NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Overview of Opportunities for 

Co-Location of Solar Energy 

Technologies and Vegetation

Jordan Macknick, Brenda Beatty, and Graham Hill

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-60240

December 2013
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Overview of Opportunities for 

Co-Location of Solar Energy 

Technologies and Vegetation

Jordan Macknick, Brenda Beatty, and Graham Hill

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Prepared under Task No. WUR3.1000

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-60240

December 2013
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 

16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
iii

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy (EERE) and the Solar Energy Technologies Program (SETP). The 

authors wish to thank the following individuals for their thoughtful comments, input, and review 

of the document in its various stages: Alex Daue, The Wilderness Society; David Buckner, 

ESCO Associates Inc.; Paul Denhom, Scott Gossett, Maggie Mann, Sean Ong, Tom Ryon, and 

especially Laura Vimmerstedt (NREL). In addition, the authors appreciate the assistance and onsite guidance in Massachusetts from Michael Lehan, Rich Hahn, Stephen Herbert, and Alan 

Lutenegger. We express overwhelming gratitude to and draw inspiration from David Marley and 

his family for their dedication and contribution to this issue. We also wish to thank Mary 

Lukkonen of NREL for her editorial support.
iv

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Executive Summary

Large-scale solar facilities have the potential to contribute significantly to national electricity 

production. Many solar installations are large-scale or utility-scale, with a capacity over 1 MW 

and connected directly to the electric grid. Large-scale solar facilities offer an opportunity to 

achieve economies of scale in solar deployment, yet there have been concerns about the amount 

of land required for solar projects and the impact of solar projects on local habitat. During the 

site preparation phase for utility-scale solar facilities, developers often grade land and remove all 

vegetation to minimize installation and operational costs, prevent plants from shading panels, 

and minimize potential fire or wildlife risks. However, the common site preparation practice of 

removing vegetation can be avoided in certain circumstances, and there have been successful 

examples where solar facilities have been co-located with agricultural operations or have native 

vegetation growing beneath the panels. In this study we outline some of the impacts large-scale 

solar facilities can have on the local environment, provide examples of installations where 

impacts have been minimized through co-location with vegetation, characterize the types of colocation, and give an overview of the potential benefits from co-location of solar energy projects 

and vegetation. The varieties of co-location can be replicated or modified for site-specific use at 

other solar energy installations around the world. We conclude with opportunities to improve 

upon our understanding of ways to reduce the environmental impacts of large-scale 

solar installations. 
v

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Land-Use and Environmental Impacts of Solar Projects ................................................................. 2

2.1 Land Requirements of Solar Energy Installations........................................................................... 2

2.2 Environmental Impacts of Common Industry Practices in Solar Development .............................. 2

3 Opportunities for Co-Location of Solar Energy and Vegetation ..................................................... 5

3.1 Vegetation-Centric Approaches to Co-Location.............................................................................. 5

3.1.1 Examples of Vegetation-Centric Approaches to Co-Location.......................................... 5

3.2 Energy-Centric Approaches to Co-Location.................................................................................... 6

3.2.1 Examples of Energy-Centric Approaches to Co-Location................................................ 6

3.3 Integrated Vegetation-Energy-Centric Approaches to Co-Location............................................... 8

3.3.1 Examples of Integrated Vegetation-Energy-Centric Approaches to Co-Location............ 8

3.4 Summary of Opportunities for Co-Location of Solar Energy and Vegetation by Land-Use Type 10

4 Benefits of Co-Location of Solar Energy and Vegetation .............................................................. 11

4.1 Benefits to Solar Energy Projects.................................................................................................. 11

4.2 Benefits to Land-Use Activities and Agriculture........................................................................... 12

5 Discussion........................................................................................................................................... 13

6 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 15

7 References .......................................................................................................................................... 16
1

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

1 Introduction

Large-scale solar facilities have the potential to contribute significantly to national electricity 

production (Mehos et al. 2009; DOE 2012). The industry already is expanding rapidly, with 

more than 3.1 gigawatts (GW) of solar projects operating in 2012 and more than 30 GW of solar 

projects under construction or under development (SEIA 2013). Many of the solar installations 

are “large-scale” or “utility-scale,” with a capacity over 1 MW and connected directly to the 

electric grid (SEIA 2013). Large-scale solar facilities offer an opportunity to achieve economies 

of scale in solar deployment and have been the focus of a federal-level siting process to facilitate 

deployment on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property (BLM/DOE 2012). Under the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) SunShot program, utility-scale solar installations are projected to 

result in the cumulative installation of approximately 302 GW of photovoltaic (PV) and 28 GW 

of concentrating solar power (CSP) by 2030 and 632 GW of PV and 83 GW of CSP by 2050 

(DOE 2012). There have been concerns about the amount of land required for solar projects 

because of the potential impact on wildlife habitat, critical habitat for threatened or endangered 

species, and agricultural land availability (Brown and Whitney 2011). The DOE SunShot 

program level of utility-scale solar electricity use would require 900,000–2,700,000 acres of land 

by 2030 and 2,100,000–6,200,000 acres of land by 2050 (DOE 2012). 

