The Farm to Fly Act of 2025 amends the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to add a statutory definition of "sustainable aviation fuel" (SAF), set basic eligibility criteria, and explicitly bring SAF into USDA bioenergy and biorefinery assistance programs. The bill requires SAF to meet specified ASTM standards (including D7566 or the Fischer–Tropsch Annex of D1655), prohibits certain feedstocks and co‑processing with non‑biomass, and requires certification showing at least a 50% lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction compared with petroleum jet fuel using ICAO CORSIA or the GREET model.
Beyond definitions, the bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to stand up a cross‑departmental Farm to Fly Collaboration Initiative to coordinate USDA activities that support SAF development and commercialization and explicitly adds SAF to the list of eligible products for Section 9003 biorefinery, renewable chemical, and biobased product assistance. For professionals tracking funding, certification, or supply‑chain risks, the bill establishes federal policy levers that will shape who can sell SAF to the aviation market and who can access USDA technical and financial support.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Section 9001 to define 'sustainable aviation fuel' with standards references, feedstock exclusions, and a lifecycle GHG threshold, and amends Section 9003 so USDA biorefinery assistance can explicitly support SAF production. It also directs USDA to create a Farm to Fly coordination initiative to pursue SAF development across agency programs.
Who It Affects
Farmers and agricultural feedstock suppliers, existing and prospective biorefineries seeking USDA loans or grants, airlines and fuel purchasers looking for certified SAF, lifecycle modelers and certification bodies (GREET/CORSIA), and producers of excluded feedstocks such as palm fatty acid distillates.
Why It Matters
Inserting SAF into USDA statute makes federal agricultural programs an explicit lever for aviation decarbonization and rural market creation. The bill's ASTM, lifecycle and feedstock rules will act as an early federal eligibility standard, steering investment toward feedstocks and technologies that meet the 50% reduction and excluding others.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core legal change is a new statutory definition of "sustainable aviation fuel" inserted into the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act. The definition ties SAF eligibility to existing fuel quality standards (ASTM D7566 or the Fischer–Tropsch provisions of ASTM D1655, Annex A1), disqualifies fuels produced by co‑processing biomass with non‑biomass feedstocks, excludes palm fatty acid distillates and petroleum‑derived feedstocks, and requires certification that lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by at least 50% relative to conventional jet fuel.
The bill references two accepted lifecycle methods — ICAO’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) that the U.S. accepts, and Argonne National Laboratory’s GREET model — as the bases for that certification.
By calling for USDA leadership to create a Farm to Fly Collaboration Initiative, the bill asks the department to coordinate across its mission areas: identify commercialization opportunities, leverage farmers and foresters for feedstock supply, support rural economic development, and foster public‑private partnerships aligned with Federal aviation decarbonization goals. The statutory language spells out these coordination tasks but does not appropriate money or specify program design; it sets an organizational mandate and expects USDA to align existing tools toward SAF.The bill also amends Section 9003 (the biorefinery, renewable chemical, and biobased product manufacturing assistance program) to add SAF to the list of eligible biofuels and to add fostering sustainable aviation fuels to the program’s objectives.
That change makes SAF producers explicit candidates for USDA loans, loan guarantees, and grant support under existing authority — subject to program rules and any appropriations.Practically, the combined effect is twofold: (1) a federal definition and eligibility gate that will determine which SAF pathways can claim USDA program support, and (2) a coordination directive that signals USDA will prioritize SAF across technical assistance, outreach, and potentially financing activities. Producers should expect lifecycle certification requirements, reliance on specific models or ICAO methods, and scrutiny of feedstock sourcing; USDA and certification bodies will face verification and implementation choices to operationalize the statutory criteria.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires SAF to meet ASTM D7566 or the Fischer–Tropsch provisions of ASTM D1655, Annex A1 as a baseline fuel‑quality standard.
It prohibits SAF made by co‑processing biomass with non‑biomass feedstocks and explicitly excludes fuels derived from palm fatty acid distillates or petroleum.
SAF must be certified to achieve at least a 50% lifecycle GHG emissions reduction versus petroleum jet fuel, measured using ICAO CORSIA rules or the GREET model.
USDA must establish a Farm to Fly Collaboration Initiative to coordinate department agencies on SAF commercialization, rural development, and public‑private partnerships.
Section 9003 (biorefinery and biobased manufacturing assistance) is amended to list sustainable aviation fuel among eligible products and to add 'foster and advance sustainable aviation fuels' to program purposes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statutory definition and eligibility rules for sustainable aviation fuel
This provision adds a new subsection defining 'sustainable aviation fuel' and updates the Act’s biofuel language to explicitly include SAF produced from intermediate ingredients or feedstocks. The definition references two ASTM standards as the quality baselines, sets a minimum lifecycle GHG reduction of 50 percent, and lays out three eligibility constraints: no co‑processing with non‑biomass feedstocks, no palm fatty acid distillates, and no petroleum‑derived feedstocks. For lifecycle accounting the statute directs reliance on either ICAO’s CORSIA framework (as agreed with the United States) or the GREET model from Argonne Lab, making those methodologies the statutory yardsticks for program eligibility.
