effects of increasingly extreme conditions including floods, drought, wildfires, and increasing pest pressures, farmers and ranchers know the fundamental threat that a changing climate poses to their livelihoods and the viability of agriculture. In response to the challenges facing producers nationwide, Representative Pingree and Senator Heinrich offer the ARA and express their commitment:

“From historic droughts and wildfires to devastating floods and extreme weather, America’s farmers are directly impacted by the climate crisis,” said Pingree, a longtime organic farmer and senior member of the House Agriculture Committee. “With the Farm Bill in limbo and the Trump Administration actively undermining farmers’ interests, bold legislation like the Agriculture Resilience Act is more urgent than ever. These goals are ambitious—but they’re achievable. By helping farmers adopt practices that boost resilience and profitability, this bill charts a path to not only create a more sustainable future for America’s agriculture sector, but ensure greater economic viability for our farmers as well.”

“New Mexico’s agricultural producers and rural communities rely on the health of our land and water to sustain their families and communities. They are also the first to feel the impacts of climate change. That is why we need to provide our farmers and ranchers with new tools to not only protect their land and way of life, but also be part of the climate solution,” said Heinrich. “I’m pleased to reintroduce the Agriculture Resilience Act, which sets a national goal of achieving net-zero emissions in agriculture by 2040 through farmer-led, science-based initiatives. I’ll continue working to bring our communities the tools they need to improve soil health, expand conservation programs, increase research into climate-friendly agricultural practices, and support on-farm renewable energy projects.”

In response to the introduction of the bill, NSAC issued the following comment: 

“The ARA outlines key investments and policies needed in the next farm bill to support the long-term sustainability of our farms and food system. With the changing climate posing serious threats, the risks to our agriculture producers are growing fast. Across the country, farmers and ranchers already know which practices are the most effective for building strong, resilient operations. It is more important than ever to invest in their efforts to safeguard against climate stresses and to protect their land and livelihoods,” said Richa Patel, NSAC Policy Specialist. 

The 119th Congress’ ARA commits to the same focus as previous versions by centering on important climate and agriculture solutions, including perennial practices like agroforestry, agrivoltaics that combine agriculture and renewable energy goals, and the breeding of regionally-adapted crop varieties and animal breeds. By offering both incentives and research in support of solutions on which sustainable farmers are already taking the lead, the bill expands opportunities for the establishment of strong, farmer- and community-led strategies for building farmer economic security while confronting the climate crisis. 

The updated section-by-section can be found here.

### 

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Release: Agriculture Resilience Act Advances Bold, Farmer-Driven Vision appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

Email: press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: NSAC Responds to USDA Announcement on Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Program

Widespread Farmer Support Informs USDA Decision to Rebrand Program and Restart Payments, but Overhaul Nonetheless Disregards Lawful Agreements with Farmer-Serving Organizations

Washington, DC, April 14, 2025 – Today, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) responded to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s announcement on the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Program (PCSC) being reframed and continued for projects that meet newly created criteria, a move met with some optimism as well as significant concerns. 

”After months of self-inflicted uncertainty, today’s announcement is a significant and welcome step toward the clarity that farmers, ranchers, and the organizations who support them have desperately needed, particularly the farmers who have spoken in favor of the program. Unfortunately, this clarity will also bring unnecessary hardship nationwide to farmer serving organizations and likely farmers as a result of USDA changing program requirements and cancelling projects mid-stream,” said Mike Lavender, NSAC Policy Director. 

The USDA announcement, which reframes PCSC as the Advancing Markets for Producers initiative, indicates that USDA will review existing grant agreements for the amount of project funds that go to producers, and whether grant recipients have enrolled and paid at least one producer as of December 31, 2024. The announcement also states that USDA will honor all eligible expenses incurred prior to April 13, 2025, but does not provide clarity on whether grant recipients can make modifications to meet the new criteria.

