Pollinator Week: Wings of Life! June 20-26, 2022

Pollinator Week is an annual celebration in support of pollinator health, initiated and managed by Pollinator Partnership (P2). It is a time to raise awareness for pollinators and spread the word about what we can do to protect them. The great thing about Pollinator Week is that you can celebrate and get involved in multiple ways. Popular events include planting for pollinators, registering for the EPRI – P2 Pollinator Power Party, and so much more. However you choose to celebrate this year, be sure to register your event here , and share your story with us by tagging us on social media using the hashtag #PollinatorWeek.

As the largest organization in the world dedicated exclusively to pollinator issues, P2 provides the highest level of scientific advising and consultation services to support industry, organizations, and agencies plan, execute, and manage pollinator-related projects including solar-habitat co-location. For more information, please visit P2’s Consulting Services page.

Planting for Pollinators: A recipe for success

Pollinators are responsible for one out of three bites of food we consume. They are also the glue that holds the natural world together. Pollinators need your help! By creating pollinator-friendly gardens, you will be providing the vital habitat resources they depend on. Not to mention that pollinator gardens will bring beautiful color displays for you (and your neighbors) to enjoy throughout the seasons!

Combine copious colors and diverse blossoms. Add a splash of sweet-smelling nectar, a pinch of pollen, consecutive blooms, and voila! With these recipes, pollinators are sure to nectar in your gorgeous garden!

Combine copious colors and diverse blossoms. Add a splash of sweet-smelling nectar, a pinch of pollen, consecutive blooms, and voila! With these recipes, pollinators are sure to nectar in your gorgeous garden!

Planning your garden with pollinators in mind is easy with the new Native Pollinator Garden Recipe Cards. These cards are your gateway to native wildflower gardening — they provide step-by-step guidelines for creating your own pollinator gardens, including recommendations for regionally appropriate native plant species, design, and planting tips. With easy-to-follow steps and resources for support, you will be on your way to butterfly bliss in no time.

Find your region’s card and get started today to support our pollinators and give them a place to call home. Native garden cards are available for most U.S. regions, including the Northeast, Northwest, Intermountain West, Great Plains, Midwest, Southwest, Southeast, Alaska, and Texas regions, with California to come. Look for the recommended plant species wherever native plants are sold, such as your local native plant nursery.

These cards were developed through a collaborative effort as part of the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign (NAPPC) Pollinator Habitat Installations Task Force. Download your free Native Pollinator Garden Recipe Card and help support pollinators with us.

Happy pollinator planting!

 

 

 

Characterizing the Ecological Effects of Utility-scale Photovoltaic Arrays in Rangeland

By Dr. Seeta Sistla, Natural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

With the dual growth of utility-scale solar energy and food production, fallowed agricultural landscapes represent a particularly promising area for the deployment of solar arrays because these systems have the potential to recover with shifts in management practices (Tscharntke et al., 2012;  Wright et al., 2012). California is a national leader of both solar energy development and agricultural production. As water becomes scarcer and costlier, there is growing tension between land-use choices centered around maintaining conventional agricultural systems, transitioning land to renewable energy farming through solar energy development, shifting agricultural strategy (e.g., conventional to conservation farming), or alternate land uses (e.g., housing development).

Placing solar arrays on farmland and other human-modified landscapes represents a promising area to unite energy production with ecological restoration and the sustained conservation of ecologically valuable land. The potential for ecologically improving degraded landscapes with targeted solar array placement will be governed by biogeochemical interactions between abiotic and biotic factors (Figure 1).  Despite the potential ecological and economic synergistic benefits that coupling these land uses could create, the impacts of solar arrays on fallowed farmland and other disturbed landscapes are not well understood.

Figure 1. Microclimatic effects of USSE array on fallowed agricultural landscapes.

To address this deficit, we are studying the direct and indirect effects of utility-scale solar energy in conjunction with sheep grazing on soil and plant characteristics. This work includes collaborating with agricultural stakeholders, undergraduate and graduate students, and solar developers (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Sampling plant and soil conditions at a solar farm on the California Central Coast.

To date, we have found that land in the direct footprint of the array panels hosts a plant community with increased nutrient content and forage quality and maintains a greener plant community for longer periods than the surround area.  These findings likely reflect reduced water stress due to shading in our arid western landscapes, highlighting the potential synergy between carbon-free energy production, rangeland management, and water conservation (Figure 3). Our group continues to investigate these plant and soil responses to array placement at two solar sites on the Central Coast of California and looks forward to opportunities to collaborate with others.

