PowerPoint PresentationAA’s sources of electricity today… And tomorrow
1
Features of land use planning for solar • Planning goals for future sources of solar capacity
• Actions that steer solar capacity to brownfields, rooftops, and other developed surfaces
• Changes to lot coverage to sustain farming and rural land uses
• Restrictions on location to protect sensitive lands
• Zoning procedures that support sound decision-making
Effective and transparent statutory requirements reflecting best practices for • Screening buffers
• Ground cover under solar arrays and in buffers • Decommissioning requirements
• Financial and management assurances for the duration of the project • Height, glare, and other standards
2
The cost of solar power has dropped dramatically in recent years
The cost per Watt of all types of solar photovoltaics (PV) are fractions of what they were only a few years ago
Source: DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory
• Including government incentives, new solar electricity is competitive with all other forms of generation, including natural gas.
• With further cost declines in the next few years, solar can be economic even without government incentives.
3
Cost reductions and government policy will lead to significant growth in solar capacity in the coming years
Source: Goldman Sachs Source: Dept. of Energy, EIA, 2018
Renewable energy is growing as a share of total power generation in the U.S.
Solar Photovoltaics (PV) are the fastest growing renewable technology in the U.S.
4
To support and follow this trend, Maryland has renewable energy goals, including specific targets for in-state solar generation
• Maryland Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) • Current Policy:
• 25% of total electricity sales from renewables by 2020
• Eligible sources: solar, wind, biomass, anaerobic decomposition, geothermal, ocean, fuel cells powered through renewables, small hydro, poultry-litter incineration facilities, waste-to- energy facilities
• 2.5% must be from in-state solar facilities (note:
the statewide target is not binding at the county level)
• While the solar targets can be achieved with solar energy produced anywhere in Maryland, we applaud Anne Arundel County for doing its “fair share”
Source: DSIRE, 2018
5
AA county has a healthy number of rooftop systems, but lags other counties in solar capacity installed per capita
• As of mid-2016, Anne Arundel had:
• ~4,000 solar installations (mostly rooftop) • 41.1 MW of solar capacity • Average facility size of 10 kW, which produces ~1.2x
the average household consumption in Maryland
Source: Data as of June 2016, from MD PSC report on Renewable Portfolio Standard, Jan 2017
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
6
To reach 2.5% solar by 2020, AA needs about 110 MW of solar, or an increase of about 30 mw between 2017 to 2020*
(additional to known projects)
Solar capacity additions (MW) needed to meet AA county share of MD goal for 2020
41.1
12.8
16.8
Ft Meade Ft Smallwood Implied Gap 2020 Goal
7 *Note: The statewide target is not binding at the county level. These figures illustrate the capacity that would be needed if the county met its estimated share of the total.
Options for providing ~ 30 mw from solar by 2020*
If we want to get all 30 mw from one source, our options would include:
• 6,000 residential rooftops (0.0005 mw each), or
• 273 commercial rooftop solar systems like CBF headquarters (0.11mw), or
• 43 parking canopies like AACC (0.7 mw), or
• 17 parking canopies like that in Charles County (1.8 mw), or
• 21 ground-based school sites like Ft. Smallwood (1.4 mw), or
• 15 ground-based, ~ 15-acre projects @ 2 mw each (aka “community”
solar), or
• ~ 2 ground-based, ~ 100 acre projects like Annapolis/AA landfill @ 16.8 mw
• Or some combination of the above >>>>>>>>>
If we want to get 30 mw from “all of the above,” that mix could include:
8
1,200 residential rooftops
55 commercial rooftops
1 project like that proposed for Sands Rd.
*Note: The statewide target is not binding at the county level. These figures illustrate the capacity that would be needed if the county met its estimated share of the total.
Put another way: Each 2 MW community solar project is ~ equivalent to…
400 residential rooftops
(0.005 MW each)
1.4 school arrays like that
at Ft. Smallwood (1.4 MW)
2.6 parking canopies like that at AACC (0.7 MW), or
1.1 parking canopies like that proposed for Charles County (1.8 MW)
9
1. Maximize solar on brownfields, roof-tops, and other developed surfaces
2. Preserve the viability of AA’s farm economy, environment, and communities
3. Ensure public input to “ground truth” decisions on siting and standards
4. Manage solar arrays effectively to protect environment, communities, and taxpayers
10
Options for facilitating solar on brownfields
• Identify public and private brownfield sites that may be appropriate for solar development as part of the upcoming GDP
• Citizens strongly prefer brownfield over greenfield development. We currently have limited information about the viability of former landfills or surface mines.
