Federal fuel price relief for fishermen: A look at program design options
By Sarah Schumann
In recent weeks, I’ve been working with the Fishery Friendly Climate Action Campaign’s Low Carbon Fishing Fleet Fellows—Tim Rovinelli, Dean Karoblis, and Tim Krusell—to hold conversations with fishermen about high fuel prices and what we can do about them. At our local docks, at a set of workshops last week in Wakefield, Rhode Island and Chatham, Massachusetts, and on the Campaign’s community list-serve, we’ve been asking fishermen: How can the fishing industry advocate for policy packages that marry: (a) short-term fuel cost relief to get us through the year with (b) longer term investments in fishing vessel energy efficiency and exploration of non-petroleum-based fuels, to buffer our industry from the fuel price shocks of the future?
The second part of this formula—policies supporting long-term investments in efficiency and alternative power/propulsion sources—feels familiar and comfortable to me. Along with four other fishermen-researchers (Erika De la Rosa, Hattie Train, Kinsey Brown, and Tim Rovinelli), I spent over two years digging into that topic as part of the Campaign’s Transition to a Low Carbon Fishing Fleet project, and I could recite our findings in my sleep.
But the first part—what kinds of short-term fuel cost relief mechanisms are available to get the fishing industry to the end of this fishing season without crippling losses?—is not a topic I’ve researched in the past, and I feel underprepared to talk about it with other fishermen, let alone pitch suggestions to policy makers. I needed to know: What mechanisms are available to accomplish this kind of relief from high costs? What precedents exist that we can draw from? How can programs be designed to get payments out speedily and equitably, while also being accountable to the public and respectful of the taxpayer? With some guidance from the Low Carbon Fishing Fleet Fellows, I launched into a learning journey, starting with the basics: Google searches and government websites. In this blog, I’ll report what I learned.
Fishery resource disaster assistance
The first model I looked into was the Fishery Resource Disaster Assistance program at the Department of Commerce. This program is well known to fishermen, but not always well loved. Although the program’s existence is without doubt a very good and needed thing, it suffers from notorious bureaucratic delays that prevent financial help from reaching fishermen on the timelines when they need it most. A detailed evaluation of the program can be found in this report from the Congressional Research Service.
Established under Section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. § 1861a(a)), the program can provide assistance to fishermen and fishing communities in the form of grants, direct payments, cooperative agreements, loans, or contracts. In addition to providing direct assistance following an economic loss, assistance may support efforts to mitigate the effects of future disruptions to fisheries through fishery data collection, resource restoration, stock enhancement, and fishing capacity reduction programs.
However, “market conditions (e.g., increased fuel costs or low market prices that make it uneconomical to fish) are not allowable causes,” according to a NOAA set of FAQs about the program. Instead, “The MSA requires that a fishery resource disaster must be a result of a natural cause, discrete anthropogenic cause, or undetermined cause,” explained former NOAA Fisheries Administrator Janet Coit in a 2025 article. “Because the resource exists and is accessible, and the decision not to fish (i.e., not to access the resource) is based on economic factors, rather than inaccessibility of the resource, the allowable cause criteria for a fishery resource disaster are not satisfied.”
Therefore, using the NOAA fishery resource disaster declaration as a lever to provide relief to the fishing fleet from high fuel prices would first require a Congressional amendment to the Magnuson Stevens Act to expand the eligible causes of a disaster. Amending this disaster declaration section of the act is not itself a far-fetched idea; there have been several successful pushes in recent years to amend the Fishery Resource Disaster Assistance program, including: (1) the Fishery Resource Disasters Improvement Act, introduced by Representative Jared Huffman in 2022, which established deadlines and other measures to expedite and streamline disaster declarations and payments, and (2) the Fishery Improvement to Streamline untimely regulatory Hurdles post Emergency Situation Act (FISHES Act) introduced by Senators Sullivan and Murkowski in 2025, which shortened the deadlines by which NOAA and the Office of Management and Budget must approve disaster declarations and make dispersals available for payment.
