Aggressive demand for undeveloped land to meet New Jersey’s ambitious solar energy goals has triggered a vigorous debate — and proposed legislation — over whether agricultural land should be used, how much might be needed for solar electricity generation and what impacts these projects will have on the state’s farming industry.

With solar developers regularly approaching farmers with high-dollar offers to buy or lease their land, state legislators and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) are each wrestling with the issue of how much farmland should be used for solar projects. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy and the legislature want to deploy 32 GW of solar by 2025, about nine times current capacity, as part of the state’s plan to reach 100% clean energy by 2050. Lawmakers say that will require a dramatic increase in grid-scale solar capacity, raising questions about where to locate the projects.

One bill before the state legislature, S2605, addresses the issue by limiting the use of farmland and encouraging solar development on developed land or existing buildings, as part of an effort to stimulate the development of 3,750 MW of new solar power by 2026 through renewable energy certificates and competitive solicitations.

A second bill, S3484, which secured the approval of the Senate Environment and Energy Committee last week, would establish a pilot program to develop “dual-use” projects of 10 MW or less that enable solar projects to co-exist with land that “continues to be actively devoted to agricultural or horticultural use.” The bill prohibits the use of prime farmland unless approved by the BPU “in consultation” with the state secretary of agriculture.

The dual-use concept — now being piloted in several states — promotes cultivating crops that can grow in the shade or grazing animals around the panels. The NJBPU has also proposed a dual-use pilot program, with details to be developed with state agriculture officials, as part of its proposal to restructure the state’s incentive programs and cut costs while stimulating the creation of more solar generating capacity.

Caught in the middle are farmers, who are torn between embracing solar opportunities as a way of generating additional income and rejecting solar development for fear that it will gobble up precious farmland and diminish an industry already under attack from residential and warehouse developers.

“We have farmers on either side of the question,” said Peter Furey, executive director of the New Jersey Farm Bureau, which represents farmers. “Everybody’s very interested because surely there is opportunity in rural areas of economic development that, if (solar) in some way can be compatible with farmland, can make a win-win situation.”

Solar Project Payments

New Jersey has 230,000 acres of prime, “preserved“ farmland that is part of a program under which the state pays a farmer for a deed that requires the land to remain as farmland in perpetuity, Furey said. But the state has plenty of other prime farmland that is not protected and has become a target for developers looking for large, contiguous land spaces, he said.

Land is also available that is categorized as having “marginal value” for farming because it has a stream or forest on it, or the soil is low grade, Furey said.

Jason Menegus, who works a 100-acre farm in Belvidere, N.J., opposes the use of farmland for solar projects, because he fears the money offered by solar developers could result in the state losing tens of thousands of acres of farmland. Menegus, whose family has worked his farm for more than 100 years, said he has heard of developers offering to lease farmland for $3,000 or $4,000 per acre per year for a solar project, a figure that was confirmed by a solar developer. That is far more than the $40 to $400 per acre per year that farmer’s pay to rent land, Menegus said.

“It’s going to make farming unaffordable,” he said. “What you’re doing is basically destroying one economy to help another, with this green energy.”

But developers say that if the state wants to dramatically upgrade its solar capacity, then some farmland will have to be used, including the kind of prime farmland that some farmers and conservationists believe should be off limits.

“I don’t think, if we’re more or less limiting solar to not being on any prime farmland, that you’re going to see any large projects” developed, said Tim Daniels, principal of Dakota Power Partners, a solar project developer with a Millville, N.J. office. “I would be surprised if there are more than two or three sites in the state that are a larger scale, let’s say 50 MW or larger, that don’t include some percentage of prime farmland,” Daniels told the Senate Environment and Energy Committee during a hearing on S2605 on May 11.

Some environmentalists have also opposed tight restrictions on farmland use, arguing that the need to respond to climate change is of paramount importance.

“There are those who say we have to limit solar on farmland, and especially prime soils,” Jeff Tittel, former director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, told the same hearing. “But not all prime soils are being used, and not all prime soils are going to be farmed.”

Millions of square feet of warehouses are being developed on farmland, he said, adding that “if I had a choice, I’d rather see” farmland developed for solar panels than warehouses.

Warehouse Growth

Indeed, the solar-farmland debate comes as the farming sector is also under pressure from developers looking to satiate the escalating demand for warehouse space, which has been fueled by the shift in consumer buying habits from in-person shopping to e-commerce that accelerated during the COVID 19 pandemic.

Space for fulfillment centers and warehouses is at a premium, and the pressure is intensified by the proximity of the massive New York market and the logistics space needed by the Port of New York and New Jersey. In a sign of the space shortage, rents for new, high-quality industrial space in New Jersey increased by 17% percent in 2020, according to JLL Research, the real estate broker’s analysis arm. In its first quarter 2021 report, the company said the 13.7 million square feet leased in the first three months of the year represented the “highest level in history.”

