Agenda - Council Work Session - 04/11/2023

Home

Reflections on the technical assessment The technical assessment prepared by Barr (Attachment 1) offered valuable insights into the solar capacity represented at CLP sites, the key barriers, and recommended steps to facilitate solar development at CLP sites. The following are the interagency team-s reflections on Barr's findings: • Solar potential o CLP sites represent a significant opportunity for solar development, both on landfill waste footprints (caps) and in buffer areas. o Half of the CLP sites do not have bond restrictions, and even on some landfill sites where bonds were used, there are non -bond encumbered parcels. Facilitating solar development on non -GOB restricted property may be a way to move forward with solar development quickly. Because the technical assessment considered each landfill site as a whole, more information is needed to understand the opportunity for solar development on non -bond encumbered acres at sites where bonds were used. • Barriers o The study helped clarify that there are relatively few technological barriers to siting solar on closed landfills. Solar development can be done safely and in a way that protects the integrity of the landfill. o The study helped clarify ways the state can and cannot remove existing GOB restrictions, and illuminated steps to take in future projects to limit use restrictions on CLP sites. o Many of the highest-ranking sites have GOB -restricted property and are located near electricity demand. o Many barriers to solar identified in the technical assessment are not unique to solar on closed landfills and relate to solar in general. These include upgrades to the grid, funding of small projects, and in some cases, a higher cost of energy relative to other energy sources. • Recommended steps o Many of the recommended steps would require expanded statutory authority and funding for the CLP to focus on property reuse. o While solar development may proceed on non -bond restricted CLP sites, the process may be constrained by the CLP's existing staff capacity. o The MPCA can develop publicly owned and operated small-scale solar to serve electricity needs on -site, even on bond restricted sites. It may be possible that the MPCA could size a solar project to offset electricity use from multiple MPCA CLP sites within a utility service area, however more study is needed to determine what the exact barriers might be. o More study is needed to explore incentives and policies that would facilitate solar development. Understanding the specific revenues and costs of solar development at closed landfills, as well as market conditions, would help the state determine whether incentives are necessary, and how they would be best applied in Minnesota's context. o More study is needed to explore various solar ownership models, the costs and benefits of each, and which would be appropriate for Minnesota.