But what about expanding eligible causes of a disaster to include non-natural causes; is that far-fetched? Not in the minds of some policy makers: there is a bill in the House right now—Representative Nancy Mace's Protect American Fisheries Act—that would “amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to add an economic cause as an allowable cause to declare a fishery resource disaster.” Economic cause is defined in the bill as anything that “(i) distorts the market for a fishery resource; (ii) disrupts the sustainable harvest of a fishery resource; or (iii) hinders the operational or economic viability of a fishery resource"—a definition that could encompass today’s sky-high fuel prices.
However, even if the Protect American Fisheries Act were to pass Congress, focusing on disaster declarations as a source of fuel price relief might be a slow road for fishermen. Despite the efforts of the 2022 and 2025 amendments to speed up the process, NOAA’s list of Fishery Resource Disaster Determinations still includes proposed declarations from as far back as 2023 and 2024 that are still listed as "pending”—hardly a good model for a program if the goal is to get relief into the hands of fishing businesses that are struggling right now.
Furthermore, creating a perpetual relief valve from high fuel prices could undermine the goal of making vessels more energy efficient. To avoid this, a one-time payout might be a better model. To explore this kind of model, I turned to agriculture.
Models from agriculture
In contrast to the rigid rules of NOAA’s Fishery Resource Disaster Assistance program, programs administered by the USDA seem to be characterized by an impressive amount of agency discretion. In this section, I explore three of these programs, all implemented within the last two years: the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP); the Farm Bridge Assistance (FBA) Program; and the Assistance for Specialty Crop Farmers (ASCF) Program. None of these programs are focused on fuel prices specifically, but all are designed to respond, at least in part, to high input costs—a category that may be interpreted to include fuel.
What’s most interesting to me about these programs is that they are not authorized under the Farm Bill—the sprawling legislative package reauthorized every 5-7 years to govern agricultural, food, and conservation programs. Instead, they are made possible by annual relief acts or obscure sections of statute that seemingly endow the USDA with the ability to create and implement highly targeted and responsive assistance packages, almost on the fly.
Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) Program
The Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) was authorized by Congress in Section 2102 of Title I of Division B of the American Relief Act of 2025 (Public Law 118-158), which allocated $10 billion in direct economic assistance payments to help agricultural producers mitigate the impacts of increased input costs and falling commodity prices during the 2024 crop year. ECAP provided farmers with one-time payments calculated by applying specific dollar amounts per acre for a list of commodity crops.
ECAP was designed by Congress to provide assistance outside the scope of regular Farm Bill safety nets. While traditional Title I Commodity Programs and Crop Insurance (authorized in the Farm Bill) handle standard market and weather risks, ECAP was enacted as standalone legislation to deliver targeted, one-time cash assistance.
Farm Bridge Assistance Program
The USDA launched the Farm Bridge Assistance (FBA) program in December 2025 to provide one-time per-acre formula-based payments to eligible row crop producers across a wide range of commodities. The USDA’s program announcement cited “elevated input costs” as a rationale for the FBA program—a category that can be interpreted as including fuel.
FBA implementation draws on authorities provided under Section 5(b) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714c(b)) of 1948, which allows the USDA a level of discretion to carry out many broad operations in support of agriculture. This discretion (sometimes referred to as Section 5 authority) has been used during the Commodity Credit Corporation’s history for various purposes, including purchases of food for distribution, responses to adverse economic conditions, and to fund USDA priorities. A detailed analysis of these uses of the Commodity Credit Corporation can be found in this report from the Congressional Research Service. The USDA allocated $11 billion to the FBA program, and it is issuing these dollars as payments to farmers through its Farm Services Agency.
Assistance for Specialty Crop Farmers Program
The Assistance for Specialty Crop Farmers (ASCF) program is a complement to the FBA launched by the USDA in May 2026. It is implemented under the same Section 5 Commodity Credit Corporation authority as the FBA, but whereas the FBA covers commodity crops, the ASCF was designed as a carve-out to support specialty crops and sugar producers affected by unfair market disruptions and rising input costs. As in the FBA program, payments are based on acreage for a specific list of crops, and the $/acre amount varies by crop. The USDA allocated $1 billion to the ASCF program, and it is issuing these dollars as payments to farmers through its Farm Services Agency.
