Reading Time: 10 minutes

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced late Tuesday it will release previously authorized grant funds to farmers and small rural business owners to build renewable energy projects — but only if they rewrite applications to comply with President Donald Trump’s energy priorities.

The move has left some farmers perplexed — and doubtful that they’ll ever get the grant money they were promised, given the Trump administration’s emphasis on fossil fuels and hostility toward renewable energy. 

Some of the roughly 6,000 grant applicants have already completed the solar, wind or other energy projects and are awaiting promised repayment from the government. Others say they can’t afford to take on the projects they’d been planning unless the grant money comes through.

A Floodlight analysis shows the overwhelming majority of the intended recipients of this money reside in Trump country — congressional districts represented by Republicans. 

After hearing of the USDA’s latest announcement Wednesday, Minnesota strawberry farmer Andy Petran said he suspects many previously approved projects won’t be funded. He’d been approved for a $39,625 grant to install solar panels on his farm. But like many other farmers nationally, Petran got word from the USDA earlier this year that his grant money had been put on hold.

“It’s not like any small farmer who is looking to put solar panels on their farms will be able to put a natural gas refinery or a coal refinery on the farm,” Petran said. “I don’t know what they expect me to switch to.”

Petran was counting on the benefits that solar power would bring to his farm.

After getting word in September that the USDA had approved his grant application, he expected the solar panels would not only reduce his electricity bill but allow him to sell power back to the grid. He and his wife figured the extra income would help expand their Twin Cities Berry Co. and pay down their debt more quickly.

Petran’s optimism was soon extinguished. A USDA representative told him earlier this year that the grant had been frozen.

His 15-acre farm about 40 miles north of Minneapolis operates on a razor-thin margin, Petran said, so without the grant money, he can’t afford to build the $80,000 solar project.

“Winning these grants was a contract between us and the government,” he said. “There was a level of trust there. That trust has been broken.”

In its announcement, issued Tuesday night, the USDA said grant recipients will have 30 days to review and revise their project plans to align with President Trump’s Unleashing American Energy Executive Order, which prioritizes fossil fuel production and cuts federal support for renewable energy projects.

“This process gives rural electric providers and small businesses the opportunity to refocus their projects on expanding American energy production while eliminating Biden-era DEIA and climate mandates embedded in previous proposals,” the USDA news release said. “… This updated guidance reflects a broader shift away from the Green New Deal.”

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said in the release that the new directive will give rural energy providers and small businesses a chance to “realign their projects” with Trump’s priorities. 

It’s unclear what this will mean for grant recipients who’ve already spent money on renewable energy projects — or those whose planned projects have been stalled by the administration’s funding freeze.

The USDA didn’t directly answer those questions. In an email to Floodlight on Wednesday, a department spokesperson said the agency must approve any proposed changes to plans — but offered no specific guidance on what or whether changes should be made.

“Awardees that do not respond via the website will be considered as not wishing to make changes to their proposals, and disbursements and other actions will resume after 30 days,” the email said. “For awardees who respond via the website to confirm no changes, processing on their projects will resume immediately.” 

IRA funding targeted

The grant funding was put on hold after an executive order issued by President Trump on his first day in office. It froze hundreds of billions of dollars for renewable energy under President Joe Biden’s massive climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). 

The law added more than $1 billion to the USDA’s 17-year-old Rural Energy for America (REAP) program.

About 6,000 REAP grants funded with IRA money have been paused and are being reviewed for compliance with Trump’s executive order, according to a March 5 email from the USDA’s rural development office to the office of U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland. 

A lawsuit filed earlier this month challenges the legality of the freeze on IRA funding for REAP projects. 

Earthjustice lawyer Hana Vizcarra, one of the attorneys who filed the suit, called the latest USDA announcement a “disingenuous stunt.”

“President Trump and Secretary Rollins can’t change the rules of the game well into the second half,” she said in a statement Wednesday. “This is the definition of an arbitrary and capricious catch-22.” 

