One of my primary interests in renewable energy. I'm particularly interested in solar photovoltaic energy (the kind with the panels), at both the residential and commercial scales. Here in Minnesota, we don't really have the kind of sun exposure required for some of the other forms (like those in the California and Arizona deserts that use mirrors to superheat molten salt), so solar panels are what we have.
There are some challenges that the solar industry faces here. We are very far north. The Twin Cities are at 45 degrees north and has a fairly cloudy outlook for much of the winter. It also gets a fair amount of snow. But that is not as big an obstacle as one might think. Germany has a similar cloud problem and is situated even farther north, yet it has used a combination of feed-in tariffs, incentives, and changes in the way energy is regulated and billed. This has led to a substantial growth in the solar sector. While it still relies on lignite coal (a very dirty fuel), it has shown that the proper economic, regulatory, and social conditions can lead to great success with solar in seemingly unlikely places. If they can do it there, we can do it here too. Panels can be cleared, and much snow melts or slips off due to the mounting angle. Increased panel efficiency has also allowed for more generation even on cloudy days. Besides, we have too good of a resource to pass up.
Fortunately, Minnesota's government has been proactive in pushing solar and other renewable energy development, including a strong statutory requirement for energy utilities with generation benchmarks for renewables and a separate solar-specific generation requirement. That, combined with the extension of the federal renewable energy investment tax credit (and the credit's revision to apply to projects begun, not online, by certain dates) mean Minnesota is on track for a big push into the solar photovoltaic realm. In fact, there are already a number of major projects that are getting quite far along in the development process including plans to partially power/offset electric use by Twin Cities Light Rail system and build a large solar farm to supply Xcel Energy.
The Chisago County solar development project is an exciting project in my opinion because it demonstrates several things: that solar can be produced even in the northeastern part of the state, that it is economically viable for the utility, and that it is economically valuable to the community (property taxes and lease income for solar are much higher than the going rates for agriculture in that marginal growing part of the state). Still, not everyone is happy. Some residents that were surrounded by solar leases had their homes bought out by the developers, but others who merely bordered it, or were boxed in on the sides by different developments, have been complaining. They weren't offered buyouts and are concerned about views. I tend to agree that they won't be much affected, especially with the planting and maintenance of a tree buffer, and the arrays are not noisy, polluting, or disruptive, so physical impairment of the use and enjoyment of their land should be minimal to none. It seems to me that this is another case of NIMBY-ism, though slightly more justified than the irrational windmill haters opposed to the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts. Still, they do have some marginal affect on their property interest (in their community's nature and their potential views, they seem to discount how panels can be interesting to watch, especially tracking ones, and the potential for increased birds and insects in the soon to be non-agriculture plant growth surrounding the panels). It is also not even clear that being near a solar project will harm property values because none of the area houses have yet been offered for sale, let alone sold on open market. This would bear watching in the future as a test, but there are lots of other factors that would need to be examined as well to tease out the possible effects of the solar site.
Other anti-solar movements, posing as neighborhood concern, have appeared in Sherburne County, where residents are trying to push a setback for solar arrays to hundreds of feet, essentially rendering the project uneconomical and killing it. While it is reasonable to have larger zoning setbacks when residential and commercial/industrial uses meet, it is not rational to push it to such an extent that a non-invasive, non-harmful, non-polluting use becomes impossible (i.e. it's not like they are building a loud, noisy, dusty, polluting cement factory). I don't know what direction the county zoning board will go, but I do hope that they opt for a number that still enables development of solar projects of sufficient size to be economical for the developer and meaningful for the state's energy needs.
Finally, there is the issue of residential solar development. Some people can't put panels on their home because they rent, have an apartment, or have an unsuitable roof type or orientation. For them, the solution is to buy a share in a community solar garden. This is a Minnesota specific (so far as I can tell) solution whereby a person or entity buys a share of the power from a third party solar development that can then be applied toward his/her/its energy bill. This expands access to solar greatly, helps create a market for solar energy, and provides financing for additional development. For those who do have the financing, site suitability, and space for hosting their own solar, there are many programs and incentives for financing them including tax rebates, exemptions from property tax for the value of solar panels, and other possible incentives that vary by municipality. Financing can also often be achieved using PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) programs, where the cost of the array is added to the property tax assessment and paid off in installments at low interest over a number of years. And, to ensure that changes in the neighborhood don't impede established solar, Minnesota has created a statutory solar easement (there might be a common law one as well, but I'm not sure about Minnesota, other states definitely do) that guarantees a right to the sun for properly described panels, including the right to restrict the use of neighboring land that might impair that right.
As a fun thought experiment, I also pondered whether such a solar easement (express or implied) would be a property right subject to eminent domain. I believe it is because under a line of Supreme Court cases, while there is no longer a right to the sky infinitely, there is a right to as much of the sky as can reasonably be used by the occupant on the ground. This prevents airplanes (except low flying ones) from being trespassers, but it does create a right to build tall buildings, windmills, geothermal plants, gas flares, and other structures and developments that might require large amounts of overhead clearance. It also almost certainly would include a right to unimpeded access to the sun for an existing solar array (of any form) or solar heating element. If a neighbor built in a way that harmed it, that neighbor would be damaging your interest and you could likely enforce your easement (especially if recorded). If the government built in a similar way, it would have to compensate you, though what that compensation would ultimately consist of I couldn't begin to guess. There are so many things that could be considered (value of panels, value of the energy, value of future production, etc.) that it would be quite an interesting fight, one that would surely make it into textbooks, lecture circuits, and conferences around the country. I don't think it's happened yet, but with the amount of growth we are seeing in the solar industry, it's only a matter of time.
So, solar is a growth industry, and it's even growing here, in the seemingly unlikely northern state of Minnesota. We may not have the non-stop desert sun of Arizona and Southern California, but we do have an excellent resource and are only beginning to tap into its potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment