Solar Developer “Disinformation” Reality

Charles Rotter passed along a link to an article by a solar energy developer in New York that claims disinformation campaigns were hurting New York’s implementation of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act).  After I looked at the article, I can safely say that it’s another example of my pragmatic environmental principle Observation on Environmental Issue Stakeholders: The more vociferous/louder the criticisms made by a stakeholder the more likely that the stakeholder is guilty of the same thing.  This post looks at disinformation claims associated with a solar development project in New York.

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 400 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible using zero-emissions electricity. The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan outline of strategies.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan was finalized at the end of 2022. 

Correction 6/13/2024: Keith Schue contacted me to say that I had used the wrong numbers in this statement: “The Integration Analysis projects that 5,574 MW by 2030 compared with 21,058 MW in 2023 so solar deployment must double over the next seven years.”  Boy did I ever use the wrong numbers.  Those are the onshore wind numbers.  The utility-scale solar facility capacity that is included in the NYISO market in 2023 was only 254 MW and the Behind the Meter (BTM) distributed solar included in the Integration Analysis estimate was 5,172 MW for a solar total of 5,426.  NYISO projects that BTM solar in 2030 will be 10,015 MW and the Integrated Analysis projected 2030 solar capacity is 18,646 MW which means that utility-scale solar capacity will have to increase from 254 MW to 8,631 MW.

Hecate Energy Shepherd’s Run Solar Farm

Hecate Energy’s Shepherd’s Run is a 42 MW utility-scale solar facility located in Copake, NY in the Hudson River Valley southeast of Albany.  According to Hecate: “It will be configured as a ground-mounted solar facility with PV panels on galvanized steel tracker racking structures. It will include rows of single-axis trackers, oriented in a north-south direction, that rotate the PV panels from east to west following the sun’s daily path.”  They also claim that “The 42-MW solar farm is expected to annually generate approximately 70,000 MWh of energy — enough to meet the average annual consumption of over 9,500 New York households.”  That works out to a capacity factor of 19.3%.  The permitting documents note that the project area is 880 acres, the project footprint is 267 acres and there will be 138.3 acres “located inside the Project security fencing” which I assume means that is the area to be covered by solar panels.

This area of the Hudson Valley has attracted influential folks with money from New York City because of the beauty and rural character of the region which has led to a couple of things.  I think that contributes to the attention this project has received in the national media.  Bloomberg Opinion described it as “The Solar farm that almost destroyed Copake, NY”.   In a Reveal podcast, The Center for Investigative Reporting also addressed the project in “Sunblocked: Resistance to Solar in Farm Country” with the byline “Across the country, rural communities are pushing back against large-scale solar development”.  The other aspect of the moneyed class influence is the desire and the money to fight against anything that detracts from the reasons the “Citidiots” invaded this area.

In 2017 Hecate identified this area for solar development because it offered room for solar development, a nearby electrical substation, and according to the Bloomberg article “Democratic political leadership, and a relatively liberal bent, Copake seemed poised to be a welcoming environment for renewable energy.”  I believe Hecate originally submitted a permit application under New York’s original electric utility siting program, but I cannot find any links for that application.  However, local opposition sprang up early in that process.  The town changed its zoning rules to stymie large solar developments.  Hecate changed to a new permitting process implemented to expedite renewable energy development.  On November 23, 2021, they submitted a notice of intent to file for an application to the New York State Office of Renewable Energy (ORES) that can overrule any “home rule” regulations by the residents directly affected by a solar or wind facility.

The local NPR account of the status of the project, Shepherd’s Run solar farm moving ahead in Copake, produced last November noted:

In June 2021 the town of Copake joined 12 other municipalities along with some environmental and conservation advocate organizations in filing a lawsuit in state Supreme Court of Albany County against the state Office of Renewable Energy Siting, an agency created to fast-track the permitting process for new renewable energy projects. The suit alleged that the agency was attempting to circumvent local zoning laws. In May 2023, Justices of the Third Department state Appellate Court upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the lawsuit.

