To transition from fossil fuel to solar energy, researchers say ‘rules of the game’ must also shift

The “rules of the game” must shift, concluded research published in Sustainability Science after studying how hydraulic fracking leasing has impacted public perception and solar developers’ ability to build clean energy projects in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania State University researchers interviewed agricultural landowners and various stakeholders in Pennsylvania about their experience in how public opposition and mechanisms within the leasing process, such as non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), impacted their ability (or in some cases willingness) to lease their farmland for solar projects.

Pennsylvania “is an epicenter of hydraulic fracking” the research noted. However, Pennsylvania is also increasingly an epicenter of proposed solar development, it said, “as large corporations—many of which are constructing data centers in the state—seek out solar power purchase agreements.”

Agricultural landowners interviewed in the study expressed frustration over the authority exercised by township supervisory boards and other municipal officials during option contract periods and permitting reviews. The landowners perceived this lack of experience “as nearly impossible” to separate from a board member’s personal views on solar development during the permitting review.

One landowner cited in the study described how the township enforced a “ridiculous” number of requirements, such as adding four retention ponds to the property to manage stormwater runoff that, according to the landowner, was to fix a prior problem on the site, which had nothing to do with the solar panels. He said the only reason this project made it through the township review was because it was already zoned as ‘Light Industrial,’ “but coming from a ground standpoint? No, this should have been on [worse] ground in my opinion. But that’s politics. And that’s the way it is.”

The researchers cited another situation where a township supervisory board denied a large-scale solar application due to disagreements over “impervious” surface requirements. According to the researchers, two agricultural landowners involved in the proposed project said they felt this denial was “more a reflection of the board appeasing angry community members than a fair legal process.”

According to American Farmland Trust, an estimated 83% of new solar installations are located on farmland, with 50% of those projects “placed on the most productive, versatile, and resilient land” as of 2022.

The researchers found that solar stakeholders, such as developers and land acquisition managers, find hope in the ways lease negotiations diverge from oil and gas leasing, but the fairness remains hidden from public view.

For a shift from fossil fuel-based energy to solar energy, the researchers concluded that the shifts must consider how to increase public participation within the accountability mechanisms of siting, negotiation, financing and regulation of grid-scale solar projects on farmland.

For example, NDAs were commonly used in hydraulic fracking land leases as part of the remediation process when accidents occurred on private lands, limiting public knowledge of and access to the risks of hydraulic fracking. The researchers noted other problematic legacies of hydraulic fracking leasing in Pennsylvania, such as allegations that some landowners for hydraulic fracking were illegally misled to sign leases at lower prices or under other conditions that seemed unfair.

As such, opponents have equated using NDAs with placing gag orders.

However, when comparing NDAs between hydraulic fracking and solar development, the researchers found that NDAs were used for very different purposes. Rather than directly leasing land the way hydraulic fracking does, many solar developers engage through option contracts, which establishes the developer’s right to potentially enter a solar lease within a three-to-five-year option period. Within this period, the NDAs are used to keep specific terms private, namely the per acre annual lease payment, the researchers said. This helps avoid potential bidding wars with other private developers.

“NDAs provide another mechanism of obscuring information from broader community members,” the researchers noted. Landowners, however, did not necessarily perceive NDAs as unjust or unfair. One solar leasing lawyer interviewed in the study said NDAs were “a useless provision” since there are not many repercussions for breaking the NDA terms. In his experience, the authors noted, “agricultural landowners will talk.”

“If the legitimacy of grid-scale solar begins and remains at the ‘kitchen tables’ of leasing landowners with stakeholders who wield incomparable financial and legal influence, the fragility of this legitimation will not withstand or promote sustainable transitions,” the researchers said.

For solar development to be part of “a true and just energy transition by reducing and, in turn, replacing fossil fuels,” then it cannot remain bound by the rules set by and designed solely for fossil-fuel based energy.

In other words, the researchers said, “the rules of the game” must shift.

The research was supported by funding from Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the National Science Foundation Research Trainee Program and Penn State’s Northeast Regional Center for Development.

(Also read: Local opposition threatens clean energy transition)

Popular content

U.S. solar manufacturers seek to match rhetoric with reality

24 June 2025 An extension of 48E tax credit with the domestic content bonus levels the playing field, say Qcells', Talon PV and SEMA execs, so U.S. manufacturers c...