Tim Teichert and Jason Thornock want the sun to help them survive as ranchers in Cokeville, Wyoming. On an overcast May day, the two drove around the one-restaurant town, lamenting high electricity prices and restrictive Wyoming laws that they say have thrown an unnecessary burden onto their broad shoulders.

“I pay $90,000 in an electric bill,” Teichert said as he and Thornock made their way through fields of cattle, alfalfa and hay. “Jason’s about $150,000. If Jason had that $150,000 back, his kids could all come back to Cokeville, and work and live here, and you’d be able to raise kids here in Cokeville.”

In 2023, hoping to improve their margins, Teichert and Thornock each applied for Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) grants, which the Biden administration had infused with $2 billion to help support farmers interested in renewable energy.

While neither man was thrilled about the prospect of applying for federal funds—they prefer smaller government—they were interested in using solar to cover their own electrical demand. Teichert and Thornock say this could have saved them five or six figures annually, and made their businesses more attractive to their kids.

Across Wyoming and the U.S., Americans increasingly face skyrocketing electricity bills. In 2023, Rocky Mountain Power, Teichert and Thornock’s utility and the largest in Wyoming, asked regulators at the state’s Public Service Commission to approve a nearly 30 percent rate increase; the next year, they asked to raise rates by close to 15 percent. Though both requests were ultimately granted at lower rates, affordability concerns have sent almost every corner of Wyoming scrambling for ways to defray rising electricity costs.

A fraction of homeowners already do this in the Equality State by using credits from their utility for generating their own electricity using solar panels and sending excess amounts back to the grid, an arrangement known as net metering. But Wyoming law caps net-metering systems at 25 kilowatts, large enough to include just about any homeowner’s rooftop solar system, but too small to provide enough credits to offset all the electricity larger properties, like ranches, draw from the grid.

Earlier this year, a coalition of environmentalists, businesses and ranchers, including Teichert and Thornock, unsuccessfully supported a bill that would have raised Wyoming’s net-metering cap to 250 kilowatts.

Teichert and Thornock were initially counting on changes to the law as they eyed REAP funds. Teichert, a sturdy man with pale blue eyes and a trim Fu Manchu mustache, eventually applied and was awarded a $440,000 grant to build a ranch shed supporting around 250 kilowatts of solar panels. Today, with no ability to net meter, he fears he may never recoup his investment, which was over $500,000. Thornock, whose wide, boyish grin sits atop a hefty build, was approved for $868,000 in REAP funding to build a 648-kilowatt solar system. Concerned that his project’s viability rested on the judgment of state lawmakers, he returned the money.

  • aGlassDarkly@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    7 days ago

    While neither man was thrilled about the prospect of applying for federal funds—they prefer smaller government—they were interested in using solar to cover their own electrical demand.

    So they’re fine with it when it benefits them, but “fuck them poors,” I assume.

    • hanrahan@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 days ago

      They could have funded this themselves, stick to there philosophical guns over governemt … didn’t need to get a grant but here we are.

      • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        You can’t break even you can’t break even.

        How many guys shovelling shit for a living get taxed to high heaven so some farmer can have 800,000 in government money?

        • BremboTheFourth@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 days ago

          Zero of those guys get taxed for that reason. How many billions of dollars are going untaxed into the hands of the wealthiest people so the government can cancel this solar project and deny healthcare to that worker?

          • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 days ago

            Look, if you want to argue with me that the US healthcare system is broken, you’ll get no argument from me.

            The US government spends more public money per person than Canada, and yet most people in the United States need to pay for entirely Private health insurance. It’s a fantastic example of the brokenness of the US system. For the amount of money being fought for in the US healthcare system, there should be one of the world’s best single-payer options.

            And you can’t even get partisan on it because the current system was put into place by supermajority democrats. Most people forget that.

            But that’s the problem. When you’re dealing with a corrupt government, it doesn’t really matter what nice ideas are on the table. They take your money or the money from your great-grandkids, and they hand it to their buddies, you ain’t in the club.

            And that goes for healthcare, that goes for green energy, it goes for whatever you’ve got.

            All you’re seeing here is a changing of the guard where money stops being sent to one set of rich people who probably could have afforded to do something on their own so that it can be sent to another set of rich people who probably could have afforded to do something on their own.

  • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Wyoming ranchers want to transition

    Aww, good for them. Look at those innocent smiles, warmed with easygoing pride in their hearts. A coupla sweet ol’ girls, just aching to live their truth. 🥰🫶🏼🤗

  • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    An electric utility bill of 150000$???
    Assuming a price of 0.2 ct/kWh that would be 750 MWh per year.
    Or a continous consumption of 85kW 24/7.
    What the hell kind of farms are these?
    Industrial scale indoor weed plantations??

    • The_v@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      They likely have pivot irrigation systems on quite a few fields plus the pumps. Generally costs around $50-$125/acre per year depending on the cost of electricity and length of irrigation season (Arizona irrigates 12months of the year, some high mountain areas irrigate for 2 months).

      $150,000 ÷ $125/acre = 1,200 acres under irrigation. $150,000/$50/acre = 3000 acres under irrigation.

      These are not poor little family farmers. These are both millionaires who likely inherited it all from mommy and daddy. They also likely accept all sorts of subsidy checks already from the government every year.

      • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Wait… 3000 acres would be 120 sq. km, if my math mathed correctly.

        That’s twice the area of my 130.000 inhabitants municipality, which also includes dozens of huge farms.

        I see your point here.
        So the whole thing is ridiculous and actually a non-issue.

        Edit:
        Math didn’t math. It is actually 12 sq. km. Still insane though.

        • The_v@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 days ago

          2.47 acres = 1 hectare if I remember my conversions right. 1 hectare is 0.01 sq km.

          3000 acres/2.47= 1215 hectares *.01= 12.15 sq km. You misplaced a decimal.

          • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            You are right! Counting decimal places always has been one of my weak points, should have switched calculator to engineering notation. :-)

            12 sq. km irrigated land is still insane.

            I live in middle of the largest irrigated vegetable growing region in Northern Bavaria, and it just has 9 sq. km irrigation area in total, but shared between 130 farms!

            • The_v@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 days ago

              Supplemental irrigation, even in higher rainfall zones like Bavaria increase row crop yields by up to 30-50%. Everytime you drive past a non-irrigated field, up to 1/2 of the environmental damage is not needed if the countries invested in upgrading the water management system from the iron age.

              50% more forests and nature, , 50% less chemicals and fertilizer used, etc… it all starts with water management.

              • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 days ago

                Actually Northern Bavaria is slightly arid. During summer, much of the needed water is “imported” from the more humid southern part via the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal.

                Fascinating large scale engineering project, but also with significant environmental impact…