Solar series, part III: Debate over agricultural land for solar energy heats up, cools down

It would seem that, as a result of media coverage, counties discussions, presentations to council members across the region, and the regular arrival of new projects, the term 'solar energy' has entered the vocabulary of Eastern Ontario and is now here to stay.

In that respect, the year 2009 may be looked back upon as a milestone for solar energy development in the region, for it witnessed the arrival of large-scale development on agricultural land and, in the process, set off a tumultuous discussion over its belonging - one that led to significant changes in the provincial Green Energy Act.

Last February, in East Hawkesbury, local support was growing steadily for a group of St-Eugene farmers rallying against an Ottawa-based solar development company. The 11 farmers - backed by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) - had taken issue with a slated 300-acre solar panel project as it was being planned on "prime farmland," something the group considered scarce, and due to concerns over stray voltage.

While the group argued the project could be built on a rooftop, or on more marginal land, the firm behind the project, Solaris Energy Partners - who later sold it to Enfinity Canada - countered that the farmland it had purchased for the project was certified class 3, and that they would allow sheep to graze on the site.

As interest grew in the case across the province, the OFA added its voice to the debate, saying solar development had its place - but only on class 5, 6, and 7 farmlands.

"Ontario farmers have access to only 13 per cent of the private land in Ontario for production of food, fiber, and we don't want to lose any of that to the installation of solar panels," OFA vice-president Don McCabe wrote in a press release.

The East Hawkesbury debate eventually came to a close after an Ontario Municipal Board hearing last June ruled indefinitely on the development's future, allowing it to go ahead with some modifications. Visual barriers, such as hedgerows and berms, were to be installed while livestock would not be permitted to graze on the site.

Although noting they were pleased with the modifications, the St-Eugene residents released a statement saying the ruling was not a settlement: "Solaris did not have to build on prime farmland. They chose to. Through allowing the land severance to proceed, without notifying residents, the United Counties of Prescott Russell has opened the door for more of these power plants to come and set up shop."

Since that time, a handful of other sizeable solar projects have indeed been announced or completed in Eastern Ontario. However, the East Hawkesbury case was influential in sparking significant revisions to the Green Energy Act, the provincial bill that sets the guidelines and price schedule for renewable energy in Ontario.

Following these revisions, which apply to all renewable energy projects approved after October 1, 2009, the Green Energy Act now specifies that large-scale solar projects are not permitted on class 1 and 2 farmlands and are limited on class 3 farmland.

Under the new Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) rules, the government directed the Ontario Power Authority to prohibit ground-mounted solar development above 100 kilowatts on class 1 and 2 lands and speciality crop areas, while projects of up to 500 megawatts would be permitted on class 3 designations. The East Hawkesbury project was approved under the original Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program (RESOP).

"These restrictions may preclude development in some of Ontario's sunniest locations," the Ontario government wrote in the accompanying press release.

Premier Dalton McGuinty was soon quoted as saying, "We're going to do a much better job of harnessing energy from the sun and biomass (and) at the same time not compromise quality of life or the environment and not compromise our access to good farmland as well."

Elizabeth McDonald, president of the Canadian Solar Industries Association, countered, "All we've said we need is 0.11 per cent of the agricultural land in Ontario [about 20,000 acres], and much of this land isn't being used right now (for farming)."

McDonald also said that solar industry developers are not asking the government to allow development in the protected Greenbelt land.

Jon Kieran, director of solar development at EDF EN Canada - the company responsible for solar projects in Fournier and West Carleton - said the farmers and residents his company has discussed the issue with have been "extremely favourable" to the idea of solar energy on farmland. In fact, he added, farmers with class 1 and 2 lands have expressed their disappointment to the company in light of the government ruling, as they no longer have the option to lease their lands for profit.

"The issue of using agricultural land for solar projects is informed by the following three observations," wrote Kieran, in an e-mail last month. "All the Class 1/2/3 land used for all RESOP projects in Ontario (e.g. 525 megawatts) - should they ever all be built - would represent one-tenth of one per cent of available lands in Ontario; solar projects typically lease land, which means the land will be returned to farming (in a more nutritional state) at the expiration of incentive programs; and most Ontario farmers tell us they wish to protect their entitlement to develop their private property as they best see fit."

Kieran elaborated further during a phone conversation: "There's been a lot of concern expressed [over the use of agricultural land] but I want to be very clear - the concern is from the farming community, that (the government) has moved too quickly to remove opportunities for family farms to participate in the program.

"It's an example of a position that was taken that did not include a representation, resulting in a policy that does more than disadvantage the family farm; now, there is no option to diversify income, by leasing land, and I can be clear that the farmers that we have worked with have [appreciated] the idea, to rotate and improve the quality of the land while we grow solar and (eventually) return the land. It is disappointing to us and the farmers involved."

Robin Hutcheson, press liaison for Solaris Energy Partners, told The Review last December that events surrounding the East Hawkesbury project were "the worst scenario for public opposition" in his experience and had "gone on long enough." The latter comment referred to an old farmhouse that was vandalized at the project site in October.

In any case, it seems the debate surrounding the East Hawkesbury case was not only instrumental in determining the outcome of solar energy development in the province, but that it is also a debate not likely to be reopened in the near future.

Asked about his interpretation of public opinion surrounding the West Carleton solar development, 60 kilometres west of Ottawa, journalist Derek Dunn said the local population was generally pleased with the landowner's success and that the only opponent was a neighbour - who simply confided that he would have also liked to sign a deal with the solar company.

"My overall impression has been that people in this area are interested in the science," said Dunn, who writes for the Arnprior Chronicle-Guide. "Most of the questions, whenever I talked to people at open houses, were 'How much money can be made off it?' The political stuff hasn't come up at all."

"I don't know why solar hasn't been that big of a deal."