Laserfiche WebLink
• trees and vegetation would not need to be removed <br />• the presence of pollinators/native vegetation could be encouraged <br />• there may be greater public acceptance of this use <br />• the site may generate tax revenue to local governments <br />• local governments may buy power <br />• states may issue incentives for this type of use <br />Respondents also documented some perceived negatives for developing solar energy on closed landfills. <br />These include: <br />• greater costs for constructing solar facilities <br />• geotechnical challenges inherent at these sites <br />• public distaste for seeing solar arrays <br />• access to monitoring wells and vents may be required, which could reduce MWs per acre <br />• production may be too little to gain utility interest <br />• sites may be too far from transmission lines to make distribution economical <br />• there is no one clearing house to aid developers <br />• access to private funding is difficult <br />Notes from six small group discussions held during the two focus group meetings were prepared by <br />volunteers in each small group and forwarded to Barr for review. These small group notes and the <br />observations of focus group facilitators and agency committee members provided important input to our <br />identification of barriers and opportunities, which fed into our initial development of the comprehensive <br />list of criteria affecting the feasibility of solar development on CLP sites. <br />B3.3 One-on-one Discussions <br />Following the focus group meetings, Barr reached out to individuals regarding specific feedback to obtain <br />more information and to clarify key findings or observations. They included solar developers with much <br />experience developing solar projects on landfills across the U.S., utility representatives, both from investor <br />owned utilities and regional electric cooperatives, solar contractors and vendors with experience <br />constructing solar projects on landfills, and energy experts from government or non-profit organizations. <br />These follow up meetings were critical to analyzing information obtained during the focus group <br />meetings and clarifying key points and feedback. <br />B3.4 EPA — Brightfields Program <br />Following the focus group meetings, the EQB set up a meeting with EPA staff, Minnesota's Interagency <br />Solar on Closed Landfills team, and Barr to discuss opportunities and barriers to solar development on <br />CLP sites and the potential for technical assistance from EPA. The meeting was held April 20, 2020 and <br />was led by Laura Strine, EPA's RE -Powering America's Lands Initiative Coordinator. The EPA provided <br />information regarding state policies, incentive programs, and strategic engagement for communities to <br />states such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Colorado who are developing or <br />interested in developing solar on brownfields. The EPA has provided technical assistance regarding <br />streamlining permitting programs, and financial analyses to assist states in determining whether there is <br />B6 <br />