Renewable energy is a lifeline for many U.S. farms, but Trump's cuts to wind and solar are putting that at risk
For many farmers, these are lifelines. Renewable energy provides steady income and affordable power, helping farms stay viable when crop prices fall or drought strikes.
But some of that opportunity is now at risk as the Trump administration cuts federal support for renewable energy.
Wind power brings steady income for farms
Wind energy is a significant economic driver in rural America. In Iowa, for example, over 60% of the state's electricity came from wind energy in 2024, and the state is a hub for wind turbine manufacturing and maintenance jobs.
For landowners, wind turbines often mean stable lease payments. Those historically were around US$3,000 to $5,000 per turbine per year, with some modern agreements $5,000 to $10,000 annually, secured through 20- to 30-year contracts.
Nationwide, wind and solar projects contribute about $3.5 billion annually in combined lease payments and state and local taxes, more than a third of it going directly to rural landowners.
These figures are backed by long-term contracts and multibillion‑dollar annual contributions, reinforcing the economic value that turbines bring to rural landowners and communities.
Wind farms also contribute to local tax revenues that help fund rural schools, roads and emergency services. In counties across Texas, wind energy has become one of the most significant contributors to local property tax bases, stabilizing community budgets and helping pay for public services as agricultural commodity revenues fluctuate.
In Oldham County in northwest Texas, for example, clean energy projects provided 22% of total county revenues in 2021. In several other rural counties, wind farms rank among the top 10 property taxpayers, contributing between 38% and 69% of tax revenue.
The construction and operation of these projects also bring local jobs in trucking, concrete work and electrical services, boosting small-town businesses.
The U.S. wind industry supports over 300,000 U.S. jobs across construction, manufacturing, operations and other roles connected to the industry, according to the American Clean Power Association.
Renewable energy has been widely expected to continue to grow along with rising energy demand. In 2024, 93% of all new electricity generating capacity was wind, solar or energy storage, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration expected a similar percentage in 2025 as of June.
Solar can cut power costs on the farm
Solar energy is also boosting farm finances. Farmers use rooftop panels on barns and ground-mounted systems to power irrigation pumps, grain dryers and cold storage facilities, cutting their power costs.
Some farmers have adopted agrivoltaics — dual-use systems that grow crops beneath solar panels. The panels provide shade, helping conserve water, while creating a second income path. These projects often cultivate pollinator-friendly plants, vegetables such as lettuce and spinach, or even grasses for grazing sheep, making the land productive for both food and energy.
Federal grants and tax credits that were significantly expanded under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act helped make the upfront costs of solar installations affordable.
However, the federal spending bill signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, 2025, rolled back many clean energy incentives. It phases down tax credits for distributed solar projects, particularly those under 1 megawatt, which include many farm‑scale installations, and sunsets them entirely by 2028. It also eliminates bonus credits that previously supported rural and low‑income areas.
Without these credits, the upfront cost of solar power could be out of reach for some farmers, leaving them paying higher energy costs. At a 2024 conference organized by the Institute of Sustainability, Energy and Environment at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, where I work as a research economist, farmers emphasized the importance of tax credits and other economic incentives to offset the upfront cost of solar power systems.
What's being lost
The cuts to federal incentives include terminating the Production Tax Credit for new projects placed in service after Dec. 31, 2027, unless construction begins by July 4, 2026, and is completed within a tight time frame. The tax credit pays eligible wind and solar facilities approximately 2.75 cents per kilowatt-hour over 10 years, effectively lowering the cost of renewable energy generation. Ending that tax credit will likely increase the cost of production, potentially leading to higher electricity prices for consumers and fewer new projects coming online.
The changes also accelerate the phase‑out of wind power tax credits. Projects must now begin construction by July 4, 2026, or be in service before the end of 2027 to qualify for any credit.
Meanwhile, the Investment Tax Credit, which covers 30% of installed cost for solar and other renewables, faces similar limits: Projects must begin by July 4, 2026, and be completed by the end of 2027 to claim the credits. The bill also cuts bonuses for domestic components and installations in rural or low‑income locations. These adjustments could slow new renewable energy development, particularly smaller projects that directly benefit rural communities.
