Laserfiche WebLink
land management area <br />monitoring +gel <br />waste footprint <br />boundary <br />groundwater plume <br />potential transmission station <br />At least one other state — Massachusetts — has successfully developed solar PV systems on hundreds of <br />privately owned closed landfill properties (albeit without bond restrictions) over the last ten years. <br />Massachusetts is a good example (reference (1)). Minnesota can learn from these successes. <br />There are many criteria to consider when determining if solar development is appropriate for a specific <br />CLP site. To learn more about these criteria and their relative importance, Barr led a process of <br />stakeholder engagement, gathering input from state agencies, utilities, solar developers, local government <br />units, and non-profit organizations. We carefully considered the input and criteria and, using geospatial <br />analysis techniques, created a ranking system to identify the top five GOB -restricted sites and the top five <br />non -GOB restricted sites for solar development. With input from the state agencies participating in this <br />study, barriers were identified and recommendations to address those barriers developed. The balance of <br />this report organized as follows: <br />Section 2. Presents the criteria this study identified that affect the potential for solar development on <br />closed landfill properties. <br />Section 3. Describes the geospatial analysis used to rank closed landfills for potential solar development. <br />Section 4. Describes barriers to solar development on closed landfills and actions to address those <br />barriers. <br />no, <br />