[Editor’s Note: Utility-scale solar development – historically encouraged under North Carolina renewable energy policy – continues to challenge state and local policymakers when faced with siting and permitting decisions that impact use of local resources such as farmland and forest land. This piece below was written to contribute to information-gathering on local concerns to identify areas of research. Links refer to treatment of the subject of solar development by the author and others. The observations below are the author’s first person impressions of what he heard at the hearing; the minutes do not yet appear to be published.]

On a Monday in February I drove out to Halifax County, North Carolina – at a farmer’s invitation – to witness a legislative hearing on proposed changes to that county’s unified development ordinance (UDO) provisions related to utility-scale solar development. As a member of the Carolinas Development and Assistance Siting Hub project – and a career student of land use in agriculture and forestry – I was eager to witness the public-record testimony to illustrate the concerns on solar development in the county.

Most of my research and experience in renewable energy concerns landowner leasing decisions and due diligence. I have also monitored and reported on the Department of Environmental Quality’s HB321 study on decommissioning and waste management, and have dabbled in some property tax impact analysis. 

The Halifax County Board of Commissioners (BOC) had passed a resolution in October to direct the county planning board to make recommendations on any policy changes related to siting and permitting of solar energy systems (SES). At that time, the BOC placed a temporary moratorium on approval of special use permits (SUPs) for new SES.

The main item of consideration before the commissioners – an idea whose origin I’m still unaware – and had not been recommended to the Commissioners for approval: a one mile “no further solar development” radius buffer around each approved project. The proposed amendment read as follows:

The solar array of a proposed level 2 or 3 SES facility shall not be located nearer than one mile from the solar array of another level 2 or 3 SES facility that is already under development or in operation.

With such a buffer, the siting and permitting of one project would determine the economic land use fortunes of those parcels within a mile of the permitted site. 

The temporary moratorium itself – enacted on October 21, 2024 – was set to expire on the morning after the hearing. Prior to the legislative session of the BOC, the county attorney made short explanatory comments that in reading the statute that authorizes such temporary moratoria (N.C.G.S. §160D-107), he had determined that the situation concerning SE siting was not “egregious enough” (his words) to justify extending the moratorium. (Such moratoria are authorized to counties under N.C.G.S. §106D-107, with the limitation that such moratorium “shall be reasonable in light of the specific conditions that warrant imposition of the moratorium and may not exceed the period of time necessary to correct, modify, or resolve such conditions.”)

Also on the agenda was proposed adoption of the relatively new decommissioning standards adopted by the NC General Assembly in 2023 (N.C.G.S. § 130A‑309.240). Halifax County’s UDO contained rudimentary decommission language, now clarified by statewide decommissioning policy. That decommission statute sets down requirements for site restoration, a requirement for recycling, and a requirement for financial surety to guarantee payment of decommissioning costs.

The atmosphere of the hearing – full but everyone seated – was in some measures observational, punctuated with impassioned testimony. Most people were there to observe it seemed, some were prepared to speak, some others motivated in the moment from what they were hearing. The eighteen or so witnesses brought color to local perceptions on the promise and peril of utility-scale solar development. 

The witnesses all gave their names and residencies as required to speak, so those and their comments are a matter of public record. Their testimony, in brief from my notes, goes like this: 

