A Conversation about Land Use and Powering Rural with Jason Strouf, John Shafer and Rebekah Pierce

Season #13 September 24, 2026

Land use decisions are shaping the future of rural America—from the rapid growth of data centers to new opportunities for producing food and renewable energy on the same land.

In Part One of this episode, A Conversation about Land Use and Powering Rural, Michelle Rathman talks with Custer County Commissioner Jason Strouf and Umatilla County Commissioner John Shafer about data center development in their communities. They explore the economic opportunities these projects can create, along with questions about land use, water, infrastructure, private property rights, local planning, and the importance of involving rural residents in decisions with long-term impacts.

In Part Two, Michelle is joined by Rebekah Pierce, Owner and Operator of J&R Pierce Family Farm, as well as a freelance writer and author of Agri-Energy: Growing Power, Growing Food. Pierce shares how her family farm uses sheep and cattle to manage vegetation on community-scale solar sites, allowing the same land to support both food and energy production. She discusses solar grazing, farm economics, land preservation, animal health, renewable energy policy, and why farmers need a meaningful voice in conversations about the future of agricultural land.

Two different approaches to land use. One larger conversation about powering rural communities while protecting the people, land, and livelihoods that make them rural—and ensuring rural voices help shape that future.

Episode Transcript

Episode 91. A Conversation about Land Use and Powering Rural with Jason Strouf, John Shafer and Rebekah Pierce
Michelle Rathman: Hello, one and all, and welcome back to another episode of "The Rural Impact." It is so good to be back with you after a short break, and by that I do not mean that I've been on vacation. I wish I were, but actually I've been on the road because I've just come back from a few weeks. One of those weeks I was working with an outstanding hospital team in rural Washington, and from there I was off to West Virginia to present a keynote presentation with the West Virginia Primary Care Association.
Thank you so much to our host and everyone who attended my session, which I call Making Shift Happen. So be sure to be watching for more of that coming this year. And of course, I'd be so happy to come share that message with your organization because I think we can agree it is time to make some shift happen.
All right, and from there, I headed over to Kansas City, where I had the opportunity to be at another National Rural Health Association conference, for which I am serving in one of my last few sessions on their policy congress. It is going to be the end of my second term, and I have really appreciated the opportunity to be a part of that very thoughtful group, discussing all things rural health where policy is concerned.
So, that's where I've been. I hope that these last few weeks of summer have been good to you and that you've had some time to rest because based on my clock and my calendar, fall 2026 is going to have us extremely busy, bombarded with distractions for sure, and confronting more policies that will most certainly, and are most certainly impacting America's rural places and populations.
So, with that said, let me tell you about today's show. Now, for our return listeners, again, so glad that you're coming back to us for another episode. You might recall that we've got a few ongoing series this year, and one in production right now is a conversation that's focused on land use for such things as data centers and energy sources.
Today is one of those episodes, and our guests, well, all of them are front and center on these particular issues. Now before I tell you who they are, I want to share with you some of my homework on this issue, and of course I always do my homework, and of course we're going to start with a conversation on data centers, specifically as an issue for rural voters because after all, November is right around the corner and people are taking votes around their counties and cities all across this country right now where these things are concerned.
So, real quickly I'll share with you that in a September 9th, 2026 piece by Pennsylvania State University researchers, they discuss how data center construction could influence voters and impact public land, including the Trump administration's consideration of multiple new ways to construct data centers, including building data centers on federal lands and trading park land with developers for data center construction. Now, when asked about data centers being a factor when people vote this fall, Hannah Wiseman, a professor at Penn State Dickinson Law in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, who specializes in land use regulation and energy, well, she responded by saying, "Data centers are a bipartisan issue, in part because many of them are now being constructed in areas that have not experienced this type of development before."
She goes on to say that Pew Research Center has an interesting study showing that the majority of data centers are emerging in rural areas, and many of them are in counties that have no existing data center infrastructure. Now, she goes on to say that the hyperscale data center is a relatively new form of development, and that a data center essentially is a very large warehouse, but unlike many warehouses, it uses a lot of water and energy.
And she goes on to say that hyperscale data centers are huge, with some occupying several thousand acres of land. And also that hyperscale data centers primarily power technologies that are different from our typical daily use, like complex artificial intelligence or AI models. You know, in this conference, I'll just pause really quick and say that I went to where it was amazing keynote session talking about AI in healthcare.
