Joe Biden, President of the United States, is set to reveal on Thursday an unprecedented financial commitment to the tune of $7.3 billion. This astounding investment focuses on the electrification of rural America, akin to a swirling time vortex pulling us back to the 1930s. The initiative is reminiscent of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s monumental financial commitment during his tenure, yet surprisingly it’s targeted towards areas like Westby, Wisconsin.
This tremendous financial infusion originates from the New ERA program, an arm of the Inflation Reduction Act. The White House, resorting to a display of financial largesse not seen since the 1930s, asserts this is the largest financial injection dedicated to rural electrification. A walk down memory lane reminds of FDR’s Rural Electrification Act, yet questions remain whether this new stance is a genuine investment or political maneuvering.
Biden previously took to the podium with a self-congratulatory tone, touting his administration’s infrastructure achievements as unrivaled. In his narrative, the energy policies have catalyzed ‘record-setting’ job growth and gains in the stock market. However, scrutiny questions the correlation between the alleged records and specific energy policies.
Reliable and affordable electricity, the mission statement of consumer-owned utilities known as ‘rural electric cooperatives’, is poised to gain a boost from the funding. Crucially, it is supposed to modernize our energy output to approximately 5 million rural co-op members, who make up 20% of rural households, schools, businesses, and farms. Yet, one has to ponder if clean energy is the main focus here, or if it’s the optics that Biden Administration is invested in.
In this funding drama of electrification, 16 electric cooperatives, cross-cutting 23 states from Alaska to Texas, stand as beneficiaries. They encompass a broad spectrum of independent entities, including agriculturalists, rural communities, and small businesses. However, the selectivity of these beneficiaries raises a question of fairness, considering the vast swathe of rural America outside these chosen pockets.
Natalie Quillian, White House Deputy Chief of Staff, lauds this move as the ‘largest investment in rural electrification since FDR’s administration’. A grand claim indeed, she believes this will trigger economic growth and reduce costs for millions of Americans. Yet satirical applause may be warranted as this dramatic financial drop prompts questions about administration motivations and the efficacy of such massive spending in specific zones.
Quillian also advertises the value proposition of this funding, prophesying the generation of 4,500 new permanent jobs and 16,000 construction jobs amid glowing investment returns. This stands alongside a boast that private funds will leverage an additional $29 billion in rural investment. However, such optimistic promises often warrant a skeptical take, with the past serving as a stern warning of unforeseen repercussions.
The promised spoils do not end with job creation and money multiplier effects but extends to environmental redemption as well. The beneficiaries are set to do their part to reduce and avoid an estimated 43.7 million tons of greenhouse gases every year. In an overly optimistic interpretation, the White House posits this greenhouse reduction to be akin to taking 10 million cars off the road annually.
However, critics may scoff at the conspicuous showcase of the first New Empowering Rural America award valued at $573 million in La Crosse, Wisconsin, presented to Dairyland Power Cooperative. They plan to generate 1,080 megawatts of renewable energy through various agreements for wind and solar power and installations scattered over rural Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois – which could be seen as a carefully orchestrated move for political gains rather than a real commitment to clean energy.
Dairyland, in a fit of optimism or perhaps naivety, forecasts that their member’s electric rates will be cut by 42% over a decade with the New ERA fund. A promising projection indeed, if one can disregard the ingenuity of the plan and manage to trust that Dairyland can grapple with the unforeseen and complex hurdles that are inherent with implementing such projects.
Allegheny Electric Cooperative Inc., another fortunate star chosen in this electrifying spectacle, operates in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Generously financed, Allegheny purports to make carbon-free resources meet over 80% of its power requirements by 2026. This could reduce CO2 emissions by nearly 100,000 tons annually. Yet it baffles many to believe that this path is merely jumped on for environmental good, and not for the political spotlight it undeniably brings.
Despite these grand designs of lowering carbon footprint while uplifting the rural economy, many remain skeptical. The crux of the criticism lies in the perceived aim of the program. Is it genuinely to electrify and offer clean, affordable power to rural America, or is it just another well-dressed policy ploy under the guise of climate control and economic growth?
Cynics may observe this as a tale of political maneuvering motivated by optics rather than pure intentions to revitalize rural America. The rural population, businesses, and schools may be promised great prosperity on one hand, while on the other, the partisan narrative looms large, casting long and uncertain shadows over the reality of such grand promises.