Energy Research & Social Science 108 (2024) 103394

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss

Original research article

Just energy imaginaries? Examining realities of solar development on

Pennsylvania’s farmland
Kaitlyn Spangler a, *, Erica A.H. Smithwick b, c, Stephanie Buechler d, Jennifer Baka b, c
a
Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology, and Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
b
Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
c
Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
d
Agricultural Sciences Global and Penn State Extension, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: While transitions away from fossil fuels are urgent in a changing climate, the place-based dynamics underlying
Solar these renewable energy transitions demonstrate both the potential for shifting historical inequities and the harm
Pennsylvania of failing to do so. As the cost of solar energy has dropped globally, the socioecological implications of trans­
Energy justice
forming landscapes to host solar photovoltaics (PV) have garnered significant research attention. This study
Energy transitions
Imaginaries
builds on such research by outlining realities of grid-scale solar development on farmland in the US state of
Pennsylvania (PA). Through a theoretical grounding in energy justice and land imaginaries, we interviewed
farmers and solar stakeholders across PA to better understand why farmers are leasing their land for solar and
how these leasing processes balance farmer, stakeholder, and community costs and benefits. We find that farmers
enter solar leases for multiple reasons, of which economic gain is a central but insufficient factor. Farmers
negotiated lease terms to ensure end-of-life decommissioning, hinged on the hope that the land will be farmable
again after solar panels are removed. Yet, as solar was described as a “thirty-year cover crop,” negotiating terms
for agrivoltaics was not observed, obscuring the potential for agricultural production to continue during the solar
lease. Further, solar developers have utilized option contracts and non-disclosure agreements, reducing the
ability of landowners to collectively negotiate for more favorable terms. We situate these findings in both the
fraught legacies of energy production in PA, as well as in three main tenets of energy justice, highlighting the
caution and hope associated with solar rollouts contributing to just and sustainable energy transitions.

1. Introduction dynamics of on-farm, grid-scale solar in the US state of Pennsylvania

(PA) – a state of rapid solar development. Grid-scale solar development
A key finding of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate has a strong potential to decarbonize the global energy system but
Change Assessment Report is that a fundamental transition of the global concerns over how it may impact food security and community well-
energy system is needed to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of being are under-researched.
climate change [1]. As the sun is the most abundant source of energy on Our study is based on 18 interviews conducted with farmers and
earth, and the cost of solar photovoltaics (PV) has dropped significantly solar developers across (south) central PA during 2022 to 2023. We
over the last decade, solar energy is a main focus of this transition [2,3]. integrate literature on energy justice and land imaginaries to examine
Enabling policy environments have started to develop across the globe two main research questions: 1) Why are farmers and agricultural
to support and subsidize the expansion of solar PV [4], and the Inter­ landowners leasing their land for on-farm solar development; and 2)
national Energy Agency has set a goal of achieving net-zero carbon how do these solar leasing processes balance farmer, developer, and
emissions in the energy sector by 2050 by relying on expansion of solar community costs and benefits? In doing so, this research assesses how
and wind energies [2]. Yet, the potential for achieving such a trans­ agricultural landowners navigate the ethical and logistical tensions of
formation will largely depend on how solar energy shapes the places and using farmland for solar PV, as well as how such development impacts
spaces where it is developed. In this paper, we analyze the place-based their broader communities and landscapes.

* Corresponding author at: 208 Ferguson Building, Curtin Rd, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
E-mail address: kspangler@psu.edu (K. Spangler).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103394
Received 22 August 2023; Received in revised form 13 November 2023; Accepted 15 December 2023
Available online 22 December 2023
2214-6296/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Spangler et al. Energy Research & Social Science 108 (2024) 103394

While solar leasing on farmland can be more profitable than agri­ 3. Theoretical grounding: energy justice and land imaginaries
cultural production, particularly when that production occurs on
marginally productive land [5], this research explores if and how in­ As this study focuses on solar development on farmland specifically,
centives for solar leasing go beyond purely economic, interacting with we anchor our analysis at the intersection of energy justice and land
other socioecological values associated with farmland and the act of imaginaries to give attention to the processes of transforming agricul­
farming. It also outlines the negotiations of solar leases between farmers tural land into new energy landscapes. Through an energy justice
and solar developers, as well as local community response, to provide framing, we dig deeper into a primary tension of just energy transitions:
transparency on an otherwise opaque process. By gaining deeper insight balancing the urgency of low-carbon futures with historically-grounded
into the decision-making and legalities that underlie solar transitions, concerns of “green-grabbing” – the unjust capture of land and resources
we can better understand how energy transitions can be oriented toward under the guise of environmental sustainability – extractivism, and
local communities’ needs and preferences, inform shifts away from associated injustice [13,25]. A grounding in land imaginaries helps
historical systems of energy inequities, and mitigate further harm in the explicate the values that motivate current visions of these landscapes
context of a changing climate. and how those interact with what is both desirable and realized for solar
In what follows, we provide a brief overview of solar development on energy and agricultural production. These values intersect with the
farmland before introducing our theoretical framework. We then pre­ spatial arrangements of existing and new energy infrastructures, rein­
sent our case study and methods before summarizing our results. Rec­ forcing landscapes as a linked socioecological pattern-process [26]. Our
ommendations on how on-farm solar projects might contribute to just approach responds to, as Sareen and Shokrgozar [27] describe, a need to
energy transitions are offered in the conclusion. “unlock the imaginaries” that envision beyond “incumbency”, and to do
so, we must articulate the imaginaries that underlie solar farmland
2. Solar on farmland transformations at present and contextualize them within the (in) jus­
tices of energy histories.
Solar expansion (particularly at the grid-scale) requires large land
areas, often competing with other agricultural, industrial, or residential 3.1. Energy justice
uses at present [6]. Agricultural land is flat, well-managed, and, when it
is close to transmission infrastructure like electric substations, a Most visions and conceptualizations of energy as a commodity to
particularly attractive site for solar PV; to maintain ease of installation develop hinge on techno-capitalist systems of power that dictate what
and maximization of profit, solar developers often aim for land within deserves energy through existing societal priorities and those who
two miles of an electric substation and 1000 ft of three phase power lines determine them [16,28,29]. Therein, energy justice pushes the focus of
[7]. This competition places pressure on farmers and agricultural energy transitions beyond the technical to consider how social, histori­
landowners to weigh economic, ecological, and social tradeoffs in cal, geographical, and economic aspects holistically interact to avoid
deciding if and how to integrate solar PV on their land [5]. It also may further entrenching injustices of energy production and consumption
create tension within and across rural communities. Prior research has [30–33]. As witnessed during the expansion of fossil fuels, direct eco­
identified concerns over a lack of transparency on solar leasing pro­ nomic benefits from renewable energy development may not benefit
cesses, inequitable distributions of costs and benefits, and opposition to local communities – especially low-income or historically disadvantaged
changing aesthetic, ecological, and sociocultural values of rural land­ – whose habitats technologies occupy, exacerbating existing socioeco­
scapes [8,9]. nomic inequities [13,30,34]. Further, the siting of renewable energy
Therein, solar energy expansion has become another factor driving projects in rural areas may lead to a ‘perceived rural burden’ of these
perceptions of and worries over ‘running out of farmland’ [10] as grid- communities, ‘milking’ the rural landscape to feed urban centers and
scale solar rapidly outpaces decentralized solar (e.g., rooftop or other threatening their sense of place [8,35,36]. There is resounding concern
distributed generation) [11]. Without equitable planning and manage­ for energy justice research to also avoid propping up techno-capitalist
ment, grid-scale solar installations may displace preexisting beneficial development while uncritically promoting the “inclusion of people
land uses, contributing to employment disruptions, localized habitat –Indigenous and non-Indigenous— into development project design”
fragmentation, environmental degradation, and contempt for commu­ and potentially “diluting conceptions of colonialism” [37]. Thus, recent
nities’ needs and preferences [6,12–14]. Beyond installation, the pres­ scholarship reifies the need to reconcile the vision of energy justice with
ence of toxic materials (e.g., hazardous types of silicon, selenide, and an already fraught history, such as through valuing non-Western and
arsenide) in solar PV and a lack of preparedness for dealing with ‘end-of- non-anthropocentric ways of rethinking and reshaping energy systems
life’ financial, logistical, and infrastructural considerations for solar and supporting landscape transformations that are regenerative and
decommissioning and recycling has drawn criticism [15–17], adding multifunctional [16,38].
caution to rapid deployment of these technologies [18]. Driving these new research frontiers, however, is a belief that
Certain on-farm solar development and management, though, hold renewable energies may alter historical course. First and foremost, new
potential for boosting ecological services, conserving land and habitat, energy technologies can provide individuals and communities with the
and benefitting communities within which panels reside [19,20]. For power to participate in their energy systems. Organizations at the
example, agrivoltaics is the co-location of crops, large or small rumi­ ‘frontlines’ of grassroots energy justice movements converge on visions
nants, or native pollinator species under PV to concomitantly manage and action that direct control over energy systems toward communities
soil health, continue agricultural production, and produce solar energy and away from centralized, corporate control [39,40]. In this vein, we
[21,22]. This management approach could be framed as a “win-win” for can critically work to reframe views of local opposition and NIMBY-ism
farmers and developers alike [23], such as through limiting industrial as potential for community-building [8]. While opposition to solar may
development on surrounding farmland or mitigating negative responses be driven sometimes by corporate interest or along political party lines
from rural communities over farmland loss [20]. Solar grazing can also [41], place attachment to rural landscapes can be seen as a positive
support healthy small ruminants through nutrionally-high forage under driving force for advocating for energy systems that maintains desired
solar panels [24]. Thus, there is a strong and growing interest among attributes and values of place, helping to reframe conservative NIMBY-
farmers and developers alike in the potential of agrivoltaics, but barriers ism as “place-protectors” [42]. Residents are more likely to show sup­
to adoption exist around the long-term uncertainty, adequate market port if they perceive direct compensation or benefits [43]; these op­
response, and lack of planning up-front in leasing contracts [21]. portunities to value diverse ideas present pathways to reorient energy
production systems toward shared community visions.
With this prior research in mind, this study is grounded in a broad