Under the REAP grant program, farmers pay for renewable and lower carbon energy projects, then submit proof of the completed work to the USDA for reimbursement. The grants were intended to fund solar panels, wind turbines, grain dryers, irrigation upgrades and other projects, USDA data shows.

At a press conference in Atlanta on March 12, Rollins said, “If our farmers and ranchers, especially, have already spent money under a commitment that was made, the goal is to make sure they are made whole.” 

But some contend the administration is unfairly making farmers jump through more hoops.

“This isn’t cutting red tape; it’s adding more,” said Andy Olsen, senior policy advocate with the Environmental Law and Policy Center, a Midwest-based environmental advocacy group. “The USDA claims to deliver on commitments, but these new rules could result in awarded grants being permanently frozen.”

U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, a longtime farmer and Maine Democrat who sits on the House agriculture committee, said she thinks it’s illegal and unconstitutional for the administration to withhold grant money allocated by Congress. Beyond that, she said, it has hurt cash-strapped farmers.

“This is about farmers making ends meet,” she told Floodlight. “It’s not some ideological issue for us.”

GOP lawmakers silent

Using USDA data, Floodlight identified the top 10 congressional districts that received the most grants. They’re all represented by Republicans who have said little publicly about the funding freezes affecting thousands of their constituents. It’s impossible to tell from the USDA data which REAP grants will get paid out. 

The congressional district that received the most REAP grants was Iowa’s 2nd District, in the northeastern part of the state. Farmers and business owners there got more than 300 grants from 2023 through 2025. The district is represented by U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson, who has previously voiced support for “alternative energy strategies.” 

“More than half of the energy produced in Iowa is from renewable sources, and that is something for Iowans to be very proud of,” she told the House Appropriations Committee in June 2022. 

Hinson’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the matter. 

The No. 2 spot for REAP grants: Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District, represented by U.S. Rep. Brad Finstad. In that district, which spans southern Minnesota, more than 260 farmers and rural businesses were approved for REAP grants. 

Finstad’s office did not return multiple emails and calls requesting comment. His constituents have been complaining about his silence on funding freezes. They’ve staged at least two demonstrations at his offices in Minnesota. Finstad said he held a Feb. 26 telephone town hall joined by 3,000 people in his district.

In a Feb. 28 letter to a constituent, Finstad said Rollins has announced that the USDA will honor contracts already signed with farmers and that he looks forward to working with the administration “to support the needs of farm country.”

Finstad is no stranger to the REAP program. Before becoming a congressman, he was the USDA’s state director of rural development for Minnesota. In that role, he was a renewable booster.

“By reducing energy costs, renewable energy helps to create opportunities for improvement elsewhere, like creating jobs,” Finstad said in a 2021 USDA press release. That has since been deleted from the agency’s website.

Rollins, meanwhile, called herself “a massive defender of fossil fuels” at her confirmation hearing, and she has expressed skepticism about the findings of climate scientists. “We know the research of CO2 being a pollutant is just not valid,” Rollins said at the Heartland Institute’s 2018 conference on energy.

She has also said that she welcomes the efforts of Elon Musk and his cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency team at the USDA.

Losing trust in government

Jake Rabe, a solar installer in Blairstown, Iowa, said he has put up more than 100,000 solar modules in the state since getting into the business in 2015. More than 30 of his customers have completed their installation but are awaiting frozen grant funding, he said. At least 10 more have signed the paperwork but are hesitant to begin construction. Millions of dollars worth of business is frozen, he said. 

On top of that, Rabe said, the state’s net metering policies — in which solar users get credits for any excess power they send back to the grid — are set to expire in 2026.

“I kind of feel like it may be the beginning of the end for the solar industry in Iowa with what’s going on,” said Rabe, who owns Rabe Hardware.

Despite it all, he remains a Trump supporter. 

