More money for agriculture innovation pitched by Shapiro after high demand
This story was produced by the State College regional bureau of Spotlight PA, an independent, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to investigative and public-service journalism for Pennsylvania. Sign up for Talk of the Town, a weekly newsletter of local stories that dig deep, events, and more from north-central PA, at spotlightpa.org/newsletters/talkofthetown.
BELLEFONTE — The Shapiro administration wants to double the amount of money Pennsylvania spends on its Agricultural Innovation Grant program, proposing $23 million to support new technologies and conservation projects.
The grant program — established in last year's state budget — reimburses farmers and other businesses that update their operations to be more efficient and environmentally friendly. The state Department of Agriculture distributed all $10 million earmarked for the initial run.
As Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro seeks to expand the program's reach, some Republicans are questioning the administration's fiscal priorities amid a long-running structural deficit. They also worry about whether there will be a meaningful return on investment.
The state received more than $68 million in funding requests from 159 applicants for the program's inaugural round, and awarded 88 businesses and farms across 45 counties. Projects included new refrigeration, precision technology, automatic harvesting systems, milking robots, and composting initiatives.
Mark Gagnon, an agribusiness management professor at Penn State, told Spotlight PA he was impressed with the 'array of investments' made by the grant program.
'I think it's good to thoughtfully try some new approaches, and often, when I think about it with entrepreneurship, education, and innovation, it's this idea of disciplined experimentation,' he said. 'And if we keep doing the same thing, we're not going to lever out the results or have some more impactful results. So, I think that building a mechanism like this — I'm just going to be fascinated to see where it goes.'
State Rep. Paul Takac (D., Centre), who sponsored the underlying bill that created the grant program, told Spotlight PA that the effort helps meet the sector's needs.
'The fact that there were $68 million in grant applications in year one shows that this is the kind of investment that will pay dividends for years and years to come,' Takac said. 'So, I do think that it's very much in line with what we should be investing in our future and especially in our rural communities.'
That demand is central to the Shapiro administration's budget proposal, which argues that additional investment could improve Pennsylvania's agriculture industry and boost the state's economy. Shapiro has also pitched using $2 million to assess a pilot program that would create county-based digesters to generate electricity. Under Shapiro's proposed budget, state spending on innovative agricultural practices would total $25 million.
Brubaker Farms, in Lancaster County, received a $400,000 grant for a project that will create renewable energy from manure. Owner and manager Josh Brubaker said during a news conference that the money builds on existing efforts to make the business more sustainable and operating for years to come.
In Adams County, Rice Fruit Company was awarded $130,000 to help pay for a robotic bin-tipper system to pack apples for sale. Valerie Ramsburg, who manages marketing for the operation, previously told Spotlight PA the upgrade will increase capacity, improve quality, and reduce wastewater.
'With the rising costs of farming and providing food for people, the support of our leaders is paramount,' Ramsburg said in February. 'When farmers are able to make the most of new technologies, the efficiencies and benefits are passed on to consumers and Pennsylvania communities and help to maintain the rural atmosphere much of the Keystone State enjoys.'
Some Republican lawmakers, however, have called for a closer look at how grant recipients are chosen, how outcomes are measured, and whether the benefits justify the investment.
'We really have to look at this ag innovation because it's not helping Pennsylvania farmers,' state Rep. Eric Nelson (R., Westmoreland) said during a February legislative budget hearing. 'It seems to be helping a hundred hand-selected farmers.'
Nelson pointed to just how many farms there are in Pennsylvania as a whole, saying the number of grants might not be cause for celebration. According to federal data, the state has about 49,000 farms.
'It looks to be a program that's picking winners and losers,' Nelson told longtime Secretary of Agriculture Russell Redding.
State Reps. Jamie Barton (R., Schuylkill) and Torren Ecker (R., Adams) questioned the application review process, hoping to understand how the decision process works and who's involved.
Still, Ecker said he'd support Shapiro's investment pitch. He told Spotlight PA that the innovation grant program helps 'prop up' Pennsylvania's agriculture industry.
Meanwhile, state Rep. Dan Moul (R., Adams) asked the agriculture department to invite the state House and Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee chairs to join conversations about funding requests.
He also questioned several Pittsburgh-based grant recipients.
'We don't have too many farms in the cities, so basically, I think what we're talking about there is gardening,' Moul said. 'And it's OK. I have no problem with gardening, but we should be — in my opinion — we should be, if I was on the committee, I would be saying let's gear our money toward something that can produce a lot of food on a little bit of land and help these guys with harvesting, new innovations, but not gardens in the inner city.'
Redding has pushed back on criticism of the grant program, testifying before lawmakers that his department has 'worked our tail off' to support the agriculture industry. While he was open to discussing how to include lawmakers in grant request discussions, he also emphasized that an internal team helped evaluate applications — 'not a single person or a single bureau.'
'There is nothing to hide,' Redding told state House lawmakers. 'If somebody wants to take the time to go through that and look at it and look at the match requirements and check that against what we set out as the requirements for eligibility, they're certainly welcome to do that.'
The rubric used by the team of individuals that reviewed funding applications — which Spotlight PA obtained through an open records request — scored proposals on their alignment with the grant program's mission and innovation principles, metrics for success, expected regional impacts, and budgeting.
