Dual-use solar systems that allow for the integration of agricultural uses present one of the most promising solutions to balancing the potential tensions between renewable energy development and farmland preservation.
By encouraging the coexistence of agriculture and solar energy production, this dual-use matrix offers farmers and ranchers a way to maintain the functional use of farmland while contributing to the country’s clean energy transition and preserving their economic future. This “dual-use” has over the past few years been tagged with the moniker of “agrivoltaics,” which, in the absence of a formal definition, can mean different things to different folks.
In what initially appeared to be an exciting development, the American Farmland Trust (AFT) recently proposed a definition of agrivoltaics in an effort to provide consistency, particularly in the context of how regulatory agencies might implement “robust developer incentives.”
Though AFT deserves a great deal of credit for a very thoughtful and well-researched guidance, its definition has taken the term agrivoltaics and made it too narrow, casting aside the concept of “ecovoltaics” (which, until now, was a lesser-known term that one could have argued was subsumed within the more colloquial and “sexy” term of agrivoltaics).
Ecovoltaics is, broadly, the integration of solar projects with activities that provide agricultural ecosystem benefits – for example, native plant species, pollinator-friendly species, and habitat for beneficial insects, birds, and other animals.
AFT’s marginalizing of ecovoltaics, particularly in its targeted exclusion of ecosystem benefits such as pollinator habitat assumes a “one-size fits-all” solution for the well-documented loss of farmland and family farms by requiring that all dual-use projects provide for grazing or cropping within the array footprint itself. This omission limits the full potential of dual-use systems and places unnecessary constraints on farmers, solar developers and policymakers. The definition requiring active farming also ignores the significant issue of how to allocate cost, risk, and responsibility between the landowner and the asset owner for conducting active agricultural activities for the next 40 years.
Missed opportunity
AFT’s definition insists that agrivoltaic systems must support active agricultural production, such as crop cultivation or livestock grazing, for the full 30- to 40-year lifespan of a solar project. While ensuring long-term agricultural productivity is a worthy goal, this rigid requirement dismisses the crucial role that ecovoltaics can play in maintaining farmland health, biodiversity and crop yields.
Pollinator habitats—areas planted with native flowers and grasses to attract bees, butterflies and other pollinating species—provide critical ecological benefits. These habitats enhance soil quality, reduce erosion and improve water retention, all while supporting essential pollinators that sustain food production. Excluding pollinator habitat as a sole form of agricultural use in agrivoltaic projects disregards its essential contributions to the farm ecosystem and the broader agricultural economy.
Measurable agricultural benefits
AFT’s criteria for agrivoltaics assumes that only direct agricultural production—such as row crops, orchards or grazing—should qualify under its definition. However, numerous studies have demonstrated that pollinator-friendly solar installations provide measurable agricultural benefits. Increased pollinator activity enhances crop yields in adjacent fields, leading to more productive farms and higher economic returns for growers.
Research from the University of Minnesota found that solar sites with native pollinator habitats increased yields in nearby soybean fields by up to 10%. Similar studies have shown improved apple, blueberry and almond production in farms near pollinator-friendly solar projects. By dismissing pollinator habitat as a valid dual-use use that should be incentivized, AFT’s definition ignores a scientifically backed, farm-supporting solution.
A more inclusive approach to dual-use
Rather than narrowly defining agrivoltaics around “traditional” agricultural activities, policymakers and regulators should adopt a broader, more flexible framework that includes ecosystem benefits as a legitimate and valuable dual-use system. A more inclusive definition would:
- Recognize the long-term benefits of pollinator-friendly solar to soil health, water conservation and crop pollination.
- Allow farmers and solar developers the flexibility to choose the most suitable agrivoltaic model for their land and climate conditions.
- Ensure that farmers and ranchers have the right to continue or discontinue resource-intensive active farming under the array in conformance with their own farm plans, without fear of financial or regulatory repercussions.
- Encourage biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, aligning with regenerative farming principles.
Policymakers and agricultural organizations must acknowledge that farming is more than just crops and livestock; it also includes the ecological processes that sustain productive land. By expanding the definition of agrivoltaics to include pollinator habitat as a stand-alone dual use, we can unlock more opportunities for farmers, landowners and solar developers to create win-win solutions for food and energy production.
AFT’s rigid definition also ignores the simple fact that one reason for the loss of farmland is that our farmers and ranchers are aging out with nobody to continue running the agricultural operation. Requiring active agricultural activity within these arrays ignores the reality that 30 to 40 years of vigorous activity may just not be feasible or preferable for many landowners. This definition imposes yet another infringement on the property rights of farmers, in this case to NOT farm their land but to simply allow it to produce income while remaining in a preserved state. Is this not a valuable goal?
Fostering innovation and maximizing benefits
The AFT’s current definition of agrivoltaics is too restrictive in excluding pollinator habitat as a qualifying dual use. This narrow approach overlooks the ecological and economic benefits of pollinator-friendly solar projects, which enhance agricultural productivity and sustainability. A more inclusive definition would support a broader range of agricultural-supporting models, fostering innovation and maximizing the benefits of co-located solar and agriculture. If the goal is to create a future where clean energy and farming thrive together, we must embrace a broader, more forward-thinking approach to integrating dual-use.
David Carpenter is vice president of development and chief legal officer at Green Lantern Solar, a renewable energy developer.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect those held by pv magazine.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.
By submitting this form you agree to pv magazine using your data for the purposes of publishing your comment.
Your personal data will only be disclosed or otherwise transmitted to third parties for the purposes of spam filtering or if this is necessary for technical maintenance of the website. Any other transfer to third parties will not take place unless this is justified on the basis of applicable data protection regulations or if pv magazine is legally obliged to do so.
You may revoke this consent at any time with effect for the future, in which case your personal data will be deleted immediately. Otherwise, your data will be deleted if pv magazine has processed your request or the purpose of data storage is fulfilled.
Further information on data privacy can be found in our Data Protection Policy.