So, whether you know it or not, it's been around for quite some time. But what she goes on to say is that residents are starting to see how this could change their communities and so forth. They are speaking with their state leaders, which is why we're seeing a pause on all new data centers in states like Texas, which might be surprising to you, and a new executive order from Governor Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania placing more requirements on data center construction.
Of course, this piece reminds us that while some states are pressing pause on data centers, as I said to you earlier, President Trump recently issued an executive order titled Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure, which directs federal agencies, as I said earlier, to use federally owned land and resources for the expeditious and orderly development of data centers.
Of course, I'm gonna state personally, I believe that the concern is warranted, considering that data centers on pristine and protected federal lands would fully contradict federally protected land for wilderness purposes, recreation, and of course, the preservation of cultural and aesthetic resources.
So, that said, there are places where data centers have proven to be beneficial without compromising federal lands or disrupting residential areas and causing environmental harms, as you will hear from my first two guests discuss this today. And the guests I am speaking of are two county commissioners, one from Umatilla County, Oregon, and the other joining us from Custer County, Montana.
And then after you hear the highlights from that conversation, we shift gears to another land use topic, and that is farmland that is also serving as space to generate solar power, also generating quite a bit of conversation, some of it controversial. Very interesting conversation to be sure, because part two of this episode we hear from Rebekah Pierce, author of "Agri-Energy: Growing Power, Growing Food."
Two completely different uses of land connecting the same conversation. So, because that's what we do here on Rural Impact, is connect the dots between policy and rural quality of life. It is a capital B, big show today. I am so grateful that you are here. So now I invite you to tune out that background noise, put yourself in that podcast-listening frame of mind, and hear my conversation- some of my conversation with Commissioners John Shafer from Umatilla County, Oregon, and also from Custer County, Montana, Commissioner Jason Strohff.
When I asked each of them to tell us about their respective county data center projects, land use, and also to connect some dots on how these projects impact their local economies. First up is Commissioner Shafer answering my question about why Umatilla, Oregon, is an attractive and active location for some of the country's largest data centers.
I know we are ready here. You must be. I'm sure you are. So before we go any further, let me just say, say it with me. Let's go.
John Shafer: We have the land, we have the space that they require to put the footprint of a data center in. And we also have power. We have the dams right there. There are dams in our neck of the woods, on the Columbia River that generate power.
And we also have, speaking of the Columbia River, we have water, and water they need to, to cool the, the systems down. So, we have, we kind of have the trifecta, and we also have transmission lines to get the power out from the data centers. So we really have a, the perfect scenario for, for a data center.
Michelle Rathman: And your area, you know, I, again, I'm going back decades since I've been there, but we are not talking about data centers that are built right next to, which is a bone of contention for many communities, next to a residential area, 'cause it's very industrial, right?
John Shafer: Correct. In fact, there's, because of our planning rules that we have in place, we do keep them away from the city population. So you have to drive a little ways outside of the city to get to one of the data centers.
Michelle Rathman: And, and what about you, Commissioner Strope? I mean, as I understand it, Custer County has one data center facility; correct me on that, and you are also the vice chair of NACo's Environmental, Energy, and Land Use Steering Committee. So, I think it's no secret; I think our listeners are kind of sitting at the edge of their seats wondering about what the conversations that county commissioners serving rural populations are having where data centers are concerned, in general, and then kind of what's on the minds of rural leaders as you're contemplating these projects.
Because these are long, these are, these are long-term. Once they're there, you can't just easily lift them out because we've discovered that they're, you know, doing all sorts of things that we don't want them to do.
Jason Strouf: Correct, Michelle. In the early 2000s, the state of Montana, the government of the state of Montana, decided that they needed a remote backup area for their data. So that's the data center that we have. It's very small-scale compared to what the data center conversations are that are going on right now. I would say it's probably located on less than two acres of land, just to kind of give people a relative idea of the size of it.
It's operated by state employees, came in with little to no fanfare other than the fact that it was the state of Montana making an investment in Eastern Montana, which in our world, sometimes Eastern Montana ends at about Central Montana. So, when we get reached this far over, it's sometimes a blessing to be recognized in that direction.
You know, when it comes to land use and those types of conversations, in rural America, and especially in rural counties in Montana, which is basically all 56 counties if you compare our populations to other states. Our individuals, our residents, are fiercely independent. And when we talk about property rights, those are very, those are, those are held sacred in regard to property rights.