During the site preparation phase for utility-scale solar facilities, developers often grade land and 

remove all vegetation to minimize installation and operational costs, prevent plants (including 

crops) from shading panels, and minimize potential fire or wildlife risks (BLM/DOE 2012). 

However, the common site preparation practice of removing vegetation can be avoided in certain 

circumstances, and there have been successful examples where solar facilities are co-located 

with agricultural operations or have native vegetation growing beneath the panels. In this study 

we outline some of the impacts large-scale solar facilities can have on the local environment, 

provide examples of installations where impacts have been minimized through co-location with 

vegetation, characterize the types of co-location, and give an overview of the potential benefits 

from co-location of solar energy projects and vegetation. The varieties of co-location can be 

replicated or modified for site-specific use at other solar energy installations around the world. 

We conclude with opportunities to improve upon our understanding of ways to reduce the 

environmental impacts of large-scale solar installations. 
2

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2 Land-Use and Environmental Impacts of 

Solar Projects

The local environmental impact of solar installations can be characterized in terms of the total 

land area required, the site preparation impacts, and the operations impacts.

2.1 Land Requirements of Solar Energy Installations

Many studies have attempted to quantify the land-use requirements for large-scale solar 

installations (Fthenakis and Kim 2009; Brown and Whitney 2011; BLM/DOE 2012; Ong et al. 

2013). A variety of methods and metrics is possible; some reports address only land directly 

affected by an installation (e.g., land directly occupied by solar arrays, access roads, substations, 

service buildings, and other infrastructure), whereas others consider the total area enclosed by the 

solar power plant boundary (Ong et al. 2013). In addition, some studies present values in terms 

of land area use per unit of energy generation (e.g., gigawatt-hours [GWh]), whereas other 

studies provide values in terms of land area use per unit of capacity (e.g., MW). In general, 

comparing across energy types for power plants, PV facilities require less land area than biomass 

operations but may require more land than natural gas, CSP, coal, geothermal, and nuclear 

facilities1 (Brown and Whitney 2011). The range of land use is approximately 3–9 

acres/GWh/yr, or 5–10 acres/MW (BLM/DOE 2012; Ong et al. 2013). Thus, a 20 MW solar 

facility could occupy up to 200 acres, given current technology and practices. Under scenarios 

developed by the BLM and the Department of Energy as part of the Solar Energy Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), expected deployment of solar power on public lands 

over the next 20 years could require 214,000 acres (BLM/DOE 2012) . Most studies consider 

land taken up by large-scale solar projects to be single-use, meaning the land is unavailable for 

any other use. This is largely due to current standard construction practices at large-scale 

solar facilities.

Another key issue is the location of future solar energy installations. Based on abundance of

sunlight and available land, the BLM has identified several Western states with semi-arid to arid 

climates as feasible for future solar energy installations. These Solar Energy Zones (SEZ) have 

special status to encourage quick deployment of large-scale solar installations (BLM/DOE 2012). 

While public land space is abundant, many of these areas are deserts with thin upper soil 

horizons, low soil fertility, and low levels of rainfall. These lands may not be ideal for 

agricultural use but may serve important wildlife habitat, recreation, and cultural functions. 

Additional large-scale solar development is taking place in other locations throughout the United 

States, primarily on private land (SEIA 2013). Development of solar projects on these lands and 

other lands not yet identified, using current industry practices, may impair existing ecosystem, 

recreation, and cultural functions.

2.2 Environmental Impacts of Common Industry Practices in 

Solar Development

A typical large acreage solar array installation can have substantial impacts on the ecosystem in 

which it is built. Current installation and operation practices often render large expanses of land 

 1 This is only for the power plant structure and does not include land required for fuel extraction for coal, natural 

gas, or nuclear technologies. For a detailed treatment, see Fthenakis and Kim (2009). 
3

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

unusable for wildlife (Tsoutsos et al. 2005; BLM/DOE 2012). Site preparation activities include 

land grading, vegetation removal, soil sterilization, and adding gravel cover beneath the array 

(Figure 1). This, in turn, leads to long-term herbicide use to prevent regrowth of vegetation 

cover. Developers employ these practices to minimize risk of fires, pests, and shading 

from vegetation. 