2
K. Spangler et al. Energy Research & Social Science 108 (2024) 103394

lens of energy justice that recognizes dynamic processes of change in lands, and landfills. The Solar Future Plan declared a priority to site on
communities [45]. As Jenkins et al. [44] explain, energy justice “eval­ these locations and actively conserve farmland, forested areas, and other
uates (a) where injustices emerge, (b) which affected sections of society conservation habitat corridors [62]. Situating this study in PA provides
are ignored, [and] (c) which processes exist for their remediation in opportunities to understand solar as an emerging industry and qualita­
order to (i) reveal, and (ii) reduce such injustices.” While energy justice tive experiences of its development on farmland as an interesting case
frameworks have expanded to include global elements like cosmopoli­ study of agriculture-energy transitions, of which McCarthy [67] cites as
tanism [46], we utilize the most commonly cited and locally oriented central to just energy processes.
tenets of 1) distributive, 2) recognition, and 3) procedural justice PA also has a legacy of energy extraction including coal and fracking,
[39,44,47–49]. These three tenets encompass injustices (in order) of 1) which, in turn, inform future energy development efforts. Research on
allocation and responsibility, 2) (mis) representation and rights, and 3) understanding the sociological impacts of natural gas ‘boomtowns’ in PA
decision-making and due process [44]. We use these foundational ele­ has illustrated how residents’ maintained parallel concerns from irre­
ments to synthesize research findings and situate the realities of farmers sponsible extractive coal histories in their region that left behind a host
and solar developers across PA within broader research narratives. of unaddressed environmental and social harm [68]. However, these
concerns vary contextually, interacting with factors such as a com­
3.2. Land imaginaries munity’s population size or existing transportation networks [69,70].
Through the trajectories of Marcellus Shale gas development in PA,
Land imaginaries can be understood as “the underlying un­ residents’ trust with the natural gas industry has been threatened
derstandings, views, and visions of what land is, can, and should be” through a lack of transparency in lease negotiations, regulatory viola­
[50,51]. While spatial imaginaries can help locate the mechanisms that tions, and, therein, heightened perceptions of risk [71]. More specif­
spatially construct social life and perceptions [52], land imaginaries rely ically, small-scale farmers in PA were often caught in the middle of
on the overlapping of the ‘spatial’ with the ‘environmental’ [53,54] and owning the land needed for natural gas drilling while lacking access to
‘sociotechnical’ [55] to identify the societal construction and interpre­ social and economic safety nets, making the choice to lease their land
tation of landscapes, as well as realized land transformations [56]. and adapt to the presence of drilling on their farmland more justifiable;
Therein, land imaginaries and the ways they become exposed during in other words, signing a lease with natural gas companies helped
change and conflict over land help articulate the implicit and explicit farmers assert agency and stability over their land and accept a ‘new
values that shape actors’ interactions with and decisions for land use. normal’ for rural landscapes [72]. These histories accentuate the need to
Land, and farmland in particular, is a unique resource particularly clarify procedural similarities and differences of farmers leasing their
“stubborn” to understand and contentious to invest in [56–58]. In the land for solar development in the shadows of Marcellus Shale extraction
ways that farmland is, at its core, a biological resource, it is dynamic, and abandoned wellheads from years past.
chaotic, and impossible to exert full control over [58]; therefore, it does
not and cannot follow a linear trajectory of valuation and investment 4.2. Data collection and analysis
[10]. As Li [57] states, the uses and value of land are “an assemblage of
materialities, relations, technologies and discourses that have to be This study relied on in-depth interviews with nine solar stakeholders
pulled together and made to align.” This highlights the importance of and nine farmers involved in on-farm solar, all adults. Solar stakeholders
understanding both the site-specific and temporally relevant mecha­ include representatives from land acquisition, communications, and
nisms that make farmland of interest to multiple actors for multiple agrivoltaics departments from three different solar companies (hence­
socioecological goals. Furthermore, how farmland is financially valued forth solar developers), township officials who were part of zoning and
as an asset and what can be viscerally experienced through the land­ permitting processes for proposed on-farm solar projects, and lawyers
scape can dictate what aspects become celebrated (e.g., soil quality) and responsible for negotiating solar leases on behalf of farmers. All iden­
what becomes ignored or harder to ‘see’ (e.g., climatic conditions) [59]. tified racially as white, and three identified as women (the rest men).
Recent work by Schoenberger and Beban [60] identifies the hope in The farmers interviewed represent seven different counties across
finding ‘ruptures’ in dominant land imaginaries that can be embedded northcentral and southcentral PA: Berks, Lehigh, Lebanon, North­
materially and affectively, creating space for landscapes to become umberland, Centre, and Juniata (Fig. 1). To preserve anonymity, one
something new, as has been shown in promising energy solutions across county cannot be named.
the globe [61]. Two of the farmers interviewed had small arrays for distributed en­
ergy, one farmer was contracted to manage a solar farm off their prop­
4. Materials and methods erty, and the remaining six farmers were contracted for solar projects at
the grid-scale. Of these six farmers, only one had moved from the option
4.1. PA as study site: situating solar within legacies of energy development contract phase – or an exclusive agreement affirming one developer’s
option to put solar PV on that land preceding legal approval or con­
In recent years, PA has seen a growth in solar development. As of struction – to a formal lease contract – or the long-term agreement for
November of 2018, PA adopted a Solar Future Plan to increase the solar PV to be installed. The remaining five farmers were waiting in the
state’s solar energy generation to 10 % of its total energy (from 0.1 % in option contract phase for the developer to move forward. All farmers
2018) by the year 2030 [62]. As a result, grid-scale solar leasing has were white, aged between 38 and 71, and only one identified as a
increased across the state and is on the “cusp of a solar boom” [63], woman (representative of the overwhelming whiteness and maleness of
already increasing to 0.5 % of the state’s total energy share by 2023 farmland ownership in the US [73]). Farmers were characteristic of
[64]. In fact, at present, the “queue” in the Pennsylvania-Jersey- agricultural production in PA, with land holdings ranging from 112 to
Maryland (PJM) database – the regional utility transmission organiza­ 550 acres – the average farm size in the state for 2021 was 139 acres [74]
tion through which grid-scale solar projects are approved and connected – and growing corn, soy, small grains, hay, dairy, and beef cattle. To best
– lists 614 active or proposed projects for PA of roughly 17,260 MW in answer our research questions and given the divergent challenges and
energy capacity [65]. Relying on calculations that estimate between five opportunities of distributed versus grid-scale solar [11], we primarily
to 10 acres needed per MW [66], this would equal between 86,300and focused this analysis on the six farmers leasing land at the grid-scale and
172,600 acres respectively statewide; that is, 0.3 % to 0.6 % of PA’s land the nine stakeholder voices (n = 15).
area and 1.2 % to 2.4 % of PA’s farmland, respectively. Yet, these pro­ Given the rural, disparate locations of farmers with solar leases and
jects are not designated only for farmland but also for other potential the legalities that obscure these leasing processes, we recruited farmers
sites of solar development, including brownfields, abandoned mine and stakeholders through purposive snowball sampling [75,76]. We first