Farm to Fly Collaboration Initiative (USDA coordination mandate)
Section 4 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to pursue a comprehensive, integrated approach across USDA mission areas to advance SAF. The bill specifies leadership across agencies, opportunity identification for commercialization, leveraging farmers and foresters, rural economic development, and advancing public‑private partnerships. The language establishes expectations for coordination and priority setting but does not create a new standalone program or appropriate funds; instead it requires USDA to marshal and align existing programs and outreach toward SAF goals.
Adds SAF to biorefinery and biobased product assistance
This amendment expands the Section 9003 program purpose language to 'foster and advance sustainable aviation fuels' and inserts SAF into the list of eligible products for assistance (loans, loan guarantees, and grants). The textual edits are surgical: they add SAF alongside other biofuels in program eligibility clauses, which makes SAF projects formally eligible for Section 9003 support subject to program criteria and appropriations. Practically, developers can now apply to existing USDA financial and technical assistance channels with SAF projects, though program administrators will need to interpret and apply the new lifecycle and feedstock eligibility rules.
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
- Row crop and oilseed farmers — the bill creates a potential new domestic market for biomass feedstocks (oils, fats, other eligible materials) by designating SAF as an explicit product USDA can support, which could increase demand and prices for certain crops and residues.
- Biorefinery developers and investors focused on jet fuel pathways — SAF projects become explicit candidates for Section 9003 loans, guarantees, or grants, improving access to USDA finance and technical assistance compared with the pre‑existing statutory language.
- Airlines and airports pursuing in‑country SAF supply — a clearer federal eligibility and USDA coordination could expand domestic SAF availability and reduce reliance on imports, supporting airlines’ decarbonization procurement strategies.
- Rural economies and local governments — USDA coordination to leverage farming and forestry feedstocks aims to stimulate rural investment, processing facilities, and associated jobs tied to SAF production.
Who Bears the Cost
- Producers of excluded feedstocks (notably palm fatty acid distillates and certain petroleum‑derived inputs) — the statutory ban removes these sources from eligibility for USDA support and likely excludes them from some buyer preferences tied to USDA‑backed programs.
- Existing petroleum jet fuel refiners and some incumbent fuel suppliers — increased competition from USDA‑supported SAF could pressure market share, particularly where airlines prioritize certified, domestically produced SAF.
- Small processors and feedstock aggregators — lifecycle certification, verification, and compliance documentation create upfront costs; smaller entities may struggle to meet the administrative and technical requirements to qualify feedstocks as meeting the 50% threshold.
- USDA program offices and certification bodies — implementing the definition, overseeing lifecycle certification acceptance, and verifying feedstock compliance will require administrative work and possibly new resources, creating an implicit cost if not funded separately.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to accomplish two legitimate goals simultaneously: create new markets and rural opportunities by channeling USDA support to SAF, while ensuring only genuinely lower‑carbon pathways qualify. That balance forces a trade‑off: stricter definitions and a 50% lifecycle floor protect climate integrity but constrain available feedstock and production pathways, making rapid scale‑up harder; looser rules would expand supply and farmer opportunities but risk undermining claimed GHG benefits.
The bill relies on two lifecycle methodologies — ICAO’s CORSIA framework and Argonne’s GREET model — but does not resolve differences between them. Those models use different system boundaries, allocation rules, and assumptions about indirect land‑use change (ILUC).
That leaves USDA and certifiers with a practical choice: which model to prioritize in ambiguous cases, how to reconcile differing results, and how to treat upstream emissions like ILUC or forest carbon impacts. The statutory cross‑reference to both methods could create inconsistent eligibility outcomes unless USDA issues detailed implementing guidance.
The bill's feedstock exclusions and the 50% lifecycle threshold are blunt instruments that protect against low‑quality pathways but may also slow scale‑up. Prohibiting co‑processing with non‑biomass feedstocks removes a pathway that some refiners use to scale volumes, and banning palm fatty acid distillates addresses specific sustainability concerns but eliminates a currently available feedstock stream.
Together, those rules steer investment toward certain wastes, oils, and biomass pathways — potentially increasing feedstock competition and costs. Finally, the statute mandates USDA coordination but does not appropriate funds or set measurable performance targets, leaving open how aggressively the department will deploy financial assistance, outreach, or regulatory harmonization to implement the new eligibility framework.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.