While many existing clean energy agreements will remain in place for now, the rollback of federal incentives threatens future projects and could limit new income streams. It also affects manufacturing and jobs in those industries, which some rural communities rely on.
Renewable energy also powers rural economies
Renewable energy benefits entire communities, not just individual farmers.
Wind and solar projects contribute millions of dollars in tax revenue. For example, in Howard County, Iowa, wind turbines generated $2.7 million in property tax revenue in 2024, accounting for 14.5% of the county's total budget and helping fund rural schools, public safety and road improvements.
In some rural counties, clean energy is the largest new source of economic activity, helping stabilize local economies otherwise reliant on agriculture's unpredictable income streams. These projects also support rural manufacturing – such as Iowa turbine blade factories like TPI Composites, which just reopened its plant in Newton, and Siemens Gamesa in Fort Madison, which supply blades for GE and Siemens turbines. The tax benefits in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act helped boost those industries – and the jobs and local tax revenue they bring in.
On the solar side, rural companies like APA Solar Racking, based in Ohio, manufacture steel racking systems for utility-scale solar farms across the Midwest. https://www.youtube.com/embed/Bcet_aaaMq8?wmode=transparent&start=0 An example of how renewable energy has helped boost farm incomes and keep farmers on their land.
As rural America faces economic uncertainty and climate pressures, I believe homegrown renewable energy offers a practical path forward. Wind and solar aren't just fueling the grid; they're helping keep farms and rural towns alive.
Paul Mwebaze is a eesearch Economist at the Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Environment at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 minutes ago
- Forbes
A Big, Beautiful Fiction - Does The EU/US Trade Deal Make Sense?
James Thurber's famous book 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is yet another book I would recommend to readers, to continue a recurring theme of recent weeks. It is especially apt in the context of the US-EU trade deal. Walter Mitty appeared at the end of the 1930's, a decade that was shaped by Herbert Hoover's tariff policy, and that was marked by profound economic and geopolitical tensions. Mitty's fantasies were provoked by the reality of his pedestrian, harangued life – which will appeal to European leaders who care to dream of better days. Equally, the giddiness of Mitty's fantasies has its equivalent in the promises that Donald Trump has elicited from the EU – namely, to buy and invest hundreds of billions of dollars in energy. One week on, reaction to the US-EU trade deal is still mixed, and it is not quite clear who has 'won'. This may be because it is not a trade deal in the classical sense – at least in the sense of the laborious trade deals that the EU is used to striking, partly because a large facet of the 'deal' is based on a promise and also because the optics of the deal are quite depressing for Europe. At the headline level, EU exports into the US will be met with a 15% tariff to be paid by the US consumer, not unlike the Japanese 'deal'. Auto companies will not be displeased with a 15% tariff. Wines and spirits, steel and notably pharmaceuticals have yet to have tariff levels finalised and there will be some relief on the confirmation of 15% tariffs on pharmaceuticals, though the investigation into pharmaceutical exports back to the US is a tail risk. Interestingly, the EU has resisted attempts to water down its digital regulations. Politically the spin that the EU is putting on the agreement is that it was the best possible outcome in a difficult geopolitical climate (recall that the recent EU-China summit was a damp-squib). While there were some public expressions of dismay, notably from the French prime minister Francois Bayrou – these can be seen to be largely aimed at the public, rather than Brussels. Though Ursula von der Leyen is unpopular with EU governments for the singular way she runs her office – it is populated with officials who are close to national government (i.e. Alexandre Adam one of von der Leyen's key deputies is an arch Macronist) – there is no sense that the large countries were left out of the negotiation process, and any effort to isolate von der Leyen for blame, is ignoble. However, amongst the professional trade staff, there is still some despair at the humiliating optics of the deal, the fact that it is in many ways not binding, and the risk that there is no undertaking that it is final in the sense that another round of tariffs is imposed later. On the positive side for Europe, and flipping to the 'Mitty-esque' part of the deal, two of the key undertakings in the deal – that European companies invest USD 600 bn in the US, in addition to a commitment to purchase microchips, as well as a commitment from the EU to buy USD 750bn in energy from the US over the course of the Trump presidency – are not at all clear in their implementation, and very much open to a fudge, with the right accounting treatment. In particular the energy purchase commitment is unrealistic because it exceeds what the EU spends on energy in a given year and US energy firms do not have the capacity to service a commitment of USD 250bn in demand from Europe, whilst also serving other markets. In my view there are several aftershocks to watch for. The first is that the deal further damages trans-Atlantic relations, and the level of trust between the EU and the US is likely the lowest it has ever been, and this has strategic implications as far afield as Russia/Ukraine and the Middle East. One other implication may be a drift, by government and consumers, away from US brands – as this may well be an effect that is seen in other regions. Two financial market implications are that the dampening of growth in Europe will maintain downward pressure on rates in Europe. More importantly, in the context of a very oversold dollar, there is now an incentive for EU policy makers to try hard to talk down the euro, and we may see a short-term rebound in the currency pair. On the whole, if this is a 'final' deal and the topic of tariffs does not re-emerge in the next three years, it is not a bad deal for the semi's, autos and aerospace sectors in Europe, though the public optics are not good for the EU. The best parts of the deal for Europe are the fantastical claims of incoming European investment and energy purchases in the US. This is a Mitty style fairy tale that the Europeans hope Mr Trump believes in. The telling factor is that this deal has now emptied all goodwill from the trans-Atlantic relationship, and effectively completes another diplomatic rupture by President Trump. From a European point of view, this is yet another 'wake up call' and the best that can be hoped for is that it accelerates projects like the savings and investment union and 'strategic autonomy'. European leaders and the European policy elite keep talking about this, but until we see hard evidence (for example, German real GDP over the last five years is close to zero), they are the fantasists. Have a great week ahead Mike
Fox News
2 minutes ago
- Fox News
Kamala Harris: I refused to 'pile on' Joe Biden
Kamala Harris bristled at Stephen Colbert's question about navigating a campaign to replace her own boss.
Forbes
2 minutes ago
- Forbes
Nature Credits Show the Path to Market-Driven ProSocial AI
In July 2025, the European Union took a big step toward market-driven environmental restoration with the launch of its Roadmap towards Nature Credits. The initiative could not only shift how society thinks about climate change but also fundamentally reshape how we approach prosocial artificial intelligence and its role in addressing global challenges. Why? Understanding The EU Nature Credits Framework The EU's nature credits roadmap creates quantifiable biodiversity certification units that reward those who actively contribute to ecosystem restoration and conservation, including farmers, foresters, fishers, landowners and local communities. This market-based mechanism complements public funding by creating financial incentives for nature-positive actions, with the ambitious goal of establishing a fully operational biodiversity market by 2027. What makes it particularly compelling is how it transforms environmental stewardship from a cost center into a value-generating activity. By creating tradable credits for measurable biodiversity improvements, the EU is essentially gamifying conservation, turning positive environmental impact into a competitive advantage. This is twice important in a geopolitical context in which the US is set to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement in January 2026, and plans to revoke the 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, which concluded that planet-warming greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health. The Prosocial AI Connection The nature credits framework offers a fascinating parallel to the development of prosocial AI systems, AI systems which are tailored, trained, tested and targeted to bring out the best in and for people and planet. Just as the EU seeks to quantify and reward positive environmental outcomes, we need mechanisms to measure and incentivize AI systems that generate positive social impact. The parallels are intriguing: Quantifiable Impact: Nature credits require verifiable, measurable improvements to biodiversity. Similarly, prosocial AI systems need clear metrics for social benefit — whether that's reducing bias, improving accessibility, or enhancing community well-being. Market-Driven Innovation: By creating economic value around positive environmental outcomes, the EU is harnessing market forces for good. Prosocial AI could similarly benefit from frameworks that reward systems demonstrating genuine social benefit, perhaps through certification programs or priority access to computing resources. Stakeholder Engagement: The nature credits roadmap explicitly involves diverse stakeholders, from farmers to local communities. Prosocial AI