The Way research packet. Built 2026-10-28. Online version: https://michiinstitute.com/cases/rural-electrification.html

The Observatory · Case 24 · Public programs · 1935 to 1994

Rural Electrification Administration (United States, 1935 to 1994)

Not yet reviewed by a person. This page was researched and written with the help of AI tools. Every key claim is labeled by evidence status near the end, but no person has checked the sources yet. Treat it as a draft.
No one has verified this page yet. No verifier is recorded.
Sources checked 2026-10-19. Preliminary research, not a final verdict.
In this packet
1. Review status · 2. The article · 3. Sources and their details · 4. Every link used · 5. Revision history · 6. How to cite

1. Review status

Status
Not yet reviewed by a person. This page was researched and written with the help of AI tools. Every key claim is labeled by evidence status near the end, but no person has checked the sources yet. Treat it as a draft.
Verified by
No one has verified this page yet. No verifier is recorded.
Sources checked
2026-10-19
Review history
https://michiinstitute.com/members/reviews.html?case=rural-electrification
Packet built
2026-10-28

2. The article

When private utilities would not string lines to thinly settled farms, Washington created the Rural Electrification Administration in 1935 and lent money to cooperatives and public bodies; nearly all farms got power and almost every loan was repaid, but co-op voting, rate-setting and board control later became a problem, especially for Black members in the South.

In brief

In 1935 fewer than 11 of every 100 U.S. farms had electric service, because private utilities saw too little profit in long lines to few customers. The Rural Electrification Administration, created that year and put on a statute in 1936, lent money for 25 years to cooperatives and public bodies. By the mid-1950s nearly every farm was connected, and almost every loan was repaid. The design let customers own and vote the utility, which is rare. But votes can be hollowed out: a 1996 report found that in Black Belt co-ops in 1995, Black members were about a quarter of customers and 9 percent of board members, and describes proxy-heavy elections in 1983. The lesson is that a public program can reach nearly everyone with wires and still leave some members without an equal voice in running them.

The record

What we could and could not open

We opened: the 1936 statute record at govinfo (49 Stat. 1363); the National Archives guide to REA records (Record Group 221); the EH.Net encyclopedia entry; an Asterisk magazine article on co-ops; a Richmond Fed Econ Focus article; the NBER abstract of Kitchens and Fishback (2013 working paper, 2015 article); Living New Deal's REA entry; a Southern Oral History Program page; Leifermann and Wehner, "A Question of Power" (Southern Changes, 1996); the Senate Agriculture Committee's current compilation of the Act (amended through 2019).

We could not open: Executive Order 7037 itself (the National Archives page did not mention it); the Senate and House votes on the 1936 Act; the Kitchens and Fishback full paper (abstract only); Lee, Miguel and Wolfram's 2020 study (named in the Richmond Fed piece); the 1949 telephone amendment text; any USDA civil rights complaint record. Claims from these are marked.

The problem

The agency and the statute

Results

Who was included and who was left out

Who paid

Federal lending carried the program; the up-front subsidy was "large" and the later cost low because loans were repaid (Kitchens and Fishback abstract). EH.Net records a criticism that interest subsidies continued long after the Depression and that service would not fall if they ended. Members paid their own rates and wiring costs; Leifermann and Wehner say Delta residential users were reportedly charged more than twice what large farms paid for irrigation power. That rate claim is unverified beyond that article.

Timeline

What this case shows

  1. Markets left a group out, and a public program was the fix. Private utilities did not serve farms because the return was low. The REA lent to people who would build and own the lines themselves. Rural residents had no way to vote a utility into serving them; they could organize a co-op and borrow.
  2. The co-op gave each member a vote on a service the member needed. The design was one-member boards chosen by customers. For a basic service this is unusual: the buyer owns the seller. This is as close as the case gets to "ordinary people could vote on and fix" and it is why the program is a strong example.
  3. The public could check the result. The loans were mostly repaid and the figures on repayment come from several independent sources, including an economics working paper. A program of this size left a record anyone could audit.
  4. But the vote was not equal in the Black Belt. The same structure that gave members a vote let boards use proxies and uncontested elections. Leifermann and Wehner give specific numbers (a manager holding 569 proxies; 3.1 percent annual-meeting attendance across Black Belt co-ops). A program with a ballot can still fail people who cannot use it.
  5. The federal lender knew late. The USDA's own RUS data in 1995 showed Black board membership of 9.1 percent against 25.8 percent of customers, and the response in 1996 was a governance team, not an enforcement unit. We did not find an earlier federal review.
  6. The distinction between the farm and the town mattered. Co-ops could not serve places inside municipalities of 1,500 or more. Who got service was drawn by population lines, not need.
  7. Benefits were large but concentrated in farming. Kitchens and Fishback say effects on crop output and productivity were substantial while nonfarm effects were much smaller. Those who gained most were farm households and operators.