3
K. Spangler et al. Energy Research & Social Science 108 (2024) 103394

Fig. 1. Map of counties where interviewed farmers reside.

interviewed stakeholders with whom we had existing connections and themes that most directly answer our research questions: 1) solar land
identified more participants based on their recommendations. One of imaginaries, 2) negotiating solar leases, and 3) community opposition.
the researchers has familial ties to a rural community in PA, providing These sub-themes navigate the decision-making values that underlie
grounded knowledge of farmers engaged in on-farm solar, proximity to farmers entering solar leases, outlining the legalities and priorities of
talk freely with them, and a deeper familiarity with the socioecological solar leases, and how farmers respond to community tensions by
values of these changing rural landscapes. To mitigate against uncon­ developing ‘thick skin’ to tune out local opposition. We then discuss
scious biases throughout data collection, researchers informally these imaginaries through an energy justice lens comprised of distrib­
conferred with other solar educators and stakeholders in PA to identify utive, recognition, and procedural justice.
other potential participants outside our networks and triangulate our
findings. 5.1. Solar land imaginaries and the hope to farm again
Interviews lasted about 1 h on average and were conducted primarily
over the phone or on Zoom at the request of the interviewee. This virtual Farmers are entering solar leases for a multitude of reasons, of which
format provided ease of scheduling for all participants, and, given the economic gain is commonly cited. Simply put, solar leasing can earn
widespread availability of virtual interactions through the COVID-19 them substantially (3 to4 times) more income per acre than any crop or
pandemic, we do not believe that this negatively impacted the quality commodity production at current market prices. Farmers are caught in
of the interviews [77]. Questions directed toward solar stakeholders the reality of unpredictable climatic patterns, commodity prices, and
covered topics related to costs and benefits of on-farm solar develop­ rising input costs, making the predictability of solar leasing more
ment, priorities and negotiations of lease agreements with farmers, appealing. For a farmer who has always worked off the farm to support
perspectives on agrivoltaics, and what they hope for the future of energy his farm business (as did his grandfather and father and their family
production in PA. Questions for farmers encompassed factors and con­ members), he and his family “… saw this as, finally, an opportunity
sultants in their solar decision-making process, anticipated costs and because it’s something we can count on as supplemental income for the farm –
benefits to solar leases, priorities related to agrivoltaics, community that it doesn’t matter whether it’s snowing, raining, no matter what the
response, and what they hope for the future of PA energy production. commodity prices are, no matter what the fertilizer costs are. That’s at least
Data saturation was reached roughly two-thirds of the way through one little portion we can guarantee will always be there to help support the rest
fieldwork when no new explanations for values and processes underly­ of our farming operation.” So, the economic incentives are not just about
ing on-farm solar leasing were expressed by interviewees. This is aligned an increase in profit but also about the stability of those profits in the
with prior research that establishes a minimum standard of nine or 12 face of an increasingly difficult system to succeed in.
interviews to reach data saturation within a narrow sample of partici­ This economic gain, however, is only one of several equally impor­
pants and convergence on common meta-themes at six interviews tant reasons for such a transition. The potential profit was not a suffi­
[78–80]. cient reason by itself to convince farmers to take their land (part or all)
Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using ATLAS.ti. out of production and lease it for solar, even if the offer was higher than
Three researchers developed an a priori codebook based on expected initially expected. Land was often too valuable to give up, indicating a
themes, prior literature, and outcomes of interest [81]. This codebook threshold money could not surpass. One farmer described their neigh­
encompassed 41 codes under six code groups: 1) decision-making bor’s decision to deny a solar lease offer:
values, 2) leasing process negotiations, 3) costs and benefits of agri­
voltaics, 4) community opposition, 5) outlook for solar in PA, and 6) “To the south of us, they did not preserve [their farm], but they are
background of interviewee (See Appendix A). When all codes were huge in the dairy business, and they were kind of on the fence. But at
agreed upon, one researcher coded all 18 interview transcripts to ensure the end of the day, they said, ‘Look, we just need every acre we got to
consistency and efficiency. Analysis included summarizing codes into produce silage and feed for our cows, and we just can’t do it.’”
broader trends and highlighting representative quotations. Another farmer described the ease of their decision in denying solar
on land that was inherited from their father’s family farm:
5. Emergent themes from farmer perspectives of on-farm solar
“My son was opposed to putting it on my father’s farm, which I was
We present these results through three overarching, emergent also totally against, so, I knew that wasn’t gonna happen… He loves
that farm…And where they wanted to put it was right coming in our

4
K. Spangler et al. Energy Research & Social Science 108 (2024) 103394

lane, and they’d fence it all in… It would have made it a lot narrower leasing contract; this is not always the case for any given farmer
or tighter, you know, and I knew it wasn’t gonna happen there.” approached by solar developers. This kind of legal aid is relatively new
(within the last decade); not many lawyers are versed yet in how to
Thus, the heritage and value of inherited land was, for most farmers,
advise farmers on fair solar contracts, although similarities can be drawn
incomparable. Despite a clear discrepancy between payments through a
to prior oil and gas leases [82]. In fact, some farmers described that they
solar lease and crop or commodity production, farmers are still choosing
had initially negotiated an option contract with a developer (often a 2–6-
to farm some or all of their land.
year agreement that precedes formal solar PV installation) without the
This decision of if and how much land to lease for solar was also
help of a lawyer, and that initial deal fell through when the company
dependent on the possibility and likelihood of intergenerational suc­
was bought out by a bigger one. So, they hired a lawyer for their second
cession for their farming operation. For farmers who have actively
contract negotiation and realized they got a much better deal with the
involved children or grandchildren in the farm business, they are less
lawyer. This mismatch in the number of farmers signing solar leasing
interested in leasing all of their land. A lawyer who specializes in
contracts and those who hired lawyers to help navigate the lease fairness
negotiating solar lease terms for farmers summarized, “If I’ve got a 55-
is not well-known or easily tracked.
year-old active farmer who has 300 acres and two sons coming along to
Solar developers, lawyers, and farmers alike described a leasing
continue farming…no, he doesn’t want it all taken up [by solar panels].”
process that worked toward the mutually beneficial goal of agreements
However, for farmers without a confirmed successor for their farm
that “work for everyone” because, as one developer said, “This is going to
business but with children or grandchildren as potential successors
have a huge footprint in a community for a long time.” Developers differ­
down the line, leasing all their land may preserve the option to make
entiated this footprint from that of oil and gas extraction, prioritizing
that decision in 30 to 50 years after the lease contract has expired,
investment in long-term community benefits rather than just “slapping a
making solar leasing a means of farmland protection while also earning a
pad down on someone’s property.” This investment is, in part, attributable
stable income.
to the high fees solar developers must pay to connect projects to the
Although largely determined and implemented by the solar devel­
utility transmission grid, necessitating that projects are close to electric
oper, farmers also cited ecological benefits of solar as a reason to sign.
substations and transmission lines to remain economically and logisti­
The landscape design potential for underneath the solar PV– be it
cally reasonable. However, solar lawyers described that most leases start
traditional grass and sod, pollinator mixes, or active crop production–
out more “developer-friendly,” and there is a thorough process of nego­
was seen as a positive. One male farmer noted that a grass/sod mixture,
tiating each lease to achieve more farmer-friendly deals.
while not producing food, is a permeable surface that will help absorb
This is not unlike leasing processes for Marcellus Shale gas extrac­
stormwater and potentially prevent runoff more than their corn and
tion; in fact, many of the developers interviewed and their colleagues
soybean fields do or would have. He noted this could also be seen as a
worked in the oil and gas industry before switching to solar. Without the
positive to help garner support from currently opposing neighbors.
intervention of the solar lawyer, there is no external governing body that
Others pointed to the benefits of not applying herbicides and pesticides
would ensure these agreements are fair or consistent. One of the solar
used in commodity production for 30 to 50 years, contrasting the use of
lawyers detailed a story of a farmer who signed a lease without hiring a
these chemical substances to community members’ concerns of toxic
lawyer, and the panels were eventually placed on just 10 acres at the
materials in the solar PV and hoping their land would “actually be in
center of their farm, rendering the remainder of the farm unfarmable;
really great shape in the end of 35 years if it rests that long.”
the farmer was unprotected and legally bound. This means that farmers
Perhaps most striking in understanding why farmers enter solar
must negotiate for stipulations such as price escalators to keep up with
leases was the resounding hope to be able to farm the land again once
inflation over the course of the lease, clarity on panel location, or right of
the contract has been fulfilled and the panels are removed. In fact,
first refusal for vegetation management – that is, the option to manage
farmers’ decisions to enter these leases hinged on that idea. The solar
(or refuse to manage) the land under the solar panels as a hired
lease directly opposes industrial development, meaning that this chance
contractor.
to farm it after 30 to 50 years is the main distinguishing factor from any
All farmers interviewed signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
other kind of development. A farmer described this tension: “What would
for the option contract period to prevent them from discussing the
you rather see us do: sell out to warehouses that are permanent, never going
specifics of their per acre payments and other lease terms with other
back to farming? Or would you rather see us at least put it in solar where it
farmers, neighbors, or community members until a formal lease was
has a chance to go back to farming in 30 years?” The ease of installation –
signed. In cases where transmission lines would run through neigh­
“just driving H posts in the ground” – and the presumed ease of decom­
boring land, neighbors were often asked to sign NDAs, as well, and were
missioning supports the idea that the land could be farmed again the
paid a lump sum as a motivation to do so. These NDAs obfuscated the
very next year and the solar panels being “a sort of thirty-year cover crop”
possibility for farmers in similar situations regionally or statewide to
and a way of “building topsoil back up.” Another solar lawyer affirmed
connect with each other or discuss leasing processes. Therein, inter­
that the next day after removing the solar panels, “…you could kill that
viewed farmers affirmed that they only discussed their lease agreements
property and put it back into production agriculture” providing a “… 29-year
with their immediate families or household, limiting their ability to
opportunity for that land to not be developed, and then that will still be
advocate for collective lease terms or identify inequitable discrepancies.
available to produce food and fiber after the fact.” Farmers and developers
None of the farmers interviewed stipulated mandatory clauses for
alike restated this hope throughout each interview, framing on-farm
implementing agrivoltaics. Given the nascent nature of what is possible
solar leasing as a means of protecting both the land itself and the deci­
through agrivoltaics, farmers did not express this as a priority in nego­
sion to farm for their future generations. Interest in agrivoltaics – be it
tiating a fair lease, nor was it a prerequisite for them to sign. One farmer
solar grazing of sheep or cattle, growing pollinator mixes, or producing
directly stated that it was not a “… huge priority because they’re [the de­
specialty or commodity crops – was also built upon this hope to farm
velopers] the ones leasing it, and I understand it’s up to them how they want
after the contract was over. A farmer described it as “double-dipping” to
to use it.” However, this desire was attenuated by the hope that he did
be able to steward the land now and ensure it stays in agriculture, and
not want to see “noxious weeds and stuff growing that would be a hindrance
several farmers expressed an interest in learning about sheep or cattle
to neighboring farms.” Yet, specifics of what will grow under solar panels
grazing under the solar panels in the future.
were absent from lease agreements, and only one of the developers
(none of the farmers) detailed intent for discussing agrivoltaics before or
5.2. Negotiating solar leases: installation through decommissioning at the time of signing. This reflects a lack of short- and long-term
planning for agrivoltaics as the norm, signaling a gap in pushing these
All farmers interviewed used a lawyer to help navigate their solar dual land uses toward a more cost-competitive form.

