What can rural America offer clean energy?

A recent op-ed in The Hill argues that public policy should reflect the fact that rural Americans are an integral part of the nation’s clean energy economy. The author of the piece is Chitra Kumar, a Senior Fellow for the Aspen Institute Community Strategies Group, a nonprofit aimed at improving the social, health and economic wellbeing of rural America. Kumar contends that the political reaction to the recent wave of outages in Texas is evidence that public policy views rural Americans as an afterthought on issues like environmental sustainability. Texan politicians are currently blaming renewable energy for the energy disaster as a way to resonate with Texas residents “who prize their state’s culture of rugged self-reliance.” This predisposition of self-reliance and independence are seemingly emblematic of rural culture. However, as the op-ed points out, many rural leaders are open to energy alternatives, as current practices are fraught with high energy, internet, and water costs.

In light of this political tension surrounding renewable energy, it is promising to see what the new Administration is doing for rural Americans regarding energy and the climate crisis. Recently, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. The order includes goals to create new energy jobs in rural communities, while also revitalizing the energy sector by “reducing methane emissions, oil and brine leaks, and other environmental harms.” I support these goals in the Executive Order and think the federal government should focus on local projects that create jobs if they are to both revitalize the energy sector and reconnect with rural Americans.

In addition to the federal government’s response to renewable energy in rural America, The Hill op-ed discusses interesting innovations for expanding clean energy in rural communities. One idea focuses on “small-scale renewable energy microgrid technology,” which allows users to control their energy supply and reduce overall operating costs. Not only can microgrid technology help with climate mitigation, it also is fairly resilient. Unlike large electrical grids failures—which is what happened in Texas—if a microgrid in a rural community failed, “lives could be saved because communities would have the option to maintain their own backups.” Thus, if public policy shifts to focus on similar innovative projects, rural communities could better cope with changing weather patterns and help the country move toward a carbon-neutral future.

Interestingly, another op-ed in Business Insider this week discussed the need for Democrats to invest in local clean energy projects in order to connect with rural voters. The authors are optimistic that Democrats can better prioritize rural counties through renewable energy because of its potential to create new jobs, increase economic activity, and lower health costs. One example of how renewable energy can help rural communities is the Samson Solar Energy Center. Located in Franklin, Red River, and Lamar counties in east Texas, the Center will create 600 jobs during its construction, “promises more than $250 million in payments to local landowners,” and will contribute more than $200 million in taxes to the surrounding local communities. The authors point out that scaling this massive rural clean energy project down to make similar smaller projects across rural America is a viable clean energy investment that has a lot of potential for success. They end the op-ed by stating:

Energy, like politics, is local. To best succeed, and reestablish a long lost connection with rural voters, lawmakers must harness the work and innovation in America’s rural communities, and empower them to lead the way.

This particular statement exhibits some of the authors’ hesitation regarding the Biden Administration’s pledge to “Build Back Better,” a plan that includes a 2 trillion-dollar clean energy roadmap. The plan would use the money to reach a carbon pollution-free energy sector by the year 2035 through projects such as upgrading the structure of millions of buildings, weatherizing millions of homes, and pushing for more public transportation. This plan is very different than the localized and job-focused goals in the Executive Order on Tackling Climate Change at Home and Abroad - rather than making long-term investments in communities and their energy sectors, the plan invests money in short-term projects. 

Thus, I can’t help but agree with the authors’ hesitation toward the Build Better Back plan. In reading these op-eds, I am drawn to investment in localized energy projects that can both improve economies and provide clean, reliable energy to rural communities. Thus, I find the Executive Order more appealing, as it is the type of political response that is necessary to connect with rural America. The plan focuses more on weaving these rural communities into clean energy by creating jobs and opportunities, and less on pouring money into quick energy-efficient fixes like weatherized homes.

Rural America has the manpower to support energy projects like microgrid technology and small-scale solar energy. Even better, these kinds of projects can create jobs, reduce energy costs, and help the environment. I think rural communities can become a cornerstone for clean energy and help America move toward its carbon reduction goals. However, in order to do so, there needs to be a shift in public policy reflecting rural America’s clean energy potential. I look forward to following this development.