Agenda - Council Work Session - 04/11/2023

Home

development potential. These meetings would provide an opportunity to gauge interest, collect site specific feedback and identify local barriers/concerns and opportunities. Developing a Closed Landfill Beneficial Reuse Program Continued interagency collaboration would be necessary to develop a Closed Landfill Beneficial Reuse Program aligned to the state's economic, equity, environmental justice, and environmental goals. Development of a Closed Landfill Beneficial Reuse Program would require further investigation into several topics, including solar ownership models, incentives, lease revenue uses, Solar Renewable Energy Certificate ownership, and interconnection costs. In the process of answering some questions in this study, the team encountered many more. The interagency team began documenting topics requiring further study. The following is not an exhaustive list of these topics: Continued research relating to bonds • Use of lease revenue. If CLP land is leased to a developer according to Minnesota Statute 11513.17, all CLP lease revenue must be deposited in the Remediation Fund. Adjustments to that statute could allow for lease revenue to be used in other ways. For example, the interagency team could explore whether it would be feasible to use lease revenue to finance other renewable projects or pay off GOB obligations at other sites. • Publicly owned and operated solar on bond -restricted property. One possible path forward where the bonded status of a CLP site would not present a barrier is for the MPCA to acquire, install, own and operate solar equipment sized to meet the energy needs of the landfill it is situated on and directly connected to the energy -using elements on the landfill. It may also be possible for MPCA to install solar equipment on a CLP site that produces energy in excess of that site's needs if MPCA remains a net purchaser of energy from the utility company within its territory. This scenario needs further vetting under state statutes and consultation with the State's bond counsel. If allowable, the maximum amount of solar energy produced by MPCA- owned equipment would be limited to the amount of energy consumed by MPCA within a utility service territory. • Non -bond restricted property at sites where bonds were used. On many CLP sites where bond financing was used there are property parcels that did not have bond financed construction activities and have no bond restrictions. Understanding more about these lands and their suitability for solar development could help the MPCA and other landfill owners understand the solar potential. • Future financing of capital projects at CLP sites. There are many CLP sites that are not bond restricted. To the extent any of these sites will require future remediation work under the closed landfill program and appear to be ideal locations for solar development, there are several options that should be considered before undertaking cleanup work. First, if the land area most suitable for solar development is not located on the area of the landfill to be improved, MPCA could still seek general obligation bonds to pay for the work but first subdivide the real estate in advance of using any bonds. If the exact boundary of the landfill improvements cannot be determined until the work is completed, thus making an initial parcel split infeasible, MPCA and MMB can develop a means for documenting an intent to subdivide once construction is complete. This would leave the areas suitable for solar separate and distinct from the bond restricted parcels. Second, MPCA could seek alternative sources of financing for future improvements that would not result in bond restrictions. These options can include cash or taxable state appropriation bonds, which are a slightly more expensive form of debt for the state. 12