In mid-October, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) changed the rules around how it implements the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). This program has enabled many farmers and small businesses to afford weatherization and energy efficiency upgrades, as well as deployment of renewables like rooftop solar.
Example stories of farmers and businesses that benefitted from REAP can be found here. Or if these pages are deleted from the USDA’s website as they were in 2025 before being restored, an archived version of stories with archived links, can be found here.
But as of October 16, 2026, USDA has made it significantly harder for REAP funds to be applied for solar deployment, the latest in the Trump Administration’s creation of obstacles for this program, after previously freezing REAP funds and cancelling an application period. More on all of this background can be read via Canary Media’s reporting on the matter.
Under the new changes, farmers will now have to pay the full cost of a solar project up-front, run it for a year, and then compete for a grant capped at 25% (down from 50%). That only works for farms that can already afford a system and would exclude those who would benefit from REAP the most. The new rules also cap systems at past energy use, which leaves out farms that are currently expanding. The second argument is around property rights.
The Rural Power Coalition understands that the latest change to the program will make the program significantly less accessible, and here, we are publishing the comment that we will be sending to the USDA. Our letter also covers the foreign-adversary component rule and fairness to applicants who had already applied for REAP under the previous rules.
If you would like to submit a comment of your own, you can do so here by Monday, November 2.
The Rural Power Coalition’s Comment to USDA
On behalf of the Rural Power Coalition, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's revised rules for the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). The Rural Power Coalition includes 19 place-based organizations from across rural America, that work alongside farmers, ranchers, rural electric cooperatives, and rural electric cooperative member owners every day, and we have seen what REAP makes possible: lower energy bills, steadier operating costs, and farms that stay in the family for another generation.
We write because the new rules turn REAP from a program that opens the door to energy savings into one that only rewards those who are already well off. As written, these rules punish the farmers who need help the most, offers nothing to farms trying to grow, and take decisions about private land away from the people who own and work it. We urge USDA to revise them.
The new rules help those who can already pay, and leave behind those who can't
REAP has always asked recipients to pay up front and be reimbursed. But until now, a farmer knew before breaking ground whether an award was coming. Under the new rules, a farmer must pay the full cost of a project, operate it for a full year, and only then compete for a grant that may never be awarded. That grant is now capped at 25% of project costs, down from the 50% previously available.
The result is a program that works only for operations with enough cash or credit to finance an entire system on their own and absorb the cost if no award comes. A farm that can already afford a new solar array will build it and may collect a grant a year or more later. A farm that cannot carry that burden, whether it is a young farmer, a family operation coming off a bad year, or a producer already stretched by high fuel, fertilizer, and electricity costs, will not be able to build one at all. Lenders, faced with a grant that is uncertain in both timing and existence, will be far less willing to count it toward financing.
Farm incomes are notoriously variable. Asking producers to front 100% of a project's cost and wait 12 to 24 months for a possible 25% reimbursement shifts nearly all the risk onto the people least able to bear it. In practice, the new structure directs federal dollars to the farms that need it the least and helps the well-capitalized get further ahead while the producers REAP was created to serve fall further behind.
Farms that are trying to grow can't count on this program
The rules also limit eligible systems to a farm's past energy use. A farm that is adding a grain dryer, expanding a dairy herd, installing irrigation pumps, adding cold storage, or electrifying equipment will need more power next year than it used last year. Under the new rules, REAP cannot help farmers meet that demand.
This cap tells growing operations that they must plan their energy future based on their past. If a farm needs more power to expand, this rule does nothing for it. A program meant to strengthen rural economies should support farms that are growing, not cap them at yesterday's size.
Farmers, not federal regulators, should decide how to use their land
The rules bar REAP support for ground-mounted solar on cropland. This blanket prohibition replaces the judgment of the landowner with a one-size-fits-all federal rule.
Most REAP solar projects are small. More than 95 percent of solar projects previously funded under REAP are under 50 kW, and a ground-mounted array of that size typically covers roughly a tenth of an acre, often on a corner, field edge, or parcel poorly suited to crops. Many farm buildings cannot structurally support a rooftop array, leaving ground-mounting as the only practical option. Farmers know their land better than anyone. They should be free to decide where a modest energy system fits best on their own property without forfeiting access to a program their tax dollars support.
Taken together with the sizing cap and equipment restrictions, the new rules dictate where a farmer may build, how much power they may produce, and what equipment they may buy. That is a significant intrusion on the property rights and business decisions of the people REAP is meant to serve.
Concerns on overly broad equipment restrictions and fairness to prior applicants
The rules exclude any system containing a single component manufactured in a foreign-adversary country. As written, this could disqualify an entire system over one part, even one assembled in an American factory, and could rule out a large share of the solar market while the domestic supply chain is still being built. We support growing American clean energy manufacturing. A better approach would reward domestic content, for example through a bonus or higher cost share for American-made equipment and apply restrictions in a way producers can realistically meet.
Many farmers applied, were promised funds, and spent their own money in good faith under the rules in place at the time. They are now being told to reapply under terms their projects may no longer meet. USDA should honor existing awards and review pre-existing applications under the rules in effect when they were submitted.
The Rural Power Coalition respectfully urges USDA to:
Restore a pre-construction award process so farmers know whether they will receive support before they finance a project.
Restore grant support of up to 50 percent of eligible project costs.
Allow systems sized to a farm's reasonably projected energy needs, not only its past use.
Let landowners decide whether a ground-mounted or roof-mounted system is right for their property.
Replace the single-component exclusion with a workable domestic-content standard and incentive.
Honor existing awards and process pre-existing applications under the rules in effect when they were submitted.
For nearly two decades, REAP has been one of USDA's most popular and effective tools for lowering costs on farms and in rural businesses, with strong bipartisan support. We ask USDA to keep it a program for every farmer, not only those who can already afford to go it alone.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
The Rural Power Coalition