5
K. Spangler et al. Energy Research & Social Science 108 (2024) 103394

While agrivoltaics was not an explicit priority for negotiating lease and selfishness. In response to repeated confrontations such as this, a
terms, decommissioning the solar site was a ubiquitous concern for farmer exclaimed:
farmers. From the advice of their lawyers, all farmers ensured that a
“If [they] want to make decisions for farmland, then [they] can go
bond was posted on behalf of the developer to cover decommissioning at
buy it. [They] can work by the sweat of [their] brow to pay for it. And
the end of the contract (30–50 years) and return the land “back to the way
then if [they] want to make management decisions, then [they’ll]
it was.” This fear was connected directly to the infrastructural legacies of
have the right to do it. I’m paying the taxes on that place… after a
coal mining and Marcellus Shale extraction. In many of these rural
while, you have to get tough skin about it.”
communities lie abandoned drilling sites and mines in coal mining towns
for which financial and ethical accountability is obfuscated, although This ‘tough skin’ was in reference to him learning to tune out these
ongoing efforts to plug orphaned gas wells are garnering support across opposing perspectives and feel confident in his decision-making process
the state [83]. Farmers actively want to avoid that grim future for their to sign the solar lease.
land and their communities, and up-front financial responsibility from For most farmers interviewed, community opposition was experi­
the developer helped appease those fears. A solar developer explained enced through individual encounters and a handful of angry, outspoken
that this is just “planning for worst case scenario,” differentiating the fickle neighbors. For the remaining few, they experienced concerted commu­
oil and gas markets from a more stable but newer solar market. Yet, nity efforts with anti-solar signs posted in neighbors’ yards and several
interviewed developers agreed that these decommissioning clauses help hundred residents attending township meetings to express disapproval;
hold solar companies accountable to responsible long-term land man­ navigating this conflict fundamentally changed these farmers’ percep­
agement because they are legally obliged to return the land to its orig­ tions of their home communities. A farmer detailed how, within one
inal state. One farmer stated that, over the course of signing the option week of a solar project being proposed to the township, neighbors had
contract, the solar company that initially approached him had been matching anti-solar yard signs, signaling potential for support from an
bought out by another larger company, causing him to query: “Who “outside organization” to mobilize opposition so well and quickly. They
knows if this company will be around in 35 years?” He had negotiated that tried to correct misguided information while also feeling discouraged as
every five years, they reassess if the bond is sufficient for current con­ residents fought this project in the name of farmland preservation while
ditions to decommission the site and adjust accordingly if not. For not showing support for their farm prior. This farmer outlined his
interviewed farmers, this stipulation is their main way of ensuring that experienced tensions of private farmland ownership and community
solar will not be permanent like other forms of industrial development, perceptions of this responsibility:
preserving their hope to make the land farmable again. Yet, these
“My whole view of my community has very much changed…
decommissioning clauses do not yet contend with other generational
Neighbors had anti-solar signs that I felt were just giving me the
changes that may occur during solar leases, such as changing agricul­
finger every time I went by their front yard. And yet they’re living in
tural practices or shifting situated knowledges and priorities of the land.
houses that were taken from ground that I used to farm years ago that
somebody else had sold to them… Their houses are sitting on land
5.3. Navigating community opposition and getting “tough skin”
that is still zoned agriculture. And they are telling me we’ve got to
preserve agricultural land. It’s like… are you serious?”
All farmers who signed a grid-scale solar lease experienced com­
munity opposition. Reasons for opposing solar projects covered a wide In this case, the solar project was tied up in court litigations after the
range of personal, ecological, and political rationales. The most cited township board cited permitting concerns as a reason to halt its devel­
concerns, according to interviewed solar developers and farmers, are opment. Yet, community tensions such as these fit within a larger
those related to aesthetic value, loss of productive farmland, and narrative of resistance to changing the social and ecological values of
ecological implications for water and wildlife. Aesthetic concerns rural landscapes for renewable energy production.
related to worry of glare from solar panels and, moreover, the dramatic
change of rolling farmland to fields of solar panels, as well as how this 6. Energy justice implications of solar transitions
might change their rural community. A township official described an
example of this aesthetic tension through opposition for on-farm solar 6.1. Distributive justice
from a local environmental advisory board because it would alter the
viewsheds from a popular hiking spot. While the advisory board sup­ Experiences of community opposition from farmers engaged in solar
ported renewable energy for their community, members were concerned leases contour a perceived disconnect within these rural localities of
with how solar would negatively detract from experiences of hiking who benefits and who pays in on-farm solar development. Prior research
visitors enjoying the view of rolling green farmland typical of rural PA. shows that if decision-making processes are deemed fair by involved
Concerns related to loss of productive farmland emphasize how parties and broader communities, there is greater social acceptance of
community members perceive threats to food security and having those decisions, and vice versa [84,85]. Across PA, many residents do
‘enough’ farmland to meet production needs both locally and nationally. not see any direct benefits for themselves or their communities through
Some farmers described that others were upset that they were taking grid-scale solar leases, of which farmers signing the leases receive sig­
“some of the best soil out of production.” Others stated how neighbors who nificant financial compensation. Instead, neighbors may witness a dra­
are part of plain-sect communities “just hate to see farmland go to anything matic aesthetic shift from rolling green farmland while not being privy
but farming,” citing traditionally held beliefs of farming as a barrier to to the legalities and lease terms obfuscated by NDAs from farmers and
solar development. Ecological concerns included those related to water other participating neighbors. Farmers are left to face opposition in daily
runoff from the panels, as well as habitat fragmentation for bird, deer, spaces within their communities (e.g., the hardware store), while solar
and other wildlife. One farmer who had moved from the option contract developers encounter such opposition at township or municipal meet­
to a formal lease contract explained how they were adding two water ings they attend. However, as community outsiders, developers often
retention ponds to their property at the requirement of municipal offi­ skirt farmers’ daily experience of contending with misguided informa­
cials given concerns of excess water runoff. tion and feeling uprooted in their home communities.
While the reasons for community members opposing solar PV on Further, while solar remains a way to potentially disempower the
farmland varied, the experience of this opposition was a shared frus­ fossil fuel industry, the realities of grid-scale solar development on
tration for farmers. They described experiences of being confronted in farmland provide a contrast to those of distributed energy on residential
public spaces, such as the hardware store or coffee shop, with wrongful rooftops or community-owned solar. As this study shows, grid-scale
information about their solar lease agreement or accusations of greed solar development is mediated by solar developers that navigate lease