Current site preparation and construction practices for utility-scale solar projects lead to direct 

environmental impacts (e.g., soil disturbance, habitat loss, habitat and fragmentation, wildlife 

mortality, spread of invasive species) as well as indirect environmental impacts (e.g., changes in 

surface water quality due to soil erosion at the construction site, degradation of habitat from 

construction in adjacent areas, herbicide drift into adjacent habitat), which may lead to long-term 

permanent damage (BLM/DOE 2012). Long-term permanent damage could include the spread of 

desertification, impaired precipitation infiltration due to soil compaction, a permanent decrease 

in viable soil depth, reduction in biodiversity, and an inability to control weed growth at solar 

sites (Hill 2010). Most projects completely clear vegetation and grade land prior to construction, 

cover areas with gravel, and then use water to suppress dust; these activities lead to the need for 

environmental mitigation (BLM/DOE 2012). In fragile desert ecosystems where many future 

solar installations are planned, these impacts can have a greater effect, further emphasizing the 

importance of careful siting to limit impacts.

In addition, gravel underlayment may contribute to a heat island effect, potentially reducing the 

efficiency and life span of PV panels (Skoplaki and Palyvos 2009). Use of vegetation beneath the 

array could help reduce ambient air temperatures by creating a cooler microclimate (Shashua-Bar 

et al. 2006; Hill 2010). 

Figure 1. Typical solar array installation showing land grading and vegetation removal. Photo by 

Brenda Beatty, NREL

There has been minimal research regarding the potential for large-scale solar facilities to be colocated with agriculture or native vegetation. Certain renewable technologies, such as wind 

power, are commonly deployed in agricultural areas with little impact on farming activities, yet 

solar technologies have not yet seen similar developments (Holmes and Papay 2011; Beckman 

and Xiarchos 2013). There are a variety of ways in which environmental impacts from solar 
4

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

development can be reduced or eliminated through site selection, site preparation, and revegetation activities. Impacts on local agriculture and wildlife habitat could be minimized by 

utilizing already degraded, contaminated, or marginal lands that might not sustain viable wildlife 

populations or be considered for agriculture production (Mosey and van Geet 2010; Steen et al. 

2013). In addition, large-scale solar facilities can be configured in various ways to minimize 

impacts on the environment and surrounding land (Denholm and Margolis 2008). In some cases, 

re-vegetation after solar site preparation could be utilized to return disturbed agricultural land 

and disturbed solar construction land to suitable habitat for identified critical flora and fauna, 

thus improving the quality of the land (Althouse and Meade 2011). In addition to these 

mitigation techniques, environmental impacts can be avoided through integrated planning of 

solar energy and vegetation, also known as co-location. 
5

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3 Opportunities for Co-Location of Solar Energy 

and Vegetation 

There are opportunities for large-scale solar energy installations to reduce environmental impacts 

and environmental mitigation costs through co-location with vegetation. Co-location can be 

defined as the deliberate production of vegetation and energy in a single location. Vegetation 

production might occur under or around energy infrastructure. Opportunities and approaches to 

co-location can be characterized as vegetation-centric, energy-centric, and integrated vegetationenergy-centric. 

3.1 Vegetation-Centric Approaches to Co-Location

Vegetation-centric approaches to co-location of solar energy and vegetation are characterized by 

actions that serve to maximize biomass production activities and minimize changes to existing 

vegetation management activities, while also incorporating solar energy production activities. 

Vegetation-centric approaches may be well suited to areas that are land constrained (e.g., the 

northeast United States) or that are already developed agricultural areas. The basic premise is 

that the vegetation productivity of the land being utilized is not sacrificed for the sake of solar 

generation. Ideally, the placement of solar energy infrastructure does not substantially alter the 

standard vegetation management practices. Solar energy technologies can be strategically placed 

in the vegetated area to provide electricity without substantially affecting vegetation yields. As 

there are a variety of vegetation types (e.g., agriculture crops, scrubland, desert, grazing land), 

there are different strategies that can be employed to accommodate different vegetation types. 

3.1.1 Examples of Vegetation-Centric Approaches to Co-Location

Both research studies and commercial agricultural operations demonstrate that solar technologies 

can be compatible with harvestable crops by modifying panel height and spacing such that 

harvestable crops can thrive between them.

The University of Massachusetts-Amherst, with assistance from local consulting and 

construction firms, has developed a series of experimental test plots with elevated PV panels that 

allow crops to grow underneath (Merzbach 2011) (Figure 2). 

Figure 2. Pasture crops growing under elevated PV panels in Massachusetts. Photo from Stephen

Herbert, University of Massachusetts
6

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

The team has experimented with various spacing lengths between panels and poles within rows 

as well as distances between rows of panels, panel heights, pole depths, and techniques to 

improve resilience against high winds. In addition, the team has evaluated yield variation for 

pasture crops, corn, and barley. 

In a commercial operation, the Convergence Energy Solar Farm in Delavan, Wisconsin, grows 

sunflowers intended for biofuel production under elevated solar panels (Content 2011). 

The above facilities provide examples of solar technologies being utilized and designed to allow 

for harvestable crops to thrive under and between panels. In these cases, returns from agricultural 

production are considered to be of equal or greater importance than solar production. For these 

types of systems, more research is required to determine economic tradeoffs associated with 

solar density and configurations, crop types, crop production practices, and location of 

the project.

