How Information Shapes Public Attitudes Toward Utility-Scale Solar—Why Stakeholders Differ and the Implications for Policy and Outreach

By Jian Chen, Hongli Feng, and Luke Seaberg

Utility-scale solar energy has become one of the fastest-growing sources of electric power generation capacity in the United States, supported by a 75% decline in installed photovoltaic (PV) system costs since 2010 (Seel et al. 2024). According to the EIA (2026), utility-scale solar accounted for 61% of all new domestic generation capacity added in 2025, pushing total installed capacity to over 239 GW. Figure 1 illustrates the geographic distribution of operational and planned utility-scale solar projects across the contiguous United States as of December 2025. Falling costs, innovations in manufacturing and supply chain logistics, emerging energy storage systems, and climate and energy security goals have positioned large-scale solar as a cornerstone of the energy transition. Yet despite these advantages, many rural communities have responded to proposed utility-scale solar projects with hesitation or outright resistance. 

Some Iowa counties have taken formal actions to halt or effectively prohibit utility-scale solar development. For example, Clarke County adopted a temporary moratorium on commercial solar farms in unincorporated areas (Brooks 2024), while a Tama County ordinance prohibits systems over 25 MW, caps total solar acreage at 500 acres, restricts projects to low productivity land (i.e., with a corn suitability rating of 60 or less), and bars projects regulated by the Iowa Utilities Board (Tama County Board of Supervisors 2025). 

Iowa is not unique—local governments in Michigan and Indiana have blocked or rejected proposed solar projects based on the impact on productive farmland (Canary Media 2023; Farmonaut 2023), reflecting broader tensions between solar expansion and agricultural land use.

Why does opposition emerge in some communities but not others? Why does providing more information sometimes reduce support rather than increase it? A recent study in Iowa by Chen et al. (2025a) points to a central conclusion: public attitudes toward utility-scale solar are shaped by people’s social identities and community roles, economic interests, and how they interpret information. Understanding these differences is essential for policymakers, planners, and extension professionals.

Solar’s promise—and its local paradox

Solar power produces far fewer greenhouse gas emissions over its life cycle than fossil fuels and is now among the lowest-cost sources of new electricity generation, and energy storage systems help mitigate concerns about the intermittency of solar electricity. 

At the local level, however, the picture is complicated. Utility-scale solar projects require substantial land—often four to six acres per MW (Bolinger and Bolinger 2022)—and are frequently sited in rural areas where flat land and transmission access are available (Adeh et al. 2019; Majeed et al. 2024). Over 90% of US solar projects built between 2009 and 2020 were sited in rural areas, with more than 70% on cropland, pasture, and rangeland (Maguire et al. 2024). In agricultural states like Iowa, solar development often competes directly with cropland that residents view as economically productive and central to rural identity. Thus, communities face a paradox—solar projects may advance national climate and energy goals, potentially lower electricity costs, and generate additional tax revenue; however, they impose potentially significant, highly visible, unevenly distributed localized costs. These costs include concerns about losing high-quality farmland, impacts on property values, changes to rural landscapes, and uncertainty about long-term soil health. Understanding public perceptions requires moving beyond a simple “support versus oppose” framework and recognizing the stakeholders and how information interacts with their interests.

Different stakeholders, different stakes

Communities are not monolithic, and neither are their views on solar energy. Research examining attitudes toward utility-scale solar in Iowa highlights clear differences among public officials, landowners, and the general public. Public officials—including county supervisors, planning commissioners, zoning board members, and city officials—occupy a unique position. They are responsible for approving or regulating projects, balancing competing community interests, and managing long-term legal and political risks. Over 70% of public officials report at least moderate support for utility-scale solar projects in their jurisdictions; however, for these officials, solar development is not merely an energy issue but also a governance and regulatory challenge. In particular, 36% identify the lack of a clear solar zoning ordinance and 35% cite insufficient staff with technical expertise as significant barriers to local adoption. 

Landowners, especially agricultural landowners, face direct and long-duration land-use decisions that shape how they view utility-scale solar projects. Solar projects can affect land values, farming operations, and intergenerational succession plans. Thus, landowners’ attitudes reflect complex variables including immediate economic benefits and long-term land-use concerns. While 42% view increased lease payments as an important benefit, 59% identify farmland loss as a significant barrier with 49% ranking it as the primary barrier to adoption. These high-stakes considerations shape landowners’ attitude toward solar proposals.

Non-landowners and the broader public tend to experience solar projects more indirectly. Their concerns often focus on electricity costs, environmental benefits, aesthetics, and broader community outcomes rather than direct land-use tradeoffs. Non-landowner support for utility-scale solar projects is relatively high: 80% report at least moderate support, compared to 70% among landowners. In terms of perceived benefits, 75% rate reduced electricity bills as very or extremely important (vs. 56% of landowners), 61% rate emissions reductions as very or extremely important (vs. 49%), and 35% rate improved community reputation as very or extremely important (vs. 27%). Moreover, only 32% rank farmland loss as the primary barrier to adoption. 

