Washington County farmers, elected leaders gather to discuss issues
With many farmers in the region already benefiting financially from natural gas drilling on their property, a difference source of energy could soon be offering a new revenue stream for them.
Solar farms are becoming an increasingly popular way to lease unused or unprofitable portions of land to support the growing renewable energy industry.
But with it – along with any form of energy – comes concerns about possible legacy costs if the solar panels and their support structures aren’t removed by the companies at the end of their life cycle.
Solar energy made for one of the more lively topics Wednesday morning during the Washington County Farm Bureau’s annual meeting held at the West Bethlehem Township cattle farm owned by Les and Nancy Midla. Don Carter broached the issue – among many others – and explained to the group of more than 30 farmers and county and state officials how the state Legislature is considering a law that would require bonds for solar companies to guarantee that the panels and structures be removed as part of a “decommissioning” process when a lease expires.
“We’re asking everyone to be careful because there are no protections for landowners right now,” Carter said.
Senate Bill 211, sponsored by Gene Yaw, who is a Williamsport area Republican senator, would add a bond to commercial solar energy contracts to ensure that the equipment is removed and dismantled appropriately when the contract ends. The Senate passed it out of its chamber in March, and state Rep. Tim O’Neal, R-North Strabane, who attended the farm bureau meeting, said there is a companion bill in the House to consider adding a layer of protection for property owners so the equipment doesn’t become a permanent fixture on their land.
“It just protects the landowner for the end of the contract and doesn’t lock them in for perpetuity,” O’Neal told the group during the discussion. “Just because you think it’s a good idea today … doesn’t mean you think it’ll be a good idea 30 years from now. Without a plan to transition your land (back) you’re kinda stuck.”
That brought up a question from state Rep. Arvind Venkat, a Democrat from the North Hills who also attended the meeting, about the size of bonds that are attached to other energy industries.
“Not to be a gotcha question, but how does it compare to the bonding for fracking?” Venkat asked.
That led to a friendly back-and-forth discussion between O’Neal and Venkat on the issue as the group around them listened intently. O’Neal acknowledged that it was an “excellent point” to compare the bonds for the two industries, although he was unsure the exact details of either.
“It often comes up that you’re ‘anti-solar’ or ‘pro-solar.’ It’s much more nuanced than that,” O’Neal said. “The bonding is there to protect the land and the property owner.”
After the meeting, Venkat said he was unfamiliar with Senate Bill 211’s companion in the House, but planned to look into the subject.
“I don’t care if it’s solar, natural gas or whatever, we need to protect property rights and the land,” Venkat said.
The two-hour long meeting also touched on a variety of other topics, such as Marcellus Shale impact fee money, wastewater runoff issues and deer population control measures.