“Direct producer payments are important, and strong cost share can make all the difference for many farmers and ranchers seeking to adopt new practices in their operations. However, it is disappointing to see the administration disinvest in other valuable elements of PCSC projects beyond direct payments, including technical support for producers designing, implementing, and maintaining conservation systems. Coupling this announcement with USDA’s reductions in force, the administration must take every opportunity going forward to increase access to technical assistance and support the staffing levels necessary to provide efficient and dependable customer service for our farmers – those working directly with USDA and those working with the farmer-serving organizations it partners with,” commented Richa Patel, NSAC Policy Specialist.

### 

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Release: NSAC Responds to USDA Announcement on Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Program appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump’s executive order on American energy led to the freezing of projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), including stopped payments to recipients of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). More than $911 million in obligated funds through REAP have been frozen. On March 26, 2025, the USDA announced previously obligated REAP funds would be released. 

The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP)

REAP provides grants and loan guarantees to help farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses invest in renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements. This includes things like installing solar panels, upgrading to energy-efficient equipment, or improving building insulation. Through these investments, REAP helps farmers lower energy costs, boosts rural economic development, and supports the transition to clean energy in agricultural and rural communities. Like many USDA programs, it operates on a reimbursement model, meaning that farmers and small businesses have been waiting to be reimbursed for costs they have already incurred. 

USDA’s Funding Notification

On March 26, 2025, the USDA began individually notifying REAP awardees with paused disbursements that they have 30 calendar days from the day of notice to “inform USDA Rural Development if they would like to voluntarily propose to change their projects within the existing project budget to better address President Trump’s January 20 Executive Order.” 

The notification links to the following website:  https://www.rd.usda.gov/reap-newera-pace-notification.

On this website, awardees may provide their Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number, name, phone number, and email address, and indicate whether they have no changes to their current proposal or would like to request changes. If the latter option is selected, awardees are asked to provide a summary of their proposed changes, and a representative from USDA Rural Development will reach out to further discuss. 

The following is based on NSAC’s current understanding that REAP grantees will receive the reimbursements that they are owed under their contracts, whether or not they choose to voluntarily update their projects. However, USDA’s guidance has been unclear in this, making this process more complicated for awardees.  

Awardees may take the following three options:

1. The awardee does not respond via the website. If this option is chosen, USDA says “disbursements and other actions” will resume after the 30 calendar days. While this language is vague, NSAC’s understanding is that there are no other actions for REAP recipients besides disbursements being considered at this time. 

2. The awardee responds via the website to confirm no changes. If this option is chosen, USDA will begin processing the awardee’s project immediately. NSAC’s understanding remains that choosing ‘no changes’ will not lead to any other action besides the processing of payments to be disbursed. At this time, press reporting suggests that payments are already being disbursed as this option is selected.

3. The awardee responds via the website with proposed changes. USDA has said that changes “may include the removal of harmful DEIA project features, using more affordable and effective energy sources, including technologies to increase energy production, storage and improve customer service, or any other change that will help the recipient organization play their part in increasing American identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity of energy and critical minerals, while providing affordable service to their customers.” However, once again, NSAC’s understanding is that this is voluntary and awardees are not required to suggest changes for their projects to receive reimbursements. In addition, suggested changes cannot exceed original award amounts and cannot change how the project was competitively scored at the time of its awarding, significantly limiting possible changes. If this option is chosen, a representative from USDA Rural Development will reach out to the awardee to confirm the changes do not affect the award amount and/or scoring, approve changes and update award documents, and begin processing reimbursements. Yet it is worth noting that recipients have not received any information from the agency specific to their grants that indicate what changes they might need to consider, if any, rendering this option quite vague and confusing. 

For direct questions, REAP awardees can contact their state Energy Coordinators. 

The post USDA Begins Releasing Frozen REAP Funding appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Recent Executive Orders have led to the freezing of billions of dollars of already committed grant money, including funds for the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC), an innovative program to support public-private partnerships to develop markets for climate-smart agricultural commodities. 

Through PCSC, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has entered into agreements with 135 partner organizations ranging from large agribusiness corporations to farmer cooperatives, committing to more than $3 billion in federal funding matched by more than $1 billion in private funding. These agreements in turn provide vital support to American farmers, ranchers, and foresters who produce a wide range of crops, working with them to implement conservation practices and expanding market opportunities to help meet the increased consumer demand for climate-smart products. 