These differing roles help explain why stakeholders often view the same solar project through very different lenses that reflect not only variation in preferences, but also cost, benefit, and risk distribution across stakeholders. As shown in figure 2, support across stakeholder groups differs, with the general public and non-landowners expressing the highest levels of support, followed by public officials and landowners. Tables 1 and 2 breakdown how each stakeholder group perceives the benefits and challenges associated with utility-scale solar development (Chen et al. 2025b has a more in-depth study of stakeholders’ valuations of these benefits and challenges). Public officials are primarily concerned with regulatory feasibility and long-term governance, as they bear responsibility for project approval and community-wide outcomes such as long-term financial solvency. Landowners face concentrated, site-specific tradeoffs, weighing financial gains against long-duration changes to land use. In contrast, non-landowners experience more diffuse effects and tend to evaluate projects in terms of broader economic and environmental outcomes. Importantly, these differences reflect distinct responsibilities, risks, and self-interests embedded in each group’s position.

Knowledge gaps and public support

One striking finding from the Iowa research is that most people report limited knowledge about utility-scale solar, which likely reflects its novelty as a land use option. Figure 3 illustrates this gap: nearly 80% of survey respondents—both public officials and members of the general public—described their knowledge level as low. At the same time, baseline support for solar was relatively high. More than three-quarters of respondents expressed at least moderate support for hosting a utility-scale solar project in their community. This combination of low knowledge and moderate support suggests that opposition to solar is not driven by overall hostility toward renewable energy.

However, knowledge matters, but not in the same way for everyone. Among the general public, higher levels of knowledge are associated with stronger support for utility-scale solar. As people move from low- to medium- or high-knowledge levels, they are more likely to express favorable attitudes. This pattern does not hold uniformly across all groups. Among public officials, greater knowledge does not automatically translate into greater support. This difference underscores the importance of institutional roles. Officials may be well informed but still cautious because they must weigh regulatory feasibility, community conflict, and long-term consequences.

Not all information is the same

Providing information is often viewed as a straightforward solution to public resistance. Yet research shows that the nature of information framing matters as much as the amount of information. The Iowa study tested how three types of information framing affect attitudes toward utility-scale solar. While all information is based on scientific findings, positive information highlights environmental and economic benefits, including approximately 90% reductions in CO₂ emissions relative to coal-fired generation, reductions in air pollutants (e.g., NOx), and gains in jobs, tax revenue, and energy cost savings. Negative information emphasizes potential drawbacks and local costs, such as the conversion of prime farmland (typically 5–10 acres per MW), disruption to topsoil conditions and drainage systems, habitat loss, and visual aesthetic impacts to neighbors. Peer information provides institutional context by describing how other jurisdictions regulate and manage solar development, noting that about 25% of Midwestern jurisdictions have adopted zoning ordinances for utility-scale solar, commonly requiring setbacks of 150 feet from non-participating properties and decommissioning bonds averaging about $3,500 per acre to ensure land restoration.

The results reveal a clear asymmetry. Negative information has a much stronger effect than positive information, particularly among the general public. Exposure to negative information significantly reduces support for solar, while positive information produces comparatively modest increases. Peer information plays a different role. For public officials, learning that other communities have adopted zoning ordinances and regulatory standards for solar development significantly increases support. This suggests that officials respond less to abstract benefits and more to evidence that workable governance frameworks already exist. These findings highlight an important risk for policymakers and extension professionals: in the absence of proactive engagement, negative narratives—whether accurate or not—can dominate public discourse and erode support.

Responsiveness varies across groups

Beyond differences in baseline attitudes, stakeholders also differ in how responsive they are to new information. Non-landowners tend to be more responsive to changes in knowledge and information, particularly negative messaging. Landowners’ attitudes are relatively stable, showing little change even when presented with additional information. Public officials are selectively responsive, reacting most strongly to peer and institutional information rather than general messaging. This distinction between what people believe and how easily those beliefs change is crucial and helps explain why outreach efforts that succeed with one audience may fail—or even backfire—with another.

What this means for policy and extension

These findings carry several important implications for agricultural and energy policy, as well as for extension and outreach efforts. First, early and transparent engagement matters. Because negative information has a disproportionate impact, waiting until a project is proposed or controversy arises can leave communities vulnerable to opposition narratives. Early communication about project design, land-use protections, and decommissioning plans can reduce uncertainty and build trust. Second, land-use policy is central to acceptance. Resistance is often less about solar energy itself and more about where and how projects are sited. Policies that prioritize lower quality land or provide clear and credible compensation mechanisms can help align renewable energy goals with agricultural values. Furthermore, promoting meaningful local input on project design could also bring projects into closer alignment with community preferences. Additionally, public officials require different engagement strategies. Officials are influenced less by general information and more by peer experience and institutional precedent. Providing access to model ordinances, case studies, and examples from comparable communities may be more effective than broad information campaigns. Finally, outreach must recognize stakeholder diversity. There is no single message that works for everyone. Effective engagement begins with understanding existing views and what is at stake for different groups. In some cases, the goal should not be persuasion, but a fair and transparent process design.

