USDA Revives Clean Energy Grants With Surprising Language Restrictions

Solar panels in a grassy field under blue sky.

USDA’s latest step in resuming clean energy grants has left grant applicants perplexed and hesitant amid a requirement to omit specific diversity and climate language.

Key Takeaways

USDA resumes clean energy programs, requiring alignment with previous Trump policies by removing diversity and climate considerations.
Grant awardees face a 30-day deadline to revise proposals, focusing on energy production rather than DEI features.
Programs affected include REAP, New ERA, and PACE, with significant allocations from the Inflation Reduction Act.
Farmers and grant recipients express confusion and concern regarding the impact of these changes on their renewable energy projects.
Critics argue the requirement might hinder renewable energy advancements and lead to a return of discriminatory practices.

USDA’s Directive Reflects Trump-Era Policies

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has resumed the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), among others, under conditions reflecting Executive Orders from the Trump administration. This move has mandated grant applicants to omit language on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and climate from their proposals. The objectives of these revisions are said to align with the focus on bolstering U.S. energy production.

However, concerns have emerged among stakeholders, such as Jim Lively in Northern Michigan, who planned to utilize such funds for solar installations. The 30-day revision requirement has raised questions about compliance and potential impacts on the successful implementation of clean energy technologies.

Implications for Farmers and Renewable Energy Projects

The USDA’s directive has particularly affected programs such as REAP, Empowering Rural America (New ERA), and Powering Affordable Clean Energy (PACE), which were funded by the Inflation Reduction Act. Though these programs are aimed at increasing renewable energy investments, the new conditions have complicated matters for stakeholders and delayed fund disbursements. According to Representative Jill Tokuda, these bureaucratic hurdles add unnecessary complexity for farmers.

According to Hawaiian Democratic Representative Jill Tokuda, “USDA’s job is to support our agricultural producers and rural communities. It’s impossible to do that when USDA is adding unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions and blocking federal resources that farmers and rural communities depend on just to appease President Trump’s extreme agenda. Our farmers don’t have time to be jumping through extra hoops to get support for critical conservation work they depend on for their livelihoods. They need and deserve better.”

Despite the dissatisfaction and resistance expressed by certain lawmakers and organizations, the USDA has tasked applicants to revise their proposals, emphasizing U.S. energy production without the DEI features. This approach has sparked debates over the legality and practicality of the move. Meanwhile, funding for other USDA initiatives under the act remains on hold.

Looking Forward Amid Uncertainty

Jim Lively and others affected are unsure how to proceed. Lively, for instance, has chosen to wait out the 30-day revision timeline, hoping the DOE does not ultimately require changes. The lack of clarity on fund disbursement timelines and requirements contributes to the unease. Senator John Boozman and other members of the Senate Agriculture Committee view the action as a necessary step, but applicants hold varying expectations.

The situation remains dynamic, with significant implications for the future of clean energy projects. While some, like Lively, weigh the cost of waiting versus adjusting proposals, the USDA continues to manage this rollout amid legal, environmental, and practical challenges.