Freezing funds for these agreements breaks commitments to the partners who have already invested in the projects. It also affects the farmers who contracted with these partners and are now waiting for reimbursement for work that is already underway. With billions in committed funds left in limbo, USDA’s inaction places organizations and farmers into precarious financial situations and risks their ongoing stability.

What are Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities?

Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC) is a program that provides grants to partners to implement extensive projects that develop markets for agricultural commodities produced with practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and/or sequester carbon. Partners received funding for projects that provide incentives for producers to adopt conservation practices on their lands, measure the climate benefits of those practices, and expand markets for the resulting commodities. 

PCSC grants were funded in two pools in 2022; together, these two funding pools invested $3.03 billion across 135 projects, representing a broad range of partners, commodities, and geographic coverage, and years of ongoing effort.

This post offers an updated examination of the PCSC grants, who benefits from them, and the importance of the USDA honoring its existing commitments. Information on PCSC agreements is available on the program dashboard and a June 2024 report offers an overview of the program’s scope. 

Diverse Partners in Climate-Smart Agriculture

PCSC agreements are with a broad range of partners representing a cross-section of American agriculture and food supply chains. The primary partners on PCSC agreements include: 43 nonprofit organizations, 39 for-profit businesses, 34 colleges and universities, 7 commodity groups, 7 state, local, and tribal governments, and 5 cooperatives. Commodity group partners include both checkoff programs that promote and research specific commodities (American Lamb Board, Iowa Soybean Association, National Pork Board) and industry advocacy groups (International Fresh Produce Association, National Sorghum Producers Association, USA Rice Federation, US Cotton Trust Protocol). 

The broad scope of partners shows that a wide swath of producers and crop types are benefiting from the investments made through this program. In particular, PCSC included an experimental round of funding designed for smaller organizations to ensure that grants reached a wider range of agricultural stakeholders. 

USDA reports that more than 14,000 farms are enrolled in PCSC projects and more than 3.2 million acres of working agricultural land is enrolled. As the funding freeze continues to jeopardize the sustainability of these projects, thousands of more farms are waiting in the pipeline for enrollment, which is paused as partners seek clarity from USDA.  

One fourth-generation farmer in North Carolina enrolled 90% of his acreage into a PCSC project offered in his region because it allowed him more flexibility than the USDA’s traditional conservation programming, including the ability to enroll a larger majority of his acres and a higher incentive rate for growing wheat cover crops. The project allowed him to focus on the soil health of his farm, reduce input costs, and have additional financial assurance during a time of high inflation and multiple hurricane disasters. With the project funding frozen, and having already done the work of planting cover crops in the fall, the farmer is facing uncertainty for the upcoming season where he planned to plant 500 acres of grain but is now unsure if it is financially viable. “We signed up for them, we did the work, we expect to be reimbursed, and we want to do the work throughout the continuation of the contract, which is supposed to end in 2028.”

In addition to the primary partners on PCSC agreements, USDA reports that agreements include: 276 nonprofit and commodity groups, 257 for-profit businesses, 98 colleges and universities, and 77 state, local, and tribal governments. These partners provide services such as direct technical assistance to growers implementing practices, market research, and other vital assistance that producers enrolling in projects need to succeed. This wide range of partners depend on USDA honoring its commitments to deliver efficient, cost-effective support to producers on the ground in the counties where they operate. By breaking agreements with these partner organizations, USDA will force a capacity reduction that would greatly degrade technical assistance services available to farmers at the local level, compounding the impact from cuts to USDA’s own staff in the field and undermining the current system of technical support for our farmers.

Examining the scope of funding for PCSC partners, USDA has directed the largest share of PCSC funding to private businesses, but also significant amounts to nonprofits, colleges and universities, and commodity groups, as seen in Figure 1. 

Figure 1: PCSC Funding by Primary Partner Organization Type

Among the 34 college and university primary partners, 10 were Historically Black College and University (HBCU) land grant universities, 1 was a non-land grant HBCU, 9 were land grant universities, 2 were Hispanic Serving Institutions, 1 was private university, and 11 were other public universities.