• Some viable sites may not be listed in the data bases used by developers in screening prospective parcels
• Provide zoning incentives for solar on brownfields or other impaired surfaces
• Consider allowing higher lot coverage, fewer conditions (as appropriate)
• Ensure that solar is allowed in all applicable districts (most--but perhaps not all—brownfields are in zoning districts where solar is permitted under current law)
• Provide economic incentives for brownfields • Massachusetts provides an electricity pricing bonus for solar
on brownfields, penalties for solar on greenfields • Provide tax incentives for reclaiming mines or brownfields
with solar • Acquire electricity from brownfield sites at somewhat higher
price to reflect long-term benefit of preserving other land
11
Promote county-owned brownfields for 2 mw solar projects
BGE and solar developers failed to meet the state’s 2017 goal for brownfield projects under the “community” solar pilot program for 2 mw projects
• Option: re-issue county’s 2015 solar RFP for Sands Road and Glen Burnie for 2018-2019 community solar pilot projects (10 mw total). Don’t give up—solar economics continue to improve.
Results through July 2017
BGE’s 2017 Goal
AA projects as % of BGE through July
Total 40 mw 30 mw 9.3 mw 30%
Low and moderate income
12 12 2 16%
12
Remove barriers to solar capacity in commercial and other zoning districts
• Amend the zoning code to allow “principal” solar uses in commercial, maritime, as well as industrial zoning districts. Examples:
• In December 2017, a contract for a 1.8 mw parking canopy for Charles County had to be cancelled because of a glitch in the zoning code for the City of La Plata
• Some commercial property arrangements may be more suited to “principal” rather than “accessory” solar production
13
Maximize the installation of solar rooftop systems → add more rooftop solar to schools and county buildings
→ keep building codes in sync with technology
14
Amount of AA farmland eligible for greenfield solar is affected by lot coverage ratio
Farm size Acres USDA census, 2012
Number of farms in 2012
Midpoint of range of acres
(not actual avg.)
(not actual/group)
# farms eligible if cap
(allowed under current law)
1-9 88 5 400 10-15 0 0 0
10-49 167 30 4,400 10-15 0 0 167
50-179 98 115 10,100 10-15 Some at upper end of range
98 98
Total 381 28,111 (actual)
% farmland available for panels 5% 21% 79%
Acres used if each farm @2 mw 440 1,890 4,395
% farmland used if each @ 2 mw 2% 7% 16%
Total mw if each farm @ 2 mw 56 252 586
% of farmland available if all ag preservation land excluded
?? ?? ?? 15
Current 80% lot coverage allowance converts farm/rural land to commercial use
The 80% coverage ratio effectively upzones the entire parcel for commercial use
Converting rural land to commercial use endangers AA’s local farm economy
Original
Nutwell-
Sudley
solar
arrays
16
Option: Keep 80% lot coverage for brownfields but reduce the lot coverage allowed for greenfield projects in RA districts
to ensure that solar supports but does not supplant farming
Note: current “bulk” limit for lot coverage in RA is 25% Most of the proposed community solar projects fall near that range. Caveat: the projects’ actual “lot coverage” as defined in the zoning code may be smaller
Pending Project
Project % of parcel
60 16.5 27.5 %
17
On the plus side… Properly managed solar systems could support AA’s farm economy
• Requiring solar projects to include pollinator friendly vegetation could bolster crop production. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education says that:
• "Research results increasingly show that the restoration of plant biodiversity within and around crop fields can improve habitat for managed and wild bees as well as other insects, and thus enhance pollination services."
Leasing a portion of their land for solar arrays would give farmers a stable source of income. Presumably this would reduce their financial risk, and thus increase the odds that they would be able to continue farming.
Such financial stability will be especially important in the future. According to the Center for Agricultural and Natural Resource Policy’s Policy Analysis Report: The Impact of Agriculture on Maryland's Economy:
Weather uncertainty, and commodity pricing cause farm receipts to vary from year to year. And, there is increasing probability of this, as costs for inputs and marketing receipt fluctuations are increasing
18
Historical and cultural resources 18-10-141 (7)
Resource conservation areas (RCA) within the Critical Area 18-13-206 (37)
19
Greenfields: Add siting exclusion to protect sensitive forest habitats • Action: Add a new condition that prohibits solar
arrays in intact forests, such as those mapped as greenways (some of this land is excluded by easement protections and RCA in the Critical Area)
• These forests protect streams, reduce air pollution, and sequester carbon
• Key portions of intact forests in South County are unprotected (other than SERC, Jug Bay, and Franklin Pt.)
• Intact forests are at risk without clear prohibitions: a solar developer in Charles County has proposed putting a 27 mw array on 190 acres of predominately wooded land
20
Greenfields: Add a condition that addresses Anne Arundel’s topography
• Findings of “no effect” on property values are based on the premise that vegetated buffers will block the view of solar arrays. Unlike counties on the eastern shore, Anne Arundel has elevation differentials that could limit the effectiveness of standard buffer designs, especially for properties that would look ‘down’ on the arrays.
