The bill amends the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to insert a statutory definition of "sustainable aviation fuel" (SAF), add SAF to the Act’s list of eligible biofuels, and expand USDA manufacturing and financing assistance to explicitly cover SAF. It requires SAF to meet specific ASTM specifications, forbids co-processing with non-biomass feedstocks, excludes palm fatty acid distillates and petroleum, and requires a certified lifecycle GHG reduction of at least 50 percent compared with conventional jet fuel.
The legislation also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to stand up a "Farm to Fly" Collaboration Initiative to coordinate USDA agencies, identify commercialization opportunities, leverage agricultural feedstocks, support rural economic development, and promote public–private partnerships. For producers, refiners, airlines, and compliance officers, the bill creates technical eligibility rules and a federal policy signal that ties agricultural supply chains to the emerging domestic SAF market.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends section 9001 to add a new statutory definition of "sustainable aviation fuel" and amends section 9003 to make SAF an explicit target of biorefinery, renewable chemical, and biobased product manufacturing assistance. It directs USDA to launch a cross-agency Farm to Fly Collaboration Initiative to coordinate programmatic support and commercialization work.
Who It Affects
Agricultural feedstock producers (oilseed farmers, forestry operators), bio-refinery developers and applicants for USDA loan/grant programs, airlines and fuel purchasers seeking certified SAF, and USDA program offices charged with administering bioenergy assistance and certification activities.
Why It Matters
The bill establishes federal recognition and eligibility for SAF within USDA’s toolbox, ties sustainability to ASTM and lifecycle accounting standards (ICAO CORSIA or GREET), and could unlock programmatic support that shifts demand toward certain agricultural feedstocks and technologies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a statutory definition of sustainable aviation fuel that combines specification, feedstock, and lifecycle criteria. To qualify as SAF under the Act a fuel must meet an ASTM specification (D7566) or the Fischer–Tropsch provision of D1655 Annex A1, must not be coprocessed with non-biomass feedstocks, must exclude palm fatty acid distillates and petroleum-derived feedstocks, and must be certified to deliver at least a 50 percent lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction relative to petroleum jet fuel using either ICAO’s adopted CORSIA methodology or the GREET model from Argonne.
Practically, that definition narrows which conversion pathways and feedstocks are eligible for USDA programs: it highlights products derived from fats, oils, and esters (monoglycerides, diglycerides, triglycerides, free fatty acids, and fatty acid esters) while closing the door to co-processing with fossil inputs and certain high‑risk feedstocks. By referencing the Internal Revenue Code’s biomass definition, the bill attempts to align USDA eligibility with existing tax-code definitions, which matters for projects seeking multiple incentives.On program design, the bill amends the existing biorefinery and bio-based manufacturing assistance provisions to explicitly include SAF among eligible uses.
That change makes applicants producing SAF or related intermediate ingredients eligible for the same loan and grant authority used for other bio-based facilities, subject to the usual program criteria. Separately, the Farm to Fly Collaboration Initiative requires USDA leadership across agencies to identify commercialization opportunities, promote public–private partnerships, and focus USDA mission areas on advancing SAF deployment.Implementation will create new administrative workstreams: certifying lifecycle GHG reductions, verifying feedstock provenance, and ensuring ASTM specification compliance for fuels that enter USDA‑funded projects.
Those verification tasks will fall to USDA operational units and to private certifiers contracted or recognized by agencies; the bill does not appropriate new funds, so USDA will integrate these responsibilities within existing budgets and programs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines "sustainable aviation fuel" to require compliance with ASTM D7566 or Fischer–Tropsch D1655 Annex A1 and a certified lifecycle GHG reduction of at least 50 percent versus petroleum jet fuel.
It prohibits SAF created by coprocessing applicable biomass materials with feedstocks that are not biomass and explicitly excludes palm fatty acid distillates and petroleum-derived inputs.
The statute identifies "applicable material" as monoglycerides, diglycerides, triglycerides, free fatty acids, and fatty acid esters—narrowing eligible intermediate feedstocks.
USDA must establish a Farm to Fly Collaboration Initiative to coordinate agency activities, identify commercialization opportunities, support rural economic development, and advance public–private partnerships for SAF.
Section 9003 (biorefinery, renewable chemical, and biobased product manufacturing assistance) is amended to add SAF as an eligible focus for USDA financing, technical assistance, and project support.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Purposes and Findings
This section states Congress’s objectives: integrate agriculture into SAF supply chains, increase domestic energy security, and support rural economies. Its practical effect is declaratory—framing subsequent program changes as pursuing agricultural participation in SAF commercialization, which agencies can cite when prioritizing applications or designing outreach.