Figure 3. Sheep grazing within one of our solar array study sites. Note the shift in vegetation greenness beyond the array area.

References

Tscharntke, T., Y. Clough, T. C. Wanger, L. Jackson, I. Motzke, I. Perfecto, J. Vandermeer, and A. Whitbread. 2012. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation 151:53–59.

Wright, H. L., I. R. Lake, and P. M. Dolman. 2012. Agriculture-a key element for conservation in the developing world. Conservation Letters 5:11–19.

Tasting the Fruits and Vegetables Grown Under Solar Panels

By: Mariah Rogers, Graduate Student, University of Arizona

Do plants taste different under solar panels? Do they taste better? At the Biosphere 2 Agrivoltaics Learning Lab, we studied just that.

Why Should We Use Agrivoltaics?

Agrivoltaics—the production of agriculture and solar photovoltaic energy on the same parcel of land—is gaining attention as farmers are facing new struggles amid the climate crisis. With agrivoltaics, farmers can reduce water consumption, produce renewable energy, and continue to cultivate their land. However, there is skepticism toward growing crops under solar panels, as farmers may have to change the types of plants that are more shade tolerant.

The Biosphere 2 Agrivoltaics Learning Lab

At the Biosphere 2 Agrivoltaics Learning Lab (B2AVSLL), we study the microclimate—that localized environment under the solar panels— and how plant adaptations occur in the shade of the agrivoltaic system. Some of the adaptations that plants make in the agrivoltaic microclimates include differences in yield, changes to plant morphology (leaf size, fruit shape and color), and alterations in metabolites. These adaptations may cause differences in how people perceive these crops. To study these differences, we grow a slew of different crops underneath solar panels.

We grow tomatoes, basil, potatoes, beans, squash, and lavender, just to name a few. While some of the plants grown at B2AVSLL are heat tolerant, crops grown in this region of the U.S. still require a lot of water. With agrivoltaics, we can reduce water consumption and still have a good yield. So, it is in our best interest to figure out if they would be successful both for the environment and in the market.

The Study Goals

To understand how these crops would do in the market, we conducted a consumer sensory study at the University of Arizona. The three goals of the study were to: (1) to understand if people perceived a difference between agrivoltaic-grown crops vs. crops grown in full sunlight (control); (2) determine if people preferred agrivoltaic-grown crops compared to control; and (3) discover if people were willing to pay more for crops grown in agrivoltaic conditions.

A total of 105 people participated in the study. Panelists were subjected to different conditions and samples, based on the site and the day they were tasting samples. Tomato and basil, potato and bean, and potato and squash were tasted by panelists.

Does Agrivoltaics Change the Flavor of Plants?

To understand if there was a difference between agrivoltaic- and control-grown samples, we used a triangle test where participants were given three samples with a random three-digit code; two of the samples were the same and one was different. We then asked the participants to pick which sample was the “odd one out.”

So, did agrivoltaics change the flavor of the crops? Yes and no. Tomato, bean, and squash samples (all fruits) were perceived as different by tasters. Basil and potato samples were not perceived as significantly different by tasters.

Does Agrivoltaics Make Plants Taste Better?

To understand if there was a preference between samples from the two growth conditions, we then conducted a paired preference test. We gave tasters two samples with random three-digit codes and asked if they preferred one sample more than another, or if they preferred neither sample.

Unsurprisingly, the results were mixed. People significantly preferred beans grown in the control setting over those grown in agrivoltaics. In addition, agrivoltaic-grown basil, potato, and squash samples were preferred by tasters.

Are People Willing to Pay More for Agrivoltaic-grown Produce?

After the triangle and preference tests, we asked participants if they would be willing to pay more or less for their favorite samples. Overall, we found that participants were willing to pay the same or more for all samples after they knew that their favorite samples were grown in agrivoltaic systems.

What Does This Mean for Farmers and Investors?

Because consumers can’t tell a significant difference in vegetable samples, and they preferred basil, potato, and squash, it may be in farmers’ best interest to grow these crops, especially in the desert. By marketing the produce as grown under solar arrays, and educating consumers about agrivoltaics, farmers may be able to sell their produce for slightly more at farmers markets.

What Does This Mean for You as a Consumers?