• Site approval should be contingent on assessments and findings by professional, independent experts that the visual impact of the arrays will be mitigated for properties within a specified radius of the site.
21
Public review: Revise the approval process for greenfield projects to “ground truth” the suitability of the site and mitigation measures
Types of “principal” solar systems Procedural requirements
Ground-mounted systems on brownfields, rights-of-way, or other impaired sites (RA or industrial districts)
Conditional
Commercial parking canopies and other facilities that are not “accessory” uses
Conditional
Special exception
Ground-mounted systems smaller than 2 mw (or less than ~ 15 acres and not accessory use)
Special exception (unless the scope
and effectiveness of conditions unequivocally protects sensitive environmental and community assets)
22
Essential features of performance standards and conditions
1. Transparent and enforceable 1. Landscape manual should have a separate section for solar because of its scale and unique impacts
2. Core principals should be codified in zoning code
3. Owners as well as operators must be legally accountable (ownership of the arrays probably will change over time)
2. Ensures lifetime performance 1. Vegetation is primary method for mitigating impacts of solar. Mitigation must be effective over life of the project
2. County will need to conduct inspections at regular intervals over the project to ensure it is being maintained in accordance with all standards
3. Need contractual covenants and financial assurances for lifetime maintenance and performance
3. Maximizes environmental benefits 1. AA’s limited supply of undeveloped land must remain ecologically viable for future uses
2. Proximity to farmland requires maximum pollinator benefits and soil management
3. Proximity to homes requires effective and sustainable buffers with diverse native species
4. Protects taxpayers 1. Need financial assurances for performance based on cash, not collateral
2. Need contractual covenants and cash-based bonding for decommissioning
23
Buffers: Amend 18-10-141 (2) to require effective buffer within 5 years and maintenance over the life of the project. Create solar-specific standards in Landscape Manual that require planting and maintaining buffer with diverse, native species.
Policy goal Suggested code requirements (Cb=Cambridge; Ca = Caroline; F = Frederick; QA = Queen Ann’s; T = Talbot)
Effectiveness Require “opaque” (effective) visual barrier that “obscures” arrays within 5 (QA, Ca). Screen adjoining land, road rights-of- way, and road easements (T)
Native species in buffer Native species in the buffer should be no less than 50% of vegetation (QA)
Diversity of species Avoid monotony: Require varied plant species (Cb); no more than 25% of one species (QA)
Design Staggered rows of evergreens (Cb, QA, T); triangular spacing; other requirements (Cb, QA)
Evergreen trees Minimum 6+ feet at planting (Cb, QA, T); goal of 8 feet after 2 years (Cb)
Deciduous Interspersed w/evergreens; native only; minimum 2-inch caliper (QA); planted in clusters (Cb);
Understory trees Interspersed w/other trees; native only; minimum 1.5 inch caliper (QA)
Shrubs Native species, interspersed with trees (Cb, QA, T); 24 inch height or 30 inch spread at planting (QA)
Ground plantings Buffer shall include flowering ground cover for pollinator habitat (QA). Min. 10’ buffer of pollinating ground cover (Cb)
Existing vegetation Healthy existing vegetation in the buffer area that meets standards should be retained. (QA)
Sustainability Require irrigation/watering to establish vegetation (QA)
Accountability Scheduled inspections; retain the right to inspect and require replacement of plant material for duration of system (Cb)
Lifetime performance Vegetation must be maintained in good health for the duration of the use and replaced by owner/operator to satisfaction of county (QA, Cb). Require performance contracts and bonds (QA, T)
Buffer width Should be determined by tree density and pollinator buffer; min. 25’ (T/Ca), 50’ (QA), 75’ (Cb)
24
Ground Cover: Amend 18-10-141 (7) to require native species that maximize benefits to pollinators, soils, and ground-based habitats. Codify specific standards in the Landscape Manual
Policy goal Suggested code requirements (Cb=Cambridge; Ca = Caroline; F = Frederick; QA = Queen Ann’s; T = Talbot)
Area under panels Must be native, warm season, low growing grasses that benefit pollinators (Cb)
Pollinator benefits All ground cover must benefit pollinating species (Cb)
Native species in buffer Native ground-cover species in buffer no less than 75% of vegetation over life of project (Scorecard 15 pts)
Flowering plants in buffer Buffer must include 10’ of pollinating ground cover (Cb)
Diversity of flowering plants At least 10 flowering species, with each covering at > 2 % of the flowering plants, preferably using a large diversity of plant families represented (Scorecard, 10 pts);
Seasons of flowering plants Require minimum of 3 blooming species with > 2% cover each in 3 flowering seasons (Scorecard = 20)
Existing vegetation Healthy existing meadow plants that meet standards should be retained. (QA)
Mowing Restrict mowing during nesting season for ground nesting birds (May-Aug.), consistent with state standards (DNR/PPRP)
Pesticides Prohibited (Scorecard deducts 40 pts)
Soils Top soil should be preserved. Required replanting of any ground cover or trees removed during construction (QA)
Sustainability Require irrigation/watering schedule to establish vegetation (QA)
Accountability Scheduled inspections; retain the right to inspect and require replacement of plant material for duration of system (Cb)
Lifetime performance Require maintenance contracts, bonds at 125% of landscape’s installed value (Cb,QA,T); Vegetation must be maintained in good health for the duration of the use and replaced by owner/operator to satisfaction of county (QA, Cb). 25
Decommissioning: Amend 18-10-141(8) to require cash-based financial assurances and contractual covenants that will ensure sufficient resources will be available to restore the site and reclaim the land once solar operations end
Policy goal Suggested code requirements (Cb = Cambridge; Ca = Caroline; F = Frederick; QA = Queen Ann; T = Talbot)
Plan before approval Decommissioning plan prepared by 3rd party professional before construction starts (e.g., 90 days) (QA)
Liable parties Facility developer and operator probably will be different legal entities and responsibility may change hands several times. Both owner and operator must be liable for decommissioning obligations.