“Under the current administration, I think we’re doing things that are necessary for the betterment of the entire United States,” he said.

On March 13, Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law group, filed a federal lawsuit against the USDA on behalf of five farmers and three nonprofits. They’re seeking a court order to compel the Trump administration to honor the government’s grant commitments, saying it violated the Constitution by refusing to disburse funds allocated by Congress. 

Vizcarra, the Earthjustice lawyer, said she is disturbed by the lack of concern from Congress, whose powers appear to have been usurped by the administration.

She added, “These are real people, real farmers and real organizations whose projects have impacts on communities who are left with this horrible situation with no idea of when it will end.”

One of the plaintiffs, Laura Beth Resnick, grows dahlias, zinnias and other cut flowers on a small farm about 30 miles north of Baltimore.

Florists are her customers, and demand for her flowers blooms during cold-weather holidays like Thanksgiving. Each of her three greenhouses is half the length of a football field, and heating them during those months isn’t cheap, Resnick said. The power bill for Butterbee Farm often exceeds $500 a month.

So a year ago, Resnick applied for a USDA renewable energy grant, hoping to put solar panels on her barn roof — a move that she estimated would save about $5,000 a year. In August, the USDA sent word that her farm had been awarded a grant for $36,450.

The cost of installing solar panels was $72,000, she said. So she paid a solar contractor $36,000 upfront, expecting that she’d pay the rest in January when the federal grant money came in. The solar panels were installed in December.

But the federal government’s check never arrived. A Feb. 4 email from a USDA representative said her request for reimbursement was rejected due to the Trump administration’s recent executive orders. 

Resnick said she sought help from her elected representatives but got “pretty much nowhere.” 

After hearing about the USDA’s announcement Wednesday, Resnick said that based on the response she’s previously gotten from the USDA, she’s not confident she will get her grant money.

“I’ve lost my trust in the USDA at this point,” she said. “Our project is complete, so we can’t change the scope of it.”

Van Hollen, the Maryland Democrat, said he supports the legal fight against the funding freeze. 

“Donald Trump and Elon Musk are scamming our farmers,” Van Hollen said in a statement to Floodlight. “By illegally withholding these reimbursements for work done under federal grants, they’re breaking a promise to farmers and small businesses in Maryland and across the country.”

Renewable projects on hold

Since 2023, when IRA funding became available, the USDA has given or loaned about $21.3 billion through programs to support renewable energy in rural areas, according to a Floodlight analysis of agency data, including the REAP program.

Those grant payments were processed until Jan. 20, when the Trump administration announced its freeze.

Trump’s decision was in line with Project 2025, a conservative blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation aimed at reshaping the U.S. government. That document called for repealing the IRA and rescinding “all funds not already spent by these programs.”

Environmental groups have sharply criticized the administration’s move, and several lawsuits are challenging the legality of the freeze of IRA funding.

At a recent public roundtable, Maggie Bruns, CEO of the Prairie Rivers Network, which supports Illinois communities’ transition to clean energy, listed REAP grants that have been held up in Illinois, where her multifaceted environmental nonprofit is based. A $390,000 grant for a solar array at the grocery store in Carlinville; $27,000 for solar panels at an auto body shop in Staunton; $51,000 for a solar array for a golf course in Alton. 

Since 2023, farmers and businesses in Illinois have been approved for more than 590 REAP grants, making the state the third highest in number of recipients in the United States, Floodlight’s analysis shows. In an interview with Barn Raiser, Bruns said the decision to freeze such grants has caused unneeded stress for farmers. Before the executive order, USDA’s rural development team had worked hard to bring dollars for renewable energy projects to Illinois farmers, she said. 

“That’s the thing we should be celebrating right now,” Bruns said, “and instead we have to fight to make sure that money actually does land into the pockets of the people who have gone ahead, jumped through all these hoops and are attempting to do the right thing for their businesses and their farms.” 

