President Joe Biden has announced a landmark $7.3 billion investment, the largest since the FDR New Deal, aimed at electrifying rural America.

Funded by his Inflation Reduction Act, the initiative will bring significant changes to energy infrastructure across the country, benefiting farmers, businesses and communities waiting for modern power solutions.

Weston Lombard, a farmer from Athens County and a recipient of funding, the program is a welcome relief but he believes there is more to be done.

"I was super fortunate to benefit from the IRA program, but there are so many other people who aren't benefiting," Lombard pointed out. "$7 billion is amazing but I know it's not going to touch all the communities."

Lombard, whose farm faces frequent power outages, appreciates the cost savings and improved grid reliability but prefers a more sustainable, off-grid approach. He noted he has installed solar panels and hopes to expand neighborhood electric generation projects but prefers relying on ecosystem services rather than external energy.

As Biden unveiled the initiative, he underscored the unprecedented opportunities for rural communities and nonprofit co-ops to benefit from clean-energy tax credits, historically reserved for larger utilities.

"For the first time in American history, these nonprofit co-ops can benefit from clean-energy tax credits just like for-profit utilities have for decades," Biden said.

The federal government sees the investment as a crucial first step.

Karine Jean-Pierre, White House press secretary, emphasized the funding will help transform energy infrastructure in the heart of rural America, marking the beginning of a larger commitment to energy modernization and job creation.

"Sixteen rural electric cooperatives from across the country have been selected as a part of this first round of awards from the Department of Agriculture's Empowering Rural America program," Jean-Pierre outlined.

Jean-Pierre stressed the cooperatives are set to lower energy costs for rural Americans, enhance grid reliability, and create more than 4,500 permanent jobs and more than 16,000 construction jobs.

She added the move is a critical piece of the administration's strategy to not only boost rural economies but accelerate the transition to cleaner, more reliable energy sources for future generations.


get more stories like this via email

In a new poll, 81% of registered voters from several Midwestern states said they oppose corporations resorting to eminent domain for private projects.

The results come amid high-profile carbon capture efforts in North Dakota and elsewhere. Companies such as Summit Carbon Solutions have drawn attention in trying to scale up carbon-capture technology. Summit is seeking approval to build a multistate pipeline which would transport ethanol plant emissions for underground storage in North Dakota.

Emma Schmit, pipeline organizer for the coalition Bold Alliance, which commissioned the survey, said opposition to how land is secured for proposed routes falls across many demographics.

"While we do see that the rural voters that carbon-capture projects most adversely affect - they do have these strongest levels of opposition - I was interestingly surprised to see that urban and suburban voters really did not lag far behind in their overwhelming opposition," Schmit observed.

In North Dakota specifically, 90% of survey respondents called it a "serious" concern if "corporations are allowed to seize people's private property to build carbon capture and storage projects." Summit insists its goal is to secure "100% voluntary easement agreements," but it could not rule out pursuing practices such as eminent domain as landowner negotiations continue.

Summit has seen mixed results at the regulatory level for necessary permits, including an initial rejection in North Dakota. However, the company said it has secured 83% of the land easements along the state's pipeline route while filing a revised application.

Zach Cassidy, pipeline organizer for the Dakota Resource Council, said more broadly, the survey revealed an interesting dynamic.

"The fact of the matter is here in North Dakota, most policymakers have supported this pipeline, but most voters have not," Cassidy asserted.

In addition to landowner rights, the Summit project has sparked a backlash over environmental and public safety concerns. The survey, conducted in late July, included nearly 2,500 interviews with registered voters across six states.

Minnesota has plenty of prime farmland, with some of it being converted in the transition to clean energy sources such as solar. The movement has sparked conversations about future land use in ag-heavy areas.

The Clean Grid Alliance said Minnesota has 17 million acres of farmland considered "prime." Even if all current development plans are fully realized, solar would take up less than 0.5% of the total. However, in some farming communities, residents sometimes express reluctance about adding a new layer to a town's identity.

Trish Harren, Mower County administrator, said it can happen after visible signs of a solar project but she pointed out the economic benefits are substantial.

"As solar builds out, it will be an economic-development tool that will help us keep our tax base stable," Harren explained.

Harrin noted they have already seen the same effect with wind development and the pending Louise Solar Project is expected to provide more than $2 million in new tax revenue to help pay down local tax levies. Officials said the revenue is on top of direct payments to landowners hosting the projects.

Harrin stressed as they map out future land use, they have to strike a delicate balance because agriculture is still their primary economic driver.

Researchers at Virginia Tech are looking at the possible connection between larger solar farms and soil erosion along farm property.

Marlin Fay, president of the Mower County Farm Bureau, suggested whatever side effects might come up, the projects are not going to eliminate the nation's ability to grow food.

"If you have solar panels on the land for 30 years, they can come out of there and that land can go back to farming," Fay explained. "If you start having residential development and big business or something, come into farmland and start putting stuff on there, that's never going to go back to farmland again."

The local leaders also pointed to the emergence of agrivoltaics, which is farming and renewables working hand in hand. Examples include growing rows of crops in between or under canopies of solar panels or planting flowers around the installations so pollinators can float around them.

The Public Service Commission of West Virginia is facing legal challenges for its 2021 directive that Appalachian Power increase the usage of three of its coal plants.

Critics say the utility is paying more to keep coal plants open, and passing the cost onto residents and businesses - now burdened with higher energy bills.

The lawsuit argues that the mandate oversteps federal rules and undermines safeguards put into place to protect the public from unfair rate increases - according to Jim Kotcon, chair of the West Virginia Sierra Club.

"Sixty nine percent is a much higher rate than these coal-fired power plants have operated at in the past," said Kotcon, "and by directing the plants to operate at that level, it forces the utility to sell electricity into the grid at a price below their cost of operating."

According to the Sierra Club, rates have jumped by an average of 20% since the directive went into effect in 2021, resulting in significantly higher electricity bills.

The Commission argues the directive is aimed at meeting an increased demand for energy.

Research shows West Virginians' average monthly residential energy bills have more than doubled over the past decade, from about $67 to $142 per month.

Bruce Perrone is a retiree in Kanawha County who said older and low-income residents, and those living on fixed incomes, will bear the burden of higher energy bills.

He added that state regulators are tasked with ensuring that power companies charge reasonable rates.

"My problem with this whole scheme is telling them to run their coal-fired businesses at levels where they're going to lose money is just a means to support the coal industry," said Perrone. "It is not helping consumers."

Last month, Appalachian Power filed another rate increase request with the Commission, seeking to raise its annual revenue by $265 million.