3.2 Energy-Centric Approaches to Co-Location

Energy-centric approaches to co-location of solar energy developments and vegetation are 

characterized by actions that serve to maximize solar energy output, minimize changes to solar 

development standard practices, while also promoting vegetation growth under and around the 

solar installation. Ideally, energy-centric approaches to co-location do not lead to a reduction in 

expected solar energy output. Energy-centric approaches may be well suited to areas with high 

quantities of land targeted for solar energy development or areas where solar development has 

already occurred. Certain types of low-height grasses, agricultural crops, and nursery plants can 

thrive in low sunlight conditions underneath solar energy technologies and would not require 

large machinery for harvesting. As there are different sizes of solar installations, certain 

vegetation activities may be more suitable for smaller solar projects (e.g., agricultural crops 

could be grown on installations smaller than 1 MW) or larger solar projects (e.g., low-height 

grasses could be grown on larger installations over 1 MW). 

3.2.1 Examples of Energy-Centric Approaches to Co-Location 

Energy-centric approaches to co-location have been tested on larger commercial and utility-scale 

solar installations. In many cases, co-location interventions have occurred after the initial site 

preparation already occurred and thus involved substantial re-vegetation activities. These efforts, 

some of them ongoing, have demonstrated that low-height vegetation can thrive in the low 

sunlight conditions underneath solar energy infrastructure. 

In 2009, SunEdison installed a 1.1 MW PV tracking array at the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory’s (NREL) 305-acre National Wind Technology Center (NWTC), the nation’s 

principal research site for wind power and distributed energy resources with large expanses of 

open land suitable for solar development and research. Because the PV array was installed and 

configured similar to standard industry practices, the land was cleared of native vegetation and 

leveled before construction began. However, as part of its sustainability policy, NREL requires 

re-vegetation following any ground disturbance activities onsite. In 2010, NREL initiated a 

three-year re-vegetation test to assess the relative effectiveness of various seeding and mulching 

combinations in the vicinity of this PV installation (Beatty et al. 2012) (Figure 3). 
7

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 3. PV panels and vegetation at NREL site. Photo by Jordan Macknick, NREL

Typically, re-vegetation at NREL would be done using a seed mix containing native grassland 

species found elsewhere on NREL’s campus. However, because shading from the solar panels 

could have impaired the ability of sun-loving prairie species to germinate and grow, NREL 

decided to assess the relative effectiveness of re-vegetation in partial shading conditions. The

seed mix included only native or adapted (non-invasive) drought-resistant species, seedlings that 

can establish without supplemental water, species that establish quickly to pre-empt undesirable 

weedy species, species that could not grow taller than, twine, or climb onto solar equipment, 

plants that produce adequate cover to control wind and water erosion, plants that would remain 

as short as possible (without mowing) to minimize the standing dead fuel load, and plants that 

would help restore wildlife habitat. Electrical lines were encased in conduit or otherwise 

protected from damage by small mammals. Initial results of the NREL research have provided 

insights into which types of native grasses grow best in the region under the partial shade 

conditions of a standard utility-scale PV system design (Beatty et al. 2012).

No information was found in the literature regarding studies conducted in the arid U.S. West to 

guide decisions regarding species selection or performance under solar energy technologies. 

Ongoing work in Italy has assessed impacts of PV systems on grass cultivation, soil temperature 

and quality, and other factors relevant to successful plant growth in that region (Carfagna 2010; 

de Vanna 2010; Zucconi 2010). To date, co-location has not been studied extensively in the 

United States, although there are a few promising ongoing studies and activities by the 

solar industry.

The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Final Environmental Impact Statement quantified 

a re-vegetation plan based on special-status plant species within the project area in California, 

taking into account various project activities and components, but no long-term findings exist yet

(BLM 2010). The Topaz Solar Farm in Paso Robles, California developed a plan to restore 

native grassland, encouraging the return of the San Joaquin kit fox, a mammalian keystone

species native to the area. The primary short-term goal for restoration and re-vegetation was to 
8

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

eliminate dust and erosion created by construction activities. The stable vegetated surface would 

then promote the long-term goal of creating native grassland stable enough to support prey and 

habitat for the keystone species (Althouse and Meade 2011).

3.3 Integrated Vegetation-Energy-Centric Approaches to 

Co-Location

In addition to vegetation-centric and energy-centric approaches to co-location of solar energy 

developments and vegetation, there are also hybrid approaches that seek to integrate both energy 

output and vegetation production goals. These types of approaches are characterized by 

incorporating both vegetation and energy priorities into system designs. Such integrated

approaches could potentially result in lower vegetation productivity or energy output than could 

be achieved without co-location, but provide additional benefits, including diversity of revenue 

streams, that make co-location activities desirable. There are a variety of opportunities to 

encourage both vegetation growth and solar energy production without major changes to system 

designs, though some integrated systems may involve alternative designs. Integrated energy and 

vegetation co-location activities could be suitable in areas with existing activities as well as in 

areas with unutilized land, in agricultural areas that are growing short or tall crops, and could 

provide an additional income stream or other benefits. 