Buying for foods that are grown using agrivoltaics means supporting solar energy generation through purchasing fruits or vegetables. If you already go to the farmers market to buy fruits and vegetables, you may want to consider buying agrivoltaic-grown produce. If you want something that tastes like what you already buy from the farmers market, then you may want to buy vegetables. If you are looking for a different tasting product, you may want to buy fruits grown under agrivoltaics. You can be the judge whether you prefer one growth condition over another.

To Mow or Not to Mow?

Timing field management in and around solar fields to optimize conservation opportunities for declining grassland birds

Dr. Amy Johnson, Conservation Biologist and Program Director, Virginia Working Landscapes, Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute

Biodiversity is declining globally at an alarming rate. While multiple ecosystems are at risk, our planet’s terrestrial grasslands are suffering precipitous losses. In North America, less than 1% of native grasslands remain.

As a result, species that rely on grassland habitat are in trouble. A recent study published in Science revealed that grassland birds are declining more than any other group of birds (Rosenberg et al, 2019; Figure 1). These are species that rely on contiguous open spaces, mostly free from trees, for nesting, foraging, and survival.

Figure 1. Grassland birds have declined more than any group of birds in North America. Infographic: Cornell Lab of Ornithology

In the eastern United States, the majority of grassland habitat is under private ownership. Much of these grasslands are working lands, with hay production and grazing being the most common land uses. A growing number of these working lands are also contributing to an expanding network of solar fields, often integrating solar infrastructure into actively farmed or post-agricultural fields. Simultaneously, these eastern grasslands are host to some of North America’s most vulnerable grassland birds, including Eastern meadowlarks, Grasshopper sparrows, and Bobolinks, which have experienced population declines of 75%, 68%, and 65%, respectively, since the 1970s. As such, it is critical that we prioritize research to better understand how these populations are impacted by grassland management. More importantly, in order to be successful in developing effective conservation strategies for these species on working lands, it’s necessary to facilitate a model that considers the needs of both wildlife and people.

In Virginia, a team of conservation scientists is collaborating with community partners and a network of private landowners and producers to conduct research on grassland birds on working lands. Virginia Working Landscapes (VWL) is a program of Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, and its mission is to promote the conservation of native biodiversity and sustainable land management through scientific research, education, and community engagement. Since 2010, VWL has recruited over 180 properties (totaling over 80,000 acres) that have provided researchers access for the purpose of conducting ecological research on how land management impacts biodiversity. Grasslands included in this research include fallow post-agricultural fields, solar fields, active hayfields, and livestock pastures, restored native grasslands and wildflower meadows. From this, VWL researchers have been able to assess how bird communities respond to different land management practices, including the timing of management, and have been able to apply these findings to best management practices that support grassland bird populations.

Solar is quickly emerging as one of the Virginia’s leading sources of renewable energy, with more arrays being constructed every year. With the majority of these installations occurring in and around agricultural fields, we often think about the impacts that solar may have on grassland bird communities. While there’s been minimal research on this topic (Horváth et al., 2009; DeVault et al., 2014), there are several organizations actively looking into it (see SUNY New Paltz, Virginia Pollinator Smart, Grassland Bird Trust).

One aspect of solar management that hasn’t been discussed in great detail in scientific literature is vegetation management in solar fields specific to grass and shrubland birds. With much of VWL’s research focusing on field management (not to mention the fact that it’s currently peak mowing season here in Virginia!), I wanted to use this as an opportunity to share some insights on how landowners and managers can optimize grassland management for bird communities within solar fields and beyond.

In eastern grasslands specifically, we have identified two distinct communities of birds nesting in grasslands. One we identify as grassland obligates, which include those birds that nest directly on the ground in open grasslands, including species like Eastern meadowlarks, Bobolinks, and Grasshopper sparrows. Others we refer to more commonly as shrubland birds, which often build their nests off the ground in low-lying vegetation amongst the branches of woody shrubs or weaved through the stems of sturdy wildflowers. Examples of these species include Indigo buntings, Field sparrows, and Prairie warblers. Depending on the composition and structure of the vegetation growing in and around your solar fields, it’s possible that both groups of these birds are nesting amongst solar arrays and surrounding habitat. For example, if a solar array is installed in conjunction with a pollinator wildflower mix, it may be likely that shrubland species are nesting nearby. VWL research is demonstrating that wildflower meadows support significantly higher densities of shrubland birds than fallow or agricultural fields. In contrast, arrays surrounded by fescue pasture and/or hay grasses it may be more likely to have higher densities of grassland obligates present, potentially nesting directly on the ground. Therefore, the composition of the vegetation surrounding your solar array could help determine the optimal time for field management based on the nesting phenology of the species most associated with that habitat.