Figure 2: PCSC College and University Primary Partner Type

Climate-Smart Commodities: A Wide Range of Agricultural Products

PCSC agreements cover a variety of crops and a wide range of production practices. Notably, three-quarters of PCSC projects involve more than one commodity, and 29% of projects include at least five commodities. USDA generally considers any annual crops as agricultural commodities. The inclusion of a wide range of commodities, especially specialty crops, ensures that climate-smart agriculture benefits diverse farming operations, from large-scale row crop farms to smaller fruit and vegetable producers. Of the 135 projects, 102 of them worked with multiple commodities, and 39 of them covered at least 5 different commodities.

Figure 3: Primary and Secondary Commodities Under PCSC Agreements

Well-Established Conservation Practices

PCSC agreements help farmers to adopt long-standing and popular classic conservation practices. The most common practices in PCSC agreements include nutrient management, cover cropping, reduced tillage, and other conservation practices, which are also among the most widely adopted practices in programs like the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).

Table 1: Ten Most Common Practices Available in PCSC Agreements

Nationwide Reach: Every State and Territory Benefits

The impact of PCSC extends across all 50 states, tribal communities, and US territories. Every state has at least five PCSC agreements that include its region, and 34 agreements additionally cover tribal communities. PCSC agreements also cover US territories, including Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Mariana Islands, and Washington, DC. The map below shows the number of PCSC agreements that cover a state.

Figure 4: PCSC Projects by State

A significant portion of PCSC agreements have a multi-state impact, with 73% of PCSC projects covering multiple states and 44% covering 5 or more states. This wide reach ensures that climate-smart agricultural practices are adopted at scale, driving meaningful climate benefits while supporting farmers, ranchers, and food supply chains nationwide.

Figure 5: Number of States Covered by PCSC Agreements

Conclusion: Honoring Commitments to Farmers

The Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities supports farmers, ranchers, and foresters installing classic conservation practices that make their operations more resilient, efficient, and profitable. Like farm bill conservation programs, producers and partner organizations participate in PCSC projects voluntarily, choosing practices that work best for their farms. 

With over $1 billion in private sector funding committed alongside more than $3 billion in federal grants, these projects represent a new experiment in the kind of public/private partnerships that have enjoyed bipartisan support from agricultural policy makers for years. Freezing these funds places billions of dollars in limbo, disrupting carefully planned projects and breaking commitments to those who have already invested in these initiatives. At this moment, farmers have already planted crops and made purchases for the growing season based on anticipated funding that is now in jeopardy. To help them avoid economic hardship, partners are incurring costs with still no clarity from USDA on if they will be reimbursed, putting their organizations and the farmers they serve into financial precariousness. Already, as the funding freeze continues, farm groups are dropping out or considering it as they cannot pay staff nor the farmers they were working with in these agreements.

PCSC projects are not just climate projects – they also support farmers in taking on practices that make their operations more resilient, expand their markets to help increase their revenue, and work towards building the infrastructure for their long-term viability. Farmers, universities, businesses, and nonprofits have made significant commitments based on these agreements, and failing to follow through is failing our farms.

The post Farmers Lose When Climate-Smart Partnerships are Frozen appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

The recent freeze to federal grants and loans has impacted countless federal programs and simultaneously left rural businesses and farmers in a lurch.  Among the most impacted programs has been the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). As a result, farmers and businesses alike may be on the hook for millions of dollars of energy efficiency and energy independence improvements they have already purchased or installed. 

Since its inception, REAP has funded tens of thousands of projects that empower farmers, ranchers, and rural businesses to reduce energy costs and move towards energy independence. However, the recent funding freeze has paused REAP funds even for those with a valid, legal contract. 

This blog post takes a closer look at REAP’s investments from 2014 to 2025, highlighting their critical role in making long-lasting impacts on rural communities, and what stands to be lost if the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) continues to withhold payments on signed contracts.

What is REAP?

The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) offers grants and loan guarantees to farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses for energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy systems. Administered by the Rural Development division within USDA, REAP helps farmers and rural businesses improve their bottom line by cutting energy costs and increasing energy efficiency. 