3.3.1 Examples of Integrated Vegetation-Energy-Centric Approaches to 

Co-Location

A hybrid approach may involve changes to production methods for both vegetation and solar 

energy, ranging from substantial design changes to small changes. Developers, through choosing 

strategic locations, can reduce environmental and vegetation impacts of solar installations 

without substantial changes to panel density, height, and other design configurations. As an 

example, Roberts (2011) analyzed the potential for PV installation in the non-irrigated corners of 

center pivot irrigation fields in Colorado (Roberts 2011) (Figure 4).
9

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 4. Center-pivot irrigation envelopes with irrigated lands. Yellow areas show unused and 

non-irrigated lands that could be sites for solar energy technologies (Roberts 2011)

Installing PV in the non-utilized corners of Colorado’s agricultural areas could produce 

approximately 56,821 GWh of electricity each year, which is larger than Colorado’s electricity 

demand in 2010 (Roberts 2011; EIA 2012). This highlights the vast area of currently unutilized 

agricultural land, much of which could be used to produce solar energy without affecting 

agricultural production. Producing electricity on these unutilized agricultural lands would not 

require significant changes to PV system designs, other than restricting siting locations. Further 

work is needed to characterize the impact solar installations would have on agriculture output, 

along with operations and maintenance (O&M) issues that would need to be addressed. In 

addition, further research is required to understand how impacts of agricultural activities and 

machinery (e.g., dust, irrigation mist, machinery transportation) might affect solar 

energy generation. 
10

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3.4 Summary of Opportunities for Co-Location of Solar Energy and 

Vegetation by Land-Use Type

Energy-centric, vegetation-centric, and integrated vegetation-energy-centric approaches to colocation can be implemented in a variety of locations, yet due to different land areas, existing 

vegetation type, and desired vegetation type, one approach may be more appropriate in a certain 

location than another. Table 1 highlights opportunities for co-location approaches based on 

different land use types. 

Table 1. Opportunities for Co-Location of Solar Energy and Vegetation by Land-Use Type

Land-Use Types Co-Location Opportunities

Grazing/unused/

scrub/desert land

Energy Centric:

- Leave vegetation intact

- Plant short shade-tolerant crops

Vegetation Centric:

- Leave vegetation intact

- Plant mix of sun-loving and shade-tolerant crops

- Elevate solar infrastructure

- Space out solar infrastructure

- Continue/initiate grazing activities

Integrated Vegetation-Energy Centric:

- Leave vegetation intact

- Plant short shade-tolerant crops

- Elevate solar infrastructure

- Continue/initiate grazing activities

Agriculture (short

crops)

Energy Centric:

- Plant short shade-tolerant crops beneath and around solar infrastructure

Vegetation Centric:

- Plant mix of sun-loving and shade-tolerant crops

- Elevate solar infrastructure

- Space out solar infrastructure

Integrated Vegetation-Energy Centric:

- Plant mix of sun-loving and shade-tolerant crops

- Elevate solar infrastructure

Agriculture (tall

crops)

Energy Centric:

- Limited options

Vegetation Centric:

- Elevate solar infrastructure

- Space out solar infrastructure

- Plant mix of sun-loving and shade-tolerant crops

Integrated Vegetation-Energy Centric:

- Place solar infrastructure in non-utilized parts of agriculture land

- Elevate solar infrastructure
11

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4 Benefits of Co-Location of Solar Energy 

and Vegetation

Co-location of solar energy and vegetation can provide benefits to both solar developers as well 

as land managers, including farmers and ranchers. From a solar developer’s perspective, 

integrating vegetation into project design may not seem to be relevant or within the scope of 

common solar industry practices. Similarly, from a land manager’s perspective, solar energy 

technologies may not seem to be compatible with existing agricultural or other land-use 

activities. However, there can be substantial benefits associated with co-location for solar 

projects as well as agricultural projects. 

4.1 Benefits to Solar Energy Projects

Early results from the examples above indicate that there can potentially be cost and/or

performance benefits for solar projects that have integrated vegetation for site preparation, 

operational, and environmental mitigation activities. 

Site preparation methods that preserve native vegetation beneath solar technologies and do not 

grade land may have lower installation costs than standard site preparation activities that require 

heavy machinery and labor to remove vegetation and grade land, although there might be 

additional costs incurred from installing on ground having slopes greater than 1–5%. Installation 

costs may also vary for co-location depending on whether existing vegetation could remain or

new low-height native vegetation would have to be planted. More research could help quantify 

benefits for specific locations and solar system configurations.