And if I can put it in perspective, this comes down to people working the land to make a livelihood out of it, respecting the land, being good stewards of that land, and to have a government entity come in and tell somebody how they can or cannot utilize that land, that's where the rub comes into play.
And in 2015, up until 2015, Custer County did not, implement any type of land use regulations outside the city limits of the municipality in Miles City. And the way our statute is set up, the city was able to do that up to two miles outside of the city limits. In 2015, when we started the conversation about implementing those regulations, our rural residents came forth, in large groups, and said, "You can zone the area immediately outside," because that's what's being developed.
That's where we have commercial activities going on. That's where we have residential developments going on. They're just not inside of the city limits. But once you get past that area, they vehemently told us, "Do not zone in any way, shape, or form the rest of the county." And, even if it was zoned agriculture, that was still a restriction they weren't willing to take on.
And at the same time, we're getting a wind development project, one of the largest in the country at 750 megawatts, being built in three different counties, Custer County being one of those, and those are private property owners exercising their rights as private property owners to get into a business relationship with that wind developer and have that wind farm developed on their property.
And that moved forward all roughly during the same three to four-year timeframe. But when you take that wind development, and it tries to expand to a neighboring three counties, completely different reaction by those property owners and the residents of those counties.
Michelle Rathman: Commissioner Shafer, I mean, just from your perspective, the data center boom has really been an economic driver in your area. Can you talk a little bit about what that tangibly, what that looks like, and how this has benefited the residents in your community?
John Shafer: Oh, absolutely. So, most of our data centers are Amazon. And it's- they're- when they first came to town 15 years ago, it was a real secret who they were. They didn't want their name out there. That has changed. You know, they've employed hundreds of our, of our citizens in Umatilla County. You know, and one of the things you mentioned was taking away farmland.
John Shafer: They haven't taken away our farmland over here. It's, it's very desert land. It's a lot of sand. It has not been farmed ever. So, that's not been an issue. You know, there are concerns about them taking water, but, you know, I can address that later down the road. But, but as far as economic drivers, it's, it's been huge the-- what they bring to our community.
So we-- they do payment in lieu of taxes. I think you kind of touched on that a second ago. And instead of paying property taxes, what we rely on in Oregon is property tax, and they don't pay a property tax for a set amount of years. They do a payment in lieu of taxes, and we've been able to do amazing things with those payments in lieu of taxes or PILT payments.
So yeah, it's-- they've done a lot of, a lot of good things for our county and, for our cities as well. They do a lot with our schools, first responders. So they, they, they do a lot to, for, to better our communities.
Jason Strouf: Custer County has a very stable economic base to it. We have a wide diversity. I talked about agriculture, and I talked about our rural residents, but we also have a government presence. We have a regional BLM office. We also have a federal and state college research laboratory called Fort Keogh.
And then we have business bases here too. The home or the, the central office for Stockman Bank of Montana, which reaches out to all of Montana and some surrounding states, is based out of Miles City here because it was started by a local family here. So, we've got some diversity there.
But when it comes to economic development, that usually indicates something is coming in that doesn't exist now, i.e., Change. And change is something that is delicate to handle and delicate to manage. I appreciate Commissioner Schaffer's experience because I think that's the part of the discussion that we need to try to bring in. Right now, there's a lot of rhetoric out there in regard to the negatives, and there might be some facts associated with that, but it might not be 100% factual.
And we as county leaders need to find a way that we can lead those conversations, manage those conversations so we are bringing in holistically all of the impacts, all of the benefits, and looking at all of the downsides to it so that our constituents, us as leaders of the local government, can weigh all of that out with government input.
At the end of the day, if we don't have our constituents participating in the decisions that are being made, I think as government leaders, we are letting our people down. There are some examples that I wanna bring up too that, you know, this doesn't have to be a private-driven enterprise. We've done, as a local government, we've done a couple projects here locally.
We built an event center out at our fairgrounds, which brings in activities, brings in people that stay in motel rooms, eat at our local restaurants, obviously purchase fuel. We also finished the first-ever county-operated community senior center. That is, an incentive to try to keep our residents that are aging; currently, over 20% of our population is 60 or older, we wanna keep them in our community.
So as government, we've got a niche to play and a role, but we are not, lock, stock, and barrel, the final solution. On the private side of it, I mentioned the wind farm before, but we've also got art projects that are being developed in our downtown area. We have numerous murals that have been painted over the last three to four years.
