The alarmist and reactionary tone of a recent op-ed (Sun Journal May 20) about a solar bill in the state legislature (LD 1881) inspired us to spend some time figuring out whether this bill was going to end solar development, help solar development, or just confuse everyone.

The bill, LD 1881, would require developers of solar energy projects to pay a “compensation fee” or pay for conservation efforts to mitigate adverse effects on prime agricultural lands.

We are sympathetic to the sentiment behind this bill. Rapid development of anything, especially when it has an impact on land use, does require attention by authorities and governments to safeguard against negative effects on people and other species. However, as we develop more renewable energy sources we need to weigh the positives against the negatives–in this case the negative impacts on land use compared to the positives of addressing CO2 production from fossil fuel emissions as quickly as is reasonable.

When someone like the author of the op-ed asks, “What about these fields of solar panels? Will this runaway solar development continue until every field and forest edge in Maine is populated by these futuristic eyesores?” we suggest considering, as usual, some numbers.

The author of the op-ed, V. Paul Reynolds, points out that there are over 3000 PV installations on what were open fields or forests, and that they “only” generate 3% of our electrical energy at this point.

What he doesn’t point out is that the total area of those 3,000 arrays is less than 2,000 acres. And what this means is that, if 2,000 acres can provide 3% of our electricity, then an area of under 70,000 acres could, in principle, produce 100% of the electricity the state currently uses.

Let’s put that number in perspective. First of all, we will not be producing all of our electricity from PVs, because there are also other carbon free methods of generating electricity: wind and nuclear, for example. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that we want to generate half of our electricity from PVs. That would require around 35,000 acres. Maine’s land area is around 20 million acres.

This 35,000 acres therefore represents about 0.175 % of the land area of the state. According to our research there are about 1.3 million acres of farmland in use for farming in the state. If for some reason we put all of the PVs on this currently farmed land, they would occupy about 2.7% of it. But of course all of the PVs will not be put on agriculturally productive land. They just won’t.

But what if we continue on the trend to electrify our transportation? Wouldn’t this mean huge increases in electricity demand?  Well actually, if we electrified all passenger vehicles registered in Maine our usage would increase by around 12% over current usage. And it will be a while before all the passenger vehicles in Maine are electric.

Mr. Reynolds is also concerned that the fenced areas of solar arrays will interfere with wildlife travel. Given that much farmland is already fenced we are not sure how different it is with PV arrays. Also, as stated above the total amount of land projected to be used for PVs is negligible compared to the available land for wildlife.

Incidentally, around 500,000 acres of forest are harvested yearly in Maine. According to Maine Tree Foundation, as much as 5%, or 25,000 acres, are clear-cut each year. Perhaps a small portion of that acreage could be put into PVs?

We agree that solar farms could be more appropriately placed over capped landfills, depleted gravel pits, brownfields, and otherwise difficult-to-use land. Focusing policy on incentivizing the use of appropriate land might be a better approach than simply making solar development more expensive. But this bill, as it stands, leaves much uncertainty for a farmer who wants to use part of his land for a solar array, possibly making it uneconomical for him or her to do so.

As it stands, the bill would require a complex set of rules about what constitutes “prime” farmland and leaves the costs of compensation for the use of that land highly uncertain. Thus it would add significant costs, regulations, and delays to solar projects that will further delay our transition to renewable energy. Additionally, this bill singles out green energy-related development over other forms of development, such as low-density housing, that have more negative impacts on both wildlife and the soils they are put on.

As it is now, solar PVs are the cheapest form of electricity. When we are already struggling to keep electric rates down–The PUC recently approved a new round of rate increases–is it a good idea to make our solar electricity more expensive?

Paul Stancioff, PhD., is professor emeritus of physics at UMF. Cynthia Stancioff is just a person trying to make sense of things. Email: pauls@maine.edu or cynthia.hoeh@gmail.com Previous columns can be found at https://paulandcynthiaenergymatters.blogspot.com/.