Operational costs could also be lower for solar energy systems with integrated vegetation. Under 

current practices with no vegetation, labor is required for weeding in de-vegetated areas as well 

as dust suppression on gravel covered areas. Vegetation beneath the solar installation, if a proper 

height, would eliminate the need for dust suppression. Depending on local conditions and 

vegetation type, however, there could be some additional costs for height maintenance 

of vegetation. 

Many solar projects have been subject to environmental litigation due to perceived impacts on 

the environment (Glicksman 2011). By preserving or replanting native vegetation under a solar 

installation, solar developers might also reduce the likelihood of environmental litigation and

potentially reduce the need for some environmental mitigation options, such as purchasing 

additional conservation land. Early collaboration between developers and environmental 

scientists can serve to increase stakeholders’ understanding of the potential impacts of a solar 

installation, and might allow for design modifications to meet stakeholder needs early in the 

planning and development process. 

In addition, PV panels show increased performance under cooler temperatures (Skoplaki and 

Palyvos 2009). There is a potential for increased efficiencies and longevity of PV panels due to 

the microclimatic cooling effects that vegetation provides underneath the panels (Shashua-Bar et 

al. 2006). Verifying or quantifying this potential requires additional study.
12

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4.2 Benefits to Land-Use Activities and Agriculture

Co-location of solar installations and vegetation also has the potential to benefit agricultural 

areas, especially those where continuing agricultural production is a high priority. 

Incorporating solar technologies on existing grazing or agricultural land could provide an 

additional income stream to land owners and provide diversification of revenue for years when 

agricultural productivity is low or for crops that are relatively low value. Similar benefits have 

been demonstrated with wind developments on agricultural lands (Holmes and Papay 2011; 

Beckman and Xiarchos 2013). Depending on solar installation height and spacing, crops that are 

shade tolerant and low height may become suitable for production in an area, opening new 

markets for agricultural producers. In some cases, shade from solar infrastructure may reduce 

crop productivity. In a pasture landscape, elevated solar infrastructure could provide shade and 

cover for livestock while not having a substantial impact on productivity. Agricultural activities 

involving large machinery may have limited options for co-location. 

Incorporating elevated solar installation technologies above existing agricultural production land 

would allow for the continuation of agricultural activities on parcels of land, particularly if the 

solar infrastructure is elevated enough that the amount of light reaching the crops is not 

substantially reduced. Such modifications might be an important consideration in areas that have 

a long history of agriculture and where changes to land-use practices may encounter social 

opposition. Further study is necessary to determine cost and structural impacts of elevated 

solar infrastructure. 

In regions where critical habitat has been lost and where legally defined special status flora and 

fauna have been identified, improving natural vegetative land can help restore critical habitat 

endangered by previous agricultural activities and solar construction activities, helping to 

proactively address environmental regulations (Althouse and Meade 2011).
13

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5 Discussion

The co-location of solar energy facilities and vegetation can take a variety of forms that can have 

minimal to large impacts on solar energy and vegetation standard practices. At one extreme, 

solar energy installations, without modifying existing site preparation activities, can incorporate 

low-lying vegetation underneath the installation to mitigate environmental impacts. At the other 

extreme, certain agricultural areas can incorporate solar energy technologies in ways that 

preserve crop production or harvesting techniques but provide an additional source of electricity. 

In between, there are a variety of options for solar energy developers and vegetation producers to 

modify system designs to allow for greater levels of integration. In this emerging field, future 

research is required to provide greater clarity on potential benefits and tradeoffs. 

The benefits of co-location can be analyzed in the context of projected electricity and food 

requirements for the United States and for the world as a whole. Electricity demands are 

projected to increase, with renewable energy technologies likely to provide much of the new 

electricity generation. Certain renewable energy technologies, such as solar PV and 

concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies, can require larger amounts of land per unit of 

electricity produced, as compared with other non-renewable technologies. Meanwhile, an 

increasing population requires an increasing level of food production, and absent substantial 

changes in crop productivity, increasing areas of land to provide that food. Given the likelihood 

of large-scale solar development and the current solar industry practice of single use of land, 

large areas could be affected by PV and CSP systems, which could have an impact on agriculture 

and/or ecologically sensitive habitats in certain areas. Not every area will face similar land 

shortages or land conversion issues, but there is a potential for confrontations over best uses of 

land. There also is the opportunity to avoid these conflicts through smart siting and system 

configuration decisions made by integrating vegetation and energy production activities. 

Re-vegetating land underneath a solar installation can prevent the loss of soil carbon fixation 

capacity and wildlife habitat. By incorporating some degree of vegetation growth or agriculture 

in large-scale solar facilities, developers can reduce their environmental impact (and potentially 

vulnerability to litigation), often while not sacrificing electricity generation. Agricultural 

operations incorporating solar energy technologies can preserve land currently being used for 

agricultural purposes, generate additional income streams, and provide a renewable source of 

electricity for the electricity grid or their facility. 