Covenants Recorded covenant by owner to reclaim site (T). Require legally binding agreement executed by applicant and owner to reclaim site (QA).
Form of financial assurance Security shall exclude salvage value of improvements(QA) Security instruments should be redeemable for cash. Developers or owners should bear the risk of liquidating any collateral backing the bonds, guarantees, etc.
Value of assurances Typically 115-125% of anticipated costs at time of approval (T, QA) Updated at certain intervals, e.g., 5 years after start of operations (QA). Ensure costs not borne by state or county. Security must be approved by county (QA). Value of assurances must account for inflation.
Trigger for decommissioning Varies. Examples range from 6 months (F, T) without producing electricity, adjusting for mitigating circumstances beyond operator’s control.
Restoration requirement Return land to original condition, including removal of above ground equipment and access roads; Regrading and revegetation of disturbed areas
Restoration timeline Varies. Examples range from 4 -12 months after abandonment (QA, Ca)
Inspections Require county inspection and approval of decommissioning and reclamation 26
Mitigate other impacts: Amend 18-10-141 to incorporate best practices for solar arrays
Policy goal Suggested code requirements (Cb= Cambridge; Ca =Caroline; QA = Queen Ann; T = Talbot)
Height of panels Amend 18-10-141(1) to limit maximum height to 15 feet (Ca) or 16 feet (Cb)
Glare- studies Amend 18-10-141(3) to require study that identifies angle and height of reflection throughout the year, impacts on nearby residences, roadways (F)
Glare - effectiveness Owner/operator accountability: If complaints regarding glare/reflection are received by the applicant and/or the county within two (2) years of installation, those complaints shall be addressed and mitigated to the county’s satisfaction and a written solution shall be submitted to the county for review and approval (Cb)
Lighting Amend 18-10-141 (6) to require lights activated by motion sensors and require lighting be fully shielded and downcast to prevent light from shining onto adjacent parcels or the night sky (Ca, Cb)
Tree removal Locate and construct arrays so as to minimize removal of existing trees on parcel (Ca); require compliance with all county and state forestry laws. Solar arrays should not be exempt from forestry laws even if state law exempts electric generation facilities.
Fencing Barbed and razor wire prohibited (Cb, QA); Maximum 8 feet (Cb, QA)
Noise Document that noise does not exceed (TBD) decibels at property line (QA = 60 db); Construction exempt
Electromagnetic fields Adopt state standards, at a minimum
Fire prevention Adopt state standards, at a minimum
27
Plans, bonds, and covenants: Legal and financial accountability for performance
Policy goal Suggested code requirements (CB= Cambridge; F=Frederick, QA= Queen Ann; T = Talbot)
Public notice Written notice to all property owners within one mile radius & block advertisement with map (F); Require posting of a sign on the property with map, notice of meeting (T). Publish notice in newspaper, w/approval of county (T)
Public meeting Meeting must be held before application; minutes submitted with application (F); before approval (T)
Visual impact analysis Require analysis of impact on all adjoining properties and roadways from all angles (Cb)
Landscaping plan Must be prepared by licensed landscaping professional. One county requires a 3rd party to prepare landscaping plans (QA)
Decommissioning plan Must be prepared by a licensed financial professional and be approved before permitting
Glint & glare analysis Identify angle and height of reflection throughout the year, impacts on nearby residences, roadways (F)
Landscaping and decommissioning bonds
Require bonding for value of planting and decommissioning prior to issuing permits/construction. (See buffer and groundcover pages for more specs)
Covenants for performance
Require legally binding agreement with applicant and property owner to maintain and reclaim the site before construction starts (see buffer, groundcover and decommissioning pages for more specs)
28