In Virginia, Eastern meadowlarks start nesting as early as April 15, with peak nesting activity occurring in mid- to late May (Figure 2). Bobolinks follow shortly behind with peak nesting activity occurring in early June. Unfortunately, this is also the most popular time for field management, especially if fields are managed for hay and/or grazing, and this can have drastic negative impacts on grassland bird survival. For example, a New York study showed that hay harvests during peak nesting season resulted in 94% mortality of eggs and nestlings of grassland birds (Bollinger et al.,1990). Other species more commonly associated with wildflower meadows, like Blue grosbeaks and Field sparrows will nest into late June/early July. As such, it is important to consider the species using your fields when scheduling field management activities. For this reason, we created a “Field Management Risk Calendar” (Figure 3) to help guide managers on the optimal times to manage fields for the benefit of birds.

Figure 2. An Eastern meadowlark nest hidden amongst hay grasses at the edge of a solar field in Fauquier County, VA. Photos: Amy Johnson
Figure 3. Field management risk calendar for eastern grassland birds in the mid-Atlantic. Infographic: Amy Johnson, Smithsonian’s Virginia Working Landscapes, using data collected in Virginia grasslands.

As the calendar illustrates, delaying field management from mid-June to July 1 can make a significant difference for the survival of nestling grassland birds. Delaying to July 15 or even August 1 is even more impactful, especially for those late-nesting shrubland species. We also recognize, however, that delaying management isn’t always feasible. As such, we are currently collaborating with farmers in Virginia to identify optimal windows for early field management that will still offer opportunities for birds to fledge their young. For example, is it possible to mow early in the season, prior to peak grassland bird nesting, and still provide the necessary vegetation structure for nesting birds in late May and into June? Stay tuned to www.VAWorkingLandscapes.org to hear more as we continue collecting data on this front. In the meantime, I encourage you to refer to our Field Management Guidelines for Grassland Birds to learn more about the species that use our eastern grasslands and how we can adapt our management regimes to optimize their conservation.

References

Bollinger, E.K., P.B. Bollinger, and T.A. Gavin, . 1990. Effects of Hay-Cropping on Eastern Populations of the Bobolink. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 18(2): 142-150.

DeVault, T.L., T.W. Seamans,, J.A. Schmidt., J.L. Belant,, B.F. Blackwell, N. Mooers, L.A. Tyson, and L. Van Pelt. 2014. Bird use of solar photovoltaic installations at US airports: Implications for aviation safety. Landscape and Urban Planning,122: 122-128.

Horvath, G., G. Kriska, P. MalikB. . and Robertson. 2009. Polarized Light Pollution: A New Kind of Ecological Photopollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7: 317-325.

Rosenberg, K.V., A.M. Dokter, P.J. Blancher, J.R. Sauer,, A.C. Smith, P.A. Smith, J.C. Stanton, A. Panjabi, L. Helft, M. Parr, and P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science, 366: 120-124.

Financing and Incentive Options for Solar

By: Andrew Valainis

Director, Montana Renewable Energy Association (MREA)

According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, the cost to install solar has dropped more than 60% over the last decade alone, with the average residential system costing half of what it did in 2010.[1] Still, solar photovoltaic systems are a large investment, and the up-front cost can be challenging for many Americans. In this blog post, I will explore some of the financing and financial incentive options available to help pay for these systems. I use Montana’s available options as examples, though financing and incentive programs will vary state to state.

One of the most popular and most important incentives in the U.S. is the Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC). The ITC is a federal income tax credit that you can claim against the cost of the installation. This credit applies to the total cost of the installation, including labor. If you decide to install a storage system at the same time as the solar system, then you can include that cost as well. There is no upper dollar limit on how much the credit is worth. The ITC was originally set at 30% but stepped down to 26% in 2020 and will continue to step down over the next few years. In 2020, the phase-out schedule was extended for two years as part of the spending bill that Congress negotiated. The ITC will remain at 26% until 2023, when it will step down to 22% for all customers. In 2024, it will expire for individuals, while stepping down permanently to 10% for businesses.

Federal ITC Step Down 2020 Extension.

Another great option is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “Rural Energy for American Program” (REAP). The REAP program provides grants – not loans – to qualifying agricultural and small businesses for up to 25% of the cost of a renewable energy project, up to $500,000. Energy efficiency grants and loan guarantees are also available through the program. This is an excellent option for agricultural producers. USDA has local offices all around the country, and I highly recommend calling them to ask about the program and how you can benefit.