6
K. Spangler et al. Energy Research & Social Science 108 (2024) 103394

contracts with farmers through proximity and access to transmission conditions that could make installation and therein decommissioning
grid capacity, identifying factors with significant influence over the more or less destructive or invasive [93]. Without this clarity, solar
process of its development. The costly fees associated with intercon­ developers may subjugate the hope of farmers’ land imaginaries with
nection to the grid can serve as a barrier to certain projects moving legal technicalities and promises that they cannot keep.
forward. Farms closer to existing transmission infrastructure require less
up-front costs for interconnection, exposing the spatial inequities of 6.3. Procedural justice
farmers who are even offered leases, let alone projects that are built
[22]. The presence of these mediating forces differs from the direct The legacies of extractive industries in PA including coal mining and
ownership over residential or community-owned solar and the associ­ hydraulic fracturing of Marcellus Shale gas contribute to a landscape of
ated benefits. While residential solar is not without distributional con­ distrust that solar development must contend with and, hopefully,
cerns based on racialized and wealth disparities [86–88], the potential change. This research identifies how solar development relies on and
of combining rooftop solar PV with community and grid-scale solar into mimics the leasing processes and personnel of the oil and gas industries,
integrated community energy systems boasts a range of economic, creating concern for taking advantage of rural communities’ and
ecological, and social benefits [89]. Such systems could augment the farmers’ lack of economically viable and stable alternatives. In the
potential for socioecological benefits through renewable energy systems acceptance of and support for solar energy development, we cautiously
as opposed to any one mechanism by itself. draw similarities to the normalization of natural gas extraction on
farmland during the ‘boom’ of Marcellus Shale extraction throughout
6.2. Recognition justice rural PA [72]. However, in the case of natural gas extraction, farmers
and other rural landowners were able to openly discuss the details of
Drawing from van Uffelen [90], we first identify the misrecognition their leases and organize around fairer terms [82]. The expectation of
of farmers’ values and interests as purely economical in narratives that signing NDAs with option contracts in solar leases for both farmers and
describe decision-making for solar leasing. The nuances of farmer neighbors implicated in transmission infrastructure presents a shift from
decision-making in signing solar leases helps identify opportunities and the prior oil and gas legacy toward a more unjust procedural power
concerns for recognition justice therein. Per acre profit is, understand­ dynamic between developer and farmer; this is a key difference. These
ably, a main factor for farmers to engage in solar leasing, but it does not NDAs prohibit transparency between farmers in similar situations across
exist in a vacuum. This potential profit is contextualized within the re­ the state (farmer-to-farmer networks) to advocate for state-regulated
alities that agricultural production is increasingly difficult to make a lease terms like per acre price floors or standardized decommissioning
living from [91], and farmland is facing unprecedented pressure from bond amounts, as well as prevents openness between farmers and their
industrial development [10]. Therefore, farmers must assess what will communities about lease terms. Such secrecy would inevitably stifle
remain profitable and competitive in the future. Yet, these economic organized resistance that has proven to be a powerful force globally,
incentives are enmeshed with other equally important factors, such as such as in response to displacement from large-scale solar farms in India
farmland heritage, plans for intergenerational succession, and ecological [13]. Local opposition to renewable energy is often framed as something
benefits, that helped dictate how much land they would lease. The to overcome rather than empathized within histories of rural commu­
intertwining of economic with social and ecological factors counteracts nities as places of environmental injustices and false promises [8]. While
oversimplifying narratives of the likelihood that solar development will solar development is still in a nascent and growth phase, we highlight
displace all productive farmland. It shows how farmers exercise careful the importance of situating acceptance and opposition to solar in their
decision-making processes before signing these leases, weighing eco­ socioecological contexts and altering course from prior legacies of
nomic factors with other important socioecological factors of how they injustice.
value their farmland and business in the short- and long-term. While
national cropland has been slightly decreasing in recent decades [92], 7. Conclusions
the perception of farmland scarcity and the fear of ‘running out’ is
partially driven by the corporate asset-making of farmland as an This study has examined the ethical and logistical tensions of using
investible commodity and reliance on a sweeping narrative that this farmland for solar PV development from the perspective of farmers and
commoditization is unrelenting and unstoppable [10]. Acceptance of solar developers, as well as how such development impacts rural com­
this may “blind us to the multifaceted, variegated, and highly influential munities and landscapes. In so doing, we advance a theoretical frame­
processes of farmland investment and financialization as they unfold in work at the intersection of energy justice and land imaginaries. This
reality” [10]. We argue that the reproduction of a narrative that char­ theoretical intersection helps to disentangle the values that motivate
acterizes farmer decision-making for solar leasing as purely economic current visions of, hopes for, and realized transformations of rural en­
misrepresents the nuances of how farmers envision this land. ergy landscapes, as well as the justice implications of such transitions.
With this, we draw critical attention to another misrecognition of We found that, first and foremost, economic gain was a necessary but
farmers’ perspectives and visions in solar leasing processes: the obfus­ insufficient reason for farmers to enter solar leases. Farmers have suc­
cation of solar land imaginaries hinged on the promise – however cessfully negotiated lease terms to ensure future land restoration and
truthful – to farmers that, upon decommissioning, land will be farmable panel decommissioning so that land may be kept in farming for decades
again. This narrative of a “thirty-year cover crop,” while hopeful, is built to come, as well as to avoid land degradation commonly associated with
upon a presumed likelihood that neither precedented reality nor prior coal mining and fracking. Yet, decisions to enter solar leases hinged on
research can yet corroborate. Farmers based their decision to sign solar the hope that the land will be farmable again once solar PV are removed,
leases on the ability to distinguish solar development from more per­ a reality not yet substantiated by precedence.
manent industrial development that would alter their land and take the Further, in the case of PA, the local costs of on-farm solar projects
option to farm again off the table for their future generations. While not may outweigh the benefits without space for landowners’ needs to be
an explicit guarantee that the land will be farmable, developers are often heard in an impactful forum. Despite negotiating terms for end-of-life
legally obliged to return the land back to its original state at the time of decommissioning, negotiating outright terms for agrivoltaics was not
signing. It is worth questioning if this obligation is socially, economi­ observed. This gap obscures the potential for these dual land use prac­
cally, and ecologically possible or viable after 30 to 50 years, as well as tices to become more widely adopted for grid-scale solar projects.
the extent to which this can be knowable at the time of signing. We Moreover, solar developers and their agents, many of whom previously
identify an ethical role of solar developers and lawyers to clarify po­ worked as ‘landmen’ – or those responsible for securing leases for
tential concerns for dealing with solar e-waste [15] and the site-specific mineral rights, exploration, and drilling –for fracking, have utilized