We have a few sculptures that are going up. This is bringing interest and excitement into an area of rural America called Main Street, where that was on a downhill slide for a long time, and I see that being revitalized and being brought back up. We have a housing project that's being developed.
We've got multiple different subdivisions that are at various stages of development. These are all indicators that people want to do development. So, when we talk about data centers and Commissioner Shafer's experience in regards to what they can bring to the community, we see that potential, but we need to weigh that out with what the public is hearing through applications that rely on data centers, and they're very loud in regard to that.
So water usage, absolutely. We need to look at that thoroughly, and we need to discuss that holistically, and we also need to understand, too, each state's gonna have their own laws in regards to that. And for the state of Montana, they are the owners of the water. They are the regulators of that water. But that doesn't mean, as local governments, as constituents, we can't be part of that conversation.
Michelle Rathman: My thanks to both Commissioner Shafer and Stroh, and a thank you, a big thank you goes out to the National Association of Counties for helping us connect with them. You know, before we move on, I just wanna say one thing that was really clear to me after this conversation and meeting both these gentlemen is that they both care fiercely about the communities and the counties they serve, and I hope that that came through to you as well.
Okay, before we shift to my conversation about farming and solar power, I do wanna remind you that we're inviting you to visit theruralimpact.com. Of course, that is our website where, if you don't subscribe to any podcast channel, of course, you can subscribe there and listen to every single episode that we've done.
This is episode 91, and of course, that is the place where you can visit our merch store, and you can pick up yourself a little something. And when you do, please know that you're making a donation to help us keep fueling these dot-connecting conversations. And of course, that is where you're gonna find our resource page, where you can see some of the things that we're talking about today and some of the articles and so forth that I refer to.
All right. With that said, I've been really looking forward to sharing this conversation with you. I had this conversation earlier in the month of August, but I've been looking forward to it. And that conversation is with Rebekah Pierce. Rebekah is a farmer and ag communicator, and the author of a really fascinating book called "AgriEnergy: Growing Power, Growing Food."
And, who just happened to, a few days ago, I checked it out, posted a video, and you've got to see her videos on LinkedIn. So, she posted a video of cattle grazing under solar panels along with this caption, and this is her caption: "A moment of silence for all the, end quote, 'farmland being taken out of production,' end quote, by solar panels. Results inconclusive due to the cattle. Does this happen on every solar site? No. Farming doesn't happen on every acre zoned agriculture either. End quote, 'Not everywhere is a strange argument against clearly possible.'" Let me just say that again. "Not everywhere is a strange argument against clearly possible."
So I would rather have you hear these things from Rebekah. Here is that conversation now with Rebekah Pierce.
Rebekah Pierce: So my husband and I own J&R Pierce Family Farm. We are a small family farm. It's, it's just the two of us, and we're in upstate New York, about 30 minutes from the Canadian border, so very, very far north and very, very cold. We, you know, we started our business just as, you know, a small family farm to produce food for ourselves and, you know, our neighbors and, and a small group of, of direct-to-consumer customers.
And then, you know, very quickly realized that our business model was not sustainable in terms of scaling it to be something that would support our family financially. And so, we discovered solar grazing back in 2019. We got our first grazing contract in 2022 on a project just a few miles from our house.
And really, what we do, just, you know, for folks who might not be familiar with it, is we serve as the vegetation managers on solar sites. So all of our sites are community-scale solar, which means the power is distributed locally. It goes back into the local grid first. We're on nine sites, about 200 acres total.
And our sheep, and then as of this year, also our cattle- we're piloting cattle on two small sites here; they are the alternative to mowing crews. So, we don't have to rely on, you know, lawnmowers and, and weed whackers and, you know, expensive equipment there. You know, obviously there is some mop-up mowing required, but the sheep and the cattle are the predominant form of vegetation management.
Rebekah Pierce: So their job is to get fat and happy on a site, but then also to keep the vegetation from shading the cells on a solar panel, which impacts production. So that's their job. We, you know, we are paid as the service provider, and then we're also producing that food product at the end of the year.
Rebekah Pierce: So our, our lamb and our beef goes back into the local supply chain, which is really cool.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah. It, it really is, and I, you know, I-- we'll talk a little bit, a little bit later about the controversy, which is very challenging for me, and I'm a, you know, I'm a pretty smart, you know, read here. I'm really challenged to understand why it's so controversial, because you are examining the emerging practice in the United States; let's be honest, it's behind where these things are concerned. The emerging practice of combining agriculture with renewable energy production, such as, as we said, solar and wind, in a way that supports both food production and energy generation.