The strongest objections, and our answers

  1. Objection: This was a success; the race problem is a 1980s story. Mitigation: both parts are true. We state the success (near-total electrification, loans repaid) and separately state the 1983 and 1995 evidence from one source. We do not claim the 1936 to 1950 co-ops excluded Black members at that time; the Southern Oral History Program page says boards "frequently" shut out Black farmers, but we did not find a count for the early decades.
  2. Objection: The Southern Changes article is advocacy. Mitigation: yes, and it is the only source we have for the specific election and proxy numbers. It uses RUS data for the 1995 percentages. We label its claims and list RUS 1995 data as the primary to check.
  3. Objection: Subsidies cost taxpayers a lot. Mitigation: EH.Net records exactly this criticism. Kitchens and Fishback say the up-front subsidy was large but taxpayer cost relatively low since loans were repaid. We did not find a dollar total for lifetime subsidy.
  4. Objection: Private utilities would have served farms eventually. Mitigation: the Richmond Fed says utilities proposed a plan that exceeded the budget and fell short of full coverage; Asterisk says utilities blocked co-ops with spite lines. Neither source shows what unaided private build-out would have achieved, so the question is unresolved.
  5. Objection: The loan terms numbers are inconsistent, so the entry is unreliable. Mitigation: correct that secondary sources disagree on interest (2 percent, 2.88 percent, 2 to 3 percent) and term (20 or 25 years). The statute says 25 years and sets rates by formula; we use it and leave the others flagged.
  6. Objection: The REA propaganda film shows it manipulated the public. Mitigation: one secondary source says so. Both private utilities and the REA used propaganda by that account. We make no claim beyond that.
  7. Objection: Co-ops are voluntary private bodies, not a federal failure. Mitigation: the REA lent public money to them and the later federal response (RUS governance team) shows the agency treated the problem as its concern.

Open questions: what would change our minds

Sources

Title Publisher URL Supports Opened
Rural Electrification Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 1363 GovInfo, Statutes at Large https://www.govinfo.gov/link/statute/49/1363 Sec. 2 to 4: loan authority, funding, 25-year terms, preference (primary) Yes
Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (compilation through 2019) U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/download/compilation/rural-electrification-act-of-1936 Current text: preference, Sec. 9 nonpartisan rule Yes
Records of the Rural Electrification Administration, Record Group 221 National Archives https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/221.html Administrators, 1935 to 1994 dates, co-op borrowers (agency record guide) Yes
Rural Electrification Administration EH.Net Encyclopedia https://eh.net/encyclopedia/rural-electrification-administration/ EO 7037, co-op rules, repayment under 1 percent, subsidy criticism Yes
How Co-ops Electrified America Asterisk Magazine https://asteriskmag.com/issues/11/how-co-ops-electrified-america Percent connected, utility opposition, line costs Yes
Economic history (Econ Focus, Q1 2020) Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/RichmondFedOrg/publications/research/econ_focus/2020/q1/economic_history.pdf 1930 access gap, cost per mile, repayment Yes
Flip the Switch: The Spatial Impact of the Rural Electrification Administration 1935-1940 NBER WP 19743 https://www.nber.org/papers/w19743 Output, productivity, taxpayer cost (abstract) Yes
Rural Electrification Administration (REA) (1935) Living New Deal https://livingnewdeal.org/glossary/rural-electrification-administration-rea-1935/ EO 7037, 1936 Act terms, 1943 totals, 1994 end Yes
Rural Electrification Southern Oral History Program, UNC https://sohp.org/?p=98451 Co-op boards and Black farmers; "uneven by race and class" Yes
A Question of Power: Race and Democracy in Rural Electric Co-ops (Leifermann and Wehner) Southern Changes, vol. 18, 1996 https://southernchanges.digitalscholarship.emory.edu/sc18-3-4_001/sc18-3-4_002/ Elections, proxies, 1995 board data, 1996 governance team Yes
Executive Order 7037; Lee, Miguel and Wolfram (2020); 1949 telephone amendment various not opened Named leads only No

Found an error or a better source? We keep every correction on the record with its date and reason. Nothing here is quietly rewritten.

3. Sources and their details

One entry per source in the page's Sources table. "Checked" is the date the page says its sources were checked. A Wayback link and SHA-256 appear only where a snapshot has been recorded.