Seafood trade relief program
The Seafood Trade Relief Program (STRP) of 2020 was not related to fuel or other input costs, but instead provided relief from low ex-vessel prices arising from reciprocal tariffs imposed on U.S. seafood exports in response to trade adjustments during the first Trump administration. Administered by the USDA, the STRP provided one-time relief on a $/species basis for certain affected species based on a comparison between 2017 and 2019 landings of eligible seafood. The total amount made available through the STRP was $530 million. Like the ECAP, FBA, and ASCF, the STRP was funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation and administered by the Farm Service Agency.
What’s most relevant about the STRP for the purposes of this blog is that it represents a seafood-focused relief program successfully implemented by the USDA. A parallel Farm Service Agency program, the Market Facilitation Program (MFP), distributed $23 billion in aid to land-based farmers during the same time period.
Trade adjustment assistance
The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers (TAAF) Program helped fishermen and producers of raw agricultural commodities adjust to import competition through technical assistance and cash benefits between 2004 and 2011. The program was available to producer groups who could demonstrate that imports caused a decline of at least 15% in one of three factors: the price of the commodity, the quantity of the commodity produced, or the production value of the commodity. A detailed evaluation of the program can be found in this report from the Congressional Research Service.
Participants in the New England lobster fishery and the Southern shrimp fishery made productive use of the TAAF program. To receive their payments, TAAF program participants had to complete a training class and develop a business plan to make their fishing businesses more resilient to future change. Anecdotally, participants say that the amount of money they received in the end fell short of the initial amount promised, but that the technical assistance portion of the program was useful.
The TAAF Program was established by the Trade Act of 2002, which amended the Trade Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-618). Congress made annual appropriations to fund the TAAF Program from 2002 to 2008 and a three-year funding commitment to the program for 2009-2011 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which also included significant revisions to make the program to more accessible to producers. Congress has not funded the program since 2011.
The TAAF Program was part of a larger umbrella of TAA programs that also provided assistance to workers (administered by the Department of Labor) and firms (administered by the Department of Commerce). Within the USDA, the Foreign Agricultural Service had responsibility for determining producer group eligibility, while the Farm Service Agency processed applications and cash payments for individual producers. The USDA’s National Institute for Food and Agriculture and 21 land grant universities collaborated to develop and deliver technical training through the TAAF program.
What I find most interesting about the TAA program is that it was more than just a relief check: it coupled cash payments with training and support to help farmers and fishermen adapt their businesses to changing circumstances. The Congressional Research Service report described a three-tier program of technical assistance. Participating producers first received initial technical assistance focused on steps could be taken to improve the yield and marketing of their commodity product(s) and on exploring the feasibility and desirability of substituting one or more alternative commodities for the one being produced. A producer who completed this initial phase became eligible to participate in intensive technical assistance focused on developing a business plan to improve the competitiveness of the same commodity or an alternative commodity. If USDA approved the business plan, the producer became entitled to receive up to $4,000 to implement this plan. A producer completing this second phase then became eligible for assistance to develop a second plan, called a long-term business adjustment plan. If USDA approved this business adjustment plan, then the producer became entitled to receive an additional $8,000 to implement this plan.
One thing I find curious about the TAAF program design is the reliance on a flat fee. Presumably, farms and vessels of different sizes experienced widely varying impacts from trade inequities, corresponding to their volume of harvests/landings, yet they were all issued the same $4,000 and $8,000 checks.
Several resources are available online to make sense out of what worked and what could have been improved about the TAAF program. A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), titled “Trade Adjustment Assistance: USDA Has Enhanced Technical Assistance for Farmers and Fishermen, but Steps Are Needed to Better Evaluate Program Effectiveness” and a 2013 audit report by the USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) identified a number of shortcomings in the administration of the TAAF Program, suggesting that USDA did not have the appropriate controls in place to ensure that program participants were eligible, that payments were accurate, or that oversight was sufficient. Another source alleges that “TAA fell short of expectations. Persistent eligibility barriers, administrative complexity, and inadequate funding limited the program’s reach and success.”