development requires similar inclusive approaches, ensuring that affected communities have meaningful input into AI system design and deployment. Bridging Digital And Natural Ecosystems The EU's approach reveals something about modern challenges, which has always been true about society. Everything is connected within a continuum of constant change. Solutions and problems are part of an organically evolving kaleidoscope. In an increasingly hybrid setting, this is twice true. Whatever issue we are facing is the cause and consequence of interconnected systems that require systemic solutions. Consider how AI could accelerate the nature credits program itself. Machine learning algorithms could monitor biodiversity changes in real-time, automatically verify credit-worthy conservation actions, and optimize restoration strategies across vast landscapes. Conversely, the nature credits framework demonstrates principles that prosocial AI can adopt. The emphasis on transparency, measurable outcomes, and stakeholder inclusion creates a template for responsible technology development. The Commission's establishment of an expert group to mobilize expertise and share best practices mirrors the collaborative governance models that prosocial AI initiatives need. Criticisms On The Nature Credits Logic Not everyone embraces this market-driven approach. Friends of the Earth Europe warns of greenwashing whereby nature credits could become 'a political distraction that will weaken environmental regulation, undermine public investment and prioritise corporate profits over real ecological action'. These concerns echo debates in AI ethics about whether market mechanisms can truly align profit motives with social good. The key might be robust yet agile governance frameworks that prevent abuse while maintaining innovation incentives. For both nature credits and prosocial AI, this means strong oversight, transparent metrics and accountability mechanisms that ensure genuine positive impact rather than superficial compliance. Which ultimately comes back to human mindsets and the intentions, both personal and political, that drive agendas and action to implement them. A Vision For Integrated Impact? Imagine a future where AI systems optimizing supply chains automatically factor in nature credit implications, where machine learning models help communities identify the most impactful conservation opportunities, and where prosocial AI principles guide the technology platforms that will manage global biodiversity markets. This convergence is more than theory. The EU's commitment to allocating 10% of its 2026-27 budget to biodiversity while exploring innovative financing mechanisms demonstrates how traditional policy tools can evolve. Similarly, prosocial AI needs both dedicated resources and creative approaches that go beyond conventional regulatory frameworks. The nature credits roadmap also highlights the importance of timing and scale. Environmental challenges can't wait for perfect solutions, and neither can the social challenges that AI systems could help address. The EU's timeline — establishing expert groups by 2025 and operational markets by 2027 — shows how ambitious but achievable goals could drive rapid progress. Practical Implementation: The CREDITS Framework Drawing lessons from the EU's nature credits initiative, organizations developing prosocial AI systems can apply this practical framework: Certify measurable social impact through transparent, verifiable metrics — just as nature credits quantify biodiversity improvements, prosocial AI needs clear success indicators that stakeholders can trust and verify. Reward positive outcomes by creating economic incentives for socially beneficial AI development, whether through preferential procurement policies, tax incentives, or market advantages that make prosocial approaches profitable. Engage diverse stakeholders throughout the development process, ensuring that affected communities have meaningful input and that benefits are distributed equitably rather than concentrated among technology developers. Develop collaborative governance frameworks that bring together technical experts, community representatives, and policymakers to guide responsible development and prevent harmful applications. Integrate impact considerations into core business processes rather than treating social benefit as an add-on, making prosocial principles fundamental to system design and operation. Track long-term outcomes with the same rigor applied to financial performance, recognizing that genuine social impact often takes time to manifest and requires sustained commitment beyond initial deployment. Sustain efforts overtime. Healing the planet is not a quick fix – but the consequence of systemic, ongoing effort. The EU's nature credits program isn't just about biodiversity — it's about reimagining how we create positive change in complex systems. For prosocial AI, it offers a roadmap toward market-driven social benefits that could transform how we build and deploy intelligent systems. The question isn't whether we can afford to pursue prosocial AI, but whether we can afford not to.