Additional research could help quantify potential benefits and costs associated with different 

levels and types of co-location. Quantification of benefits and costs could allow solar developers 

and land managers to make more informed decisions regarding co-location and what options 

provide advantages over others. As a first step, the examples of co-location projects listed above 

could be replicated in multiple regions, with rigorous monitoring of results, to better understand 

regional differences in vegetation productivity and the economics of the solar production. For 

example, the methods and treatments utilized in the NREL study can readily be adapted and 

replicated in PV facilities under development (Beatty et al. 2012). 

For energy-centric approaches, research could help better understand how different system 

configurations impact cost and performance of the solar energy installation, how temperature 

changes may impact long-term efficiency and technology lifetime, the O&M cost differences 
14

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

associated with co-location and standard practices, the impacts of vegetation on dust levels and 

associated system performance, ideal plant species that could thrive under solar infrastructure, 

and the differences in construction costs associated with co-location options and 

standard practices. 

Regarding vegetation-centric approaches, future research could illuminate how different solar 

technology configurations (height, spacing of technologies) cast shade and how that affects crop 

productivity, the effects of soil moisture variability under large-scale solar installations, the ideal 

crops suitable for different regions under differing levels of shade, the amount of carbon 

sequestration that may occur by using vegetation rather than gravel beneath solar installations, 

the potential for bioenergy crops to be grown and harvested under different conditions, and the 

differences in construction costs. In addition, the effect of solar installations on maintaining or 

enhancing local biodiversity is also a viable area of future study. 

To best understand tradeoffs and other opportunities associated with integrated vegetationenergy-centric approaches, the above research priorities could be addressed in tandem by multidisciplinary teams in a variety of configurations. Although much of the prior research has been 

conducted on PV systems, CSP systems could also be targeted for co-location studies. The 

quantitative data developed from carrying out such research activities would allow solar 

developers and land managers to weigh different levels of integration of solar and vegetation 

activities. Such work could also be improved by the unified support of U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, DOE, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, all of which have a role in the 

development of solar energy in the United States. In many cases, solar developers may not have 

expertise in vegetation management. Similarly, in many cases agricultural land managers may 

not have expertise in energy development. By recognizing the opportunities to develop 

renewable electricity resources while strengthening the nation’s agricultural sector, the agencies 

working collaboratively could help alleviate the initial reluctance of each sector to explore colocation opportunities. 

An increased understanding of environmental impacts of solar facilities along with effective 

means to mitigate impacts can help improve the sustainability of renewable energy systems with 

respect to a range of metrics that include GHG, other environmental, and social perspectives.
15

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

6 Summary

Projected solar development could have impacts on local habitats as well as on land currently 

being utilized for agriculture. Co-locating agriculture or supporting non-invasive vegetative 

growth beneath large-scale solar developments provides an opportunity to mitigate potential 

environmental and social impacts. This work reviewed existing studies of potential land-use 

impacts of solar facilities and described current site preparation practices for solar developments. 

We discussed co-location opportunities and categorized into vegetation-centric, energy-centric, 

and integrated vegetation-energy-centric approaches, along with a qualitative discussion of the 

potential benefits associated with those approaches. Lastly, we discussed the future research that 

could provide quantitative information that would allow solar developers and land managers to 

make informed decisions regarding co-location opportunities. Future work in this area could 

benefit from coordinated efforts by both the energy and agriculture sectors.
16

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

7 References

Althouse and Meade, Inc. (2011). “Draft Habitat Restoration and Re-vegetation Plan Topaz 

Solar Farm.” Paso Robles, CA: Althouse and Meade, Inc. Accessed September 4, 2013: 

http://www.sloplanning.org/EIRs/topaz/FEIR/V2Apps/RTC_3/03_HabitatRestorationRevegPlan.

pdf. 

Ardani, K.; Barbose, G.; Margolis, R.; Wiser, R.; Feldman, D.; Ong, S. (2012). Benchmarking 

Non-Hardware Balance Of System (Soft) Costs for U.S. Photovoltaic Systems Using a DataDriven Analysis From PV Installer Survey Results. Report No: DOE/GO-10212-3834. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. 

Beatty, B.; Denholm, P.; Buckner, D. (2012). Balancing Renewable Energy and Natural 

Resources. The World Renewable Energy Forum. Conference Proceedings. 

Beckman, J.; Xiarchos, I. (2013). “Why are Californian Farmers Adopting More (and Larger) 

renewable Energy Operations?” Renewable Energy (55); pp. 322-330.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). (2010). California Desert Conservation Area Plan 

Amendment/Final Environmental Impact Statement for Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating 

System. FEIS-10-31. Appendix B-1 Biology Appendices. Washington, DC: Department of 

Interior. Accessed September 4, 2013: http://lpo.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/FinalEIS-Appendix-B-1-Technical-Resources2.pdf. 

