Vermont’s soaring solar spree — trickier than you think

BY LOGAN SOLOMON Community News Service

Tens of thousands of solar panels over the last six years have been dispensed across Vermont’s roofs and yards.

From January 2017 to the start of this February, Vermont issued more than 16,000 solar permits, largely residential that, combined, brought over 292,500 kilowatts of energy to the grid, state data shows. The permits were for net-metering, a billing arrangement where utility bills are offset by solar generation.

But Vermont falls below all but two states in yearly absorbable sunlight for generating energy, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s renewable energy laboratory, and residential panels here produce 85 percent less energy a year than they’re capable of.

Solar also raises fears from communities that panels could impact land and waterbodies across the state — more than 9 percent of the 16,000-plus permits since 2017 were for projects that would go on lands that contribute to water supplies, according to an analysis of state data.

Those facts muddy the already controversial picture around solar in a state known both for its environmental trend-setting and its inclination for NIMBYism. As officials, activists and developers look to continue the state’s solar spree, new questions have emerged about who controls the playing field, what environmental costs panel-users must consider and how Vermont can move forward in a way that protects the health of people and the planet.

In 2015, Vermont enacted its Renewable Energy Standard, which required that 75 percent of the state’s energy be from renewable sources by 2032, 10 percent of which must be generated in state.

The state is progressing toward that goal on several fronts. The average net-metering permit issued over the past six years was for a rooftop array on a large house, good for about 18 kilowatts of energy capacity. And since 2019, Energy Action Network, a research and analysis nonprofit, has said the state’s electricity sector has met or is on track to meet all Vermont’s targets.

Industry and pro-solar activists want to raise the standard through H.320, which would require 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, of which 30 percent must be generated in state by 2035.

But the bill hasn’t moved since Rep. Caleb Elder, D-Starksboro, introduced it to the House Committee on Environment and Energy in February, with legislative energy going instead toward climate policy in the heating sector.

Still, the bill has been supported by several environmental groups, including 350 Vermont, which delivered more than 1,700 signed postcards calling for the legislation among other asks, according to lead organizer Vanessa Rule.

One of the biggest roadblocks pro-solar activists see for in-state solar growth is Vermont law’s prioritization of aesthetics. To meet the legal standard, a project must pass a four-question test to determine if it will have “adverse” and “undue” impacts on surrounding scenery. Some projects have been denied for failing the test.

But an H.320 provision, activists hope, could change the tide.

“The (change in the) aesthetic criteria would allow us to build more new renewable energy,” said Ben Edgerly Walsh, climate and energy program director for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG). “This is what the climate crisis demands, and that’s why we support it.”

The legislation would make it so that, prior to Vermont’s scenic impact test, those opposing a proposed project would have to demonstrate “that the facility would be located on or affect a specific parcel” that is listed as a “scenic resource” in a town or regional plan.

To Annette Smith, the amendment is “a very bad idea.” Founder of Vermonters for a Clean Environment and a vocal and frequent opponent of certain solar projects, Smith said the changes would “limit public participation” or even eliminate the criteria altogether.

Smith criticized the provision as a reaction by Renewable Energy Vermont to projects in Bennington that were denied on reasons including aesthetics — decisions reaffirmed by the Vermont Supreme Court.

“I’m appalled that Renewable Energy Vermont is attacking that aspect of the public process just because the Public Utility Commission denied one project,” she said. “Shame on them.”

Supporters of the bill are reacting to a string of projects they think have been derailed by a bad law, said Renewable Energy Vermont’s Peter Sterling. In his mind, all the amendment would do is treat a solar project like any other commercial development in Vermont.

“All we are asking for is fairness,” he said.

Smith said communities she has met over the years have opposed a proposed solar development for reasons besides aesthetics: when it involves logging, could impact wildlife, is on prime agricultural soils or has profiteers who don’t benefit the community.

The largest energy-generating solar farm in Vermont is the same size as a planned project opposed by Jesse McDougall and the 160-person-plus group Stop Shaftsbury Solar. The project would put 87 football fields worth of solar panels across a hilltop next to McDougall’s farm — and the opposition to it captures many of the chief complaints and fears about solar development.

McDougall said he has had poor experiences with solar developers, describing his time growing up next to an out-of-state company-owned solar farm in a small New Hampshire town.

“They were not good neighbors. They were dismissive and condescending and disrespectful,” he said, adding that he worries the same could happen in Vermont.

The firm in Shaftsbury is owned by an out-of-state company, a member of Renewable Energy Vermont, which counts among its ranks 17 other out-of-state companies involved in the solar industry, directory information shows.

Much of Vermont’s residential solar expansion over the last six years has been orchestrated by just two companies. Of the more than 16,000 projects issued net-metering permits, there is about a 50 percent chance that the installer was SunCommon or Sunrun Installers, also members of Sterling’s group.