Michelle Rathman: So, you are really challenging the common perception that renewable energy installations consume valuable farmland, showing instead that they can complement environmentally sustainable farming practices.
So let's go there next. You touched on it a little bit, but we're also talking about the takeover of farmland to build data centers at the same time, which we talk about in this particular episode. But I think it's hard to argue that, you know, the kind of energy that you're talking about producing and data centers, it's a very different animal, pun intended.
Michelle Rathman: So let's talk a little bit about how you're challenging that norm, because I know that there are folks who do make comments about the fact that, you know, solar and wind, and we'll talk about some of the legislation, might not be the best land use. But what do you say to that in how you're, how you're approaching that subject?
Rebekah Pierce: I think it's really sticky, and I think, you know, any criticism, you know, whether it's a big criticism or a small one, I think it's always grounded in, in at least a little bit of truth. And I think there is a very valid concern kind of reflected in that, in that worry that solar or wind, whatever it might be, is going to essentially eat up all of the farmland that we need to produce our country's food.
And for me, the most helpful thing to combat that and to examine those issues is always to look at what the project is that's being proposed, and then look at what net benefit it will have for that community. So, in terms of things like tax revenue, in terms of things like keeping local farmers on the land, even just, you know, keeping the farmer who owns that land, you know, in ownership of that existing parcel.
And so for me, I think solar has always been a very obvious net-positive solution because the way, A, the way the leases are structured, so even if the land isn't going to be farmed, you know, while the solar project is up and running, it is very, very rare for a project just to be purchased outright by a solar company.
Every project we're on, every project that I have examined, not all of them obviously, but the vast majority exist as lease structures. So a farmer is putting their land into a 25 or 30-year lease, and as part of the contract for that, you know, the solar company is required to come in and decommission. So very realistically, you could have a farmer, and many of the farmers we work with, in fact, you know, they are in their 70s or 80s, and they no longer want to farm.
Their kids don't particularly want to take over the farm, but they still wanna be able to preserve that option if and when their grandchildren or great-great, great-grandchildren, you know, wanna pursue that option. So solar is very attractive in that regard. Plus the fact that you do have co-d- co-utilization, like what we're doing, with grazing animals.
There are also farmers who are growing vegetables. Like, there's really no limit to the options that exist for co-utilization on solar, even though it is still a relatively new model here in the United States. I mean, they've been doing it in Europe for decades, so we're behind the eight ball there.
I think where it gets really interesting with the data center piece, and I know you and I talked a little bit about this before we went online here, is that for a very long time, you know, even as recently as a few months ago, when you saw data centers being proposed, they always had the solar argument, I'll say, kind of wrapped up as a natural part of them.
And I think the reason why that happened is because obviously data centers are very power hungry. And so what was being proposed at first by a lot of these data center developers was we'll attach solar to it because solar comes online very quickly. It's relatively inexpensive to get up and running, and so it would be kind of an obvious choice to power those data centers without overwhelming local grids.
I think, you know, if you're going to put in a data center, I think solar does make a lot of sense for all of those reasons. But at the same time, I think we're seeing this kind of nasty turn, where data center equals solar farm, and obviously solar exists totally independently as a totally separate industry with benefits that just don't exist for data center siting.
So, I think the fact that we are now seeing this huge push, especially from the federal government, to site more data centers and not to site solar and wind is, is really, really interesting to me, especially because I think a lot of the benefits that you see with solar, such as keeping power local and keeping farmers on the land, you're not seeing with data centers.
So, it is really important to separate those things out.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah, I think it's a great point because at the end of the day, how much farming can still happen on land that is now completely consumed by a data center? So let's talk a little bit about, 'cause I do wanna talk about policy because that's what we do here, connecting the dots between policy and all these things, whether they are made possible or whether or not there are restrictions or flat out just saying, you know, we are not gonna fund these projects anymore.
But there are economic benefits for farmers. You ticked off a few of them, but at the end of the day, I mean, these are, there are, there are some significant economic benefits to farmers, and that would also mean, I assume, for the communities that they are, you know, that their land is situated. So talk a little bit more about that if you, if you could please.
Rebekah Pierce: Yeah, and I, I write about this a lot because I think, you know, there's this huge push to protect farmland. And, and don't get me wrong, we need farmland. We need as much farmland as we can get, right? But like American Farmland Trust has that slogan, "No farms, no food," but it really should be, "No farmer, no food."
