Farm & rural
Yes — grazing under solar is proven and already happening at scale, while crops are possible but pricier and earlier. The main blockers in 2026 are the cost of raised panels and a shortage of experienced dual-use installers, set against a USDA that's now steering federal dollars toward keeping farmland in production.
Updated June 30, 2026 · 9 min read
Short answer: yes — but it depends entirely on the configuration. Grazing sheep under standard solar arrays is real, proven, and already happening at scale across the US. Growing specialty crops under raised, wider-spaced panels is technically possible, but it costs meaningfully more and is still early-stage. The two blockers in 2026 aren't whether agrivoltaics "works" — it does — but (1) the capital-cost premium of raising and spacing panels so something can grow or graze underneath, and (2) a genuine shortage of installers and developers with real dual-use experience.
There's also a policy backdrop you can't ignore this year: USDA is now actively steering federal dollars away from paving over productive farmland. Counterintuitively, that makes true dual-use — where the land keeps farming — the strategically smart play. If you want to see what that could look like on your acreage, you can model your farm's options for free. First, here's what the evidence actually says.
The US Department of Energy defines agrivoltaics as "locating agricultural production, such as crops, livestock, or pollinator habitats, underneath solar panels or between rows of solar panels." The main areas NREL researches are crops, livestock grazing, pollinator and native habitat, and greenhouses.
The distinction that matters most in 2026 is between dual-use and a conventional solar farm:
That difference is the whole point this year, because federal policy has started rewarding one and penalizing the other.
On August 18, 2025, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced that USDA would stop funding solar on productive farmland. In her words:
"We are no longer allowing businesses to use your taxpayer dollars to fund solar projects on prime American farmland."
In plain English, here's what changed:
USDA cited that solar panels on farmland nationwide have grown nearly 50% since 2012 as part of its motivation. The takeaway: federal money is now tilting toward configurations where the land stays in production — which is precisely what genuine dual-use is designed to do. (Note also that REAP grants are paused entirely in 2026; we cover that in detail in REAP grants paused in 2026.)
One practical consequence: if you were hoping to get a large ground-mount array funded through USDA this year, that door has largely closed. Knowing that up front saves you a lot of wasted effort.
Grazing is the best-evidenced agrivoltaic configuration, and the research is encouraging.
A 2021 Oregon State University study published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems compared solar pastures to open pastures and found that solar pastures produced on average 9–33% less total herbage — but the forage that did grow had higher crude-protein content. Critically, lamb growth was essentially identical: in spring 2019, weaned lambs grew 120 grams per head per day under panels versus 119 grams on open pasture. As the researchers put it, "lamb growth rates and spring lamb production in the current study were similar in both production systems." The higher forage quality offset the lower quantity.
Panels can also provide livestock with shade and shelter — a real benefit in hot or exposed climates.
There is a trade-off, though: less total forage means stocking-rate management matters. You may not be able to run as many animals per acre, so this is a management decision, not a free lunch.
The federal research priorities reflect this maturity gap. DOE's Foundational Agrivoltaic Research for Megawatt Scale (FARMS) program — an $8 million effort with six selected projects — set a stated goal of enabling more than 10 MW of grazing- or pollinator-focused agrivoltaics versus more than 1 MW of crop-focused systems. That roughly 10-to-1 difference is a clear signal that livestock and pollinator dual-use is the nearer-term, lower-cost path.
Growing crops under panels is possible, but it's a more demanding and earlier-stage proposition.
It generally requires raised panels and wider row spacing so that equipment and plants fit underneath and get enough light. The shade panels cast can help some heat- or drought-sensitive specialty crops and aid water retention — but it can hurt yield for others. There is no blanket rule that crops grow better under panels; the results are crop-specific.
The scale tells the story: DOE counts at least five commercial solar-crop sites in the US (in Colorado, Massachusetts, and Maine). That's a handful — promising, but early. If you grow specialty crops, agrivoltaics is worth watching and possibly piloting; it is not yet a turnkey, well-trodden path.
This is the single biggest reason agrivoltaics costs more than a plain solar field. To let animals, crops, or equipment work underneath, you usually raise the panels higher and space the rows wider — and that takes more steel and more complex installation. The DOE/USDA Farmer's Guide to Going Solar says it plainly:
"Raising the height of PV panels, however, can increase the cost of the solar installation due to the need for additional steel for the foundational posts."
The guide also stresses that "there is no one-size-fits-all solar design," and flags practical obstacles like soil compaction, reduced output from wider spacing, equipment compatibility, and flooding and fire safety.
How much more does it cost? The best primary benchmark is NREL's 2020 study (NREL/TP-6A20-77811), which modeled a ground-mounted PV system and found dual-use configurations add roughly $0.07 to $0.80 per watt-DC over a non-agrivoltaic fixed-tilt baseline of about $1.53/W-DC — an increase of roughly 5% to 52%. Grazing and pollinator setups sit at the low end (little added cost); crop systems needing taller racking and wider spacing sit at the high end.
