The U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, will no longer fund renewable energy projects on prime farmland, according to an Aug. 19 news release. This will prevent farmers in Iowa from installing solar and wind projects on their land with federal funds. 

Solar projects are groups of solar panels used to harness energy from the sun, while wind projects include wind turbines, which are used to harness energy from the wind. 

Lee Tesdell, a farmer located in Slater, Iowa, and a board member for the Center for Rural Affairs, has had solar projects on his land for 10 years. Starting with just an array of six panels, he has since added 24 additional panels. He called the USDA decision “terrible.”

“It’s a sad day when Washington wants to tell us that we can’t farm the wind, can’t farm the sun,” Tesdell said. 

Tesdell said many farmers have good reasons to have renewable energy projects on their land — not only for financial reasons— but also because it is a “cleaner energy source” than fossil fuels. 

“It makes all kinds of sense for [Iowans] to farm the sun and farm the wind, just like we farm the soil, right?” Tesdell said. 

Tesdell’s solar projects generate about 75 percent of his electricity needs for his farmstead, including his house, barn, and well.

Tesdell also said he is “grid tied,” with his electric utility company, Consumers Energy Rural Electric Cooperative — meaning the amount of energy he overproduces goes into the energy grid, leading to a reduced bill each month. 

He also has a net metering agreement with the cooperative, meaning compensation for overproduction comes at a retail rate instead of wholesale price, leading to a large difference in the payback each month.

Jennifer Studebaker, interim executive director at the Women, Food, and Agriculture Network, or WFAN, described the decision as unfortunate. She said it will become costly to all Iowans if farmers are no longer able to build wind and solar projects contributing to the energy grid. 

Studebaker elaborated on the financial benefit farmers can get, especially if they sell the energy they generate. 

“For farmers, that $10,000 or so difference in terms of costs, that’s sometimes, if they get to keep their farm, in terms of the security that that can offer,” she said. 

Emma Colman, organizing representative of the Sierra Club’s Iowa Chapter, an environmental nonprofit, said the move represents a lack of understanding of rural America.

“It is a testament to how little our current federal administration understands our state and local communities,” she said. “It ultimately is just taking power out of the hands of our communities, and that’s really disappointing.”

She said farmers should be able to make their own decisions on their property because solar and wind projects allow farmers to make a better living, and are another form of farming.

Chris Hoffman, a member of the Johnson County Solar Task Force, has been in the solar industry for 12 years. He said the federal administration has been clear they do not want to move toward cleaner energy initiatives. 

“In reality, the administration just doesn’t want renewable energy projects,” Hoffman said. “This is probably a dug-up excuse for not doing so.”

Prime farmland in Iowa

According to the Clean Grid Alliance, 5,755 out of 30,000,000 acres of Iowa farmland house solar projects, which amounts to less than one percent of total farmland. 

The alliance also found 17.5 million out of Iowa’s 30 million acres are considered “prime farmland,” which is defined by the USDA as “land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is available for these uses.”

U.S. Rep. Mike Bost, R-IL, sees these projects as taking up too much farmland, therefore limiting the amount of food that is grown to feed Americans. 

“We shouldn’t be subsidizing solar projects on prime farmland; that land is too valuable for producing the food and fuel our nation depends on,” Bost said in the news release. 

Lee Tesdell mentioned the use of agrivoltaics — defined as agricultural production underneath solar panels — as a way to further mitigate the amount of land solar projects take up. For example, he has set up a fence around his panels and allowed his sheep to graze underneath them, which he said works nicely. 

He disagrees with the argument that solar and wind projects take up too much space, and said solar and agriculture can work well together in this way. 

“It’s kind of a bogus argument to be honest,” Tesdell said. 

Studebaker also brought up agrivoltaics as an alternative to the lack of space argument. 

“What I really see as a missed opportunity by the Trump administration is recognizing that you can have renewable energy and sustainable farming working together,” she said. 

RELATED: Federal grant cut impacts Iowa’s local farmers, school districts

Environmental impacts of wind and solar projects

Peter Thorne, an environmental professor at the University of Iowa, said solar and wind projects have little negative effect on the land they are built on. Though he mentioned farmland less than ideal for growing crops — not considered “prime farmland” by USDA standards, including land located by streams and rivers — may be a proper place for wind and solar projects. 

“We really need to be thinking more smartly about how we use Iowa’s land,” Thorne said. “I think the focus should really be on carefully taking land out of production, that is, this vulnerable land, that’s erodible.”

He explained solar and wind projects, a form of clean energy, are better for the environment than fossil fuels. 

“The science all points to the need for clean energy, both in terms of it being the best for the health of the ecology and human health, and also in terms of energy independence,” Thorne said. “We know that fossil fuels are going to run out, and that they are responsible for a lot of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and deaths.”

Studebaker said there are ways for farmers to mitigate any potential impacts projects could have on farmland. 

“If you’re worried about erosion or movement of water, there are different things you can do in terms of planting certain types of native plants to block that and absorb more of the water,” she said. 

Colman said limiting solar and wind projects will harm the land, as farmers will have to resort to using fossil fuels. She added that energy demand in Iowa and across the world is going up, and that the state must adapt to meet that demand. 

“The reality is, if they aren’t investing in renewables, energy efficiency, and battery storage, then they’re going to be building new gas and coal plants across our state — and are those good for the farmland?”

It is unclear if projects on poorly graded land will continue to be approved, as the new restrictions only pointed to protection of prime farmland. 

Restrictions on foreign-made solar panels

The news release also announced restrictions on panels “manufactured by foreign adversaries,” which could make solar projects more expensive. 

According to the International Energy Agency, China is responsible for over 80 percent of the production of solar panels worldwide. 

Studebaker said she expects this to affect farmers’ ability to purchase and install solar panels, even if the project isn’t on prime farmland. 

“There may be a few US companies, but I don’t think we have the domestic industry to allow for people to buy solar panels, and especially at an affordable cost,” she said. “The ones [solar panels] being produced in China are probably the most affordable for farmers.”

David Bader, press secretary for U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Grassley will continue to “review the regulation to ensure the U.S. continues to pursue a strategy that supports farmers while increasing our energy savings.”