Projects that received funds in the first round must be completed by June 27, 2027. The state agriculture department will release an impact report at the end of the two-year cycle, a spokesperson told Spotlight PA.
and help us reinvigorate local news in north-central Pennsylvania at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability and public-service journalism that gets results.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Associated Press
7 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But in the Senate, it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. It also provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. But as debate in the state Senate seemed inevitable, dozens of Summit employees and leaders and members of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and labor unions made a big showing as well. The pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said in a May 12 statement after the vote that a majority of the Iowa Senate 'turned their back on Iowa agriculture.'


Fox News
18 minutes ago
- Fox News
DOJ slams Newsom's 'crass political stunt' over Trump's call-up of National Guard amid LA anti-ICE riots
The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues the courts should deny California's request for a restraining order against the Trump administration over its decision to activate National Guard soldiers in Los Angeles after violent riots broke out over the weekend amid Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in the city. Democratic leaders in California claim President Donald Trump abused his authority by invoking a provision of Title 10 that allows the president to mobilize the National Guard if an invasion or rebellion is underway. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement Monday that Trump caused the bulk of the rioting because he unnecessarily deployed the military to protect ICE personnel and federal buildings. Newsom also claimed local and state police had the situation under control when Trump spurred chaos by issuing his National Guard proclamation. Weighing in on the matter a day ahead of a scheduled hearing, the DOJ made its case that Trump had the authority to call on the National Guard's response. "In a crass political stunt endangering American lives, the Governor of California seeks to use this Court to stop the President of the United States from exercising his lawful statutory and constitutional power to ensure that federal personnel and facilities are protected," the DOJ said. "But, under the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and the President is responsible for ensuring the protection of federal personnel and federal facilities." Since Friday, violent rioters who object to ICE's enforcement of immigration laws have targeted and damaged federal buildings, injured federal personnel and impeded federal functions, the DOJ said. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and other state and local law enforcement officials have been unable to bring order to Los Angeles, the DOJ claimed. The agency also pointed to a comment made by LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, who said during a news conference that "things have gotten out of control" and warned that "somebody could easily be killed." "Evaluating the unrest and threats to the enforcement of federal law that local and state authorities were unable or unwilling to control, the President responded by using the authority vested in him by statute and the Constitution to federalize and deploy the California National Guard to protect federal personnel and property, quell the mobs, and restore order," the DOJ wrote. "When the situation escalated further, the Secretary of Defense deployed a group of U.S. Marines to further assist. "The President has every right under the Constitution and by statute to call forth the National Guard and Marines to quell lawless violence directed against enforcement of federal law," the DOJ continued. "Yet instead of working to bring order to Los Angeles, California and its Governor filed a lawsuit in San Francisco seeking a court order limiting the federal government's ability to protect its property and officials." The DOJ said California's request would "countermand" the president's military directives, which would be "unprecedented." "On the merits, Plaintiffs' claims are baseless," the DOJ said. Newsom also claimed Trump never consulted with him before activating the National Guard, though the statute does not have such a requirement, the DOJ said. "It merely directs, as a procedural matter, that the President's orders be conveyed "through" the Governor," the DOJ wrote. "They were." Historically, courts did not interfere when former President Dwight Eisenhower deployed the military to protect school desegregation, nor did they interfere when former President Richard Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail during a postal strike. Ultimately, the DOJ recommended the court deny California and Newsom's motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Newsom's office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.


New York Times
27 minutes ago
- New York Times
U.S. Argues Against Any Court Order Restricting Use of Troops in L.A.
The Justice Department on Wednesday argued that there was no legal basis to block federal troops from accompanying immigration agents on raids in Los Angeles, portraying the state of California's request for such a judicial order as baseless and an attempt to restrict President Trump's power. In a 29-page brief, the department maintained that neither the state government nor federal courts had a right to second-guess Mr. Trump's judgment that federal military reinforcements were necessary to protect federal immigration agents from protesters in the city. 'That is precisely the type of sensitive judgment that is committed to the president's discretion by law, and to which courts owe the highest deference,' the Justice Department wrote. 'The statute empowers the president to determine what forces 'he considers necessary' to 'suppress' a 'rebellion' or to 'execute' federal 'laws' — not the governor, and not a federal court.' The filing came ahead of a hearing scheduled for Thursday afternoon in Federal District Court in San Francisco. Judge Charles S. Breyer, a 1997 Clinton appointee, is overseeing the legal challenge. The state of California and its governor, Gavin Newsom, filed a lawsuit on Monday night challenging the legality of Mr. Trump's move, which included taking control of up to 4,000 California National Guard troops and sending in 700 Marines. On Tuesday, the Democratic-controlled state requested a temporary restraining order that would limit both types of troops under federal control to guarding federal buildings, with no other law enforcement activity. The state cited, in part, a 19th-century law, the Posse Comitatus Act, that generally makes it illegal to use federal troops for law enforcement on domestic soil unless the president invokes the little-used Insurrection Act. But in its brief, the Justice Department argued that the state was mischaracterizing Mr. Trump's order, which included instructions to use the forces to protect federal agents enforcing immigration law. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.