When President Donald Trump passed his self-proclaimed “One Big Beautiful Bill,” headlines focused on sweeping tax cuts and tighter restrictions for Medicare, Medicaid, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.  

Less attention, however, fell on key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act — most notably the tax incentives that had spurred rapid growth in wind energy. The bill ends production tax credits for new renewable projects, which previously offset a portion of construction and operational costs. For rural Kansans, where renewable projects have created jobs, generated tax revenue, and driven long-term investment, the rollbacks may hit especially close to home according to Brad Lubben, associate professor of agricultural economics at the University of Nebraska. 

“The Inflation Reduction Act has made clean energy more competitive over time, and the repeal of that policy will definitely slow down the incentive in Kansas. Tax incentives have been a major driver over the last several years,” Lubben said.

Wind power has become central to Kansas’s energy mix, surpassing coal and natural gas due to considerable growth in central and western parts of the state. In 2024, wind accounted for 52% of the state’s electricity generation, up from 47% in 2022. As of October 2025, the state hosts 52 utility scale wind farms.   

That momentum now faces uncertainty. With clean energy production tax credits now gone, industry leaders in clean energy worry the winds may be moving in the wrong direction.   

“Energy installations — whether they’re wind, solar, a natural gas facility, certainly a nuclear facility — these are hundreds of millions of dollars,” said Josh Svaty, a Kansas farmer and the state’s former secretary of agriculture. “They require sophisticated financial backing and a high degree of certainty. If you are an investment bank or you are private equity, you are not going to put your money behind something that might not happen.”  

At the individual level, Kansans, especially those involved in agriculture, could face greater financial challenges.  

Landowners typically earn about $10,500 per year for each turbine on their property. With many pressures inherent to modern agriculture, that supplemental income often helps farmers keep their land through tough seasons or market downturns. Daniel O’Brien, senior modeling analyst for the nonpartisan Washington-based think tank Energy Innovation, said recent policies could strip landowners of that important source of income. 

“Increasing the cost of development of wind in Kansas is something that’s really going to harm the agricultural industry, because they’re losing that revenue that they’d otherwise be gaining by selling electricity back to the grid,” O’Brien said. 

Nationwide, BloombergNEF projects new clean-energy installations will fall 41% by 2028, when the tax credit phaseouts take full effect. For Kansas — where wind serves as a low-cost power source and an economic buoy — the impact could be particularly acute.  

“Most farmers work until they die,” said Jack Thimesch, farmer and Kingman County commissioner. “In Kingman County, Kansas, many farmers have been able to retire in their 70s because of the added income from wind turbines, and even sell some of their land. The turbines provide a source of income stability regardless of rainfall or market.”  

The potential effects extend beyond the farm gate. In rural communities, wind farms have become vital sources of tax revenue for local governments. Some small towns, constrained by limited tax bases and large agricultural exemptions, use revenue from wind farms to fund public services.  

In Kingman County, west of Wichita, the Kingman Wind Energy Center has delivered over $10 million in revenue since 2012, and has funded two new fire stations, road maintenance, and a reduction of property taxes in the county, according to Thimesch.  

Still, few expect state or local governments to fill the gap left by the bill. 

“I don’t know that I see state or local efforts to come in with a new favorable tax policy,” Lubben said. “The federal government did, but we’re talking about a budget challenge at whatever level it’s proposed. And so, a direct tax incentive policy is challenging.” 

However, Lubben believes there may be other pathways forward for rural communities. Renewable energy mandates, which are policies requiring utilities to source a certain percentage of energy from renewable sources, could continue to push the industry ahead.  

“A renewable mandate of some sort might continue to drive renewable energy forward,” Lubben said. “A renewable mandate basically mandates consumption. The policy driving supply with the tax incentives is largely backing up, and the market is going to be a demand market.” 

 Donivan Bullins is a University of Kansas senior from Lenexa, studying journalism and political science.