In January, Dan Batson’s nursery in Mississippi was approved for a $400,367 REAP grant — money that he planned to use to install four solar arrays. He intended to use that solar energy to power the pumps that irrigate more than 1 million trees, a move that would have saved the company about $25,000 a year in electricity costs. 

Seated in a wooded area about 30 miles north of Biloxi, his 42-year-old GreenForest nursery ships potted magnolias, hollies, crepe myrtles and other trees to southern states. Until a couple of months ago, Batson had been excited about what the grant money would mean for the business. 

But when he saw news about the funding being held up earlier this year, he called a local USDA representative who confirmed the funds had been frozen. Batson had already sent the solar contractor $240,000. Now, his plans are on hold.

“I just can’t do the project if I don’t get the money,” he said.

Tuesday’s announcement from the USDA makes him no more confident he’ll get the money, he said.

Batson said he’s a fiscal conservative so he understands the effort to cut costs. “But,” he said, “the way they’ve gone about it has disrupted a lot of business owners’ lives.” 

Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action.

Barn Raiser is a nonprofit newsroom covering rural and small town America.

Farmers in Trump country were counting on clean energy grants. Then the government moved the goalposts. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 6 minutes

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced late Friday afternoon that some of its programs funding renewable energy projects are “operating as normal,” but left open the question of whether billions more in loans and grants promised to farmers, small rural businesses and electric cooperatives would be honored. 

The day before, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins had said the department would continue to review spending under the Biden administration’s sweeping climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, “to ensure that programs are focused on supporting farmers and ranchers” and not “far-left climate programs.”

Among those waiting for clarity are Travis and Amy Forgues of western Wisconsin. About two years ago, the couple bought the Hidden Springs Creamery, an 80-acre sheep dairy nestled in the hills of Westby, Wisconsin. Twice a day they milk 300 sheep to make cheese, including a creamy feta that last year won second place in the American Cheese Society’s annual competition.

As part of their effort to modernize the farm, the Forgueses decided to install a solar array to power their operation. To offset the $134,000 cost of installation, they applied for a $56,000 Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Last year, they got approved for the grant and built the solar array, never doubting that the USDA would pay once the project was completed, as outlined in the contract they signed with the feds. 

But last week, the Forgueses said they received an email from the USDA saying the program had been paused, leaving them scrambling to figure out how to pay for the rest of their new solar array.

“You can’t have people spend this kind of money and then just pull the rug from (them),” said Travis Forgues. “I didn’t spend the money thinking maybe I’ll get it back. I spent the money because we had a signed contract.”

The pause was the result of an executive order issued by President Donald Trump on his first day in office freezing hundreds of billions of dollars for renewable energy — including REAP.

At least 7,500 farms and rural businesses across the country have received REAP grants from the USDA since 2023, according to a Floodlight analysis of USDA grant data.

On Friday, a USDA spokesperson said some funding for REAP would operate as normal, but only if it came through the Farm Bill. That apparently won’t help the Forgueses or potentially thousands of other farmers like them who had more than 25% of their project paid for by the USDA. That’s the cutoff point where funding from the Farm Bill stopped and funding from the Inflation Reduction Act started.

Since 2023, when Inflation Reduction Act funding became available, the USDA has given or loaned approximately $21.3 billion through programs that could be used to support renewable energy in rural areas, according to a Floodlight analysis of agency data.

The legality of the continued freeze in federal funding remains unclear.

On Friday, a federal judge in Rhode Island kept in place a temporary restraining order from Jan. 31 that ordered the Trump administration to stop withholding federal funds appropriated by Congress. Attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia, led by New York, argued that the broad funding freeze violated the separation of powers and several other laws.

The lone attorney representing the Trump administration argued that the agencies were exercising their lawful discretion.

