AMHERST — A 9.35-megawatt solar project once proposed for a 41-acre wooded site on Shutesbury Road would have provided climate benefits, but at some cost to the values of nearby homes and compromises to existing ecosystems, according to researchers at the University of Massachusetts.
In a paper to be published in the Land Use Policy journal in November, the researchers determined there would be reduced greenhouse gas emissions within the first year, even with the felled trees, and the financial benefits, based on a 20-year cost-benefit analysis, would net between $2.7 million and $12.7 million. That is based on carbon pricing and assumptions for similar projects brought to the northeast.
The property value losses, though, were determined to be the single largest cost in the “all impacts” scenario, accounting for more than 70% of total impacts. Homes within six-tenths of a mile of a project site were estimated to lose about 2% of their value, a figure based on previous housing studies in Massachusetts and Rhode Island
“From a societal-level perspective, you have positive net benefits, but a lot of the costs are borne by local actors,” lead author Christine L. Crago, associate professor in the Department of Resource Economics and the Commonwealth Honors College, said in a statement. “So, we have to balance our societal goals with the harm on these local communities.”
Crago co-authored the paper with Richard W. Harper, extension professor of urban and community forestry, and Maryam Feyzollahi, a doctoral student in resource economics.
The UMass study was done as a trend of clearing forests for large-scale solar projects continues, with half of the recent forest loss in Massachusetts attributed to suhh development.
The Amherst project, proposed by solar developer PureSky, was to be built along the town’s border with Pelham, but was withdrawn in April after several Zoning Board of Appeals hearings over an 18-month period. The same company had also proposed using close to 200 acres of woodlands in Shutesbury for five solar projects, though those have also been put on pause after a lawsuit against the town’s zoning regulations was dismissed.
The cost-benefit analysis the researchers did for the land situated at 187 and 201 Shutesbury Road included examining the reduced carbon dioxide emissions coming from replacing fossil fuels, as well as the lowered property values near the site and the lost carbon storage and sequestration from trees. The researchers also acknowledge diminished ecosystem services, such as air filtration and flood protection.
Yet they found the carbon “break-even” point, when emissions avoided by solar power surpass those released by cutting down trees, occurs within the first year of operation. Over 20 years, the avoided emissions could exceed $4 million, at standard carbon pricing levels.
“This study highlights an ongoing discussion about balancing renewable energy development with local resources management,” Harper said. “It has application for residents, professionals and decision-makers throughout Massachusetts, the New England region and beyond.”
Policymakers, the paper notes, should consider compensation mechanisms, such as community benefit agreements, to offset the impacts to nearby residents. The researchers also caution that the analysis excluded some factors that could not be quantified, such as the specifics of how groundwater is affected and wildlife is disrupted, which could be significant in certain locations.
“These issues are still enough to hamper a project, as we saw in this (Amherst) case and in many others,” said Crago, who is also a faculty affiliate of ELEVATE, a graduate training and research program focusing on technical, social and climate challenges in the energy transition. “So, we have to find ways to address those concerns if we’re to move forward with solar deployment that is equitable.”