Laserfiche WebLink
Geospatial Analysis and Ranking <br />The geospatial analysis was limited by the availability of geospatial data relative to the key criteria. In light <br />of these limitations, we used the following criteria in our scoring and ranking model: <br />• Landfill cap generation potential in megawatts (MW) <br />• Buffer generation potential in MW <br />• Total site solar generation potential in MW <br />• Distance to the nearest substation (miles) <br />We ranked all 110 CLP sites and identified the top five sites where GOBs were used and the top five sites <br />where GOBs were not used. They are: <br />• Flying Cloud Landfill — GOB restricted <br />• Western Lake Superior Sanitary District Landfill — GOB restricted <br />• Anoka -Ramsey Landfill — GOB restricted <br />• Redwood County Landfill — GOB restricted <br />• Winona County Landfill — GOB restricted <br />• Olmsted County Landfill <br />• Freeway Landfill <br />• Hibbing Landfill <br />• Kummer Landfill <br />• Maple Landfill <br />Geospatial analysis and scoring/ranking results are provided in the study for all 110 CLP sites. <br />Barriers and Recommendations <br />Stakeholders identified many potential barriers. The following three key barriers are common to all sites <br />and were the focus of discussion with the agency team and external stakeholders: <br />• Uncertainty about costs to connect to nearby transmission or distribution systems <br />• Uncertainty related to site suitability and CLP program responsibilities <br />• Increased construction costs associated with the unique features of closed landfill caps <br />The use of GOBs to improve 55 of the CLP sites represents a unique barrier to solar development on those <br />sites. According to the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget (MMB), federal tax law <br />imposes certain restrictions on the parcels where funds from a GOB were spent, and restrict private <br />benefits deriving from use of the parcels. <br />2 <br />