USDA Public Comment Talking Points to Ensure a Productive 45Z Program

Agriculture (USDA)Books Web Sites etc Energy (DOE)Farming/Growing Federal Agency/Executive Branch Federal Regulation Feedstocks Field/Orchard/Plantation Crops/Residues Infrastructure Resources Scientific Resources Sustainability Technical Resources

March 11, 2025

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Mitchell Hora (Continuum Ag) The 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit has the potential to drive more soil health practice adoption than even the Farm Bill—but only if implemented correctly. To ensure success, Continuum Ag recommends three key changes to the USDA’s proposed technical guidelines. You can review our full comments in the link below and also post your own comments. We are focused on the following points:

1. Use a Book and Claim Approach to Feedstock CI Tracking Rather Than Mass Balance

Book and Claim decouples the CI Certificates from the physical bushels. Farmers can sell their crops as they wish, and sell their CI Certificates into open, transparent, fair trading marketplaces. All farmers can participate, not just those who happen to be near the ethanol plant. Mass Balance tracking limits farmer participation, increases carbon emissions, and creates a tremendous amount of financial hardship for some farms. If you are like me, I sell my crops to the local livestock feeders. Mass Balance would require that I truck my crop further, earn less, and leave the local livestock feeders having to pay more to bring crops from further away to overcome the crop gap.

2. Adopt the GREET FD-CIC Model Rather than the USDA FD-CIC

The Department of Energy’s GREET model has been around for 30 years and its associated Feedstock Calculator (GREET FD-CIC) is the most robust tool on the market. Using the GREET FD-CIC accounts for farmer yield, fertilizer, cover crop, tillage, pesticide, energy, and manure management practices. Farmers must collect agronomic evidence to pass audits, they may as well get compensated for it and at best be as scientifically sound as possible in this program. Alternatively, the USDA’s proposed Feedstock Carbon Intensity Calculator (USDA FD-CIC) oversimplifies the CI scoring process, failing to account for yield, fertilizer application rates, and soil organic carbon at a local level. This results in artificially high CI scores, discouraging farmer participation. Many of your good efforts would not be accounted for using the USDA FD-CIC. If you would like to know your GREET score, visit TopSoil.ag. If you would like your USDA score, contact us and we would be happy to run it for you.

3. Utilize ISO 14065 Standards for Audits

Continuum Ag’s core value to farmers is to help with data management and ensure the audit process is as smooth as possible. Of course, we are also fighting for an equitable share of the finances associated with any sustainability program, including 45Z. The USDA’s proposed MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification) protocol contains unrealistic mandates that could block farmer participation. For example, requiring no-till for four out of five years and implementing a rigid nutrient budget would exclude most farmers. We are encouraging a system in which farmers document their agronomic practices using a data log like TopSoil, then they supply evidence, such as shapefiles and receipts, to prove that the practices occur. Private sector companies should be utilized to facilitate data management, scoring, and verification. This should not be tasked to the county USDA Field Office.

Submit your Comments to the USDA

We’re excited about the future of low-carbon agriculture and we are committed to ensuring that farmers play a central role in shaping what’s next. Now is the time to act—farmers can submit their comments to the USDA before the deadline to help ensure that 45Z is implemented in a way that benefits agriculture. If you’d like to submit feedback, visit the USDA website and consider telling your story. Be specific and share as much as you would like. Detailed farmer stories will go far in this comment period. Click here to submit your comments (link to USDA website)

What Can Farmers Do Now?

While the USDA is going through the public comment period and the 45Z rules are still yet to be finalized, there are steps farmers can take today to prepare for what’s coming:

Get your CI Score – Continuum Ag offers FREE CI Scores through our TopSoil tool, allowing farmers to understand where they stand and what changes could lower their CI.
Document your practices – Keeping good records of field operations, fertilizer use, and soil health practices will be critical for future verification processes. We offer this via our TopSoil Connect program, which can be unlocked for $2/ac on TopSoil.
Stay engaged – The policy landscape is evolving quickly, and being informed will help farmers stay ahead of new opportunities.
- Join us every Tuesday morning on the CI Chit Chat
- Read Continuum Ag’s full comments: https://continuum.ag/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/USDA-Technical-Guidelines-Comments-from-Continuum-Ag.docx-1.pdf
- Submit your feedback to the USDA: https://www.regulations.gov/document/USDA-2024-0003-0262

The Bottom Line

For 45Z to succeed, it must be designed with farmers in mind. By adopting Book and Claim, using the GREET FD-CIC model, and aligning audits with ISO 14065 standards, the USDA can unlock the full potential of this program—empowering farmers, lowering carbon emissions, and driving real change in sustainable agriculture. READ MORE