A note on the numbers: this benchmark is from 2020, and secondary articles quote other figures. The NREL range is the primary source, which is why it's used here. Treat any single "agrivoltaics costs X% more" claim with skepticism — the real answer is a range that depends heavily on your configuration.
| Configuration | Typical added cost vs. standard ground-mount | Maturity of evidence | Best-fit farm type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grazing (sheep) | Low end (toward $0.07/W-DC over ~$1.53 baseline) | Strongest — comparable lamb growth in peer-reviewed study | Livestock operations, especially sheep |
| Pollinator habitat | Low end (little added cost) | Strong — a federal research priority | Farms near pollinator-dependent crops; conservation goals |
| Crops (elevated panels) | High end (toward $0.80/W-DC; up to ~52% more) | Early — at least five US commercial sites | Specialty / heat-sensitive crops; pilots |
DOE backs up the cost framing directly, noting that "the capital costs of agrivoltaics tend to be higher than traditional solar development due to modified system structures and more complex design and installation," and that there are over 2.8 GW of agrivoltaic sites across the US today.
The second barrier is people, not panels. NREL's InSPIRE program — described by NREL as the largest, longest-running, and most comprehensive agrivoltaics research effort in the world — groups the obstacles into nine categories. Two stand out:
On top of that, dual-use projects involve two parties — the farmer and the solar developer — who often have different priorities, which adds real coordination complexity.
Practical advice: vet any developer for an actual dual-use track record. Be skeptical of anyone marketing a standard ground-mount array as "agrivoltaics" — slapping panels over a field that stops producing food is not dual-use. If a salesperson glosses over panel height, row spacing, or how you'll still farm the land, that's a red flag. (For more on spotting bad actors in solar sales, see solar scams and red flags in 2026.)
Set your expectations carefully here, because the headlines can mislead:
For the full, source-cited picture of what's alive, dead, and paused, see our cornerstone 2026 solar incentives guide.
Grazing under solar is a credible, evidence-backed dual-use path you can pursue today; crops are promising but earlier and pricier; and the gating factors are cost and expertise — not whether agrivoltaics actually works. In a year when USDA is rewarding farms that stay productive, real dual-use isn't just feasible — it's the strategically smart design.
If you want to see what a dual-use solar system could realistically look like on your land, get a free estimate for your farm and compare your options with no pressure.
Educational content, not tax, financial, or legal advice. Figures are current as of the update date above; verify with a qualified professional before acting.
Yes — especially grazing. USDA- and DOE-backed research shows sheep graze well under standard solar arrays, and an Oregon State University study found lamb growth was essentially the same under panels as on open pasture (120 vs 119 grams per head per day in spring 2019), even though solar pastures produced 9–33% less total forage (the forage that did grow was higher in protein). Growing specialty crops is also possible but requires taller, wider-spaced panels and is still early — DOE counts at least five commercial solar-crop sites in the US (in Colorado, Massachusetts, and Maine).
Because true dual-use usually means raising the panels higher and spacing rows wider so equipment, animals, or crops fit underneath — which takes extra steel and more complex installation. NREL's 2020 benchmark puts the premium at roughly $0.07 to $0.80 per watt-DC over a standard ground-mount system (about $1.53/W-DC), or roughly 5% to 52% more. Grazing and pollinator setups land at the low end; elevated crop systems land at the high end.
Generally not for large ground-mount arrays. In August 2025, USDA announced it would stop funding solar on productive farmland: the Rural Development B&I loan program no longer treats wind and solar as eligible, and the REAP guaranteed loan program no longer covers ground-mount solar over 50 kW (or projects without documented historical energy use) and no longer awards priority points to large arrays. REAP grants are also paused in 2026 (guaranteed loans remain open). The policy direction favors keeping farmland in production — which is exactly what genuine dual-use aims to do.
Two things, per DOE and NREL: the higher capital cost of raised, wider-spaced panels, and finding a developer or installer with real dual-use experience. NREL's InSPIRE program lists 'shortages of skilled agrivoltaics labor' and limited technical training as core barriers. Vet any installer for an actual dual-use track record, and be skeptical of anyone marketing a standard ground-mount array as 'agrivoltaics.'
Grazing is the more proven, lower-cost path today. DOE's FARMS program targets aim for more than 10 MW of grazing- or pollinator-focused agrivoltaics versus more than 1 MW of crop-focused systems — a signal that livestock and pollinator dual-use is nearer-term. Grazing works under standard-height arrays with little added cost, while crops need expensive raised structures and the results vary by crop.
Free, no obligation, and sourced from the IRS, USDA, and EIA.