In 2022, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which provides a large amount of funding for the installation of renewable energy technologies. Details are still coming out about several of the different funding opportunities, which may apply to businesses or individuals. These are worth monitoring for further information. You can learn more here.

Some states offer state-level programs specifically supporting the development of solar and other renewable energy technologies. In Montana, we have the Alternative Energy Revolving Loan Program (AERLP). This program was established by the Montana Legislature in 2001 and provides zero-down, low-interest loans of up to $40,000 to individuals, small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government entities in order to increase investments in alternative energy systems and energy conservation measures in Montana. The program, managed by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s Energy Office, has financed more than 500 renewable energy installations across the state since its first loan in 2003. States also often offer tax incentives or rebates for renewable energy installations, which are great options to help lower the up-front cost of the installation. Reach out to your state energy office or solar advocacy group to ask what options your state offers.

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs are becoming more popular across the country. PACE programs offer the opportunity to finance the up-front cost of an installation and then pay back that cost as an assessment on the property taxes of the building or location where the system was installed. One of the greatest benefits is that the cost of the system is tied to the location, making for a simpler process if there is a change in ownership. The nuances of these programs are important and will vary from state to state. For example, the recently adopted PACE program in Montana is only available to commercial entities.

Your utility may offer discounts, rebates, or other incentives that can help with the cost of renewable energy and/or energy efficiency technologies. In Montana, we have the Universal Systems Benefits (USB) program. Our largest investor-owned utility, NorthWestern Energy, administers this state-authorized incentive program through its “E+ Renewable Energy Program” to qualifying non-profit organizations, government agencies, and schools in NorthWestern Energy’s Montana service territory. Projects receiving these funds often provide civic value, including education and visible representation of renewable energy technologies to a broad audience. The Montana USB program provides grants, but other utility territories may offer programs with discounts or rebates on certain energy efficiency products. Reach out to your energy provider to ask what incentives it offers. 

Private financial institutions are beginning to offer their own renewable-energy focused products. For example, Clearwater Credit Union (based in Missoula, MT) offers two home energy loans: an unsecured, easy-access Home Solar Loan; and a Home Energy Efficiency Loan. Because it is a private institution (and not a state agency), the credit union can usually offer a decision in minutes. These options can be particularly attractive for businesses or households that already have an account with that institution.

Third-party financing is another option to consider. In this scenario, a private, third-party financer will develop a solar project on leased or purchased land or roof space. The financer provides the capital and, in doing so, is often able to take advantage of tax breaks that can lower the overall project cost. They enter into a contract with the system host (i.e., the building or land owner) who then benefits from the project by receiving the energy produced on-site. The host may pay the financer a regular payment (fixed or otherwise) related to the value of the energy delivered. At the end of the contract term, the host may also have an option to purchase the system from the financer. The crux is finding a third-party financer you are comfortable working with. These types of contracts can be technical, and the nuances are very important. If you are interested in this model, I recommend working with a legal expert to make sure you understand the terms and conditions of any agreement that you sign. Missoula County recently worked on the first third-party financed system in Montana. MREA hosted a webinar about the experience, and about third-party financing in general. A link to the recording is provided below.

A closing note on tax incentives (generally): Be sure to consult with a tax professional to ensure that these options are available to you. Unless the tax credit is specifically noted as refundable, you must have a sufficient tax liability to claim the value of the credit. For example, the Federal ITC is not currently refundable (though SEIA and other solar advocates have lobbied Congress to make it so).

As you can see, there are varied options available to help with the cost of a solar installation. However, the nuances are important and can drive the cost and savings that you will eventually realize. As you explore these different options, be sure to reach out to local solar advocates and legal and tax experts in your area with any clarifying questions.

