Editor’s note: This commentary is by Matthew Franz Witten, a freelance environmental journalist and environmental educator. He lives in Starksboro.
[H]ow about you choose right now: a field covered with ranks of solar panels or a field growing rows of crops?
I don’t think it’s an easy choice, but some make it sound ridiculously slam-dunk, scoffing at those who dare argue for saving prime agricultural soils for growing food. Unfortunately, the governor of Vermont – many of whose policies I agree with – is one of several prominent policy makers who dismiss those of us advocating a balanced approach to siting solar “farms” and also to preserving land for farms that grow crops.
Gov. Shumlin has criticized citizens’ and towns’ objections to solar arrays and wind turbines. He is correct to assert that sometimes local complaints need to be set aside for a greater good, the generation of electricity that we all use. Still, I find some of his remarks, reminiscent of the oppositional stance of VPIRG’s Paul Burns, to be dismissive.
Unlike centralized dinosaur-fueled power plants or even the smaller hydropower plants on our rivers, solar panels are now being widely spread over a variety of meadows and fields across Vermont. The great number and far-flung distribution of panels needed to generate significant amounts of electricity makes anyone concerned with soil and water sit up and take notice.
What I find troublesome about the current review of proposed solar installations – which often amounts to a Public Service Board (PSB) rubber stamp – is twofold.
Just because there is tremendous momentum in Vermont – perhaps justifiably so – to ramp up alternative energy sources, doesn’t mean we should quash debate about avoiding pitfalls.
First: prime agricultural soils, which many Vermonters from different backgrounds have worked so hard and so successfully to conserve and steward for the last 40 years, can now, in one stroke of the pen, be tiled over with structures containing potentially toxic heavy metal compounds. To paint those of us who have concerns about this as climate change deniers or NIMBYs is simplistic. We deserve to be presumed reasonable people who are doing what all of us participating in public policy debates are obliged to do: balance one or more priorities against another.
Second: towns have no power. In a state that proudly and necessarily hangs onto as much local control as possible in a world of immense and sometimes oppressive corporate and government influence, our towns should have some leverage before the Public Service Board. I’m not advocating veto power over proposed solar projects, but I do like the idea that town representatives – maybe through the regional planning commissions – could direct the PSB to place priority on some areas and steer projects away from other areas. I would like to see a process that favors community solar projects that are researched, designed and proposed locally, which is different from the ad hoc process we have now that tends to be driven by out-of-state developers. Randolph’s Energy Committee has been working on one such carefully planned project that now may be eclipsed by a huge 100-acre, 20-megawatt solar installation proposed by Ranger Solar, a company from New York that was formed earlier in 2015. Ranger is proposing four such facilities in Vermont, each one of which is about 10 times bigger than any existing solar installation in the state.
There is no need for arrogance in the debate about where, how and if solar collectors should be allowed. Yes, there is urgency to vary our sources of energy production, just as there is urgency drive less and to use less electricity. And, yes, sometimes unattractive sources of generation may need to be sited where some people would reject it for personal or civic reasons.
However, this does not mean we should avoid evidence that there may be some disadvantages to solar-powered generation facilities. Just because there is tremendous momentum in Vermont – perhaps justifiably so – to ramp up alternative energy sources, doesn’t mean we should quash debate about avoiding pitfalls. We know from long experience that some technologies society reveres for a period of time later turn out to be damaging. Nuclear power and DDT come to mind. Initial studies show that rainwater running off solar panels may be leaching out lead and cadmium. This begs some questions: Are the photovoltaic panels as benign as we hope? Will the ingredients of panels be disposed of in a way that protects water quality? Will agricultural soils beneath solar arrays really be appropriate for food production after 25 years?
The thoughtful and thorough drafters of Act 250 knew that we lose our prime ag soils at our peril. Farming is Vermont’s backbone. One of the main reasons I support local farms is because I’d prefer not to pay for food that has been trucked from California. That outdated model of food distribution is wasteful and detrimental to our health. It contributes excess carbon to the atmosphere.
If I had to choose, I would vote for burning less diesel by saving our local prime ag soils into the coming decades.