Whether it is installing solar panels, upgrading irrigation systems, or modernizing heating and cooling equipment, these projects help reduce electricity consumption and increase energy independence, saving money that can be reinvested in the business. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, as previously reported by NSAC, boosted REAP’s funding, appropriating $820.25 million through FY2031 and increasing federal cost-share and maximum grant sizes for grant-based projects. 

Between 2014 and 2025, REAP assisted approximately 17,026 farms and 32,710 rural small businesses to reduce energy costs and promote energy independence, creating approximately 2,600 new jobs and saving more than 4,700 existing jobs in rural America. 

Every State Benefits from REAP

REAP delivers tangible benefits to rural businesses and agricultural producers across the country. REAP has helped small businesses and farmers in every single state lower energy costs, improve resilience, move towards energy independence, and contribute to a more sustainable future.

Pennsylvania ($83.4 million), Minnesota ($79.8 million), Illinois ($75 million), and Iowa ($74.6 million) are the largest recipients of REAP grants, but every state has benefited from the addition of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funds to the program in 2023 and 2024. 

The IRA has injected a boost into the oversubscribed REAP, creating specialized funding streams for renewable energy systems and efficiency improvements. Between 2023 and 2025, more than $1 billion in IRA funds supported 6,822 REAP projects, with renewable energy systems receiving the majority of allocations.

IRA funded REAP projects have driven $2.75 billion in rural economic development.

The additional funding for REAP from the IRA reached every state, reinforcing its broad national impact. Pennsylvania ($48.1 million), Iowa ($42.1 million), and Michigan ($41.6 million) received the largest amount of IRA-funded grants, demonstrating the program’s bipartisan benefits and its role in supporting rural businesses and agricultural producers nationwide.

The interactive map below shows the total REAP grants and loans awarded in each state from 2014 to 2025, as well as the total funded specifically by the IRA.

Driving Renewable Energy and Efficiency: A Deep Dive into the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP)

Between 2014 and 2025, REAP has invested over $4.8 billion across more than 19,000  grants and loan guarantees in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, spurring more than $14.7 billion of rural development invested in rural communities. REAP grants require matching funds from recipients, so for every dollar USDA invests in REAP grants, it generates $8.72 in total project spending and investment, amplifying the economic impact for rural communities (see Figure 1). 

REAP funding grew significantly, spiking during the COVID-19 recovery years due to IRA funding, with 2024 marking a record $3.5 billion in total investments, $2.1 billion from grants and $1.4 billion from loan guarantees. Renewable energy systems like solar dominate REAP’s portfolio, with most awards granted to farms and small businesses. REAP remains a popular option for farmers and rural businesses for increasing resilience and lowering energy costs. 

Figure 1: REAP Invests in Rural America

A Period of Growth: Funding and Grant Trends

The number of grants and loans that REAP supports remained relatively steady until 2023, when the number of awards more than doubled. This investment not only reduced energy expenses for farmers and small businesses but also strengthened rural energy independence by accelerating the adoption of renewable energy and efficiency upgrades.

Figure 2: The Number of REAP Investments 

The average REAP grant between 2014 and 2024 was $59,435.75, with significantly higher average grant sizes in 2023 and 2024 following the addition of IRA funds. The addition of these funds has allowed thousands more farms and rural businesses to enact cost-saving energy measures that work well for their operations. More than 8,362 farms received REAP grants funded by the IRA specifically. This significantly increased the number of farms that took advantage of the program to reduce their energy costs, become more energy independent, and enhance their long-term viability.

Figure 3: Average REAP Grant Amounts 

The program’s primary focus has been the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvement Loans and Grants. This component has awarded the lion’s share of grants and has an average grant size of $88,444, higher than the $78,498 average for the Energy Audits and Renewable Energy Development grants but less than the $220,109 average for the Technical Assistance grants. 

Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvement Loans and Grants provides grants and loan guarantees to help rural businesses and farms install renewable energy systems (e.g., solar, wind, biomass, geothermal) or make energy efficiency improvements (e.g., upgraded insulation, lighting, HVAC systems, and irrigation systems). Grants can cover up to 50% of project costs. 