Resources:

Federal ITC (for businesses)

Federal ITC (for residences)

USDA REAP Program

IIJA funding opportunities

MREA webinar on Third-Party Financing

Montana-specific Programs and Examples:

MREA website on financing and incentives

Alternative Energy Revolving Loan Program

Clearwater Credit Union energy loans

Northwestern Energy E+ Renewable Incentives

[1] Solar Energy Industries Association. (2022). “Solar Industry Research Data.” https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data

Characterizing the Ecological Implications of Utility-Scale Solar Energy on Fallowed Farmlands

Written By: Amanda Gersoff (M.Sc. student), Dr. Seeta Sistla

Natural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences Department, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

Our team is studying the ecological aspects of utility-scale solar arrays set on former agricultural land whose understory is maintained by sheep grazing. By gaining a better understanding of the ecological implications associated with panel shading coupled with grazing by sheep, we hope to develop insights into agrivoltaic development that can maximize positive environmental effects while reducing negative externalities. We are currently focusing on two utility-scale solar energy sites located in San Luis Obispo County, California. At these sites, we conduct weekly monitoring to measure surface microclimatic features, soil nutrient cycling processes, and plant community composition.

Collecting soil cores at Topaz Solar Farm. Photo: Amanda Gersoff
Collecting aboveground biomass samples at Topaz Solar Farm. Photo: Amanda Gersoff

We hypothesized that the novel shading caused by the arrays will affect plant and soil dynamics, including decomposition, biomass production, plant moisture content, the timing of plant community events (like flowering duration and time to senescence) and plant nutrient content. Our work has suggested that placing arrays in arid grazing landscapes that are emblematic of the western U.S. can confer synergistic benefits for the plant community and their grazers. For example, our work has found that the plant mass beneath the array rows has high water content, greater nitrogen content (correlated with higher soil plant-available nitrogen), and lower non-digestible fiber content than areas that are grazed but outside the arrays’ direct shading influence. We are currently tracking phenological patterns of greenness and flowering time/duration in the array, to better understand if the traits we are observing correlate with an extension of the growing season for the community with the array’s shading area.

Over the next year, we will continue monitoring to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how exactly spatial heterogeneity created by panel shading influences ecological systems. At both sites, the practice of solar grazing, in which sheep are used to maintain vegetation under solar panels, has been implemented. By combining agricultural and renewable energy production, also known as agrivoltaics, multiple benefits can be realized. Utilizing rotational grazing by sheep is beneficial because it can reduce the costs of mowing and maintenance, support local shepherds, cultivate biodiversity, cycle nutrients into the soil, and decrease the risk of sparks igniting dried grasses. As utility-scale solar energy grows, it is important to look to dual-use solar for increasing efficiency and maximizing environmental benefits.

Rotational grazing by sheep at Goldtree Solar Farm. Photo: Amanda Gersoff
Patterns of phenological differences  vegetation due to shading at Topaz Solar Farm.  Photo: Amanda Gersoff
Owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta): An annual native wildflower common in the rows adjacent to panels at Topaz solar Farm. Photo: Amanda Gersoff

Ecosystem Services of Solar-Pollinator Habitat

By Lee Walston and Heidi Hartmann, Argonne National Laboratory

Pollinator habitat at a solar facility in Minnesota. Photo: Lee Walston, Argonne National Laboratory.

Many of us have witnessed regional land-use transformations towards renewable energy in the last decade. As the fastest growing electricity generating sector in the U.S., solar energy development has grown more than 20x in the past decade and is projected to be the dominant renewable source of electricity by 2040. The recent DOE Solar Futures Study predicts that over 1 terawatt (TW) of utility-scale solar electricity developments will be required to meet net-zero clean-energy objectives in the U.S. by 2050 (Figure 1). This represents a solar land-use footprint of over 10 million acres across the U.S. – roughly the combined area  of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

Figure 1. Source: Solar Futures Study

A fundamental question we all face is how to balance solar energy development with other land uses such as agriculture. Given the current and projected land-use requirements, sustained development of solar energy will depend on finding renewable energy solutions that optimize the combined outputs of energy production, ecosystem services, and other land uses. Dual land-use approaches that co-locate solar energy with other forms of land uses, such as agriculture or habitat restoration, have emerged as promising strategies to improving the landscape compatibility of solar energy. The establishment of native pollinator-friendly vegetation at solar facilities (“solar-pollinator habitat”) is one strategy to improve the multifunctionality of these lands that not only provide renewable energy but also offer several ecosystem service benefits such as: (1) biodiversity conservation; (2) stormwater and erosion control; (3) carbon sequestration; and (4) benefits to nearby agricultural fields.