7
K. Spangler et al. Energy Research & Social Science 108 (2024) 103394

option contracts and NDAs to reduce the ability of landowners to form interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
coalitions and collectively negotiate for more favorable terms. the work reported in this paper.
This research explicates opportunities for further research that build
on its limitations, as well as the need for critical attention to localized Data availability
experiences of renewable energy transitions. While this study does not
explore perspectives beyond farmers and solar stakeholders, future work The data that has been used is confidential.
could include a broader number of farmers through a survey approach,
focus on the mediating roles and relationships of utility companies, and
gather a deeper understanding of desires and needs of implicated rural Acknowledgements
communities. Furthermore, a better understanding of how legalities
such as NDAs and option contracts apply to solar PV on land use types We first and foremost thank those who donated their time to speak
beyond farmland could help further frame and contextualize spatial with us and make this research possible; we deeply value your stories
patterns of transmission infrastructure and the distributive injustices of and perspectives. We also thank the organizers of this special issue, Drs.
renewable energy development therein. As solar development is still Ryan Stock and Siddharth Sareen, for coalescing meaningful dialogue
nascent in PA but growing globally, we underscore the need for energy around this research area, and for the anonymous reviewers who helped
(in) justice to be foregrounded in framing grid-scale solar’s ability to improve this paper’s clarity and quality.
detract from or contribute to a just energy transition and sustainable
low-carbon futures.
Funding
Declaration of competing interest
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Appendix A. Codebook for qualitative coding analysis

8
K. Spangler et al. Energy Research & Social Science 108 (2024) 103394

Code Group Code Comment

Agrivoltaics/Dual Benefits of agrivoltaic practices that flow to the
Developer_benefits
Land Use developer and are expressed as such
Agrivoltaics/Dual Costs of agrivoltaic practices under the
Developer_costs
Land Use responsbility of the developer
Agrivoltaic practices that the developer
Agrivoltaics/Dual
Developer_practices expresses interest in and/or is currently
Land Use
practicing
Agrivoltaics/Dual Agrivoltaic practices that the developer
Developer_presentinlease
Land Use stipulates/attempts to stipulate in the lease
Agrivoltaics/Dual Benefits of agrivoltaic practices that flow to the
Farmer_benefits
Land Use farmer and are expressed as such
Agrivoltaics/Dual Costs of agrivoltaic practices that are under the
Farmer_costs
Land Use responsibility of the farmer
Agrivoltaics/Dual Expressed interest of farmers in agrivoltaic
Farmer_interest
Land Use practices on their leased land
Farmers’ perceived influence on the ability to
Agrivoltaics/Dual
Farmer_perceivedinfluence stipulate agrivoltaics/dual land use on their
Land Use
leased land.
Agrivoltaics/Dual Agrivoltaic practices that the farmer stipulated
Farmer_presentinlease
Land Use were present in their lease
The ways in which a developer expresses
compromise in lease negotiations from what they
Leasing Process Developer_compromise initially intended. This can also include a non-
developer talking about the leasing process and
what a developer often compromises.
The expressed priorities in lease negotiations
from a developer’s perspective. This can also
Leasing Process Developer_priorities include a non-developer talking about the leasing
process and what a developer often prioritizes
(e.g., an attorney)
Direct or indirect discussions of a developer’s
relationship with farmers that lease their land in
solar contracts. This includes spaces and places
Leasing Process Developer_relationshipw/farmer
of interaciton, methods and frequency of
communication, as well as feelings (e.g., trust or
mutual respect)
The ways in which a farmer expresses
compromise in lease negotiations from what they
Leasing Process Farmer_compromise initially intended. This can also include a non-
farmer talking about the leasing process and
what a farmer often compromises.
How the farmer perceives the fairness of the
Leasing Process Farmer_fairnessoflease
lease they ultimately entered into
How long a farmer describse the lease
Leasing Process Farmer_lengthofnegotiations
negotiation process taking place
The expressed priorities in lease negotiations
Leasing Process Farmer_priorities
from a farmer’s perspective. This can also

9
K. Spangler et al. Energy Research & Social Science 108 (2024) 103394

include a non-farmer talking about the leasing

process and what a farmer often prioritizes (e.g.,
an attorney)
Direct or indirect discussions of a farmer’s
relationship with developers they contract with.
Leasing Process Farmer_relationshipw/dev This includes spaces and places of interaciton,
methods and frequency of communication, as
well as feelings (e.g., trust or mutual respect)
Instances where the solar leasing process is
Leasing Process Marcellus_compare compared to the leasing process for Marcellus
Shale development
Decision-Making Expression of farmer’s economic gain as a
Farmer_econgain
Values reason for entering into a solar lease
Expression of environmental stewardship and a
Decision-Making
Farmer_environsteward desire for renewable energy as a farmer’s reason
Values
for entering into a solar lease
How the farmer’s family was involved in the
Decision-Making
Farmer_faminvolve decision-making process to enter into a solar
Values
lease
Decision-Making Expression of intergenerational value and
Farmer_intergen
Values legacies as a reason for entering into a solar lease
Decision-Making Expression of the heritage and familial value of
Farmer_landheritage
Values the land as a reason for entering into a solar lease
Expression of protecting their farm land from
Decision-Making
Farmer_protectland other forms of more permanent development as a
Values
reason for entering into a solar lease
Expression of taxes to benefit the community
Decision-Making
Farmer_taxes through the solar project as a reason for entering
Values
into a solar lease
Opposition to Aesthetic changes as a reason for community
Opposition_aesthetic
Solar opposition to the solar project
Opposition to Economic gain/loss as a reason for community
Opposition_econ
Solar opposition to the solar project
Opposition to Concerns for safety hazards as a reason for
Opposition_hazard
Solar community opposition to the solar project
Concerns for toxins or other health implications
Opposition to
Opposition_health as a reason for community opposition to the solar
Solar
project
Concerns over losing agricultural land as a
Opposition to
Opposition_landloss reason for community opposition to the solar
Solar
project
References to or characterizations of community
Opposition to
Opposition_NIMBY opposition as Not-In-My-Backyard to the solar
Solar
project
Opposition to Political ideological differences as a reason for
Opposition_political
Solar community opposition to the solar project
Unfair distribution of benefits and costs as a
Opposition to
Opposition_unfairness reason for community opposition to the solar
Solar
project

Opposition to Changes to zoning permits as a reason for

Opposition_zoning
Solar communtiy opposition to the solar project
Discussions and perspectives on community
Outlook for Solar Comm_solar
solar
How farmers and developers alike describe their
Outlook for Solar Future_energylandscape outlook for the future of the energy landscape in
PA
Concerns for the waste of solar projects in the
Outlook for Solar Waste_concerns
long-term
Discussions and concerns of plans to handle
waste through decommissioning. This includes if
Outlook for Solar Waste_plans_decomm
these stipulations are present in leases, as well as
concerns over the integrity of this process.
Discussions of and concerns about plans to
Outlook for Solar Waste_plans_recycling recycle solar panels and equipment once a
project is finished.
Background Education Education of the interviewee
Background Entrancetofarm How the farmer entered into farming
How the farmer and/or key informant entered
Background Entrancetosolar
into working in solar
Goodquotes Good quotations to come back to

. (continued).
References 2023, p. 35, cited 2023 Jul 21. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/sy
r/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf.
[2] International Energy Agency, Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy
[1] IPCC, Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers
System, 3rd edition, International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 2021. Report No.:.
[Internet], The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland,