The NPR article went on to explain the remaining parts of the permitting process that included public hearings in January.  However in early January the public hearings were called off because the Town of Copake filed a motion to dismiss the application because 60 acres of the project property were sold to someone who did not want anything to do with the project.  The ORES permit application website notes under “denied applications” that the application was denied without prejudice.

Disinformation Campaign

After years of effort and cost, Hecate was not happy with the decision.  The article “Disinformation Campaigns Are Hurting New York’s Clean Energy Future” was published at RealClearEnergy and authored by Matt Levine who is the “project director for the Shepherd’s Run Solar Farm and senior director of development for Hecate Energy.”  He claims that the opposition was the result of disinformation as noted in the excerpts below.

After the obligatory praise for “the ambitious goals set by the landmark climate law passed in 2019” he jumps right into the evils of disinformation campaigns:

Whether or not you support accelerating clean energy projects, we should all be able to agree that disinformation campaigns are a disservice to the public. Honest policy debates demand clear and accurate information. But earlier this year, NPR highlighted the prevalence of disinformation and increasing pressure on local officials, who are often charged with approving renewable energy projects.

Their reporting focused on groups like Citizens for Responsible Solar, who are part of a growing national effort to orchestrate opposition to renewable energy in rural communities across the U.S. The national group has helped smaller local groups fight solar projects in at least 10 states, according to its website.

This NPR article referenced a group called Citizens for Responsible Solar that argues that “Solar belongs on rooftops, near highways, commercial, industrial-zoned land, marginal or contaminated areas, not on rural-agricultural land.”   The organization and a group of locals organized opposition to a solar project in Virginia but there is no indication that there is any link between that group and anything at the Shepherd’s Run Solar Farm.  Levine goes on:

By blocking projects that could generate economic activity and passive tax revenue in rural areas, these campaigns are hurting the communities they purport to protect, both economically and environmentally. Nevertheless, groups like these are becoming so successful at spreading disinformation that a 2022 report by the Sabin Center at Columbia University found 121 local policies around the country that are aimed at blocking or restricting renewable energy development, a 18% increase from the previous year.

Solar developers are quick to point out that a landowner gets revenue when a solar project is developed and there are tax incentives.  However, when land is taken out of production it will reduce farm jobs. While economic activity may be improved during construction once the facility is operational there are very few economic benefits to essential local businesses.  Furthermore, taking the land out of production may make other farmers who have been renting that land to make their operations viable will not be able to support investments they have made in facilities, livestock, or equipment.  Levine continues:

In New York, an investigation by the Public Accountability Initiative found that since 2016, a multifaceted campaign by the fossil fuel industry has spent more than $15.5 million to undermine efforts to promote clean energy. Unfortunately, much of that work has relied on false and misleading information.

The claim that there is an enormous effort by the fossil fuel industry to provide false and misleading information ignores the funding and level of effort by non-governmental organizations who espouse the climate industry’s narrative and the source of their funding.  The Natural Resources Defense Council had a total income of $193,144,386 and paid $125,417,997 in salaries in 2023.  Their experts web page notes a position for the Utility Regulatory Director, New York, Climate & Energy and that 69 other experts have done analyses in New York.  That is just one organization.  There are dozens more organizations in New York that support the climate industry and their work is rife with false and misleading information.

The playbook is usually the same. Groups with innocuous sounding names — New Yorkers for Affordable Energy, for example – claim the mantle of grassroots support while actually doing the bidding of the natural gas industry. They lean heavily on misleading industry talking points that falsely claim the transition to renewable energy would “damage New York’s families and businesses.

I can find nothing to disagree with his characterization that New Yorkers for Affordable Energy is funded by the natural gas industry.  However, the docket for the project does not include anything from the organization or the one individual mentioned on their web page in the 627 filed documents or the 1,000 public comments in the docket for the permit.  He simply names an industry supported organization and suggests that their very existence is unacceptable.

Eventually Levine gets to Shepherd’s run and blames misinformation as the reason that there was so much vociferous opposition.

As a renewable energy developer working in several states in the Eastern U.S., I see the impact of these efforts on the ground. Take the town of Copake in Upstate New York, where Hecate Energy plans to build the 42 GW Shepherd’s Run Solar Farm.