Understanding the true ecosystem service benefits of solar-pollinator habitat will require field studies in different geographic regions to examine the methods of solar-pollinator habitat establishment and link these processes with measured ecosystem service outputs. Given the time required to conduct these direct field studies, most discussions of solar-pollinator habitat thus far have centered on qualitative ecosystem outcomes. Fortunately, there are ways to quantitatively understand some of these potential outcomes. Native habitat restoration has been a focus of scientific research for many years, and we can use these studies to understand the regional methods for solar pollinator habitat establishment (e.g., types of seed mixes, vegetation management) and relate these habitat restoration activities with quantifiable ecosystem responses. For example, there are decades of research on the restoration of the prairie grassland systems in the Midwest and Great Plains – regions that have seen losses of over 90% of their native grasslands due to agricultural expansion.

Because many solar facilities in the Midwest are sited on former agricultural fields, research on ecological restoration of former agricultural fields could be very useful in understanding the establishment and performance of solar-pollinator habitat in the same region. We can look to these studies as surrogate study systems for solar-pollinator habitat and utilize the data from these studies to make inferences on the ecosystem outcomes of solar-pollinator habitat. Along with a team of research partners, we recently took this approach to quantify the potential ecosystem services of solar-pollinator habitat in the Midwest. Our goal was to understand how solar energy developments co-located with pollinator-friendly native vegetation may improve ecosystem services compared to other traditional land uses. We began by reviewing the literature to collect a range of data on vegetation associated with three different land uses: agriculture, solar-turfgrass, and solar-pollinator habitat. The data for each land use included information on vegetation types, root depths, carbon storage potential, and evapotranspiration, to name a few.  

We then developed ecosystem service models for each land use scenario. The land uses corresponded to the following scenarios (Figure 2):

1. Agriculture scenario (baseline “pre-solar” land use);

2. Solar-turfgrass (“business as usual” solar-turfgrass land use) and

3. Solar-pollinator habitat (grassland restoration at solar sites).

We mapped and delineated 30 solar sites in the Midwest and used the InVEST modeling tool to model the following four ecosystem services across all sites and land-use scenarios:

Figure 2. Illustration of land use scenarios at each solar site. Source: Walston et al., 2021.

Our results, published in the journal Ecosystem Services, found that, compared to traditional agricultural land uses, solar facilities with sitewide co‑located, pollinator‑friendly vegetation produced a three-fold increase in pollinator habitat quality and a 65% increase in carbon storage potential. The models also showed that solar-pollinator habitat increased the site’s potential to control sedimentation and runoff by more than 95% and 19%, respectively (Figure 3). This study suggests that in regions where native grasslands have been lost to farming and other activities native grassland restoration at solar energy facilities could represent a win‑win for energy and the environment.

What do these results mean? We hope these results can help industry, communities, regulators, and policymakers better understand the potential ecosystem benefits of solar-pollinator habitat. These findings may be used to build cooperative relationships between the solar industry and surrounding communities to better integrate solar energy into agricultural landscapes. While our study provides a quantitative basis for understanding these potential ecosystem benefits, additional work is needed to validate model results and collect the primary data that would support economic evaluations to inform solar-native grassland business decisions for the solar industry and quantify the economic benefits of services provided to nearby farmers, landowners, and other stakeholders.

Figure 3. Average ecosystem service values for the thirty Midwest solar facilities modeled with InVEST: (A) pollinator supply; (B) carbon storage; (C) sediment export; and (D) water retention. Source: Walston et al. 2021.

Video Series Provides Solar Education to Farmers

It should come as no surprise that farmers are busy people. Success in farming requires hard work and long days, not to mention staying up to speed on farming practices and technologies. As renewable energy deployment on farmland becomes more common, farmers can face challenges understanding how to site and maintain these systems.

Drew Shiavone of the University of Maryland is meeting farmers where they are by providing digestible information on farm-based solar photovoltaics (PV) via 10- to 15-minute YouTube clips. The “Solar Clips” video series shows practical, step-by-step tutorials on various phases of the solar installation and maintenance process, from site assessment and shading analysis to wiring panels and replacing diodes. The series was created by Shiavone under a Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) grant that will expand solar installations on farms in Maryland.

The grant project, led by Shiavone, is focusing on “train-the-trainer” workshops that will allow Extension agents and other agriculture service providers in the region to deliver education and training to farmers on topics such as solar PV technology basics, on-farm applications, and solar contracts and leasing options.

Along with the common “not in my backyard” mentality or concerns for the local economy, aversion to renewable energy installations is also often rooted in a lack of knowledge about the technology. Educational tools such as the Solar Clips series can help close the knowledge gap for farmers and increase support for on-farm renewable energy development. By empowering the farmer through practical solutions, agricultural production and decarbonization efforts are strengthened.

