Minnesota Brightfields Study Results
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•502 views
In 2019, the Minnesota Legislature allocated funding to the Environmental Quality Board to study the potential for solar development on Minnesota’s Closed Landfill Program sites. Solar development on these sites would put underutilized, contaminated land to use generating clean energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and creating jobs and revenue. Siting solar on brownfields like closed landfills—called "brightfield" development—can also reduce development pressure on other lands, such as farmland and natural areas. The Environmental Quality Board delivered a report to the legislature in December 2020, and data about Closed Landfills Program sites is now available.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Minnesota Brightfields Study Results
Similar to Minnesota Brightfields Study Results (20)
More from University of Minnesota
More from University of Minnesota (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Minnesota Brightfields Study Results
- 1. Minnesota Brightfields: What did we learn from the Solar on Closed Landfills Feasibility Study? Faith Krogstad, Environmental Quality Board Andy Polzin, Barr Engineering Co.
- 2. Agenda • Background • Findings • Recommendations • Q&A 2
- 3. Opportunities & challenges Opportunities: • Underutilized land • Generate revenues, green jobs • Make clean energy more accessible • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions • Provide wildlife habitat Challenges: • Lack of information • Bond restrictions 3
- 4. Legislative charge 1. Assessment of solar potential at closed landfills 2. Identification of barriers to solar and ways to address those barriers 3. Policy recommendations to facilitate solar on closed landfills 4
- 5. Legislative charge, continued Delivered report to the Legislature on Dec 1, 2020 to outgoing and incoming chairs and ranking members (if known): • Senate Enviro/Nat Resources Finance • Senate Enviro/Nat Resources Policy & Legacy • Senate Energy & Utilities Finance & Policy • House Enviro/Nat Resources Policy • House Energy & Climate Finance & Policy 5
- 6. Study team & engagement • Interagency team • Environmental Quality Board (lead) • Pollution Control Agency • Dept. of Administration • Dept. of Commerce • Dept. of Management and Budget • Metropolitan Council • Technical contractor • Barr Engineering Co. 6 Stakeholder engagement • Interviews • Focus groups • Conference presentations
- 7. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Closed Landfill Program • Long-term care of 110 sites • 8,500 acres • Varied ownership (45 state, 54 local government, 11 private) 7
- 8. Example of a Closed Landfill Program site 8
- 9. Closed Landfill Program sites in Minnesota 9
- 10. Technical assessment: GIS analysis
- 11. Solar potential • 4,500 buildable acres • 950 megawatts • Enough to power over 100,000 homes 11
- 12. Ranking of sites Closed Landfill Program Site City Est. Solar Capacity (MW) Overall Ranking TOP FIVE BONDED SITES Flying Cloud Landfill Eden Prairie 43.1 1 Western Lake Superior Sanitary District Landfill Duluth 40.3 2 Anoka-Ramsey Landfill Ramsey 27.5 4 Redwood County Landfill Redwood Falls 31.7 5 Winona County Landfill Winona 30.9 6 TOP FIVE NON-BONDED SITES Olmsted County Landfill Oronoco 44.8 3 Freeway Landfill Burnsville 23.6 8 Hibbing Landfill Hibbing 12.4 15 Kummer Landfill Bemidji 11.1 21 Maple Landfill Pequot Lakes 10.6 22 12
- 13. Barriers: Site-specific suitability & uncertainty • Site-specific information needed • Construction costs may be higher on the landfill cap • Interconnection costs unknown • Increased complexity 13
- 14. Barrier: Past use of bond financing • ~$100M in bonds used to make improvements across 55 sites • Bond use attaches restrictions to land – no private use • Few ways to release restrictions 14
- 15. Barrier: Statutory authority • Property reuse not included or funded in Closed Landfill Program mission • Limited ability to facilitate solar development 15
- 16. Recommendation: Retire bond debt • Frees up land for beneficial reuse • Could generate significant revenues into the future • Top five bond-restricted sites: $7.5M principal debt remaining 16
- 17. Recommendation: Expand statutory authority • Proactively reuse sites and fund work • Establish Closed Landfill Beneficial Reuse Program • Continue collaboration and study 17
- 18. Further areas of study • Solar on bonded sites • Public solar – net purchaser • Use of revenue to retire bond debt • Non-bond restricted parcels • Future financing of cleanup work • Beneficial Reuse program design • Ownership models, financing, RECs • Equity and environmental justice • Environmental considerations 18
- 19. Further areas of study, continued 19 • Economics • Site-specific information • Interconnection • Policies & incentives • Virtual net metering • Brownfield exception • Public Use Community Solar Gardens • Closed landfill solar incentives
- 20. Feasibility of Solar Development on State-Managed Closed Landfills Potential • 4,500 buildable acres • 950 MW • Power >100,000 homes Barriers • Site suitability & uncertainty • Past use of bond financing • Statutory authority & funding Recommendations • Pay off the bonds and legislatively release bond restrictions • Expand statutory authority • Establish & fund Closed Landfill Beneficial Reuse Program • Continue interagency collaboration
- 21. 21 Thank you! For further information: • Legislative report: Faith Krogstad, faith.krogstad@state.mn.us • Technical assessment: Andy Polzin, apolzin@barr.com • MPCA Closed Landfill Program: Hans Neve, hans.neve@state.mn.us To access the report and GIS tool: bit.ly/SolarReport2020
Editor's Notes
- 1994 Legislature passed the Landfill Cleanup Act Gave MPCA responsibility to care for closed MSW landfills in-perpetuity (had to close by certain date) Avoided Superfund litigation, Societal problem Mission is to manage risks to protect human health and the environment We do so by addressing groundwater contamination and landfill gas migration (sampling/analysis/investigations/cover reconstruction) Must develop Land Use Plans and partner with LGUs to adopt appropriate land-use controls
- Cap vs. buffer. Presence of monitoring wells, flares. Responsibility of CLP to monitor and maintain closed landfill. Cap is treeless, graded, mostly flat. Buffer varies – forest, wetland, grassland. 75 percent of total CLP acreage does not contain solid waste
- WDE landfill, Andover (#12, 17 MW nameplate capacity, ~50 buildable acres cap, 32 acres buffer)
- General obligation bonds (GOBs) were used at half the Closed Landfill Program sites Use of GOBs attaches use restrictions to parcels Bond restrictions limit solar development If private use is approved, bonds would lose their tax-exempt status and the state would be subject to financial penalties
- Can enter into leases, however –legal authority but not administrative ability (would run into state contracting problems) What about the two existing arrays on CLP sites? MPCA’s solar – Lindenfelser, Washington Cty serve energy needs onsite – part of a “response action.” Both are bonded sites, public use, not private.
- Program design considerations include: Further work on bonding – lease revenue, nonbonded parcels, public solar Ownership models Environmental and social considerations Interconnection study Incentives and policies for hard-to-develop sites