Related articles

Technical Guidelines for Climate-Smart Agriculture Crops Used as Biofuel Feedstocks (Continuum Ag)
Technical Guidelines for Climate-Smart Agriculture Crops Used as Biofuel Feedstocks (US Department of Agriculture/Regulations.gov)

Excerpt from Continuum Ag: 1. Use a Book and Claim approach for low carbon feedstock tracking rather than Mass Balance

a. Book and Claim incentivizes regenerative agricultural practices in all feedstock crop production areas, not just those near biofuel facilities.

i. Book and Claim allows all farmers who raise eligible feedstocks to participate. This will increase participation and maximize the drive to adopt regenerative ag practices, achieving the true decarbonization goal of 45Z.

ii. Alternatively, Mass Balance only permits participation from farmers located near biofuel facilities. This hinders the adoption of regenerative ag systems and disqualifies most farmers from realizing the benefits 45Z can offer.

b. Book and Claim results in a lower total carbon impact compared to Mass Balance

i. Book and Claim eliminates unnecessary shipping of low-carbon feedstocks and simplifies physical supply chains. Audited CI Certificates or Biofuel Feedstock Reports can and should be de-coupled from physical crops and sold into transparent Book and Claim marketplaces that enable 45Z at scale. Additionally, this doesn’t disrupt the current ag supply chain.

ii. Under Mass Balance, additional trucking and associated carbon emissions would be required. In this system, grain would be pulled away from local livestock production, or other supply chains, increasing costs, increasing emissions, and reducing participation potential.

c. There are precedents and systems ready to facilitate Book and Claim

i. Verified CI Certificates can be created for farmers and biofuel producers, via independent companies, at low costs and effort. This is already being done. Verified CI Certificates can be documented to avoid double counting and fraud and trading platforms are already emerging to facilitate a scalable market. Additionally, a Book and Claim market could be tapped into by non-biofuel purchasers of CI Certificates, creating a scalable, resilient, competitive market that could scale beyond the lifespan of 45Z.

ii. Mass Balance requires additional tracking systems, additional audits, and additional costs. This reduces the retained financial incentives for each stakeholder and disincentivizes participation. Additionally, Mass Balance creates animosity between biofuel producers and non-biofuel purchasers of US commodities.

d. Book and Claim optimizes financial incentives for farmers

i. Book and Claim results in a scalable, transparent, de-risked marketplace where farmers can easily understand the value of their verified CI Certificates, control them, and sell them to the buyer of their choosing. Already efforts are underway to create marketplaces and feature price transparency while enabling investment to enter the space.

ii. Mass Balance lowers farmer value creation, as there would be less competition and fewer options for farmers looking to sell their verified CI Certificates. With lower financial incentives, farmer participation will be low resulting in minimal carbon reductions and minimal adoption of soil health-building practices, such as cover crops and no-till.

e. Book and Claim brings livestock producers to the table, rather than punish them

i. Under a Book and Claim approach, farmers with crops and livestock could participate. They can feed their crops to their animals, and sell their CI Certificates into the open market. Additionally, animal ag supply chains could enter these markets and purchase verified CI Certificates, decarbonizing their supply chains and creating a scalable market.

ii. Mass Balance increases feed costs for livestock producers as they now have to compete against a government-incentivized biofuel producer for farmers’ crops. Continuum Ag resides in Washington County, Iowa, the number 2 pork-producing county in the country. We calculate the Mass Balance will negatively impact the local livestock producer by $0.25-$0.35/bushel, causing an unnecessary 6-8% increase in costs and a decrease in profitability for an already tight sector.

2. Use the GREET FD-CIC to calculate CI Scores rather than the USDA Feedstock Carbon Intensity Calculator (USDA FD-CIC)

a. The GREET Feedstock Calculator is far superior.

i. The GREET model has undergone 30 years of development and scientific backing.

1. The USDA FD-CIC was a rush job created in the last 6 months, and it shows.

ii. The GREET FD-CIC calculates a holistic carbon intensity score per bushel, as it factors in yield and efficiency.

1. The USDA FD-CIC uses an assumed yield and does not reward merit.

iii. The GREET FD-CIC accounts for county-level emissions

1. The USDA FD-CIC is regional.

iv. The GREET FD-CIC is robust, factoring in yield, fertilizer, tillage, cover crops, pesticides, energy usage, animal manures, and more. It provides a complete assessment of farm systems and holistically grades biofuel feedstocks.