Fostering Social Acceptance of Solar Through Agrivoltaic Solutions

By Alexis Pascaris

What if we shifted our perspective to view Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome as an occasion for innovation? What if we strategically integrated local community interests into a solar project, rather than grappling to override them? Luckily, embodying these ideals may not be as lofty as it seems.

Combining agriculture and solar energy production in an agrivoltaic system shows promise as a sensible method to reduce siting conflict, generate rural economic opportunity, and ultimately increase social acceptance of solar. The majority of the solar professionals interviewed in a recent study on industry perspectives about agrivoltaics discussed the great potential to leverage these systems strategically to retain local agricultural interests in project development and consequently gain receptivity in a community. Minimizing threat to existing community interests by pursuing a dual-use project provides a distinct advantage over traditional ground-mounted solar projects, which are often challenged on the basis of land conservation and farm preservation values.

But do solar energy deployment and farmland preservation have to be mutually exclusive pursuits? Can the agrivoltaic solution properly reconcile these competing interests in a way that benefits all stakeholders?

Jack’s Solar Garden. Longmont, CO. Photo: Thomas Hickey
Jack’s Solar Garden. Longmont, CO. Photo: Thomas Hickey

Let’s consider for a moment that we are at a delicate yet opportune inflection point in large-scale solar deployment. Previous case studies exemplify how the community relation component of project development has rippling consequences (both positive and negative) on our ability to sustain the build-out rate of solar. Poorly developed projects perpetuate lack of trust in developers, resistance from rural communities and ag-interest groups, as well as restrictive land use policy. Research concerned with New England’s energy transition evaluated the factors that contribute to energy project outcomes, finding that stakeholder relations is instrumental, and that social conflict is a key contributor to project failure. Collaboratively designed projects that generate co-benefits leave a legacy of community pride and positive perception about solar. The Long Island Solar Roadmap Project demonstrates how the solar development process can be enhanced through stakeholder engagement, which includes incorporating community preferences in project siting and design.

Based on precedence, the path of least resistance is clear – to meet our ambitious renewable energy targets, we must develop innovative, inclusive practices to minimize siting conflict and harmonize solar deployment goals with existing community interests. By upholding community values and agricultural interests in a solar project, agrivoltaics provide a means to enhance development practice remarkably well.

You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. Last spring, we surveyed two U.S. counties to investigate whether public support for solar increases when a project incorporates agricultural production. Survey respondents indicated that they would be more likely to support solar development in their community if it combined energy and agriculture. The study further investigated the importance of a range of planning and development factors – land type, distribution of project benefits, and impacts on local interests were determined to be of highest priority to community members when considering their support for a solar project. These findings imply the importance of community engagement in the planning process and suggest that a solar project designed to maintain the agricultural function of land is likely to experience receptivity rather than resistance – a valuable co-benefit of the agrivoltaic approach.

Thinking long-term about our commitments to sustain the deployment rate of solar not only includes optimizing economic and technical efficiency but fostering social acceptance as well. “Social acceptance” can either be our mighty ally, or a formidable opponent to our solar development pursuits. The agrivoltaic solution illuminates a pathway to alleviate siting conflict, generate localized benefits, and contribute to a legacy of solar projects everyone is proud of.

What if all future solar systems served a greater purpose than electricity generation? Would you be more likely to support them in your backyard?

American Solar Grazing Association, AgriSolar Clearinghouse Partner on Webinar Teatime Series

The AgriSolar Clearinghouse is partnering with the American Solar Grazing Association to run a series of joint educational agrivoltaic webinar presentations, known as Teatimes. These events are free and open to the public, and recordings will be broadcast on the AgriSolar Media hub if you can’t make the live event. 

The series will start April 21, with the presentation Leasing for Community and Grid-Scale Solar – Key Considerations While Negotiating, by Tom Murphy, the Director of Penn State’s Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research (MCOR). To join the webinar, use this link, meeting ID, and passcode:

Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81562414717?pwd=b2xnQ3hCQk1nMkh3aGM5dzRHS2JIZz09
Meeting ID: 815 6241 4717
Passcode: 414544

ASGA is  founded by farmers for farmers and solar professionals. They swap stories, best practices, and good ideas about solar grazing. We are excited to bring their valuable experience and expertise to the AgriSolar Clearinghouse network and hope this partnership will help foster connections, promote best practices, and provide support for solar graziers around the country.

Check out our events page for future dates, topics, and sign-up information.