When REAP grants vanish, rural America—and clean energy—loses momentum.

Ongoing delays and disruptions to a federal rural energy program threaten to impact Midwest farmers and Republican congressional districts disproportionately, experts say.

For more than two decades, the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) has helped thousands of farmers install solar, energy-efficient grain dryers, biodigesters, wind turbines, and other cost-saving clean energy improvements.

Since 2014, Illinois has benefited more than any other state, with over $140 million in REAP grants, according to federal data obtained by the Chicago-based Environmental Law & Policy Center through a public records request.

Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio are also in the top 10 states receiving grants during that period. REAP proponents say the numbers show what’s at stake as the program faces chaos and uncertainty under the Trump administration.

“It’s popular with all different stripes — not just political stripes, any type of farmer,” said Lloyd Ritter, who helped draft the program as senior counsel for former Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). ​“It could be poultry, corn, soybeans, wheat — everybody benefits because the program is so flexible and innovative; you can utilize the program for your type of needs in your area.”

Carmen Fernholz and his wife are among the success stories. The couple has operated an organic farm in Minnesota for over 50 years. Last summer Fernholz used a REAP grant to install a 40-kilowatt solar array. It powers everything on the farm, from the electric lawnmower to the heating, and over the last year, he has earned an additional $600 a month on average by sending electricity back to the grid through his rural electric cooperative.

Since 2014, REAP has provided more than $1.2 billion for more than 13,000 solar projects, making up about 70% of the total REAP dollars. More than $292 million was allocated to energy efficiency, including investments in windows, lighting, heating, and efficient grain dryers. Millions more were awarded for biogas, biomass, biofuels, wind energy, hydroelectric power, and other projects.

This has created crucial energy savings and revenue for farmers, as well as important business for solar developers, energy-efficiency auditors, and various types of contractors. Farmers raising livestock and poultry, as well as growing corn, soy, and other crops, are the most common recipients of REAP. Still, funds have also gone to small rural businesses, including distilleries, breweries, a car wash, a mental health clinic, a newspaper publisher, and a moving company.

More than 75% of the grants went to congressional districts represented by Republicans. Ritter noted that REAP was a deeply bipartisan effort from the start, led by both Harkin and former Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana.

“These are their voters,” Ritter said of Republican leaders. ​“The thing that is so great about REAP is it lowers energy costs and saves farmers money, which ties into the [Trump administration] agriculture secretary’s recent announcements about building rural prosperity and farm security.”

REAP’s IRA boost is likely to end under GOP 

The program was turbocharged by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Under the federal Farm Bill, REAP grants covered up to 25% of a project’s costs. The IRA created an additional funding source and allowed grants to cover up to 50% of a project’s cost.

More than $1 billion in REAP grants have been promised (or ​“obligated”) under IRA in just the past two years, while since 2014, Farm Bill REAP grants have totaled $623 million.

More than 80% of the IRA REAP grants — totaling $818 million — were awarded to solar projects, more than 5,000 of them nationwide. Those arrays are expected to generate over 8,000 gigawatt-hours of clean energy annually, according to the federal data.

REAP grants are paid as reimbursement after a project is completed. About $770 million worth of IRA-funded REAP grants have not been paid out yet, according to the data. That’s not surprising given that projects may still be under construction. Still, after President Donald Trump froze IRA funds earlier this year, some farmers and clean energy advocates are worried about whether promised grants will be paid in full.

Andy Olsen, senior policy advocate for the Environmental Law & Policy Center, has done extensive data analysis on REAP. Given the Trump administration’s hostility toward clean energy, he wonders what REAP will look like in the future.

“Will they support solar and wind projects?” Olsen asked. ​“This is a crew that likes refineries, likes ethanol, big centralized energy technologies. I could see them only making awards to biomass, ethanol, maybe some energy efficiency.”

In addition to grants, REAP provides loan guarantees for projects. That money does not go directly to the recipient, but the guarantee helps them secure private financing since the government promises to back up the loan if the recipient were to default. More than $3 billion worth of loan guarantees have been issued under REAP since 2014, according to the data.

While the majority of REAP grants are allocated to solar and energy efficiency projects, REAP has also obligated over $115 million to biogas, biofuel, and biomass projects, as well as over $12 million to wind projects. Additionally, more than $8 million has been obligated to hydroelectric and geothermal projects.

Battery projects are also eligible for REAP, though only a few of those grants have been made thus far.

Fernholz, the farmer in Minnesota, hopes he can tap such a grant in the future. ​“The next step for people like myself should be looking at energy storage,” said Fernholz, who grew up on his parents’ farm as one of nine siblings.

He employs sustainable practices, such as conservation tillage and a tiling system, to prevent water from running off into nearby rivers. He also has 100 acres of native grassland and wetlands in a conservation reserve program. Solar is a significant contribution to these efforts.

“When the REAP grant came through, that was a blessing, the frosting on the cake,” Fernholz said.

How a Trump policy to preserve farmland could backfire 

A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture policy document, which outlines a strategy to ​“Make Agriculture Great Again,” says that going forward, REAP will disincentivize solar on ​“productive farmland.” Ritter is worried that means few ground-mounted solar arrays will receive grants, though he imagines panels on barn and farmhouse rooftops will still be awarded.

“I can understand there are some concerns about the loss of farmland. It’s an emotional issue,” Ritter said. But he notes that housing development is the most significant cause of farmland loss. Indeed, the American Farmland Trust reported in 2022 that between 2016 and 2040, the country is on track to convert over 12 million acres of farmland and ranchland to low-density residential development, like scattered houses and subdivisions with big lots. (Another roughly 6 million acres could be lost to higher-density residential development, commercial buildings, and industrial sites, the trust says.)

Ritter said installing solar can help prevent such conversions by providing farmers with revenue and energy savings that increase the financial viability of their farms. Meanwhile, agrivoltaic practices — such as grazing livestock between rows of panels — enable solar and farming to coexist.

“There are a lot of great ways to do solar on prime farmland,” Ritter said. ​“You can build energy dominance and farm at the same time.” 

Since 2009, Bill Jordan has helped nearly 100 farmers write REAP grants to install solar systems with his company, Jordan Energy, in upstate New York.

“Electric bills are always in the top 10 expenses of running a farm business,” said Jordan. ​“Any business that’s going to run itself well will look at those costs. Behind-the-meter solar is a way of offsetting the cost of your electricity, and it’s a wise diversification of farm revenue.”

Jordan said he has met ​“farmers who are milking 150 cows and making more money on the solar farm than on milk production. It’s also a diversification that the next generation gets. As farmers do family succession planning, the younger generation gets excited about solar.”

Jordan hopes that solar funding under REAP doesn’t diminish due to partisan politics, emphasizing that it drives solar manufacturing and installation jobs, as well as helps farmers. 

“These are good American jobs,” he said. ​“Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Creating energy independence is really what this is about.”

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/trump-rural-grants-midwest-republican-impact