Utility-scale solar will likely continue to expand even with fluctuating federal government support, particularly in rural and agricultural regions. As this research shows, public attitudes toward solar are neither fixed nor uniform. They are shaped by knowledge, information, land ownership, and institutional roles—and by the ways these factors interact. For policymakers and extension professionals, the challenge is not simply to promote renewable energy as a means to an end, but to do so in ways that respect local land-use values and governance realities. Bridging the gap between national energy goals and the overall potential benefits of solar and community acceptance will require thoughtful, evidence-based engagement grounded in an understanding of how different stakeholders perceive solar on the ground.

References

Adeh, E. H., S.P. Good, M. Calaf, and C.W. Higgins. 2019. “Solar PV Power Potential is Greatest Over Croplands.” Scientific Reports 9(1):11442. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47803-3

Bolinger, M., and G. Bolinger. 2022. “Land Requirements for Utility-scale PV: An Empirical Update on Power and Energy Density.” IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics 12(2):589-594. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2021.3136805

Brooks, C. 2024. “Supervisors Issue Temporary Moratorium on Solar Farms.” Osceola-Sentinel Tribune, December 19, 2024 (last accessed on 3/1/2026). https://www.osceolaiowa.com/news/local/2024/12/19/supervisors-issue-temporary-moratorium-on-solar-farms/

Cerro Gordo County. 2026. ORDINANCE NO. 69. (Accessed 3/8/2026). https://cerrogordo.gov/files/county_ordinances/69_industrial_or_utility_scale_electricity_generation_and_storage_installations_and_systems_883.pdf 

Chen, J., H. Feng, E. Hoffman, and L. Seaberg. 2025a. “Support for Utility-scale Solar: Effects of Information and Heterogeneity Among Public Officials, the General Population, and Landowners.” Journal of Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124574

Chen, J., H. Feng, E. Hoffman, and L. Seaberg. 2025b. “Agriculture and Solar Farms: Heterogeneous Preferences Among Local Public Officials, the General Population, Landowners and Non-landowners.” Working paper 25-WP 675. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. 

Canary Media. 2023. “In Michigan, Local Tensions Threaten Solar Agricultural Projects.” https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/enn/in-michigan-local-tensions-threaten-solar-agricultural-projects

Farmonaut. 2023. “Indiana’s Solar Energy Dilemma: Balancing Farmland Preservation and Renewable Power Growth.” Farmonaut Insights. https://farmonaut.com/usa/indianas-solar-energy-dilemma-balancing-farmland-preservation-and-renewable-power-growth

Maguire, K., S.J. Tanner, J.B. Winikoff, and R. Williams. 2024. “Utility-scale Solar and Wind Development in Rural Areas: Land Cover Change (2009–20).” Economic research report no. 30. USDA Economic Research Service. https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.343476

Majeed, F., P. Mwebaze, M. Khanna,  J. McCall, K. Waechter, M. Jia, B. Peng, R. Miao, K. Guan, and J. Macknick. 2024. “Alternatives to Utility-Scale Solar on Agricultural Lands: Adoption Potential and Impacts of Utility-scale and Agrivoltaic Solar on Permanent and Marginal Cropland.”

Seel, J., J.M. Kemp, A. Cheyette, D. Millstein, W. Gorman, S. Jeong, D. Robson, R. Setiawan, and M. Bolinger. 2024. “Utility-scale solar, 2024 Edition: Empirical Trends in Deployment, Technology, Cost, Performance, PPA Pricing, and Value in the United States.” Berkely Lab. https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/utility-scale-solar-2024-edition

Tama County Board of Supervisors. 2025. “Tama County Utility-Scale Solar Energy Ordinance (Draft). August 5, 2025.” Tama County, Iowa. (Accessed on 3/1/2026). https://tamacounty.iowa.gov/files/public_notices/tama_county_proposed_solar_ordinance_draft_aug_2025_2025-08-05.pdf

US Energy Information Administration. 2026. “New U.S. Electric Generating Capacity Expected to Reach a Record High in 2026.” https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67205#

Suggested citation

Chen, J., H. Feng, and L. Seaberg. 2026. “How Information Shapes Public Attitudes Toward Utility-Scale Solar—Why Stakeholders Differ and the Implications for Policy and Outreach.” Agricultural Policy Review, Winter 2026. https://agpolicyreview.card.iastate.edu/winter-2026/how-information-shapes-public-attitudes-toward-utility-scale-solar-why-stakeholders