Because if you don't have a farmer taking care of the land, it's not farmland anymore, and, you know, it's gonna revert to, to forest or, or scrub brush or whatever. And obviously that has ecological benefits, but it's not farmland anymore. And if the farmer can't afford to keep farming, that's not gonna happen.
I haven't-- I don't know what the latest statistics are, but when I wrote my book, it was something close to 85% of all family farms rely on at least one form of off-farm income. So that might be, you know, say you have a husband and a wife, the wife is working an off-farm job while the husband is working the farm.
Or more often than not, both of them are working off-farm jobs just to keep the farm afloat. And to me, that's just a crazy business model. I think farming is one of those professions where it's almost looked down upon to make money with it. I think there is this cultural idea that you farm because you love it and you love the land.
And, those things can be true, but a farmer also needs to be able to put food on the table. And farmers, when you compare the farming occupation to other occupations, they tend to have some of the highest rates of food insecurity, which is just mind-boggling that the people who are growing food, y- yeah, the people who are growing food can't afford to put food on the table to feed their own kids.
And so I really think we need to be careful about how we're criticizing land use decisions when those land use decisions are very often, you know, what's allowing a farmer to, to, to, to, to do that.
Michelle Rathman: Let's talk a little bit about community and rural development. You know, there is a lot of conversation. You probably follow a lot of the folks who are doing kind of reimagining rural and, you know, how to infuse capital into rural communities and doing, you know, large-scale projects that really do garner a lot of economic benefit to communities.
Michelle Rathman: What have you found, in terms of this whole agri- you know, the, the regenerative agriculture in terms of really fueling innovation and economic benefits for rural communities? What's been your experience?
Rebekah Pierce: I think when we're talking about building systems that allow communities to, you know, become developed in a way that supports their long-term success and their long-term growth, it's really important to not just look at what I call like band-aid solutions. And so, you know, there's a ton of grant programs out there.
There's a ton of, you know, loans that farmers can, can tap into. But I think the problem that some folks get themselves into, into is, is assuming that those are going to always be enough to support long-term financial viability. You know, I think when you're thinking about things like regenerative agriculture, which generally requires a longer period of time, and it generally requires a larger land base, I think you need to really zoom out and think long term with those.
So a grant that gives you, you know, $5,000 as a one-time award to invest in infrastructure on your farm is really helpful. But if you zoom out and you look at that over a 10-year period and, you know, in terms of the time it takes to build healthy soils and build healthy systems, we need to be pursuing solutions, A, that listen to the farmer and what the farmer needs, and then also support that long-term viability.
Michelle Rathman: You know, you, you wrote something the other day, and I was just kind of reading it in passing while I was sitting on an airplane waiting to take off, and it was, it has to do with some of the opposition, you know, much of it not realized but speculative with respect to, you know, what the potential harms are to the animals that are a part of this equation.
You know, they don't, they don't have an agent. So they, they're, like, put out there. But to your point, I mean, the goal is that they be fed and happy. Oh, I think you said fat and happy. So let's talk a little bit about that. Where, where are you seeing any opposition that's more focused on the animals than it is on the actual structures of the you know, of the, of the different renewable energy sources?
What can you say about that?
Rebekah Pierce: What's interesting is that the pushback that we tend to get there personally is almost never from other farmers. It's almost always from people kind of outside that community. And to me, I think that just reflects that there is a lack of understanding of what we're actually doing. I think there is still very much this pervasive idea that we put sheep and cattle on solar sites as a PR stunt, and I can tell you that I wish it was a PR stunt because it would be a hell of a lot easier to manage.
You know, the fact that, that yes, we're on solar, you know, from generally April or May through November, so about half the year. The other half of the year, you know, that's still a significant investment and, and a lot of hard work on its own, to feed and, and house and deal with lambing and, and all of those sorts of things that go into the farming equation.
And I think farmers get that, and they see how absurd it would be for this to solely be a PR stunt. They also recognize that we would not be doing this if there were any actual evidence of that infrastructure being harmful to our animals in any way. There has been a ton of positive research that has come out within the last five or six years showing that animals grazing on solar gain weight better.
They tend to produce more milk. Their babies wean and finish out at heavier weights. The forage has more digestibility, more crude protein. It's just generally, it's just better quality. That's not to say that we couldn't have a study 10 years from now that says, "Oh my gosh, all of a sudden we're seeing X, Y, or Z problem in animals."