Energy Audits and Renewable Energy Development Grants provide grants to state, tribal, or local governments, universities, rural electric cooperatives, and other organizations to conduct energy audits and feasibility studies for rural businesses and farms. These grants help farmers and rural businesses assess opportunities for energy savings and renewable energy projects before development. 

Figure 4: REAP Grants and Loans by Program

Pathways Forward: Enhancing REAP’s Impact

REAP has delivered significant benefits to rural communities and farmers in every state, helping them cut energy costs, improve efficiency, and strengthen their businesses. Now, with additional support from the IRA, REAP has expanded its reach, proving its value and popularity as a critical tool for rural economic growth. Yet, the ongoing pause of all IRA payments is directly undermining this growth.

In the immediate term, USDA must urgently provide specificity and clarity for how it will release frozen funds and swiftly honor its legal obligations to farmers, businesses, and organizations by immediately releasing funding on all signed contracts.

In the longer term, continued investment in REAP is necessary to ensure farmers and small businesses can keep accessing these cost-saving opportunities. Opportunities also remain to improve upon the already successful program, such as moving away from the false solution of anaerobic digesters. As Congress debates the next farm bill, lawmakers must recognize REAP’s nationwide success and secure its future. 

The post Rural Businesses, Farmers Lose While USDA’s Rural Energy Program is Frozen appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This blog post is a guest post authored by Gordon Merrick, Senior Policy and Programs Manager at the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) and Mark Schonbeck, Research Associate, also at OFRF, which is an NSAC member.

The world is increasingly recognizing the value of sustainable food systems, and organic agriculture plays a vital role in this movement. Organic practices enhance soil health and biodiversity, foster resource regeneration, and help mitigate and build resilience to climate change. This translates to healthier food and a healthier environment and reduces reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. 

However, recent budget proposals by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) suggest a concerning decrease in funding for organic research programs. If implemented, this shift could stifle the progress documented by these programs, hindering the growth and innovation of the organic sector at a critical juncture.

For the FY25 budget, NIFA is suggested a $3.5 million, or a nearly 50% budget decrease, for the Organic Transitions Research Program (ORG), justifying it through the need to transfer organic research funding into broader programs like the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). Yet, a closer look reveals a gap exists between stated intentions, even congressional direction, and reality. This analysis found that AFRI has historically funded low levels of organic research, while the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) has been erratic in supporting organic research projects. Both programs have a sustained trend of funding fewer and fewer organic research projects. 

On the other hand, analysis of past funding allocations through dedicated organic agriculture programs reveals a wealth of cutting-edge research and innovative outreach that can support organic, transitioning, and conventional producers in succeeding. Nonetheless, there are also persistent knowledge gaps regarding specific needs and challenges that organic producers face that must be addressed.

A Flourishing Landscape of Organic Research at Risk

A review conducted by our organization, the Organic Farming Research Foundation, revealed a flourishing landscape of existing USDA-funded research and outreach with significant value to organic agriculture. We examined projects funded between 2015 and 2021 through the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) and the ORG. These programs stand as testaments to the power of dedicated research in propelling the organic sector forward, reinforcing that this is no time to stop growing or even suggest reducing their impact. They offer valuable resources and practical solutions for organic and transitioning producers, as well as conventional producers interested in ecologically and economically sound practices. These programs work together synergistically to build the scientific foundation for a more successful, climate-friendly, and resource-conserving organic agricultural sector that can thrive well into the future.

Investing in organic research provides farmers, both certified organic and non-certified, with innovative solutions and practical tools that enhance profitability, mitigate financial and ecological risks, and foster economic growth and social well-being in rural communities. By addressing specific challenges and knowledge gaps, dedicated research funding helps current and aspiring organic farmers overcome barriers to realizing this potential.

Let’s delve into a few examples of how dedicated funding has demonstrably fostered innovation within organic agriculture.

Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI)

The OREI program awards funds for research conducted on certified organic land to address production, marketing, and socioeconomic constraints on the growth of the organic sector and to elevate the economic and social benefits of organic farming.