This is exactly the type of project New York must accelerate if the state has any chance of meeting the state’s renewable energy goals. Yet, opponents have implemented tactics that have delayed the project for years, running the now-standard playbook.

See if this sounds familiar: a group with an innocuous sounding name – in this case Sensible Solar for Rural New York – bills itself as a grassroots organization and claims to support clean energy. Media reports and state disclosure forms show them hiring the same lobbying firms and marketing teams employed by the fossil fuel industry and its allies to oppose clean energy projects.

They echo the same talking points used by national opposition groups, relying on false or misleading claims about farmland being permanently destroyed, adverse impacts to nearby watersheds, and reduction in property values.

I recommend the Reveal Podcast “Sunblocked: Resistance to Solar in Farm Country” because it describes the nuances of the Shepherd’s Run support and opposition.  Interviews with one family that sold leases to Hecate, Hecate spokesmen, another farmer who was using the land that will no longer be available, Town Board members, an expert on support and opposition to similar projects, and organizers of Sensible Solar for Rural New York provide a good cross section of those involved.  While some of the opponents were against the project simply because it is in their backyards many argued that they would accept the project if it were done sensibly.

I was involved in many development projects in my career, so I sympathize with the Hecate project developers.  There is no way that you can make everyone happy, and some individuals will never be satisfied.  In my opinion, the solution is to be upfront with the facts and be sure to meet or exceed all the regulatory guidance. 

Prime Farmland

I am not a big fan of solar development in New York and have published a page that describes my concerns.  My biggest concern is that the Hochul Administration has not required solar developers to adhere to all the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM) guidelines that have been described in prepared testimony that I believe represent best practices and should be mandatory going forward.  In particular, “The Department’s goal is for projects to limit the conversion of agricultural areas within the Project Areas, to no more than 10% of soils classified by the Department’s NYS Agricultural Land Classification mineral soil groups 1-4, generally Prime Farmland soils, which represent the State’s most productive farmland.”   I think this is a reasonable guideline and one that should be a mandatory requirement for all future projects.

The initial application for the project Agricultural Appendix 15 February 2022 stated that: “Relative to agricultural soils, the Project Area includes approximately 12.41% (218.00 acres) of land classified as Prime Farmland, 5.33% (93.70 acres) as Prime Farmland if Drained, 10.27% (180.42 acres) as Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 21.99% (386.44 acres) as Not Prime Farmland.”   Note that they admit that they exceed the NYSDAM guidelines.

In a revised version of the Agricultural Appendix submitted on January 2023 this discussion is revised:

The total Project Footprint will include approximately 265 acres and includes the limits of all temporary and permanent impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project.  There are 197.69 acres of active agricultural land in the Project Footprint. The Project is designed within a fenced and contained area, and no active agricultural practices will occur within the fenced area containing the solar arrays during the operation of the Project. Therefore, the applicable NYSDAM Guidelines will be followed during construction with respect to temporary features (such as construction laydown yards). If applicable NYSDAM Guidelines cannot be implemented, the Applicant will consult with NYSDAM to discuss acceptable and appropriate alternatives. The Applicant will follow the NYSDAM Guidelines during Project decommissioning and site restoration.

Two comments on this.  The prime farmland numbers are missing and the NYSDAM Guidelines they refer to are the construction guidelines and not the guidelines for the protection of prime farmland that NYSDAM staff references in their prepared testimony for every application.

The final Revised Agricultural Appendix dated June 2023 included the following:

Hecate Energy Columbia County 1 LLC (the Applicant) has developed this Agricultural Plan in accordance with 19 NYCRR § 900-2.16 in order to avoid, minimize, and mitigate agricultural impacts to active agricultural lands within NYS Agricultural Land Classified Mineral Soil Groups (MSG) 1 through 4 to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM) Guidelines for Solar Energy Projects (“NYSDAM Guidelines” or “Guidelines”).