Rural electric companies also hit

Some programs, like REAP, go directly to farmers looking to place solar panels or wind turbines on their land. Others, like the New Era program, help rural electric cooperatives build renewable energy to lower members’ monthly bills. New Era was not among the programs cited by the USDA spokesperson as operating as normal.

The Yampa Valley Electric Association, which serves Steamboat Springs, Colorado, and parts of Wyoming, expected to get $50 million from the USDA’s New Era program, according to Carly Davidson, the co-op’s public relations specialist. 

New Era is the USDA program dedicated solely to renewables that has allocated the most money, more than $4.3 billion in grants since 2023, according to a Floodlight analysis. 

The Yampa Valley association was planning to use the money to purchase renewable energy to keep electricity costs low for its members, Davidson wrote in a statement. The project is still in the planning stages, but it would provide both solar generation and battery storage, according to Yampa Valley Electric. 

Connexus Energy, Minnesota’s largest consumer-owned electric cooperative, was hoping to use its $170 million in New Era grants to build out its renewable generation portfolio, spokesperson Stacy Downs said. The co-op, which serves over 146,000 customers, still hopes the funds will come through so it can add solar, wind and hydropower, as well as battery storage, Downs said, adding, “We’re still hoping to be receiving them.”

Electric infrastructure program intact

The largest USDA energy program, the Electric Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee Program, offers money to rural co-ops, which use it to expand or upgrade their power grids with new transmission lines and smart-grid technology. That program, which allows for the connection of more renewables, has loaned out $12 billion since 2023. 

On Friday, a USDA spokesperson stated that the program was operating as normal, along with four other USDA programs that could potentially be used to reduce carbon emissions: Rural Energy Savings Program, REAP Program with funding appropriated through the Farm Bill, Guaranteed Underwriter Program, and High Energy Cost Grants.

“These freezes seem to be intentionally chaotic and unclear,” said Hannah Smith-Brubaker, executive director of Pasa Sustainable Agriculture, a nonprofit that helps farmers adopt sustainable practices and that also receives money from the USDA.

“We are fielding calls every day from farmers who are mid-project, and their contractor wants to know when they’re going to be paid.”

Rural businesses, farmers still waiting 

Patrick Hagar, co-owner of Squashington Farm near Mount Horeb, Wisconsin, is feeling that uncertainty. Hagar and his wife purchased a 20-acre farm three years ago in southern Wisconsin, where they grow organic produce.

Last fall, they put money down to purchase a solar array that will end up costing them $50,000, he said. They were promised $15,000 back from the USDA through a REAP grant.

“The vast majority of the fossil fuel energy and carbon outputs are being put forth by a small (group) of really wealthy businesses,” Hagar said. “I don’t think that absolves small farms and small businesses from trying to do what they can.” 

But, he added, “It’s frustrating to have a signed contract for something, and feel like, you know, you live in a country where a signed contract doesn’t mean what a signed contract has always meant.”

And it’s not just farmers affected by the freeze. Small rural business owners who qualify for various USDA renewable grants and loans are also waiting to see what happens with USDA’s review of funding — money the agency has already agreed to pay.

Atul Patel, owner of the Holiday Inn in Frackville, Pennsylvania, planned to install a solar system on his hotel costing just over $360,000.

“We would like to be energy independent,” Patel said. “In this area, the lights flicker a lot.”

Patel said he put 20% down on the project and was planning to finish the installation once the weather improved in the spring. 

He added, “Our fingers are crossed.”

Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action.

‘Chaotic’ USDA funding freeze stalls rural renewable projects is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

This article was originally published by Floodlight.

A small town in North Carolina has taken a bold step, filing the first climate “deception” lawsuit against an electric utility in the United States.

In a civil lawsuit, the Town Council of Carrboro accuses Duke Energy, one of the largest power companies in the United States, of orchestrating a decades-long campaign of denialism and cover up over the dangers of fossil fuel emissions. The lawsuit claims Duke’s actions stalled the transition to clean energy and exacerbated the climate crisis.