10
K. Spangler et al. Energy Research & Social Science 108 (2024) 103394

[3] R.R. Hernandez, A. Armstrong, J. Burney, G. Ryan, K. Moore-O’Leary, I. Diédhiou, [34] S. Sareen, S.S. Kale, Solar ‘power’: socio-political dynamics of infrastructural
et al., Techno–ecological synergies of solar energy for global sustainability, Nat. development in two Western Indian states, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 41 (2018 Jul)
Sustain. 2 (7) (2019) 560–568. Jul 9. 270–278.
[4] J. Khan, M.H. Arsalan, Solar power technologies for sustainable electricity [35] S. Batel, P. Devine-Wright, Energy colonialism and the role of the global in local
generation – a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55 (2016 Mar) 414–425. responses to new energy infrastructures in the UK: a critical and exploratory
[5] Y. Farja, M. Maciejczak, Economic implications of agricultural land conversion to empirical analysis: local responses to new energy infrastructures in the UK,
solar power, Production 16 (2021). Antipode 49 (1) (2017 Jan) 3–22.
[6] R.R. Hernandez, A. Armstrong, J. Burney, G. Ryan, K. Moore-O’Leary, I. Diédhiou, [36] R. Phadke, Public deliberation and the geographies of wind justice, Sci. Cult. 22 (2)
et al., Techno–ecological synergies of solar energy for global sustainability, Nat (2013 Jun) 247–255.
Sustain. 2 (7) (2019 Jul) 560–568. [37] A. Dunlap, More wind energy colonialism(s) in Oaxaca? Reasonable findings,
[7] T.L. Daniels, H. Wagner, Regulating Utility-Scale Solar Projects on Agricultural unacceptable development, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 82 (2021 Dec), 102304.
Land [Internet], Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, Philadelphia, PA, 2022 Aug, p. [38] B.K. Sovacool, M. Burke, L. Baker, C.K. Kotikalapudi, H. Wlokas, New frontiers and
9. Available from: https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploa conceptual frameworks for energy justice, Energy Policy 105 (2017 Jun) 677–691.
ds/2022/08/KCEP-Regulating-Utility-Scale-Solar-Projects.pdf. [39] S. Elmallah, T.G. Reames, C.A. Spurlock, Frontlining energy justice: visioning
[8] R.S. Nilson, R.C. Stedman, Reacting to the rural burden: understanding opposition principles for energy transitions from community-based organizations in the
to utility-scale solar development in upstate New York, Rural. Sociol. (2023) United States, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 94 (2022 Dec), 102855.
12486. Mar 16. [40] M. Lennon, Energy transitions in a time of intersecting precarities: from reductive
[9] R.C. Stedman, R.S. Nilson, Farming landscapes, energy landscapes or both?: using environmentalism to antiracist praxis, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 73 (2021 Mar),
social representations theory to understand the impact of energy transitions on 101930.
rural senses of place, in: C.M. Raymond, L.C. Manzo, D.R. Williams, A. Di Masso, [41] J.E. Carlisle, S.L. Kane, D. Solan, J.C. Joe, Support for solar energy: examining
T. Von Wirth (Eds.), Changing Senses of Place [Internet], 1st ed., Cambridge sense of place and utility-scale development in California, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 3
University Press, 2021, pp. 131–143, cited 2023 May 11. Available from: https:// (2014 Sep) 124–130.
www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781108769471%23CN-bp-10/ [42] D. Bell, T. Gray, C. Haggett, J. Swaffield, Re-visiting the ‘social gap’: public opinion
type/book_part. and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy, Environ Polit. 22 (1)
[10] O. Visser, Running out of farmland? Investment discourses, unstable land values (2013 Feb) 115–135.
and the sluggishness of asset making, Agric. Hum. Values. 34 (1) (2017 Mar) [43] S.K. Olson-Hazboun, R.S. Krannich, P.G. Robertson, Public views on renewable
185–198. energy in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States: distinct attitudes,
[11] M. Davis, S.L. Martinez, Z. Gaston, S. Chopra, C. Connelly, M. Sahd, et al., US Solar exposure, and other key predictors of wind energy, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 21 (2016
Market Insight, Solar Energy Industries Association, 2023, p. 19. Nov) 167–179.
[12] R.R. Hernandez, M.K. Hoffacker, M.L. Murphy-Mariscal, G.C. Wu, M.F. Allen, Solar [44] K. Jenkins, D. McCauley, R. Heffron, H. Stephan, R. Rehner, Energy justice: A
energy development impacts on land cover change and protected areas, Proc. Natl. conceptual review, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11 (2016 Jan) 174–182.
Acad. Sci. 112 (44) (2015) 13579–13584. Nov 3. [45] S. Buechler, K.G. Martinez-Molina, Energy justice, renewable energy, and the rural-
[13] R. Stock, Triggering resistance: contesting the injustices of solar park development urban divide: insights from the Southwest U.S. Energy, Clim. Change (2021) 2.
in India, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 86 (2022 Apr), 102464. [46] B.K. Sovacool, M. Martiskainen, A. Hook, L. Baker, Decarbonization and its
[14] K. Yenneti, R. Day, O. Golubchikov, Spatial justice and the land politics of discontents: a critical energy justice perspective on four low-carbon transitions,
renewables: dispossessing vulnerable communities through solar energy mega- Clim. Change 155 (4) (2019 Aug) 581–619.
projects, Geoforum 76 (2016 Nov) 90–99. [47] K. Iwińska, A. Lis, K. Mączka, From framework to boundary object? Reviewing gaps
[15] J. Cross, D. Murray, The afterlives of solar power: waste and repair off the grid in and critical trends in global energy justice research, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 79 (2021
Kenya, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 44 (2018 Oct) 100–109. Sep), 102191.
[16] M. Lennon, Decolonizing energy: Black Lives Matter and technoscientific expertise [48] B.K. Sovacool, M.H. Dworkin, Energy justice: conceptual insights and practical
amid solar transitions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 30 (2017 Aug) 18–27. applications, Appl. Energy 142 (2015 Mar) 435–444.
[17] D. Mulvaney, V. Bolam, M. Cendejas, S. Davis, L. Ornelas, S. Kim, et al., Toward a [49] G. Walker, Beyond distribution and proximity: exploring the multiple spatialities of
Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, 2009. environmental justice, Antipode 41 (4) (2009 Sep) 614–636.
[18] C. Vargas, M. Chesney, End of life decommissioning and recycling of solar panels in [50] N. Beingessner, A. Magnan, M. Wendimu, “Land imaginaries” in Western Canada:
the United States. A real options analysis, J. Sustain. Finance Invest. 11 (1) (2021) (financial) neoliberalism, agrarianism, and the contemporary politics of
82–102. Jan 2. agricultural land, Environ. Plan. C Polit. Space 41 (4) (2023 Jun) 637–655.
[19] M.K. Hoffacker, M.F. Allen, R.R. Hernandez, Land-sparing opportunities for solar [51] S.R. Sippel, O. Visser, Introduction to symposium ‘Reimagining land: materiality,
energy development in agricultural landscapes: a case study of the great Central affect and the uneven trajectories of land transformation’, Agric. Hum. Values 38
Valley, CA, United States, Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (24) (2017) 14472–14482. Dec (1) (2021 Feb) 271–282.
19. [52] W. Wolford, This land is ours now: spatial imaginaries and the struggle for land in
[20] D. Majumdar, M.J. Pasqualetti, Dual use of agricultural land: introducing Brazil, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 94 (2) (2004) 409–424.
‘agrivoltaics’ in Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Area, USA, Landsc. Urban Plan. [53] T. Undurraga, G. Aguirre, “Now they tell me to preserve it”: changing
170 (2018 Feb) 150–168. environmental imaginaries in southern Chile, Geoforum 141 (2023 May), 103748.
[21] A.S. Pascaris, C. Schelly, J.M. Pearce, A first investigation of agriculture sector [54] R. Peet, M. Watts, Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social
perspectives on the opportunities and barriers for agrivoltaics, Agronomy 10 (12) Movements, Internet, Routledge, London, UK, 1996, https://doi.org/10.4324/
(2020) 1885. Nov 28. 9780203286784. Available from:.
[22] A. Makhijani, Exploring Farming and Solar Synergies: An Analysis Using Maryland [55] M. Kuchler, G. Bridge, Down the black hole: sustaining national socio-technical
Data, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Takoma Park, MD, 2021, imaginaries of coal in Poland, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 41 (2018 Jul) 136–147.
p. 81. [56] S.R. Sippel, O. Visser, Introduction to symposium ‘Reimagining land: materiality,
[23] Z.A. Goldberg, Solar energy development on farmland: three prevalent affect and the uneven trajectories of land transformation’, Agric. Hum. Values. 38
perspectives of conflict, synergy and compromise in the United States, Energy Res. (1) (2021 Feb) 271–282.
Soc. Sci. 101 (2023 Jul), 103145. [57] T.M. Li, What is land? Assembling a resource for global investment, Trans. Inst. Br.
[24] A.C. Andrew, C.W. Higgins, M.A. Smallman, M. Graham, S. Ates, Herbage yield, Geogr. 39 (4) (2014 Oct) 589–602.
lamb growth and foraging behavior in agrivoltaic production system, Front. [58] S.R. Sippel, Tackling land’s ‘stubborn materiality’: the interplay of imaginaries,
Sustain. Food Syst. 5 (2021) 659175. Apr 29. data and digital technologies within farmland assetization, Agric. Hum. Values 40
[25] D.E. Rocheleau, Networked, rooted and territorial: green grabbing and resistance (2023) 849–863.
in Chiapas, J. Peasant Stud. 42 (3–4) (2015) 695–723. Jul 4. [59] O. Visser, Persistent farmland imaginaries: celebration of fertile soil and the
[26] M.G. Turner, Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process, Annu. Rev. Ecol. recurrent ignorance of climate, Agric. Hum. Values. 38 (1) (2021 Feb) 313–326.
Syst. 20 (1989) 171–197. [60] L. Schoenberger, A. Beban, Rupturing violent land imaginaries: finding hope
[27] S. Sareen, S. Shokrgozar, Desert geographies: solar energy governance for just through a land titling campaign in Cambodia, Agric. Hum. Values 38 (1) (2021
transitions, Globalizations (2022) 1–17. Jul 10. Feb) 301–312.
[28] J. Ford, A. Lee, Climate justice: modern parallels with the slave trade, Public [61] The Nature Conservancy, Solving Energy Sprawl: Case Studies [Internet], The
Health 204 (2022 Mar) 82–83. Nature Conservancy, 2023, p. 10, cited 2023 Aug 17. Available from: https
[29] B. Johnson, Energy slaves: carbon technologies, climate change, and the stratified ://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/energy-sprawl
history of the fossil economy, Am. Q. 68 (4) (2016) 955–979. -solutions/?tab_q=tab_container-tab_element_69946631.
[30] S. Buechler, V. Vázquez-García, K.G. Martínez-Molina, D.M. Sosa-Capistrán, [62] PA DEP, Pennsylvania’s Solar Future Plan [Internet], PA Department of
Patriarchy and (electric) power? A feminist political ecology of solar energy use in Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA, 2018, p. 152, cited 2021 Dec 3.
Mexico and the United States, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70 (2020 Dec), 101743. Available from: http://www.depgreenport.state.pa.us/elibrary/GetDocument?do
[31] S. Buechler, K.G. Martínez-Molina, Energy justice, renewable energy, and the rural- cId=1413595&DocName=PENNSYLVANIA%26%2339%3bS%20SOLAR%
urban divide: insights from the Southwest U.S. Energy, Clim. Change 2 (2021 Dec), 20FUTURE%20PLAN.PDF%20%20%3cspan%20style%3D%22color:blue%3b%
100048. 22%3e%28NEW%29%3c/span%3e.
[32] S. Knuth, I. Behrsin, A. Levenda, J. McCarthy, New political ecologies of renewable [63] R. McDevitt, Pennsylvania is on the cusp of a solar energy boom. Some
energy, Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 5 (3) (2022 Sep) 997–1013. communities want to fight it, in: StateImpact Pennsylvania [Internet], 2020. Dec
[33] A. Mejía-Montero, M. Lane, D. van Der Horst, K.E.H. Jenkins, Grounding the 23 [cited 2021 Dec 3]; Available from: https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvan
energy justice lifecycle framework: an exploration of utility-scale wind power in ia/2020/12/23/pennsylvania-is-on-the-cusp-of-a-solar-energy-boom-some-c
Oaxaca, Mexico, Soc Sci. 75 (2021) 12. ommunities-want-to-fight-it/.

