Caroline County Solar Opportunities, Challenges, and Best Practices - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Caroline County Solar

Opportunities, Challenges, and Best Practices

May 25, 2017

2

Agenda

INTRODUCTION

• Open Road Renewables

PART 1: Solar Farms 101 PART 2: Caroline County Solar Market PART 3: Solar Development Best Practices RESOURCES

3

Open Road Renewables

• Greenfield developer of utility‐scale solar generation projects active in MD for >7 years
• Chair of the Utility Scale Solar Energy Coalition of Maryland, Board member of the Mid‐Atlantic

Renewable Energy Coalition, and active in MDV‐SEIA

• Principals formerly with:
• Pioneer Green Energy (developed 1,500 MW of operating/under construction wind and solar)
• SunEdison (developed 18 operating solar projects)
• Extensive development experience in large‐scale solar:
• Great Bay Solar (150 MW) in MD owned by Algonquin → under construction
• Nixon Solar (6 MW) in MD owned by SunEdison → operating
• Wildwood (40 MW), Rio Bravo (40MW) & Pumpjack (20MW) in CA owned by Duke Energy → operating
• Primarily focused on PJM; typical project size 50‐150MW; targeting 2019‐20 COD
• Active in Maryland solar market for > 7 years and developing in Caroline County > 2 years

PART I

Solar Farms 101

5

Photovoltaics

• PV: cells → modules → panels → arrays
• Non‐thermal/non‐combustion
• Photons from sunlight strike

semiconducting material & excite electrons to generate current

panel

array

6

Utility‐scale Solar: Components

• Panels
• Crystalline (lower cost)
• Thin‐film (higher production)
• Racks (Fixed or Tracking)
• No foundations→ piles or screws
• Sufficient depth (4‐8 feet feet) to
• vercome wind loading
• 8‐12 feet high (high end of module)
• Fixed‐tilt (south‐facing)
• Uses less land
• Lower cost
• Single‐axis trackers (rotate east‐to‐west)
• Higher production

7

Utility‐scale Solar: Components, con’t

• Medium‐voltage transformers
• Medium‐voltage collection lines
• 34.5kV
• 2‐3 feet below grade
• Inverters (convert DC to AC)
• Central: 1 inverter per 2+ MW; concrete block

foundations

• String: small; incorporated into racking

8

Utility‐scale Solar: Components, con’t

• Fences
• Blocks of panels fenced and locked for security

and safety

• Typically 6‐8‐ft, chain‐link topped w/barbed

wire

• Access roads ‐ aggregate
• Pyranometer station ‐ usually 15 x 15 ft
• Measures solar & other weather

data

• Project switchyard
• Step‐up transformer increases

voltage from 34.5kv to transmission voltage

9

Utility‐scale Solar: Land

• Previously disturbed (minimizes wildlife and

habitat concerns)

• Flat (<3% is ideal; >9% is challenging)
• Level or sloped slightly to south
• Dry (ease of construction; protect equipment;

avoid flooding, wetlands and wildlife)

• Clear (no shading of panels; avoid complexity and

cost of clearing; aesthetics)

• Good soil (ample soil before bedrock; few rocks;

good resistivity)

• Large farm fields typically are excellent

candidates for solar

• 1 large block or adjacent/nearby blocks separately

connected to switchyard

10

Utility‐scale Solar: Land, con’t

• 3‐4 acres/MWac for fixed; 6‐8 acres/MWac for

tracking  300‐800 acres for 100 MW

• Tracking uses more land than fixed‐tilt, but

generates cheaper power

• Better land characteristics = less land use
• Orientation:
• Fixed tilt → rows run east‐to‐west
• Tracking → rows run north‐to‐south
• Space between rows: (12‐18 feet)
• Enough to minimize panels shading each
• ther
• Access for replacements, repairs and

maintenance

• Access for mowing
• Within a block of panels, more of surface

is open than occupied

• Blocks of panels are connected to each
• ther or switchyard by buried collection

lines

11

Utility‐scale Solar: Operational Impacts

Type of Impact Impact Details Fuel Spills None Sun only; no pipelines Air Pollutants None No combustion (except vehicles) Water Usage Minimal Panels are cleaned 2‐3x/year to eliminate “soiling” that reduces production (possibly no cleaning in rainy climates) Water Discharges None Storm‐water only Waste Generation Minimal ▪ Panel cleaning ▪ Equipment replacement, repair and maintenance ▪ Fertilizer/pesticide storage for landscaping (far less than ag) Sound Minimal ▪ Very few moving parts ▪ Substation‐switchyard sound is same as any other ▪ Central inverters emit 48‐72 dBA at 10 ft.; background at 150 ft. ▪ Trackers (electric motors) emit very small amounts of sound Viewshed Minimal ▪ Low profile; panels only 8‐12 feet high ▪ Panels conform to land surface and have a neat and orderly look ▪ Minimal (<2%) reflection; use of non‐reflective glass ▪ Sensitive locations can be addressed by setbacks or screening

