As a Conway resident and rising senior at Clark University, where I study environmental science and policy, I have closely read the Recorder’s coverage of my neighbors’ objections to a proposed solar array and battery energy storage system on Roaring Brook Road. These objections include fire risk concerns regarding the battery system, landscape impacts, and reductions in abutting property values.
Some of my neighbors have opposed the battery system while supporting the solar array, citing fire risk. Advances in battery technology have reduced this risk. According to the EPA, the annual number of battery system fires has declined even as the cumulative number of these systems constructed has increased exponentially. The ratio of fires to the total constructed gigawatt-hours (GWh) of battery systems reached an all-time low in 2024 at less than 0.1, with only eight fires across more than 300 GWh of batteries installed nationwide. As solar arrays can only generate electricity during the day, a battery system is necessary to store excess energy for use at night.
The proposed project has also been objected to as a waste of, or harmful to, the approximately 26.2 acres of private farmland on which it would be constructed. I agree with my neighbors on the benefits of building solar on already developed land and protecting our farmland. Fortunately, the proposed project is dual-use (or “agrivoltaic”), preserving agricultural land by elevating panels 10 feet off the ground, allowing crops to be grown and animals to graze beneath them. As described in a 2023 research article in Earth’s Future, the roots of plants grown beneath panels in agrivoltaic arrays improve soil stability and water retention capacity, mitigating soil erosion and stormwater runoff concerns.
Finally, some of my neighbors abutting the proposed site also have objected to the proposal, citing its potential impact on property values. A 2020 University of Rhode Island study found that home values within one mile of solar arrays decline about 1.7% post-construction, with this number an average of smaller declines in rural areas (like Conway) and greater declines in non-rural areas. These property value objections often reference the project’s aesthetic impact on the Route 116 scenic byway, which it would border. Fortunately, the proposal includes lining the array with evergreen trees, preserving the scenery year-round. To the extent that abutting homeowners’ property values are nonetheless affected, they should be compensated for their losses, potentially through being provided free electricity from the solar array and/or shares in the project’s revenue.
Though I hope to have assuaged some of my neighbors’ concerns about this project, nothing I say will as effectively ensure this proposal’s approval as meaningful engagement with the people of Conway by BlueWave Solar, the project’s developer. We are, I think, reasonable people. We know that no project is perfect, but also that if we want clean energy, we ought to shoulder some of the burden. For my part, as a young person deeply concerned about climate change, I would be proud of and grateful to my hometown for hosting this project. At a maximum capacity of 4.99 megawatts, we have an opportunity to provide roughly 5,000 typical homes with clean energy (and make a buck while doing so). Given the at-worst small scope of the project’s negative environmental and/or monetary impacts, I think it is well worth it.
Zachary Rutherford lives in Conway.