Two comments on this section.  The reference to prime farmland has switched to the technical description of soil types and the references to Guidelines are again for the construction impacts.  The phrase that they tried to avoid, minimize, and mitigate agricultural impacts is not exactly true because they picked only the NYSDAM guidance that that they were required to follow.  Furthermore, in response to a notice of incomplete application they were asked to provide the acreages for each soil classification.  Their response in the final revision states:

There are approximately 200 acres of active agricultural land in the Project Footprint. As described in Exhibit 15 Section 15(b) of the Application, of the 199.98 acres of active agricultural land in the Project Footprint, 143.86 acres are classified as MSG 1-4. The Project is designed within a fenced and contained area, and no active agricultural practices will occur within the fenced area containing the solar arrays during the operation of the Project. Of the 162.8 acres of MSG 1-4 in the Project Footprint, and 143.86 acres are identified as active agricultural land. Therefore, the applicable NYSDAM Guidelines will be followed during construction with respect to temporary features (such as construction laydown yards) and permanent features (such as permanent access roads) within the 143.86 acres of active agricultural lands, as defined by 19 NYCRR § 900-2.16(c), within New York State Agricultural Land MSGs 1-4. If applicable NYSDAM Guidelines cannot be implemented, the Applicant will consult with NYSDAM to discuss acceptable and appropriate alternatives. The Applicant will follow the NYSDAM Guidelines during Project decommissioning and site restoration.

Note that the incriminating percentages were not included.  Obfuscation is the name of the game for the acreages.  Elsewhere the project footprint is listed as 267 acres but here they describe the active agricultural land (200 acres).  They do admit that 143.86 acres are prime farmland and that works out to 16% of the project area of 880 acres (also not provide in this paragraph) far exceeding the NYSDAM protection of prime farmland protection guidance of no more that 10%.

Maps of the locations of prime farmland and the location of the solar panels show that the developers chose the expedient and cheapest development option.  If the land is flat and has no trees then installing solar panels is simplified.  The example map below shows why the residents are so exercised by the development.

Figure 15-11. Map 3 of 5 ORES and Local Zoning Requirements with MSG 1-4 Soils-Active June 2023

Discussion

The Hochul Administration has not mandated that utility-scale solar development must comply with all Department of Agriculture and Markets guidelines.  Solar developers routinely ignore that guideline.  My latest scorecard of this parameter shows that only seven of the 20 projects included as updated in March 2024 met the prime farmland guidance and that overall solar projects have destroyed 8,801 acres of prime farmland and totaling 20% of the project areas.  However, it does show that meeting the guideline can be done.

This is not the fault of the solar developers.  In the absence of any requirement to meet that guidance the cost-effective solution for the out-of-state developers is to ignore the guidance.  The fact that the Hochul Administration has instituted that requirement for smaller distributed solar projects is infuriating to me and has the distinct whiff of cronyism and lobbyist influence.  That is not the only missing protection.  There are no requirements for agrivoltaics that at least try to support farming or requirements for tilting axis solar panels consistent with the implementation plans.  To their credit, Hecate was planning to use the tilting axis panels and their projected a capacity factor of 19.3% is better than last year’s statewide average.  Using fixed panels means that more panels must be installed.

I do not have any sympathy for Hecate project manager Matt Levine’s claims that a pervasive cult of fossil-fuel funded disinformation was the primary driver for the opposition to the project.  Clearly, they took the expedient approach to develop the prime farmland in the project area knowing full well that it exceeded New York guidelines for farmland protection.  Moreover, the language in the article and application cover up that decision.  If the application is not above board in every respect, then the locals sense they are being taken for a ride.  Unfortunately, the only reason that the project was rejected was because of a last-minute change in ownership that nullified the application.  If it not for that reason, then the application would have been approved despite the well-founded local opposition.

Conclusion

I do not think that solar energy that will not provide adequate support to the electric grid when it is needed the most (winter peak loads) is a sustainable electric grid resource so I oppose its use for utility-scale applications.  But if that is state policy to develop solar then at least deployment should minimize impacts.  That is not the case in New York. The real disinformation in this instance is the insistence that there are no legitimate problems with solar deployment as suggested by the author of “Disinformation Campaigns Are Hurting New York’s Clean Energy Future”.