Statutory definition of Sustainable Aviation Fuel
The bill inserts a multi-part definition into the Act that ties fuel eligibility to (1) ASTM technical specifications, (2) feedstock origin rules (no coprocessing with non-biomass; exclusion of palm fatty acid distillates and petroleum), and (3) a lifecycle GHG reduction threshold of 50 percent measured by ICAO CORSIA or Argonne’s GREET model. This is a prescriptive approach: it privileges fuels that can demonstrate both technical interchangeability with jet fuel and quantified GHG performance under specified models.
Farm to Fly Collaboration Initiative
The Secretary of Agriculture must coordinate across USDA agencies to pursue SAF commercialization objectives, identify market and commercialization opportunities, and develop public–private partnerships. Mechanically, this creates a cross-cutting leadership obligation rather than a new agency, so program integration and interagency processes will determine how quickly USDA translates the coordination mandate into grants, technical assistance, or procurement signals.
Adds SAF as a target for biorefinery and manufacturing assistance
The bill amends the biorefinery assistance statute to include fostering SAF among program goals and inserts SAF into the list of eligible products for loans and grants. Practically this makes SAF projects demonstrably eligible for existing USDA financial instruments, but applicants will still have to meet statutory and program-specific selection criteria, collateral and repayment rules, and environmental review obligations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Oilseed and lipid crop producers (soy, canola, used cooking oil collectors) — new demand channels for fats and oils could increase market options and prices if SAF commercialization scales.
- SAF developers and biorefinery project sponsors — explicit eligibility for USDA loan and grant programs improves access to financing and technical support under existing bioenergy authorities.
- Rural economies and manufacturing communities — siting refineries and intermediate-processing facilities in agricultural regions can create construction and longer-term operations jobs and enhance local value chains.
- Airlines and fuel purchasers aiming to meet corporate or regulatory decarbonization targets — the bill creates clearer pathways to domestically produced, certified SAF that meets ASTM and lifecycle thresholds.
- USDA program offices seeking to promote agricultural markets — the bill provides statutory cover and direction to prioritize SAF within USDA’s bioeconomy portfolio.
Who Bears the Cost
- Conventional jet fuel suppliers and refiners that rely on petroleum co-processing — the prohibition on coprocessing with non-biomass and the lifecycle threshold could exclude certain incumbent conversion pathways and reduce market share.
- Feedstock suppliers dependent on palm fatty acid distillates or petroleum-derived inputs — the statute expressly excludes those inputs from qualifying SAF, potentially eliminating buyers for some waste oils or blends.
- USDA (administration and verification burden) — the Department must coordinate across agencies, evaluate lifecycle certifications, and integrate SAF eligibility into existing programs without a dedicated appropriation.
- Small processors and project developers — obtaining lifecycle certification and proving feedstock traceability will impose verification and administrative costs that may be proportionally heavier on smaller firms.
- Private certifiers and lifecycle modelers — demand for third-party GHG lifecycle assessments and certification will increase, creating costs that enter project economics and contracting.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to accelerate SAF commercialization by bringing USDA programs and farmers into the market while simultaneously tightening sustainability controls (ASTM specs, a 50% lifecycle GHG floor, feedstock exclusions). That creates a fundamental trade-off: stronger sustainability rules protect climate integrity and limit harmful feedstocks, but they also shrink the immediate pool of eligible supply and increase costs for producers and project developers, potentially slowing the industry the bill seeks to grow.
The bill ties SAF eligibility to two distinct lifecycle assessment reference points—ICAO’s adopted CORSIA methodology or Argonne’s GREET model. Those methods can produce materially different GHG reduction results for a given feedstock and pathway; which model USDA privileges in practice, and how it resolves divergent outcomes, will shape which projects qualify and how market actors structure supply chains.
By excluding co-processing with non-biomass feedstocks and banning palm fatty acid distillates, the bill narrows eligible feedstock and conversion options. That improves the bill’s focus on low‑risk biomass pathways but risks constraining supply and raising per-unit costs at early scale-up.
The statutory reliance on ASTM specifications and an Internal Revenue Code definition of biomass also locks SAF policy to particular technical standards and tax-code definitions—helpful for consistency but potentially ill-suited if new conversion technologies or new scientific assessments of lifecycle emissions emerge. Finally, the bill creates new verification needs (feedstock traceability, lifecycle certification) but contains no express appropriation for USDA to build verification capacity, raising the likelihood of implementation delays or reliance on private certification markets.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.