OREI funds integrated projects that combine research with an outreach component—extension (delivering practical outcomes to producers) and/or education (training students and service providers in organic practices). The UC Davis Student Collaborative for Organic Plant Breeding Education (SCOPE) is an excellent example. This initiative trains future plant breeders and develops new crop varieties specifically suited for organic systems. It addresses a critical need for organic producers who often lack access to cultivars optimized for their production methods.

Most OREI projects address multiple aspects of an organic farming system, practice, problem, or commodity. For example, researchers utilize the long-term farming systems trials at USDA’s Agricultural Research Service station in Beltsville, MD, to address nutrients, weeds, soil health, greenhouse gas mitigation, and net economic returns in organic field crop rotations. OREI also prioritizes research that takes place on working farms, like this research project that investigated the pest management services a robust bird population can provide orchards.

Additionally, OREI funds conferences and planning projects that bring farmers, processors, input vendors, buyers, chefs, researchers, service providers, and students together to share knowledge and innovations, identify priorities, develop integrated OREI proposals, and provide professional development opportunities. The 2022 Student Organic Seed Symposium and the 2021 Northeast Organic Seed Conference built robust and lasting collaborations. They engaged Black, Indigenous, and other minority farmers and scientists at a level not realized in the past.

Organic Transitions Research Program (ORG)

The ORG program focuses on helping producers overcome the challenges of transitioning to organic practices, such as production and marketing obstacles, infrastructure needs, and policy or administrative constraints. Additionally, ORG provides funding for research and development of alternatives to substances on the USDA’s National List of allowed synthetic substances, which are subject to periodic review and potential removal from the List. For example, ORG supports the development of fish meal in lieu of synthetic methionine supplements in poultry feed and the use of biological controls instead of streptomycin to manage fire blight in organic apple and pear production.

OREI and ORG benefit all major agricultural regions across the country by tackling region-specific challenges. For instance, farmers in the Southern region face acidic, low-fertility soils, intense weed, pest, and disease pressures, along with marketing and infrastructure constraints. Responding to these challenges with ORG and OREI projects, North Carolina State University researchers integrated cover crops, diverse rotations, and organic amendments to accelerate soil improvement. Additionally, a team at Texas A&M University combined cultivar selection, biological seed treatments, cover crops, and seeding rates to enhance weed, pest, and disease resilience and increase yield in organic rice.

Addressing Critical Production Challenges to Fuel Innovation

OREI- and ORG-funded research benefits all farmers and ranchers, not just those who hold or seek USDA Organic Certification. Many conventional farmers implement organic practices such as compost applications, diversified rotations, cover cropping, or biological integrated pest management (IPM) to build healthy soil and reduce the direct and environmental costs of production. 

USDA organic research has addressed top challenges identified by organic farmers in a recent OFRF survey, including:

• Soil health, fertility, and crop nutrition.
• Maintaining yields and managing production costs.
• Managing weeds, diseases, and pests.
• Accessing crop cultivars suited to organic systems (especially OREI).
• Managing the farm as a system to reduce reliance on inputs.
• Market research and development for organic commodities (especially OREI).
• Overcoming barriers to organic transition (especially ORG).

Specific examples of OREI and ORG outcomes that address these challenges include:

• Strategic crop rotations that maximize cover, minimize tillage, and limit weed competition in organic grains. 
• New organic crop and whole-rotation budgeting tools to help new and aspiring organic farmers assess and manage the economic risks of organic transition.
• Development of carrot and tomato cultivars with enhanced plant-root-microbe associations for disease resistance, nutrient use efficiency, and nutritional quality. 
• Anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD), a NOP-compliant alternative to soil fumigation that reduces pathogen loads and promotes a disease-suppressive soil microbiome to protect organic vegetables and strawberries. 