Still, some environmentalists say that even with high demand for space, the state’s solar capacity can be expanded without turning to prime farmland.

“Our position is that we can meet our solar energy goals by continuing to focus on already disturbed sites, brownfield landfills, parking lots, rooftops and also on marginal [farm] land,” said Tom Gilbert, campaign director for energy, climate and natural resources for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation. “We’re not opposed to greenfield solar development, but it should be far away from our best farmland soils.”

Prime or Marginal Farmland

The current version of S2605 states that “in no case shall a grid supply [project] be located on preserved farmland.” The bill adds that a facility cannot be sited on “prime agricultural soils and soils of statewide importance” unless the BPU grants a waiver to allow it. The bill also limits the amount of farmland that can be used for solar projects to 5% of the state’s nonpreserved farmland.

But Gilbert said his organization believes the maximum amount of farmland available for solar development should be only 1%, about 1,600 acres.  Another “100,000 acres of farmland totally outside of those most sensitive farmlands” could be used for solar projects, he said.

The tension over the use of farmland for solar has played out in the halls of local government, before zoning and planning boards, and in court.

Farmer Menegus, who sits on the Warren County Agriculture Development Board, said he believes that the high prices offered by solar developers for farmland are one reason why the board has not seen an application for the state farmland preservation program for more than a year. He said the $3,000 to $4,000 per acre per year on a 20-year lease offered by solar developers is far more attractive to some farmers than the $10,000 one-time payment the state might offer to preserve the land with a deed.

Developer Daniels said the figure of about $3,000 to $4,000 per leased acre is about right for projects of below 60 acres, which can receive government incentives. But for larger projects, such as those that he develops, the figure would likely be around $1,000 to $1,500, he said.

Dakota Power Partners prefers not to lease or buy prime farmland because it is generally the most expensive, Daniels said.  But often there is little choice, he said, adding that the suggestion that the state can meet its goals by using nonprime land such as landfills is erroneous.

These arguments are generally not rooted in engineering and the realities of commerce in the market, he said.

In May, the Pilesgrove Township Planning Board in South Jersey rejected a plan by Dakota Power Partners to build a 150 MW project on 800 acres of farmland, an installation that had been opposed by environmentalists. The project would have provided enough electricity for the equivalent of 24,000 homes and generated taxes of $900,000, the developer said. The project would also have enabled the site to “remain in agricultural use” by allowing 1,000 or more sheep to graze below the panels, which would provide shade and “enhance moisture retention,” the company said.

But, for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, “it was just kind of the poster child of bad siting, where not to do this,” Gilbert said. The organization opposed the project because 90% of it would have been on prime or high-quality soil. If approved, the project would have been the largest solar project in the state, he said.

Dakota Power Partners had better luck with a second project on 600 acres of farmland approved in January by Harmony Township, located on the Pennsylvania border in Northern Jersey. The 70 MW project would generate taxes of $330,00 a year and enough power for 11,000 homes, according to the company website. The township had bought some of the farmland to be used for the project years ago to avoid it being developed as  a “massive residential project,” according to Warren County Commissioner Lori Ciesla, who was quoted in a Dakota Powers Partner press release announcing the approval.

Harmony Township Mayor Brian Tipton, also quoted in the release, called the solar project “the epitome of smart development” that would raise revenue and help the township meet its “environmental sustainability” goals.

The township’s approval, however, prompted a lawsuit by the New Jersey Highlands Coalition, which believes the project is too big and should not be built on farmland. The owners of two adjacent properties are also part of the suit to stop the project.

Dual-use Projects

Dakota Power Partners, and other developers, say dual use projects — also called “agrivoltaics” — can benefit both farmers and solar developers. But the concept is new enough that its effect on farm production is still being studied.

The U.S Department of Agriculture last year awarded $7 million to four projects to study the impact, including one that “will assess crop productivity, soil health and microclimatic conditions for a range of crops under various solar array designs” at eight farms in Massachusetts. In New Jersey, Sen. Bob Smith, who sponsored the dual-use farm bill, said on June 15 that Rutgers University will conduct a three-year study of dual-use farming.

Kaitlin Hollinger, a policy associate for BlueWave Solar, a Boston, Massachusetts-based developer of community solar projects, said the company has developed two dual-use projects that will grow pumpkins, blueberries, strawberries and leafy greens around solar panels. One of those projects, in Maine, is located on a blueberry farm and will include a research plot to be monitored by specialists from the University of Maine Cooperative Extension.

Solar sites can also maintain or seed wildflowers, pollinator-friendly plants and native species that create pollinator habitats that bees can thrive in, Hollinger said.

“When we talk about dual use, we mean co-locating solar panels and ground crops in order to allow both uses on the same parcel of land,” she said. “And dual-use projects can be, and often are, community solar projects providing benefits such as stable revenue for struggling farmers, increased food security in the face of climate change, and electric savings to local residents, nonprofits, municipalities and small businesses.”