Understanding and Addressing the Impact of Solar Development on Pennsylvania Farmland

Abstract

Background: Proposed large (utility-scale) solar energy development in Pennsylvania is growing. Most existing and proposed development is on rural farmland. This study analyzes the demonstrated and potential economic, social, physical, and land-based impacts of utility-scale solar development on farmland, farming practices, and farming communities in Pennsylvania. It then explores a menu of policy options to address these impacts. Method: Study authors conducted a literature review of impacts and solar policies in Pennsylvania and other states; explored and analyzed case studies in four locations; and interviewed 40 individuals. Results: Physical land-based impacts: Farmland is temporarily displaced (15 to 30 years) if dual-use agrivoltaic practices (farming beneath and between solar panels) are not pursued. Solar facilities may remain as energy facilities at the end of each facility’s useful life due to valuable grid transmission interconnection and a new generation of residents potentially uninterested in farming. Economics: Landowner-farmers gain income from solar leases and use the income to continue farming on non-solar land, change farming operations on non-solar land, or retire or change careers. If the site was previously leased, the amount of land available for farmers who rent farmland decreases, which might indirectly impact land rents in the immediate area. There is also no direct evidence of disruption of agricultural supply chains due to utility-scale solar development. Regarding potential secondary positive impacts, there is no solar panel manufacturing in Pennsylvania; solar development can drive temporary construction jobs and some routine maintenance jobs. Local governments can gain tax revenue from roll-back taxes paid when solar facilities occupy agricultural land. Local governments also gain tax revenue from the higher property taxes paid on commercial solar projects. Social: Residents express concerns about the aesthetic impacts of solar panels within their communities. Proposed solar facilities cause community conflicts and suppress participation in public discussion of solar facilities, at least in the short term. Some farmer-landowners believe that communities should pay for the preservation of landscapes and views rather than expecting farmers to forgo solar lease benefits.