Exploring Uncharted Knowledge Gaps

Working with limited funding, OREI and ORG have enabled tremendous strides in advancing the science and practice of organic farming and ranching over the past two decades. Yet, knowledge gaps remain that warrant additional research attention. These include:

• Livestock and poultry breed development for organic systems.
• Climate resilience strategies for organic systems.  
• Organic production of crop seeds and transplants.
• Organic production of pork, beef, poultry and eggs, tree nuts, herbs, and cut flowers.
• Managing soil health, pests, and diseases in protected cultivation such as high tunnels.
• Organic utilization and production of perennial planting stock.
• Policy and socioeconomic constraints on the growth of the organic sector (adopted in 2018 as a specific program priority).

While gaps exist, impactful projects are underway to address these challenges.

Scientists and farmers in Mississippi have identified sheep resistant to gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN), a significant hurdle in organic sheep production. These findings can inform breeding programs for improved animal health in organic systems. Additionally, research in dairy cattle genetics holds promise for identifying and evaluating breeds suited for organic production, which generally requires a lot more walking and mobility than conventional milk operations, a trait that has not been selected for in many commercial breeds.

Climate resilience has become a priority for OREI and ORG. For example, University of Wisconsin scientists are working with farmers to develop vegetable cultivars with increased resilience to the changing climate conditions in the Midwest. Similarly, Clemson University received funding to develop salt-tolerant rice cultivars for organic farms affected by rising sea levels. Further research is crucial to supporting organic farmers in simultaneously mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change.

Several OREI plant breeding projects train farmers in organic seed production. However, challenges remain. Difficulties with seed increases for cover crop breeding and a decline in organic seed production due to factors like climate change highlight the need for further research, outreach, and training in this critical area.

High tunnels offer high-return opportunities for organic producers but also present unique challenges regarding soil health (salinity, nutrient imbalances) and specific pests and diseases. OREI-funded research on cover crops for high tunnels and advanced IPM strategies has made significant progress in addressing these challenges. However, further research is needed to optimize organic production fully within high tunnels in all regions.

From a commodities perspective, OREI- and ORG-funded research has greatly advanced the support for a wide range of agricultural commodities, fostering innovation and diversification among organic farmers. Researchers at the University of Minnesota are tackling the leading challenges in organic pork production, including swine nutrition and parasite control. Several teams, including those at Washington State University, the Agricultural Research Service in Mississippi, and Montana State University, have made advances in managing diseases in organic poultry and integrating crop and poultry production to improve soil, nutrient, and weed management. Researchers at Middle State Tennessee University were awarded an ORG grant that has supported the research and development of advanced biological control strategies to manage diseases in the medicinal herb ginseng, a high-value crop for the region. Beef, pork, tree nuts, and herbs play important roles in American diets, and demand for cut flowers continues to be strong; yet, organic market share for these products remains low. Additional research is needed to remove barriers to expanding organic production and sales of these commodities.

The Road Ahead for Investing in a Sustainable Future

A thriving organic sector offers numerous benefits, including environmental sustainability, economic growth, and increased consumer choice. Without robust, consistent investments in organic agriculture research into critical topics like livestock breeding, addressing agronomic challenges, and organic seed production, the organic sector will not be able to reach its full potential. These research efforts are essential for building a resilient food and farm system that meets the growing consumer demand for organic products while safeguarding the environment and providing economic opportunities to rural communities.

Positive signs are on the horizon. With annual OREI funding increasing to $50 million in 2023, the program has considerably increased its capacity to address these research needs. The research being funded by these programs can be perused using USDA’s DataGateway. Given its history of supporting highly innovative and practical research, ORG merits an increased investment through formal authorization in the next Farm Bill and robust funding in the annual Appropriations process. Continued and strengthened support for both OREI and ORG is crucial. 

Organic agriculture is crucial for sustainable farming, biodiversity, a healthy food system, and combating climate change. However, the 2024 Farm Bill falls short in addressing the funding needs for organic agriculture research. 

We are working with the National Organic Coalition to make sure your voice is heard by providing a tool to send a personalized message to your representatives, urging them to support increased funding in organic agriculture research. By investing in the future of organic agriculture, we can unlock its full potential and contribute to a more sustainable and healthy food system for all.

The post Guest Post: Is the Future of Organic Food at Risk? Research Funding Holds the Answer appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.