1. Rural Electrification Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 1363

Publisher
GovInfo, Statutes at Large
Date
1936
URL
https://www.govinfo.gov/link/statute/49/1363
Supports
Sec. 2 to 4: loan authority, funding, 25-year terms, preference (primary)
Opened by us
Yes
Checked
2026-10-19
Snapshot
No snapshot or SHA-256 recorded in this packet yet.

2. Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (compilation through 2019)

Publisher
U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee
Date
1936
URL
https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/download/compilation/rural-electrification-act-of-1936
Supports
Current text: preference, Sec. 9 nonpartisan rule
Opened by us
Yes
Checked
2026-10-19
Snapshot
No snapshot or SHA-256 recorded in this packet yet.

3. Records of the Rural Electrification Administration, Record Group 221

Publisher
National Archives
Date
not stated in the title; see the source
URL
https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/221.html
Supports
Administrators, 1935 to 1994 dates, co-op borrowers (agency record guide)
Opened by us
Yes
Checked
2026-10-19
Snapshot
No snapshot or SHA-256 recorded in this packet yet.

4. Rural Electrification Administration

Publisher
EH.Net Encyclopedia
Date
not stated in the title; see the source
URL
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/rural-electrification-administration/
Supports
EO 7037, co-op rules, repayment under 1 percent, subsidy criticism
Opened by us
Yes
Checked
2026-10-19
Snapshot
No snapshot or SHA-256 recorded in this packet yet.

5. How Co-ops Electrified America

Publisher
Asterisk Magazine
Date
not stated in the title; see the source
URL
https://asteriskmag.com/issues/11/how-co-ops-electrified-america
Supports
Percent connected, utility opposition, line costs
Opened by us
Yes
Checked
2026-10-19
Snapshot
No snapshot or SHA-256 recorded in this packet yet.

6. Economic history (Econ Focus, Q1 2020)

Publisher
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
Date
2020
URL
https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/RichmondFedOrg/publications/research/econ_focus/2020/q1/economic_history.pdf
Supports
1930 access gap, cost per mile, repayment
Opened by us
Yes
Checked
2026-10-19
Snapshot
No snapshot or SHA-256 recorded in this packet yet.

7. Flip the Switch: The Spatial Impact of the Rural Electrification Administration 1935-1940

Publisher
NBER WP 19743
Date
1935
URL
https://www.nber.org/papers/w19743
Supports
Output, productivity, taxpayer cost (abstract)
Opened by us
Yes
Checked
2026-10-19
Snapshot
No snapshot or SHA-256 recorded in this packet yet.

8. Rural Electrification Administration (REA) (1935)

Publisher
Living New Deal
Date
1935
URL
https://livingnewdeal.org/glossary/rural-electrification-administration-rea-1935/
Supports
EO 7037, 1936 Act terms, 1943 totals, 1994 end
Opened by us
Yes
Checked
2026-10-19
Snapshot
No snapshot or SHA-256 recorded in this packet yet.

9. Rural Electrification

Publisher
Southern Oral History Program, UNC
Date
not stated in the title; see the source
URL
https://sohp.org/?p=98451
Supports
Co-op boards and Black farmers; "uneven by race and class"
Opened by us
Yes
Checked
2026-10-19
Snapshot
No snapshot or SHA-256 recorded in this packet yet.

10. A Question of Power: Race and Democracy in Rural Electric Co-ops (Leifermann and Wehner)

Publisher
Southern Changes, vol. 18, 1996
Date
not stated in the title; see the source
URL
https://southernchanges.digitalscholarship.emory.edu/sc18-3-4_001/sc18-3-4_002/
Supports
Elections, proxies, 1995 board data, 1996 governance team
Opened by us
Yes
Checked
2026-10-19
Snapshot
No snapshot or SHA-256 recorded in this packet yet.

11. Executive Order 7037; Lee, Miguel and Wolfram (2020); 1949 telephone amendment

Publisher
various
Date
2020
URL
not opened
Supports
Named leads only
Opened by us
No
Checked
2026-10-19
Snapshot
No snapshot or SHA-256 recorded in this packet yet.

5. Revision history

First published (earliest change on record): 2026-10-22.

Corrections on the page

This page does not carry a correction table. Its change log is below.

Change log for the page

6. How to cite

The Way (Michi Institute). "Rural Electrification Administration (United States, 1935 to 1994)." Case 24, The Observatory. Sources checked 2026-10-19. Packet built 2026-10-28. https://michiinstitute.com/cases/rural-electrification.html

This is preliminary research. Before relying on a claim, cite and check the primary source it points to. To save as a PDF: use your browser's Print and choose Save as PDF.

Not left. Not right. We are The Way. A nonpartisan research project, not a political party.