12

Utility‐scale Solar: “End of Life”

• Solar modules use simple & long‐lived technology that can generate electricity for decades. Some of

the first solar panels ever manufactured are still operating today! Tier 1 modules are warrantied for 25 years but can generate power for 40 or more years

• Crystalline (silicon‐based)
• 80+% glass and aluminum; up to 10% silicon; balance is mostly copper and polymers
• In some modules, the only potentially hazardous material is lead in the solder
• Passes EPA's Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test: non‐hazardous → can be landfilled
• Thin Film (Cadmium Telluride‐based)
• Exceptionally thin: 1⁄26 thickness of a human hair
• CdTe is solid, stable, and insoluble in water
• Tested for safety during breakage and during fire
• Passes EPA TCLP
• Best way to prevent CdTe leeching is to encase it in glass (i.e., in a solar module)
• First Solar recycles 100% of its modules

13

Solar Farms & Property Taxes – Personal Property

• Solar projects at or below 2 MWs are property tax exempt in MD.
• >2 MW is taxable. County can either:

1.

Pass legislation that applies a property tax rate to solar farms, or

2.

Engage in a PILOT agreement in lieu of passing a new property tax

• Appraised value of grid‐connected solar farms >2 MW are determined by Maryland DOAT’s Utility &

Railroad Valuation division

• Electric Generation Property Return, Form 17‐G is used to report all‐in cost of bringing a project online,

including all equipment as well as costs like labor, sales tax, shipping, etc.

• A 50% abatement is applied to determine the appraised value.
• 3 1/3% annual depreciation rate is applied on the appraised value
• Example: Parcel ID #02014114, 336.18 acres per county tax records
• At 8 acres/MW  42 MW x $1m per MW  $42m x 50% abatement  21m appraised value x ??? solar tax rate
• At 1% solar tax rate, this parcel would generate $210,000 in taxes in its first year
• Applying this math to 2000 acres would generate $1,250,000 in property tax revenue in the first year per 1% tax rate

14

Solar Farms & Property Taxes – Real Estate

• A change in property use from active farming to solar farming would represent a change in the

underlying appraised value of the underlying real estate from agriculture to a market‐value

• Caroline County calculates the appraised value by looking at either the purchase price of the property
• r a capitalized value of lease payments paid by the solar lease (ex. ~$10k/acre appraised value)
• This represents a significant increase in real estate property tax value to the county
• Example: Parcel ID #02014114, 336.18 acres per county tax records
• 2016 Assessed value (taxed as agricultural land) ‐ $127,900 ( $380.45/acre)
• 2016 Real property taxes payable as ag land: $1,456 ($3.83/acre)
• Assessed value based on $10k/acre solar market value ‐ $3,361,800 ($10k/acre)
• Real property taxes payable as solar land: ~$38,257 ($113.8/acre)
• On this sample parcel, real property tax revenues to the county would increase by ~30x, not

including the personal property tax from the solar equipment shown on the previous slide

• Applying this math across 2000 acres, total real property tax to the county would increase by

~$220k

Utility‐Scale Solar can be a major long‐term contributor to County revenues without impacting County‐wide agricultural industry, lifestyle, or sense of place

• While total potential for solar is limited in Caroline County

due to a congested electric transmission system and limited transmission infrastructure, solar can have an out‐ sized positive impact on the County’s revenues w/out impacting county‐wide farming industry

• Converting just 2% of Caroline County’s farmland to solar

could result in a 15% increase in annual property tax revenues, not counting indirect benefits from new capital investment and jobs

• Ex. A single 100 MW solar farm would take up between 400

and 800 acres and would increase county property tax revenue by ~$1m/year (assumes 2% solar tax)

• Note: Caroline County currently has 2 proposed projects

totaling ~300 MW. If successful, those 2 projects could increase direct county tax revenue by ~$3m/year