But we have ewes that have been grazing, you know, these sites for five years. We've not seen issues with fertility. You know, we're not seeing lambs born with four heads. I will absolutely be the first to post about that if that happens, because that would be mind-blowing. So, it's not to say that something couldn't happen, that more research couldn't come out.
I think that's the whole point of science, is that it's constantly evolving. But if we're gonna say, you know, we wanna wait for there to be more research, I think we also need to be respective of the research that's already been done, and it's been very, very pro-solar when you're talking about it from an animal health perspective.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah. I mean, honestly, we will post the resources to our website because seeing is believing, and it's just remarkable, you know, the photography that you're able to capture. And they, I don't know, I can't read their minds, but they sure look happy to me. So, what would you say to other farmers who might be hesitant about kind of the foray into agroenergy?
Rebekah Pierce: I would say it's not for everybody. You know, and I say this to developers too, like, agrivoltaics, agri-energy, it doesn't work well on every site. It doesn't work well for every farmer or for every herd. That being said, it is a great option for many people. I think, you know, if you are somebody who already raises livestock, the challenges that exist in farming solar are not that different from the challenges that exist in real life.
I interviewed somebody for my book, and they referred to it as farming around obstacles, and that's really what it is. You're just farming with additional structures. You know, the really beneficial part, kind of going back to the economic piece that we were talking about before, which is really why we got into this in the first place before we realized all of these other community and environmental, and, you know, animal health benefits that come along with this.
The benefit here is that it does give us a nice economic hedge. So, you know, we are paid as the vegetation managers as the alternative to mowing. So not only do we have additional land access that, you know, otherwise would cost us millions of dollars to be able to tap into the acreage that we are now grazing, but we also have that payment from the solar company so that if there are years where the market is low and we're not fetching as much for those animals as we'd like to, you know, we do still have that buffer.
We haven't raised our prices on lamb since we started doing this, even though it's no secret that inflation is out of control. And so, I think that really speaks to how this has helped us scale and grow our business without necessarily having to pass all those end costs on to the consumer.
Michelle Rathman: All right, before we close out, you know I do have to talk about policy here because I'm going to just read something here, and this was as of August 20th, so not that long ago. "Trump says US will not approve solar or wind power projects." So said they will not approve wind or solar power projects, has tightened federal permitting for renewables, with Interior Secretary Doug Burg now having the final say.
Michelle Rathman: Renewable companies fear that projects will no longer receive permits that were once the normal course of business. And so that one has been a head-scratcher for me. I mean, I, again, traveling all around rural America, we see renewable energy sources, from the dry farming, you know, all the way to the rainy lands of Washington State.
Where do you see policies influencing the ability to continue expanding the growth of agri energy? Are these policies g- putting up roadblocks? How will we move them? We need to talk a little bit about what policymakers really need to learn and understand to make sound policy that is, you know, not favorable over coal and other sources of energy.
But at the end of the day, this is a little scary to me that there's just been this blanket opposition, not understanding really why. What do our lawmakers need to know about why this is so important to not just accept it on its face, a big fat no?
Rebekah Pierce: So there's a lot I can say, but I know we don't have a ton, ton of time, so I'm gonna try to kind of condense it as, as, as best as I can. And I think the biggest issue is that the federal government says that they are listening to farmers, but what they're really doing is they're listening to like the big four.
They're listening to Cargill, and Tyson, and JBS, and all of those companies that comprise the vast majority of agricultural lobbying and profits in this country, and not actually listening to the, you know, the 95% of us that are actually trying to keep our doors open and do this on a daily basis.
Because if they were to listen to those people, then they would understand that what we need is not more policy banning things, but just to listen and to ask farmers what they actually need. I was in DC for an event back in June and had the opportunity to meet with some congressional representatives, and almost none of them, at least, you know, on one side of the political aisle, almost none of them had heard of agrivoltaics, let alone had any opinion for or against.
But the resounding response that we got was, "Wow, this is awesome. I didn't know that this existed." really just, our opposition is not to renewables; it's to federal money going towards renewables, which there's a lot that can be said about that from a policy standpoint and in terms of subsidies that I think other energy sources have always been, had available to them without question or without debate.
I am... And, and maybe this will come back to bite me. I am not super concerned about the latest federal barrage on renewables just because I think it's going to open the door for a lot of state rights, you know, lawsuits and challenges in that regard because I think states do have very differing stances on how they approach these projects.