11
K. Spangler et al. Energy Research & Social Science 108 (2024) 103394

[64] SEIA, Pennsylvania Solar [Internet], Solar Energy Industries Association, 2023 [78] M. Hennink, B.N. Kaiser, Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a
[cited 2023 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy systematic review of empirical tests, Soc. Sci. Med. 292 (2022 Jan), 114523.
/pennsylvania-solar. [79] G. Guest, A. Bunce, L. Johnson, How many interviews are enough?: an experiment
[65] PJM, PJM Services Request Status [Internet], Available from: https://www.pjm. with data saturation and variability, Field Methods 18 (1) (2006 Feb) 59–82.
com/planning/service-requests/services-request-status, 2023. [80] G. Guest, E. Namey, M. Chen, A simple method to assess and report thematic
[66] S. Ong, C. Campbell, P. Denholm, R. Margolis, G. Heath, Land-Use Requirements saturation in qualitative research. Soundy A, editor, PLOS ONE 15 (5) (2020)
for Solar Power Plants in the United States [Internet] [cited 2023 Jul 21] p. NREL/ e0232076. May 5.
TP-6A20-56290, 1086349. Report No.: NREL/TP-6A20-56290, 1086349. Available [81] J. Saldaña, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd ed., SAGE, Los
from: http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1086349/, 2013 Jun. Angeles, 2013 (303 p.).
[67] J. McCarthy, A socioecological fix to capitalist crisis and climate change? The [82] J. Jacquet, R.C. Stedman, Natural gas landowner coalitions in New York State:
possibilities and limits of renewable energy, Environ. Plan. Econ. Space. 47 (12) emerging benefits of collective natural resource management, J. Rural Soc. Sci. 26
(2015 Dec) 2485–2502. (1) (2011).
[68] D. Bugden, D. Evensen, R. Stedman, A drill by any other name: social [83] PA DEP, DEP Well Plugging Program [Internet] [cited 2023 Jul 21]. Available
representations, framing, and legacies of natural resource extraction in the fracking from: https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Energy/OilandGasPrograms/OilandGas
industry, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 29 (2017 Jul) 62–71. Mgmt/LegacyWells/Pages/Well-Plugging-Program.aspx, 2023.
[69] K.J. Brasier, M.R. Filteau, D.K. McLaughlin, J. Jacquet, R.C. Stedman, T.W. Kelsey, [84] C. Gross, Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: the application of a
et al., Residents’ Perceptions of Community and Environmental Impacts From justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance, Energy
Development of Natural Gas in the Marcellus Shale: A Comparison of Pennsylvania Policy 35 (5) (2007 May) 2727–2736.
and New York Cases, 2011. [85] E. Lind, E. Tyler, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press, New
[70] K.A. Schafft, K. Brasier, A. Hesse, Reconceptualizing rapid energy resource York, 1988.
development and its impacts: thinking regionally, spatially and intersectionally, [86] T.G. Reames, Distributional disparities in residential rooftop solar potential and
J. Rural. Stud. 68 (2019 May) 296–305. penetration in four cities in the United States, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 69 (2020 Nov),
[71] K.J. Brasier, D.K. McLaughlin, D. Rhubart, R.C. Stedman, M.R. Filteau, J. Jacquet, 101612.
Risk perceptions of natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale, Environ. Pract. [87] T.G. Reames, Exploring residential rooftop solar potential in the United States by
15 (2) (2013 Jun) 108–122. race and ethnicity, Front. Sustain. Cities 3 (2021) 666411. Jun 14.
[72] S. Malin, There’s no real choice but to sign: neoliberalization and normalization of [88] D.A. Sunter, S. Castellanos, D.M. Kammen, Disparities in rooftop photovoltaics
hydraulic fracturing on Pennsylvania farmland, J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 4 (1) (2014 deployment in the United States by race and ethnicity, Nat. Sustain. 2 (2019)
Mar) 17–27. 71–76.
[73] M. Horst, A. Marion, Racial, ethnic and gender inequities in farmland ownership [89] B.P. Koirala, E. Koliou, J. Friege, R.A. Hakvoort, P.M. Herder, Energetic
and farming in the U.S, Agric. Hum. Values 36 (1) (2019 Mar) 1–16. communities for community energy: a review of key issues and trends shaping
[74] USDA, Farms and Land in Farms: 2021 Summary [Internet], USDA National integrated community energy systems, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56 (2016 Apr)
Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, D.C., 2022. Available from: https 722–744.
://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/fnlo0222.pdf. [90] N. Van Uffelen, Revisiting recognition in energy justice, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 92
[75] J. Kirchherr, K. Charles, Enhancing the sample diversity of snowball samples: (2022 Oct), 102764.
Recommendations from a research project on anti-dam movements in Southeast [91] E.K. Burchfield, B.L. Schumacher, K. Spangler, A. Rissing, The state of US farm
Asia. Guetterman TC, editor, PLOS ONE 13 (8) (2018) e0201710. Aug 22. operator livelihoods, Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5 (2022) 795901. Feb 21.
[76] MaDC Tongco, Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection, Ethnobot. Res. [92] K. Spangler, E.K. Burchfield, B. Schumacher, Past and current dynamics of U.S.
Appl. (5) (2007) 147. Dec 31. agricultural land use and policy, Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4 (2020) 98. Jul 21.
[77] S. Keen, M. Lomeli-Rodriguez, H. Joffe, From challenge to opportunity: virtual [93] A. Dhar, M.A. Naeth, P.D. Jennings, El-Din M. Gamal, Perspectives on
qualitative research during COVID-19 and beyond, Int. J. Qual. Methods 21 (2022 environmental impacts and a land reclamation strategy for solar and wind energy
Jan) (160940692211050). systems, Sci. Total Environ. 718 (2020 May), 134602.

12