Assumes 2% solar property tax

PART II

Caroline County Solar Market

17

Utility‐scale Solar in Caroline County: Top 4 Misconceptions

This presentation provides a detailed assessment and response to the following 4 misconceptions about solar in Caroline County Misconception #1: Solar development is growing quickly throughout the Eastern Shore and in Caroline County and growth will continue to accelerate Misconception #2: By restricting solar development to certain areas with proximity to electric transmission infrastructure can help ensure that solar farms go in “the right places” in Caroline County Misconception #3: Solar development in Caroline County can negatively impact the county farming industry, agricultural ecosystem, or sense of Caroline County as a rural, predominantly agricultural county Misconception #4: Limiting individual project size or acreage can help reduce viewshed and other impacts from solar farms

18

MD Solar Farms – Sizes and Characteristics

Size Small commercial (“behind‐the‐ meter”) Medium (community solar

• r distribution level

farm)* Large (utility‐scale)* Notes MW* range per project .001 MW to 2 MW >2 MW to 20 MW** >20 MW to 200+ MW

* 1 MW can power >160 homes in MD ** All proposed projects 2 MW and above are publicly listed on PJM website

Acres per project* 1 to 12 acres 12 to 140 acres >140 acres

* ~4 to 8 acres per MW (depends on design)

Cost of Power (c/kWh) 8‐12 cents/kWh 6‐8 cents/kWh 5‐6 cents/kWh

* Small projects generate more expensive power but enjoy higher “retail” electricity sales. Medium and Large projects receive lower “wholesale” revenues.

Property Tax Revenue per project None (tax exempt <2 MW*) 50% x appraised value x solar tax rate** 50% x appraised value x solar tax rate**

* Md Code: General Tax §11‐207(a)(5) ** Ex. 100 MW solar farm in Caroline County ~$1m/year @ 2% solar tax rate

Number that could be developed in Caroline? Many Few 2*

* Due to limited transmission capacity, only those projects currently in the PJM queue have a chance at

• success. Currently only 2 projects in Caroline queue.

Pros Potential electricity savings for small system customers Medium solar farms can fit in more sites

• vs. large solar farms

Lowest cost. Largest tax revenue

* Smaller projects enjoy retail pricing and larger projects enjoy economies of scale, medium projects have become less competitive throughout MD

Cons Property tax exempt Uncompetitive vs. larger projects. Very few possible sites & grid locations

* It is much more difficult to fit larger projects into the electricity grid than medium & small projects

19

Utility‐scale Solar: Declining MD Rate of Growth

• MD has seen a dramatic drop in the rate of proposed

new projects >2 MW.

• The primary reason: the state’s electric grid has

reached it’s injection capacity, and new projects require very expensive transmission upgrades that require years to develop and make solar economics untenable.

• The PJM interconnection process is costly, inflexible,

and takes 3+ years from initial application to when construction can start, often 5+ years

• Transmission grid injection capacity, and not the

existence of transmission infrastructure, is the primary ingredient in assessing the viability of solar in any given geographical area

• Bottom line: Current slate of proposed projects in

MD are likely to be the full array of possible projects developable in the foreseeable future, and projects (and counties) are competing against each other to make sure their projects are built

Note: PJM is the regional electric transmission grid operator that regulates Maryland’s transmission system. The PJM interconnection queue is publicly available at the following website: http://www.pjm.com/planning/generation‐ interconnection/generation‐queue‐active.aspx

20

Very few solar farms proposed in Caroline County

Of the 88 solar farms proposed, under construction, or operating across Maryland >2 MW, only two are in Caroline County. This is primarily due to limited transmission capacity relative to

• ther counties.

21

Caroline County’s Transmission Infrastructure Limits Solar Development Potential

• Caroline County has a relative lack of transmission

infrastructure, particularly substations at the appropriate voltages

• Due to very long transmission line runs that connect to

substations in other counties, the transmission injection capacity in Caroline County is already “spoken for” by currently proposed projects, most of which are

• utside of Caroline County, leaving no room for new

commercially viable projects to be proposed. The proverbial table has been set.