McDougall thinks solar panels are a good tool to address climate change, but the Legislature’s efforts have been executed “haphazardly.” He wants to limit solar developments to 5,000-kilowatt capacity and wants panels put on developed land, like parking lots and roofs, not green spaces.

“So in terms of the climate fight,” McDougall said, “we don’t believe that cutting 30 acres of forest and degrading 85 acres of healthy fields, and destroying all those natural ecosystems, in order to roll out solar panels is the right approach.”

He also thinks big solar projects, including the proposed one in Shaftsbury, could be damaging to Vermont tourism as “people come here to spend time in a special place,” and it would make Vermont “like every other place.”

He has a business stake in that presumption: McDougall runs a shortterm rental operation that doubles as a farm, which he said restores the lands through sheep grazing and draws visitors with its sweeping views.

Some have raised concerns that metals and chemicals in solar panels could deteriorate and seep into soil and water. But that scenario is unproven.

There are two separate concerns: heavy metal leaching and PFAS leaching. Exposure to those latter chemicals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, can lead to reproductive effects and cancers, hormone interference and reduced ability to fight infections.

Leaching is “a topic that comes up in almost every case” Smith works on, she said.

Smith said she has worked with communities to oppose projects on areas the government determines “contribute to water supply.”

Smith said she has asked the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources three times to test soil around panels to see if PFAS leaching is occurring.

The agency isn’t doing that kind of testing, said spokesperson Stephanie Brackin, but officials did look into it.

“Approximately a year ago, we conducted both a review of literature surrounding contaminants in solar panels and a data review of landfills that installed solar panels,” Brackin said in an email. “This is an emerging issue, but there were not observed groundwater impacts where solar panels were used, and we would not expect any runoff from a solar panel to exceed our soil standard. We will continue to monitor literature to determine whether additional work is required.”

In a 2021 report by the Green Science Policy Institute, a “team of science and policy experts,” cites 11 studies that document 14 types of PFAS in solar panels. The studies also show that there is a type of PFAS in every piece engulfing a panel’s solar cell. The report found no documentation that the chemicals have ever leached into groundwater.

Sterling, the Vermont industry rep, said PFAS “very well could be (in) solar panels,” but PFAS leaching is “highly unlikely” and would “take an exceptional occurrence, (but) not (that) it would never, ever, happen.”

Smith is frustrated “that we don’t have better answers” about whether the chemicals are leaching into the soil.

There could be more clarity coming. According to a December 2022 federal regulation, domestic solar manufacturers must list in the federal toxic substance inventory whether they are using PFAS in solar panels.

Edgerly Walsh of VPIRG would not comment on the leaching concern as he “did not have the information in front of him,” while Rule of 350 Vermont said she did not know much about the issue. Rule added that understanding any energy source’s impacts is “critical.”

An International Energy Agency study of PV solar panels, which comprise 95 percent of the solar market, says there is “low risk for the prioritized chemicals” of lead and cadmium on human and environmental health but did say findings are not representative of an additional six “environmentally sensitive” compounds.

If panels withstand the weather, how long do they last? Sterling said between 20 and 25 years. The federal lab says 30. And Smith’s 1989 panels are still kicking after 34 years of running her off-grid life.

Officials and others predict that, in 10 years, “most residential systems will be replaced for more efficient panels, so (we will) all want to be prepared to handle those (older panels),” said Brackin, the natural resources agency spokesperson.

The landfill might be an option. Or it might not.

“Businesses who have solar panel waste are considered regulated and must determine whether or not the panels are hazardous,” Brackin said, adding that state or local waste entities can help and that Good Point Recycling in Middlebury is willing to take decommissioned panels.

The federal government says the most common reason a scrapped panel can be considered hazardous waste is if a toxicity test determines its materials can leach into landfills. But the Agency of Natural Resourc- es doesn’t do that kind of testing.

Vermont is considering two paths to achieving a robust solar recycling program: an effort between the industry and the state to work toward a universal program, and a bill putting recycling responsibility on solar installers. Smith said no one wants to take on the cost of recycling, which is why she calls the situation a “real hot-potato.”

The first option is an explorative initiative by the Agency of Natural Resources alongside Renewable Energy Vermont. The parties are looking at options for reuse or recycling, such as shared warehouses between installers for scrap panels. But officials have no start date or specific recycling goals.

Rep. James Harrison, R-Rutland, offers a different approach, H.47, which would require every permit issued by the Public Utility Commission to include a plan to recycle panels when decommissioned.

The bill would also task the commission with setting guidelines for recycling programs. Harrison said he drafted the bill after a constituent asked him what they should do about solar waste.

But the measure has sat idle in committee.

Sterling’s group is proactive in dealing with solar waste, he said, but in his mind it’s a small problem compared to fossil fuels.

“What are we going to do in 20 years when we need to recycle a solar panel versus the problem (of climate change)?” he asked. “Let’s be honest: What we’re doing now is killing our planet.”