Despite these criticisms, the TAAF program represents a thoughtful approach for leveraging government funds against technical assistance to unlock producers’ own dreams and aspirations of what their future could hold. For example, a Maine lobsterman interviewed in a 2012 article said, “I think the lobster industry is changing. We can do two things: we sit at the dock or at home, or we can get up off our butts and do something about it. This program affords fishermen an opportunity to get up and get out there, and try to make a change.”
A vision for moving forward
As this exploration illustrates, there are many possible avenues to provide relief to fishermen from today’s high fuel costs. Fishermen could explore an amendment of the Fishery Resource Disaster Assistance program to provide ongoing opportunities for assistance in response to hardships stemming from economic causes, not just natural causes. Alternatively, fishermen could advocate for a one-time blanket relief package for fishermen (and farmers) to mitigate high input costs and market disruptions incurred during the year 2026, calculated according to some kind of formula and issued as a check to producers (or perhaps a tax rebate). But after educating myself about these programs, the model I am most intrigued by is the TAAF’s approach of combining cash payments with technical assistance and business planning to unlock producers’ own ideas for developing and future-proofing their businesses. The TAAF was designed to buffer farms and fishing businesses from trade shocks—but its core concepts could be thoughtfully adapted to buffer them from fuel price shocks instead (or as well).
What could a fishing vessel energy efficiency program modeled after the TAA look like? Here is a rough sketch:
Technical assistance programs could be developed and implemented by state Sea Grant programs with the input of state- or region-specific advisory committees made up of fishermen and shoreside marine techs.
The technical assistance program could help vessel owners and operators take stock of energy usage on their vessels—or in other aspects of their businesses, such as the costs of shipping their seafood to market—and undertake an enlightened consideration of options for saving fuel and reducing costs in the future. The curriculum could be customized to each region and fleet to ensure that participants receive information that is applicable to their own realities. It could include information about a menu of efficiency options available for fishing vessels, including details on the efficiency benefits, co-benefits, and downsides of each available solution in different operational contexts.
Participants could be required to undertake self-guided energy assessments similar to the Fishing Vessel Energy Efficiency Self-Audit Workbook developed by Alaska Sea Grant or the Fuel Efficiency Self-Audit Tool developed by the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association. These tools would need to be developed at the outset of the program by participating Sea Grant programs in consultation with technical experts—work that would need to be funded under the program.
Fishermen completing the technical assistance program and undertaking an energy self-assessment of their vessel(s) could receive an initial cash payment. Ideally, if this program is to function as a fuel cost relief payment, the amount paid should correspond to the size of each participants’ fuel burden, although this point should be considered carefully in program design. Some fishermen may wish to conclude their participation at this point.
Fishermen choosing to continue their participation in the program could be eligible to receive cash and technical assistance for the purpose of completing a professional energy audit under the USDA’s Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) followed by technical assistance in applying for energy-saving vessel upgrades under REAP, the EPA’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), California’s Carl Moyer program, or any other programs arising in the future for this purpose. (It is worth noting that the Fishery Friendly Climate Action Campaign’s Transition to a Low Carbon Fishing Fleet research found significant room for improving these programs to make them more accessible to fishermen—improvements that could be made concurrently with the launch of this hypothetical TAAF-inspired energy relief program).
The program as a whole could incorporate input from liaisons at NOAA, USDA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD). Because these agencies may play a role in enabling some of the solutions proposed by fishermen, it would be useful to have them involved from the start.
As for where this program would “live” in statute, options could include the Farm Bill (which is currently up for reauthorization and is being deliberated in Congress) or any kind of relief bill or omnibus spending bill that may be implemented in the near future.
I often hear fishermen saying, when talking about government support services, “I want a hand up, not a hand out.” This vision is designed to offer just that. If you are a commercial fishermen, what do you think of this program concept? Contact me to share your thoughts.