BLM/DOE. (2012). Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar 

Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. Report No: FES 12-14; DOE/EIS-0403.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.

Brown, P.; Whitney, G. (2011). U.S. Renewable Electricity Generation: Resources and 

Challenges. 7-5700 R41954. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. 

Carfagna, N. (2010). Grass Cultivation Phases in a Photovoltaic Plant. S.e.l.f. srl Report. Italy. 

Content, T. (5 September 2011). “Solar Farm Lets Investors Buy Panels.” Milwaukee Journal 

Sentinel. Accessed September 4, 2013: http://www.jsonline.com/business/129277018.html. 

Denholm, P.; Margolis, R. (2008). Impacts of Array Configuration on Land-Use Requirements 

for Large-Scale Photovoltaic Deployment in the United States. NREL/CP-670-42971. Golden, 

CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. ()

de Vanna, M. (2010). General Considerations on the Positive Effect of a Permanent Mixed Lawn 

With Regard to Soil's Fertility, Permeability and Water Retention and Analysis of the Influence 

of the Heat Generated by Photovoltaic Panels Sails on Agricultural Lands, With an on Field 

Research. Cagliari, Italy: Engineering Partners. 

DOE. (2012). SunShot Vision Study. Report No.: DOE/GO-102012-3037. Washington, D.C.: 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. 
17

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

EIA (Energy Information Administration). (2012). “State Electricity Profiles 2010” U.S.

Department of Energy.

Fthenakis, V.; Kim, H.C. (2009). “Land Use and Electricity Generation: A Life-Cycle Analysis.”

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (13:6-7); pp. 1465-1474.

Glicksman, R. (2011). “Solar Energy Development on the Federal Public Lands: Environmental 

Trade-Offs on the Road to a Lower-Carbon Future.” San Diego Journal of Energy & Climate 

Law (3); GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 582.

Hill, G. (2010). “Integrated Solar City: Application of the Ecological Risk Assessment Paradigm 

to Inform Reclamation.” Master’s thesis. University of Denver.

Holmes, K.J.; Papay, L. (2011). “Prospects for Electricity From Renewable Resources in the 

United States.” Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 3 (042701).

Mehos, M.; Kabel, D.; Smithers, P. (2009). “Planting the Seed.” IEEE Power and Energy 

Magazine (7:3); p. 7.

Merzbach, S. (2011). “Solar Experiment Switches Gears; Project Combining Energy, Agriculture 

Changed After Complaints.” Amherst Bulletin. 

Mosey, G.; Van Geet, O. (2010). Feasibility Study of Economics and Performance of Solar 

Photovoltaics at the Stringfellow Superfund Site in Riverside, California. A Study Prepared in 

Partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency for the RE-Powering America's Land 

Initiative: Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine Sites. 

NREL/TP-6A20-48770. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Ong, S.; Campbell, C.; Denholm, P.; Margolis, R.; Heath, G. (2013). Land Use Requirements for 

Solar Power Plants in the United States. NREL/TP-6A20-56290. Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Roberts, B. (2011). Potential for Photovoltaic Solar Installation in Non-Irrigated Corners of 

Center Pivot Irrigation Fields in the State of Colorado. NREL/TP-6A20-51330. Golden, CO: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

SEIA (Solar Energy Industries Association). (2013). “Utility-Scale Solar Projects in the United 

States Operating, Under Construction, or Under Development.” Accessed September 4, 2013: 

http://www.seia.org/research-resources/major-solar-projects-list.

Shashua-Bar, L; Hoffman, M.E.; Tzamir, Y. (2006). “Integrated thermal effects of generic built 

forms and vegetation on the UCL microclimate.” Building and Environment (41:3); pp. 343-354.

Skoplaki, E.; Palyvos, J.A. (2009). “On the temperature dependence of photovoltaic module 

electrical performance: A review of efficiency/power correlations.” Solar Energy (83:5); pp. 

614-662.
18

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Steen, M.; Lisell, L.; Mosey, G. (2013). Feasibility Study of Economics and Performance of 

Solar Photovoltaics at the Vincent Mullins Landfill in Tucson, Arizona. A Study Prepared in 

Partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency for the RE-Powering America’s Land 

Initiative: Siting Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine Sites. 

NREL/TP-7A30-56812. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Tsoutsos, T.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Gekas, V. (2005). “Environmental Impacts From the Solar 

Energy Technologies.” Energy Policy (33:3); pp. 289-296.

Zucconi, F. (2010). Brief observations on presumed alterations of pedological qualities resulting 

from shadowing, heat and decreased ventilation linked to the installation of photovoltaic panels 

on agricultural soils turned into grassland. Response to Prot. nr. 0014118 (Procedure of 

Evaluation of Environmental Impact). Ancona, Italy.