But I think at the end of the day, we, we've got to start listening to farmers. We need to pursue solutions that will keep farmers on their land, and unfortunately nothing the administration has really done so far has done that. And so it's time to start looking at what things are actually happening instead of how we are presenting things in a news blip to, to gain support, from certain, you know, pieces of the population.
Michelle Rathman: And it's become abundantly clear to me that we need a lot more education on what solar energy is and what it isn't, and the same thing with wind. It-- there's a lot of misinformation. I said last week that disinformation has become a franchise, and it's expanding everywhere. And so I think just learning more about it and understanding it, and to your point, you know, this should not be, again, the should word, we should not be having this as a political conversation, but it is policy related.
And for you to be able to keep doing the work that you're doing and expand that, you know, and I, I... What I really appreciated learning about your work is that, again, it's not just one thing. You are, you are really addressing multiple, multiple issues, you know, with one solution, and I think it's just remarkable.
Rebekah Pierce: Well, and, and thank you for saying that. You know, I do get a lot of flak, I think, online, from people who view me as some kind of shill for the renewable energy industry. And I'm not. And there are, there are pieces that I am, I'm very critical of from a, from an agricultural perspective. But I think the problem is, you know, to your point, this misinformation, disinformation, it spreads so quickly on social media.
You know, there's been studies done that the information that spreads fastest on social media is not the stuff that's totally true, it's not the stuff that's totally wrong, it's the stuff that has a little nugget of truth to it, and then it's completely blown up into something that is more often than not completely fabricated.
And so what I am trying to do is pull out the piece that is true, talk about why that's the case, and then just get people to think more critically. Like, it doesn't have to be black and white. We can raise criticisms and have issues, you know, with projects in certain communities without, you know, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
So hopefully we see a little bit more of that discussion.
Michelle Rathman: Yes. Yes, and I, trust me when I say, when I read about your work, a shill for the renewable was never, ever, never once, never crossed my mind whatsoever, okay? Because I'm telling folks where can they follow you on a social and make sure that they stay connected with your work, and dare I say, if they have an interest in what you're doing and they might wanna bring it to their own land, how can they reach you?
Rebekah Pierce: Yeah. So, you can go right to my website, Rebekahpeircewriter.com. I'm also on LinkedIn, Rebekah Pierce. I'm on X and Instagram. Just it's the same content across all platforms. And then Facebook, I post under JNR Pierce Family Farm, just because we're trying to keep it a little separate there, but...
Michelle Rathman: Yeah, and you have your Substack too, right?
Rebekah Pierce: I do have a Substack, yep.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah. So
Rebekah Pierce: linked to in all those places.
Michelle Rathman: Yeah, I'm really encouraging. And, you know, again, like this conversation, hopefully it helps you all get curious about what this is a- about. And as I said, it's seeing it is believing it, and the photos are worth a thousand words to be sure.
Rebekah, we're so grateful to have you here. Thank you so much for joining us.
Thank you so much. It was a great conversation
Michelle Rathman: Thank you. All right, even though we do have to say farewell to Rebekah, I want you to sit tight because I'll be back with some closing thoughts on this really big episode of the Rural Impact focused on rural land use and powering rural.
We'll be right back
Michelle Rathman: I promised you that this was a capital B big episode, and so my thanks to all my guests, both commissioners from the great state of Oregon and also Montana, as well as to Rebekah Pierce. I do hope, you know, as we say it so often, these are not light subjects, but I do hope there was something that you heard here today that enlightened you.
And with that, I really do invite you, as I said earlier, to subscribe wherever you like to get your podcast. And if you are so inter- so inclined, if you're interested, visit our website, theruralimpact.com, where you can hit that subscribe button and make sure that you receive the recaps from this episode, and we can also give you a preview of what we've got coming next.
And as I said in the intro, it's going to be a very busy fall. I wanna make sure I give a really quick shout-out and a thank you to Brea Corsaro and to Sarah Garvin for all of their amazing support and help behind the scenes. I have quite the team here at The Rural Impact, and I am so grateful for that, them, and I am so grateful for you, our listeners.
All right. Until the next time we are together, I want to remind you: here's a big invitation. Take really good care of yourself and, to the best of your ability, all those around you. And lastly, make sure you are registered to vote. All right. We'll see you again soon on a brand-new episode of The Rural Impact.