• Should the Caroline County solar projects currently

in the PJM queue fail, the injection capacity on those transmission lines will be utilized by competing projects in other counties, not by future projects in Caroline County

Smaller Projects Don’t Necessarily Mean Smaller Impact

• Larger solar farms have fewer neighbors per

MW and per acre than smaller solar farms

• Larger solar farms have less site perimeter

per MW and per acre than smaller solar farms

• Larger solar farms can produce cheaper

power and are more economically competitive than smaller solar farms, which means they are more likely to be successfully brought online

• It can take numerous small solar farms to

make up the same capacity (and tax revenue) as a single large solar farm

23

Utility‐scale Solar in Caroline County: Top 4 Misconceptions

This presentation provides a detailed assessment and response to the following 5 misconceptions about solar in Caroline County Misconception #1: Solar development is growing quickly throughout the Eastern Shore and in Caroline County and growth will continue to accelerate

FACT: The initiation of new large‐scale solar projects has declined precipitously through 2016 into 2017, largely due to the “tapping

• ut” of transmission injection capacity on the Eastern Shore grid. Unlike other land use questions (ex. where to put a landfill, gravel

pit, cemetery, or chicken house), the selection of viable sites for utility‐scale solar development is highly technical and fluid.

Misconception #2: By restricting solar development to certain areas with proximity to electric transmission infrastructure can help ensure that solar farms go in “the right places” in Caroline County

FACT: It is transmission injection capacity, NOT proximity to transmission infrastructure, that determines the viability of a geographic area for solar. Due to the competitive and congested nature of the transmission grid, many of the lines and substations throughout the Eastern Shore are already “maxed out” based on the existing queue of proposed projects. i.e. the table has been set, and the potential viable locations of future solar farms are already extremely limited and fixed within the county.

Misconception #3: Solar development in Caroline County can negatively impact the county farming industry, agricultural ecosystem, or sense of Caroline County as a rural, predominantly agricultural county

FACT: If all proposed solar farms in Caroline County were successfully developed, it would amount to under 2% of county farmland and is likely to represent the majority of solar that is able to be developed in the county in the future due to transmission constraints

Misconception #4: Limiting individual project size or acreage can help reduce viewshed and other impacts from solar farms

FACT: Larger solar farms have fewer neighbors per MW/per acre and fewer site perimeter per MW/per acre

PART III

Solar Development Best Practices

25

Utility Scale Solar Best Practices ‐ Screening

• Screening may be appropriate in some cases, such as mitigating impacts to historic structures or
• ther visually‐sensitive receptors
• Consists of a “row” of hedges, short trees or naturalized, native plantings to create “green wall”
• Cost is not inconsequential, and so usually not applied as blanket approach to entire perimeter
• Approaches taken by various states with significant solar growth:
• MD PPRP: screening as indicated by local authorities
• VA Model Ordinance: not recommended because it may discriminate against solar v. other development
• NC Template Ordinance: screening may be encouraged to minimize visual impact
• MA Model By‐Law: gives examples of approaches taken by 2 counties

26

Typical Solar Farm – Up Close View

27

Typical Solar Farm – 100 foot view without screening

28

Vegetative Screening ‐ Examples

29

Vegetative Screening ‐ Examples

30

Vegetative Screening ‐ Examples

31

Utility Scale Solar Best Practices ‐ Setbacks

• Some setbacks are appropriate for aesthetics and to maintain rural character
• Commons setbacks for large‐scale solar:
• 10‐50 feet from public roads and non‐participating property lines (often from equipment, not the fence)
• 100‐150 feet from non‐participating residences
• Important considerations
• Incorporating the views and opinions of local leaders and the adjacent community
• Whether setbacks can be waived (both by project participants and non‐participants)
• Whether solar is subject to setbacks not applied to other, more visible uses (e.g., poultry houses)
• Unnecessarily large setbacks creates unusable “strips” of productive agricultural land
• Approaches taken by various states with significant solar growth:
• MD PPRP: equipment 50 feet from roads and non‐participating property lines
• VA Model Ordinance: setbacks no greater than local building setbacks
• NC Template Ordinance: agricultural zone setbacks of 30 feet (front), 15 feet (side) and 25 feet (back)
• MA Model By‐Law: setbacks of 10 feet (front), 15 feet (side) and 25 feet (back)

32

Utility‐scale Solar Best Practices : Decommissioning

At the end of a solar project’s life, which is expected to be between 35 and 40 years, the facility will be decommissioned and the land restored to its original state. Decommissioning proceeds in reverse order of the installation:

1.

The PV facility is disconnected from the utility power grid.

2.

PV modules are disconnected, collected, and either shipped to another project, salvaged, or submitted to a collection and recycling program.

3.

Electrical interconnection and distribution cables are removed and recycled off‐site by an approved recycling facility.

4.

PV module support H‐beams and aluminum racking are removed and recycled off‐site by an approved metals recycler.

5.

Electrical and electronic devices, including transformers and inverters are removed and recycled off‐site by an approved recycler.

6.

Concrete piles used for the inverter blocks are removed and recycled off‐site by a concrete recycler.

7.

