Farm-Level Analysis of Risk Management Proposals, March 2000

This paper presents a detailed report of the representative farm analysis (summarized in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #01-00). At the request of several members of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate, we have continued to analyze the impacts of the Farmers’ Risk Management Act of 1999 (S. 1666) and the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act (S. 1580). Earlier analysis reported in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #04-99 concentrated on the aggregate net farm income and government outlay impacts. The representative farm analysis is conducted for several types of farms, including both irrigated and non-irrigated cotton farms in Tom Green County, Texas; dryland wheat farms in Morton County, North Dakota and Sumner County, Kansas; and a corn farm in Webster County, Iowa. We consider additional factors that may shed light on the differential impacts of the two plans. 1. Farm-level income impacts under alternative weather scenarios. 2. Additional indirect impacts, such as a change in ability to obtain financing. 3. Implications of within-year price shocks. Our results indicate that farmers who buy crop insurance will increase their coverage levels under S. 1580. Farmers with high yield risk find that the 65 percent coverage level maximizes expected returns, but some who feel that they obtain other benefits from higher coverage will find that the S. 1580 subsidy schedule significantly lowers the cost of obtaining the additional coverage. Farmers with lower yield risk find that the increased indemnities from additional coverage will more than offset the increase in producer premium. In addition, because S. 1580 extends its increased premium subsidy percentages to revenue insurance products, farmers will have an increased incentive to buy revenue insurance. Differences in the ancillary benefits from crop insurance under the baseline and S. 1580 would be driven by the increase in insurance participation and buy-up. Given the same levels of insurance participation and buy-up, the ancillary benefits under the two scenarios would be the same.

Fuel Adjustment, April 2011

Article 2120 of the Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction Series 2009 provides for a fuel adjustment factor to be applied to payments and partial payments for quantities of certain items of excavation work as the work is done, in accordance with the specification, when indicated in the contract documents. A Current Price Index (CPI), in dollars per gallon (liter), will be established by the DOT for each month. The CPI will be the price of No. 2 High Sulfur Diesel, as reported by Oil Price Information Service using the first weekday for the month and the average of all prices reported for Des Moines. The Base Price Index (BPI) for each contract will be the CPI in effect during the month previous to the month of the letting of that contract. If the contract has metric units, divide the Price Index ($/gal) by 3.785412 to obtain $/liter.

Fuel Adjustment, May 2011

Article 2120 of the Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction Series 2009 provides for a fuel adjustment factor to be applied to payments and partial payments for quantities of certain items of excavation work as the work is done, in accordance with the specification, when indicated in the contract documents. A Current Price Index (CPI), in dollars per gallon (liter), will be established by the DOT for each month. The CPI will be the price of No. 2 High Sulfur Diesel, as reported by Oil Price Information Service using the first weekday for the month and the average of all prices reported for Des Moines. The Base Price Index (BPI) for each contract will be the CPI in effect during the month previous to the month of the letting of that contract. If the contract has metric units, divide the Price Index ($/gal) by 3.785412 to obtain $/liter.