• The mayor of the small town of Scotland Neck supported a continuation of the current moratorium. His is a district rich in farmland soils.
• Town councilman from Enfield speaks against the “one mile radius” idea, concerned about its restriction on landowner rights, and the economic development prospects of the Town of Enfield. Here is the first reference to the radius as a “dead zone.”
• The owner of a local cotton gin with her young daughter, who adorably reports her internet research that the solar panels are “made in China.” Her mother is concerned about the loss of land in farming, but also makes first notable mention of lack of “local benefit.” This will be a recurring theme (Theme One), both from those more and less favorable to development. Her pull quote: “You can’t eat solar panels.”
• An area forester, imploring the commissioners (and turning to implore the audience) to do more investigation of research. His is first mention of “agrivoltaics,” and a wish list for more research on impacts of utility-scale solar on biodiversity, soil health, and water quality. Here is the first mention that landowners who sign leases and benefit economically do not live in Halifax County (Theme Two).
• Lawyer from Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), representing the town of Enfield. I’m realizing now there is a “local benefit” project plan for a solar development that would be owned by and supply electricity to Enfield residents, partially in answer to high retail electricity prices (Theme Three). I am told by the farmer they are pursuing a federal grant. The SELC lawyer explains that the one mile radius “dead zone” could potentially deny Enfield’s ability to locate a facility outside of town limits. (This will be addressed later.)
• My notes fail to identify the witness, but they express frustration that the electricity generated by a solar facility in Halifax is transmitted out of Halifax, and electricity bills are not going lower. 
• Next witness revisits the theme of foreign supply of solar panels, referring to a new company project in Greenville (Pitt County) producing solar panels. “Yes, it is a Vietnamese company,” he says, “but the workers are here!” (The company is Boviet Solar.)
• A landowner steps up to the rostrum, he resides in Wilmington; he is known to my farmer companion. He opposes the one mile radius buffer with the argument that such a restriction will prevent families from earning “generational wealth.” His statement: “Landowners should have the right to make decisions for their families.” (This is Theme Four.) For first time, a reference to increase in property tax revenue generated by land that is removed from the “land use program” (presumably Present Use Value.)
• Another SELC lawyer (there are three). Speaks on behalf of Enfield, points to research on adequate landfill capacity, an issue that hadn’t been raised. But the issue has been studied by the Department of Environmental Quality.
• Third SELC lawyer. Also addresses solid waste management with the statement that there has been a “massive expansion” in the decommissioned solar materials recycling industry. He claims that decommissioning costs could go into the negative. This is the first time I have heard this claim.
• The first and only solar developer steps forward, supports lifting the moratorium (which turns out is not on legislative agenda and would expire automatically next morning). He opposes the one mile buffer. I hear the phrases “thirty year commitment to the county,” and “tax base will increase.” And then: a pitch for agri voltaics and sheep grazing, and the benefits of pollinator habitat to combat the decline of bees, and the practice or intent of planting of native grasses to improve soil conditions. He notes that they provide training to the local fire departments.
• The Scotland Neck farmer who had alerted me to the hearing, and who has come prepared with some novel language for consideration, paraphrased that for a solar developer applicant to qualify for a special use permit, the applicant must attach (my loose phrasing) “a report on strategies to mitigate economic loss of farmland.” And he supports the one-mile radius idea.
• The next witness returns to the theme of lack of local benefit, and asks why power bills are not going down (but notes need to protect landowner rights). 
• A woman steps forward to describe living next to a solar facility in development, and that the trucks are speeding. At some point I hear a witness say that the facilities channel where the deer cross the road, to which the next responds that they also run across the road when it’s just woods.
• The last witness is the mayor of Enfield, who expresses concern for power bills and the burden on elderly residents. Asks succinctly: “How will these solar facilities benefit us directly in Halifax County?” 

To my ears, the testimony in total can be summed up as follows: “Why should Halifax County sacrifice its resources – its farm and forest land, its peace – when residents receive no benefit in the form of lower rates.” To the witnesses, the quest for renewable energy to diminish fossil fuel consumption is never mentioned, even by the advocates for development.

The four themes of testimony, noted above, were:

One: There is no discernible benefit to local residents at large for sacrificing farmland.

Two: Concern that the benefit of lease payments goes to those who own the land, but do not live (and perhaps spend?) in Halifax County.

Three: Electricity production does not accrue to direct benefit of local residents in the form of lower electricity prices.

Four: One who owns property should have a right to accrue the greatest benefit from it.

The commissioners express their views, with one particular member expressing concern over the tension between protection of agricultural soils and private property rights. At the vote, his will be the only one in favor of the one-mile radius, explaining that the Town of Enfield could annex land and bring an SES project under their zoning control.