Fencing is removed and recycled off‐site by an approved recycler.

8.

Any interior project roads, typically constructed of 4” aggregate base, can either remain onsite should the landowner choose to retain them, or be removed and the gravel repurposed either on‐ or off‐site.

9.

The Project site may be converted to its original condition including revegetation, or to other land uses in accordance with applicable land use regulations in effect at that time of decommissioning. There are no permanent changes to the site.

33

Utility Scale Solar Best Practices ‐ Sound

• Sound from construction of solar is limited and managed with best practices:
• No blasting or rock breaking; little earth‐moving; piles driven to only shallow depths
• Construction restricted to daylight hours
• Neighbors will hear virtually no sound during operation:
• Inverters are not placed close to off‐site receptors
• Switchyard often adjacent to existing substation and participating land owners
• Approaches taken by various states with significant solar growth:
• MD PPRP: comply with state standards (65 dBA‐day; 55 dBA‐night)
• VA Model Ordinance: “noise is not expected to be an issue for solar energy projects”
• NC Template Ordinance: no sound or noise studies indicated
• MA Model By‐Law: solar “produces neither adverse noise impacts nor harmful emissions”

34

Utility Scale Solar Best Practices ‐ Agriculture

• Land is restored to cultivation‐ready at end of project
• Passive use during operation with little effect on top soil; less pesticide/herbicide use than agricultural
• All equipment (unless more than 2‐3 feet below grade) and roads removed
• Drain tile repaired
• Industry moving toward landscaping supportive of adjacent farms and future re‐cultivation
• Short, native turf grass as base vegetation under and around panels
• Pollinator habitat around perimeter
• Economic benefits to project participants and community helps preserve agricultural lifestyle
• Only a very small amount of Maryland farm land potentially may be devoted to solar (due to

transmission and market constraints). The vast majority of farmland in MD, including farmland adjacent to transmission infrastructure, is not suitable to solar development

• In each county, those few acres of farmland that can be used for solar return significantly higher tax

revenues to the county, produce far less water discharge/solid waste (essentially none) while requiring no new services of local communities

RESOURCES & ADDITIONAL SLIDES

36

Resources

• Model Solar Ordinances – Successful solar ordinances balance economic

development, property rights, land preservation, and environmental impact

• interests. Some examples include:
• VA DEQ: “Model Ordinance for Larger‐Scale Solar Energy Projects in Virginia”:
• http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/RenewableEnergy/LOG/12%2021%202012%20LARGER

%20SCALE%20SOLAR%20model%20ordinance.docx

• MA DER: “Model As‐of‐Right Zoning Bylaw: Allowing Use of Large‐Scale Ground‐Mounted

Solar Photovoltaic Installations”

• http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/green‐communities/grant‐program/solar‐model‐bylaw.pdf
• NC : “Template Solar Energy Development Ordinance for North Carolina”
• https://nccleantech.ncsu.edu/technology/renewable‐energy/solar/template‐ordinance‐for‐solar‐

energy‐development‐in‐north‐carolina/

37

Resources

• End of Project Life
• Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End‐of‐Life Disposal of Photovoltaics
• Top Five Large‐Scale Solar Myths
• https://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/state_local_governments/blog/top‐five‐large‐scale‐solar‐

myths

• “One city manager with numerous solar farms in his community compared the land use to a

cemetery (no living inhabitants), demonstrating that solar farms can be compatible even with residential neighbors.”

• Property Taxes
• Small project tax exemption: http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/4853
• Large project state tax contacts: Maryland DOAT’s Utility & Railroad Valuation division. Laura

Kittel or Ed Mohan – (410)‐767‐1940

• Noise:
• 2013 report from Argonne National Laboratory concluded that solar farm mechanical noise was

not a significant source of noise for off‐site receptors

• 2012 study conducted for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center found that solar farm
• perational noise is inaudible at moderate distances. The measured noise levels declined to

ambient background noise levels at distances between 50 and 150 feet.

Utility Scale Solar is not a Major Contributor to Ag Land Loss Across MD

80% of Maryland’s solar power is produced from rooftop and distributed solar. If that pattern continues, Maryland’s RPS can be realized with solar on less than 1/10th of 1%

• f its agricultural land.

Even if 100% of remaining RPS demand were met using farmland, it would require

• nly .41% of Maryland’s agricultural land.

If 2% of Caroline County’s >100k+ acres of farmland were used for solar farming, it would increase County annual property tax revenues by ~15% (not including indirect or induced revenues due to increased economic investment in the County)