1. The USDA FD-CIC only provides 6 checkboxes: cover crop, reduced till, no-till, split applied nitrogen, nitrification inhibitor, and spring-applied nitrogen only. This fundamentally misses the mark of a carbon intensity calculator, disincentivizes innovation, reduces opportunities to decarbonize, and undermines the scientific rigor of the GREET model.

v. The GREET FD-CIC encourages improved manure management as it encourages using small amounts of manure, spread across more acres. This reduces carbon emissions, protects water quality, and improves soil health while reducing costs for farmers.

1. The USDA FD-CIC doesn’t account for manure or any fertilizer products, which constitute the largest contributor to feedstock emissions.

vi. The GREET FD-CIC encourages improved fertilizer management as it factors in fertilizer product, application rate, and management nuances.

1. The USDA FD-CIC doesn’t account for fertilizer product or rate. This therefore ignores corn’s largest GHG impacting factor: nitrous oxide emissions associated with fertilizer.

vii. The GREET FD-CIC only needs one short-term adjustment. Our recommendation is to simply ensure there is a SOC (soil organic carbon) component available for every corn-producing county in the country. Currently, the GREET FD-CIC could create disadvantages for growers in certain counties. Use adjacent county SOC calculations or proxies as a solution.

1. Alternatively, the USDA FD-CIC could be utilized as an alternative tool for producers to quantify their CI Scores, as the USDA FD-CIC does include more counties in its regional SOC assessments.

viii. Verifying claims in accordance with the GREET FD-CIC can be done at a low cost, timely, and with an appropriate workload to the farmer.

1. The USDA FD-CIC was created partially in an effort to reduce farmer workload. However, in order to satisfy the MRV protocol, the farmer must supply all agronomic evidence, ex: yields, fertilizer products and rates, planting information, tillage, and geospatial information. Farmers must show all evidence, however, they get now CI impact credit for doing so. Therefore, the workload to the farmer isn’t reduced via the USDA FD-CIC. Holistic farmer credit can be attained when using the GREET FD-CIC.

3. Utilize the ISO 14065 audit protocol and modify the proposed technical guidelines

a. The MRV protocol should be based on the ISO 14065 standards and focus on proving farm activities using the following language taken from the USDA technical guidelines:

i. Page 28: “The rule does not specify the type or origin of required records; instead, the rule lists examples of record types such as physical documentation (for example, paper forms, invoices, receipts, seed tags), digital files (including from farm management software), data generated by farm equipment (for example, precision agriculture equipment), remote sensing data, georeferenced and timestamped photographs, and data and records used for participation in USDA government programs. The range of allowable record options is designed to increase flexibility and minimize the burden for farm producers, who may already maintain various types of records depending on their preferences, participation in government or private programs, or previous CSA practice implementation. However, the records must be sufficient for the third-party verifier to verify compliance with the relevant practice standard for the specified time.”

ii. To simplify, “Here are all of the components of the GREET FD-CIC. Document your practices and show evidence to support your practice claims.” This is already being done in an auditable, scalable, economically efficient manner.

b. Some components of the MRV protocol have fundamental flaws and are out of touch with the realities of the farm. The following are some (not all) examples:

i. Page 26: “…cover crops cannot be fertilized. Cover crop biomass must not be mechanically harvested or grazed.” 1. This concept is completely out of touch with reality. If the goal is to decarbonize biofuel feedstocks, cover crops should be encouraged and 4 farmer innovation should be incentivized. Farmers do not fertilize their cover crops, they apply fertilizer, cover crops stabilize it, and once terminated, the decaying cover crops release nutrients back to the incoming cash crop. This is a core soil health concept.

ii. Page 26: “…the farm producer must develop and document a planned nutrient budget, yield goal, and applications of, at a minimum, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (N-P-K) in pounds per acre before implementation.”

1. This is a fine idea, but an overreach of this program and is not aligned with reality. The finalization of the 45Z rules are tremendously off track and, as of now, the final rules will not be released until late 2025 or sometime in 2026. Therefore, no farmer participation will be allowed since the odds are that nearly 100% of farmers would have already made 2026 crop nutrition decisions and/or applications which would disqualify them. This would result in zero qualified feedstocks being produced by the crop in 2024-2026, and no low-carbon biofuel being produced within the 45Z concluding year of 2027. This nutrient budget concept should be scrapped.

iii. Page 68: “When implementing no-till, will continue no-till for a minimum of four out of every five years.”

1. This is a well-intended idea but an impossible concept. Farmers will be encouraged to continue practice adoption to garner reward driven by 45Z. The mandate approach is unrealistic and unnecessary.

iv. Page 82: “Soil test results, soil test methods, laboratory where soil test was conducted, and date of the soil test within 2 years of the development of the nutrient budget.”

1. This is another out-of-touch concept. Most farmers pull soil samples once every 4 years. Eliminate the nutrient budget concept altogether READ MORE