Basin Electric Power Cooperative in Montana is among the first wave of 16 rural electric cooperatives that will receive subsidies from the USDA’s Empowering Rural America (New ERA) to leverage projects for carbon-free energy in rural communities across 23 states. The majority of new electricity sources that will be funded are solar and wind power.

The funds will fund “renewable energy projects” totaling 1400 megawatts across Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. A press release states that the efforts will reduce greenhouse gas pollution by an estimated 2.2 million tons annually.

In total USDA estimates these projects will avoid more than 43 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually.

USDA estimates New ERA government funding will spur the creation of an estimated 4,500 long-term jobs and 16,000 short-term jobs.

As a result of these projects, renewable capacity supply for rural co-ops will increase by 35 percent from 26 to nearly 35 gigawatts, with wind and solar capacity rising by more than 60 percent from 14 gigawatts to 23 gigawatts.

A few examples of clean energy projects providing real savings to co-op members are Dairyland Power Co-operative, which is expecting rates 42 percent lower over ten years compared with business as usual; and Great River Energy, which expects cost reductions by $30 million annually. More member savings can be found below, compiled from the USDA’s announcement. 

“With the help of the New ERA program, rural cooperatives across the country are leading the way in demonstrating how to deploy clean energy to deliver affordable and reliable power for the benefit of their member-owners — and in ways that really work for the communities they serve. The diversity of investments and approaches taken by co-operatives is a testament to the power of the co-op model in fostering innovation tailored to local community needs,” said RMI electricity expert Uday Varadarajan.

 The clear winner in terms of technology was utility-scale solar, however an encouraging number of co-ops will also be investing in utility-scale battery storage systems, demand-side resources, and transmission improvements, which can support additional clean energy investments in the future. 

RMI (founded as Rocky Mountain Institute) provided resources to applicants in the form of a series of webinars, bootcamps, and a financial modeling tool to support ambitious and efficient project designs by co-ops. We have also published a Community Benefits Catalog to support applicants for federal funding in the creation and execution of community benefit plans (CBPs), to ensure every project supports the long-term growth and financial welfare of local communities. 

A new report from researchers at the University of Montana shows shorter school weeks may hurt student performance and school budgets, according to a report from Montana Public Radio.

While a growing number of schools in Montana have switched to four-day weeks, the researchers say data analysis on four-day school weeks “demonstrates a disturbing trend for education in Montana.” They found that student performance under four-day school weeks declines the longer a district uses the schedule, and lags behind kids in traditional five-day weeks.

Schools with shorter weeks often spend more on instruction, maintenance, transportation and food per student than similarly sized schools on a five-day schedule. A typical Class-B school in Montana would likely spend about $100,000 more annually after transitioning to a four-day week, according to the report.

State lawmakers allowed schools to switch to four-day instruction in 2005. Since then, 260 mostly small schools have adopted the schedule. District leaders have suggested shorter weeks could help them recruit and retain teachers. But the researchers say more evidence is needed to prove or disprove that argument.

The report’s authors recommend a return to five-day school weeks statewide.

New research suggests that the U.S. economy has been in a recession for the last two years if one adjusts the statistics used for inflation, reports Epoch Time.

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, cumulative inflation since 2019 has totaled nearly 25 percent. But inflation figures have been understated by nearly half, resulting in cumulative growth to be “overstated by roughly 15%,” say economists EJ Antoni and Peter St. Onge.

“. . . these adjustments indicate that the American economy has actually been in recession since 2022,” they wrote in a new study published in Brownstone Journal.

Undercounting inflation has implications for economic growth because rapid price changes have bolstered the nominal values of a wide array of economic metrics “without resulting in any real change.”

New orders for durable goods have increased 7.5 percent (nominal) but fallen 13.4 percent (real). Retail sales have rocketed more than 23 percent (nominal) but rose 3.2 percent after adjusting for inflation. Nominal disposable personal income has surged about 35 percent, but the real rate has been just nearly 13 percent.

Nominal GDP at a seasonally adjusted annualized rate shows the national economy has soared 37.4 percent from the first quarter of 2019 to the second quarter of 2024. But the way the Bureau of Economic Research evaluates those figures is “flawed,” report the economists.

Utilizing more accurate measures for housing, regulatory costs, and indirect costs yields a more accurate inflation measurement and therefore a more accurate valuation of real GDP, say the researchers.

Antoni and St. Onge conclude that the adjusted real GDP (gross domestic product) fell 2.5 percent from the first quarter of 2019 to the second quarter of 2024, which means that the nation entered a recession in the first quarter of 2022 and remained in that contraction through the second quarter of 2024.

The paper aimed to address various “egregious biases in inflation statistics” to gauge an accurate assessment of inflation over the last five years.

“The CPI has grossly underestimated housing cost inflation,” they wrote, highlighting that the consumer price index (CPI) fails to “actually account” for the direct cost of homeownership. Instead, federal statisticians rely on the “owners’ equivalent rent of residences,” which accounts for more than 26 percent of the CPI.

“If the costs to rent and own change commensurately over time, then this methodology will be relatively accurate,” the economists stated. “Unfortunately, the cost of owning a home has risen much faster than rents over the last four years and the CPI has grossly underestimated housing cost inflation.”

Measuring price changes when consumers are not directly charged for services is another challenge to accurately measuring inflation.

Health insurance is one example of this hurdle to correctly assessing inflation.

“Premiums are used both to pay for the actual cost of providing the service of insurance (risk mitigation) and for medical services and commodities,” the report said. “The CPI neglects both, and instead imputes the cost of health insurance from the profits of health insurers.”