Over the past decade, similar suits have been filed by states and communities against large oil companies and — in at least one instance — a gas utility. But Carrboro, N.C., is the first municipality to ever file such a suit against an electric utility.

“We’re a very bold group,” Carrboro Mayor Barbara Foushee told Floodlight. “And we know how urgent this climate crisis is.”

Duke Energy said in a statement, “We are in the process of reviewing the complaint. Duke Energy is committed to its customers and communities and will continue working with policymakers and regulators to deliver reliable and increasingly clean energy while keeping rates as low as possible.”

The suit, filed in Orange County, North Carolina, accuses Duke Energy of intentionally spreading false information about the negative effects of fossil fuels for decades, despite knowing since the late 1960s about planet-warming properties of carbon dioxide emissions. It claims the power company funded trade organizations and climate skeptic scientists who created doubts about the greenhouse effect and obstructed policy and public action on climate change.

“Duke misled the public concerning the causes and consequences of climate change and thereby materially slowed the transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy. Duke’s deception campaign served to protect its fossil fuel-based business model.” the lawsuit reads.

It accuses the power company, which in 2019 was the third largest emitter of C02 in the United States, of falsely marketing itself as a leader in clean energy while continuing to rely heavily on fossil fuels. 

Between 2005 and 2023, the company reported reducing its CO2 emissions from electricity generation by 44%. But in 2023, at least 45% of the electricity Duke produced was still generated by burning coal or methane gas. 

“(Duke) was one of the ringleaders behind deceiving the public and municipalities and governments about the causes and consequences of manmade climate change,” said Raleigh attorney Matthew Quinn, who is representing the town.

Carrboro is a town of about 20,000 with an annual budget of $81 million, Foushee said. Quinn, the attorney, estimates the town will incur some $60 million in costs in adapting to climate change impacts, including repairs to roads, upgrades to stormwater systems and increased heating and cooling costs.

At a press conference Wednesday, Quinn explained that expert analysts had arrived at that number based on the amount and cost of climate adaptation that Carrboro would have undertaken had it not been for Duke’s alleged deception.

“There’s a major gulf between where we should be at and where we are right now,” Quinn said at the press conference.

“Really, what this case is about is that Carrboro has been a victim of the climate deception campaign by Duke Energy, (and) as a result of Duke’s conduct, Carrboro has suffered a lot of damages and injustice,” Quinn said in an interview.

Added Danny Nowell, Carrboro Mayor pro tem: “We have paid for it. We have paid for excess road repairs. We have faced the effects of stormwater, and we will continue to pay for other expenses as we uncover them. It’s time for Carrboro to be repaid.”

Quinn’s fees are being paid by NC Warn, a climate nonprofit, Foushee said.

“People that run local governments and others and people that run corporations, they all better get heavily serious about the climate crisis,” said Jim Warren, executive director of NC Warn. “It’s already harming so many across this state.”

Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University, called such lawsuits “cute.” 

“And I use that term very, you know, intentionally. These lawsuits are cute in the sense that they’re trying to shame companies … into doing better,” said Jarvis, adding that they are rarely successful. “Companies have duties to their shareholders to maximize profits. And so what these lawsuits are really saying is that companies should be punished for maximizing profit.”

“It’s interesting with this as a case directly against a utility,” said Korey Silverman-Roati, a senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “It’s a shift in perspective from companies just producing fossil fuels to those burning it.”

Although this is the first climate deception lawsuit ever filed against an electric utility, it is not the first time that electric utilities have found themselves in legal trouble for the climate warming pollution their power plants spew as they burn fossil fuels to generate electricity. 

In 2004, electric companies faced federal litigation brought by eight U.S. states, New York City and several land trusts seeking to cap the companies’ CO2 emissions. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the plaintiffs. 

Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action.

North Carolina town sues Duke Energy for climate ‘deception’ is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.