What are stakeholders’ perceptions of the impacts and benefits of large-scale solar development?
New research from Berkeley Lab, Michigan State University, and the University of Michigan draws insights from 54 interviews of residents, developers, and policy makers around seven large-scale solar projects across the U.S.
Large-scale solar (LSS, defined here as ground-mounted photovoltaic projects ≥1 MWDC) has grown rapidly in the U.S., accounting for nearly half of new electric generating capacity added to the U.S. grid in 2022. All sources of electricity bring positive and negative impacts to hosting communities and the rapid growth of LSS has increased the urgency to understand those impacts. Yet, information about the potential positive and negative impacts of LSS on host communities, and the factors or drivers leading to support or opposition to a project, is lacking. This information gap limits how project developers, municipalities, and local siting authorities can address community concerns and appropriately align proposed projects to best suit and benefit local communities.
In an effort to fill this gap, Berkeley Lab has kicked off a multi-year research effort focused on community impacts, perceptions, and proactive planning alongside partners at Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This research initiative, known as Community-Centered Solar Development (CCSD), utilizes a mixed-method, community-based approach to study perceived and measurable impacts of LSS on hosting communities and to develop data, reports, and tools to better enable communities and LSS developers to align for mutual benefit.
The first research task under CCSD set out to explore deep insights and perceptions from LSS stakeholders that only qualitative data can provide to identify key factors driving project success or threatened failure. Case studies, such as those utilized in this research, are uniquely adept at capturing the subjective experience of individuals and at identifying variables, structures, and interactions between stakeholders. They are regularly used in research to provide depth and nuance, refine concepts, derive hypotheses, and explore causal relations – work that is difficult to accomplish via quantitative research methods. Our case studies included 54 semi-structured interviews across 7 different LSS sites, representing a diversity of geographies, project sizes (MW), site types (i.e., greenfield, agrivoltaic, and brownfield / contaminated sites), zoning jurisdiction types, and more (Table 1). In addition to local residents living in close proximity to these LSS sites, we interviewed other key stakeholders involved in the projects such as developers, decision-makers, utility representatives, landowners, and individuals from community-based organizations.
Table 1. Project details of LSS case study sites. Identifying site data is being withheld to protect participant confidentiality.
The overarching aim of this case study research was two-fold: (1) to inform subsequent tasks in the CCSD research project (including an upcoming national survey of LSS neighbors), and (2) to provide insights into the following set of research questions:
- What are the key positive and negative drivers leading to support and opposition to LSS projects?
- To what extent do LSS projects exacerbate or mitigate perceived inequities and marginalization within hosting communities and how can those inequities be mitigated going forward?
- What strategies can communities employ to align LSS development with local land-use plans and community needs and values?
The findings from this research are summarized in depth in a new PowerPoint-style briefing, available for download here. A brief summary of the key findings follows:
1. What are the key positive and negative drivers leading to support and opposition to LSS projects?
The primary drivers of support and opposition fall broadly across two categories: (1) development and planning processes, and (2) perceived impacts from project development.
Interviewees strongly emphasized the role of the planning process in influencing project acceptance. Overall, developers and local officials reported that disseminating key information about LSS was a major challenge. Residents who were not receiving compensation from a project felt uninformed, while the opposite was true for those receiving or having been offered compensation. Overall, those projects that engaged residents earlier in the process, provided salient information about project timelines and outcomes, and offered opportunities for feedback and direct conversation with developers and officials, seemed to be perceived more favorably by project neighbors.
Perceived impacts of LSS highlighted by respondents included direct and indirect economic impacts, visual and landscape impacts, environmental impacts, and rural-urban tensions. In general, there was relatively low awareness of tax revenue generated by LSS projects, and more awareness of direct payments to landowners. It was clear that visual aesthetics matter to local residents, and not just the look of the solar arrays, but also ancillary elements such as fencing, vegetation for screening, and interconnection infrastructure such as substations and power lines—both of which were noted to receive less attention during stakeholder-engagement processes. Similarly, residents expressed concerns about LSS projects taking agricultural land out of production. Finally, developers and local officials interviewed noted that climate change is not a priority in rural communities where LSS projects are most common, and that locals may resent climate-driven energy development, messaging, and incentives.
2. To what extent do LSS projects exacerbate or mitigate perceived inequities and marginalization within hosting communities and how can those inequities be mitigated going forward?
Residents expressed concerns about LSS contributing to inequality, since a large fraction of economic benefits from LSS flow to private landowners in the form of lease payments or land purchases. Tax revenues from LSS developments are unknown, unclear, misunderstood, or even not valued by residents. One proposed solution to improve economic equity of LSS is through the use of community subscription (i.e., community solar), wherein residents can purchase a “share” of the project to receive lower priced electricity or other economic benefits. Yet, interviews revealed that those subscriptions may often be targeted to urban areas rather than direct project neighbors who face the greatest impacts from development.
3. What strategies can communities employ to align LSS development with local land-use plans and community needs and values?
Interview respondents indicated developers and planning officials should seek to increase direct engagement with LSS neighbors and community residents, for example through door-to-door canvassing, bus tours, visualizations, classes, job training, and by coordinating with community advisory groups. Some officials believed community engagement criteria should be incorporated into project bids and requests for proposals. Tools to improve local benefits, such as community subscriptions and community benefit plans, were suggested by officials and residents to be employed more widely. Importantly, both officials and developers encouraged the use of a neutral, third-party intermediary to assist in communication and negotiations between local community members and project developers. Interview results also point toward opportunities for community members to take a larger role in LSS development through direct engagement with project developers, identifying community leaders to advocate and lead collaboration, and organizing grassroots efforts to share information and positively influence LSS project design.
Next Steps:
This case-study research is currently being incorporated into a manuscript for submission to a peer-reviewed journal. The interviews provided nuanced insights about community perceptions toward LSS, but these case studies may not be truly representative of LSS development across the U.S. As such, the next step in the CCSD project is a large-scale, national random survey of at least 1,000 LSS project neighbors to examine case study findings at a broader empirical scale and to answer additional research questions via more quantitative analysis methods. Concurrently, the CCSD team is also conducting extensive LSS mapping and economic impact analyses. The overall project will culminate with proactive, community-based LSS visioning workshops in at least six potential LSS communities.
We thank the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office for their support of this work, as well as the 54 interviewees who gave generously of their time to offer these insights.