Category: Solar permitting

I have written enough articles on solar siting issues that I have setup a page that summarizes them all.  The original intent of this blog post was to announce the addition of a scorecard documenting the loss of prime farmland allowed by the Hochul Administration’s solar siting policies.  However, one of the latest solar project approvals was for a project that proposes to build on marginal farmland proving that it can be done so I have added a description of that project.

New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) Act establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  I have written extensively on implementation of the Climate Act.  Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that efforts will make a positive impact at an affordable level but the current implementation policies are doing more harm than good.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Solar Siting Issues

I became aware of the particular issues of utility-scale solar development on agriculture after I had a couple of people contact me describing issues that they had and suggested that I look into the issue.  The problems that they raised are real, solutions to mitigate problems are available, but in the rush to develop as many renewable resources as quickly as possible the State of New York has dropped the ball on responsible utility-scale solar development.  Given the massive amount of projected utility-scale solar generation capacity required to meet Climate Act goals the rush to develop solar projects could easily lead to the permanent loss of significant amounts of prime farmland that will hurt farming communities and endanger Climate Act strategies to sequester carbon in soil. 

The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (DAM) has guidelines for solar developments.  In prepared testimony Michael Saviola explained: “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.”  

Solar Siting Farmland Scorecard

In order to document the State’s irresponsible solar siting policies, I have developed a scorecard to track of the loss of prime farmland.  I used Exhibit 15: Agricultural Resources in the solar project permit applications for the data. A list of applications is available at the New York State Office of Renewable Energy Siting that references the docket for each permit.  I have tried to accurately represent the project area, project footprint, and the area of prime farmland in each permit application but the applications do not use the same terminology so my interpretations might be inconsistent. 

The following scorecard table lists the project names and the permitting authority.  The original power sector permits were handled by the Department of Public Service Article 10 process but now the state rams over-rides any local concerns with the New York Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES).  The table lists photovoltaic capacity (MW) for each project.  My interpretation of the project area is that it represents the land under contract to the project developer for locations being evaluated for placement of project facilities, including the proposed collection substation and interconnection facilities.  I interpret the Project Footprint as only the area of the project components.  All the applications are required to include an exhibit for agricultural resources that specifies how much of the project area and footprint are soil types that are defined as prime farmland.  Mineral Soil Groups 1 through 4 are considered to be highly productive soils by DAM.  I calculated the Percentage Prime column as the sum of the prime farmland soil categories divided by the Project Area to compare with the  DAM goal for projects to limit the conversion of agricultural areas within the Project Areas, to no more than 10% of soils classified as Prime Farmland soils.

Update: The latest Update of the Scorecard is available here.

At this time, there are seven approved projects that have accessible Agricultural Resources exhibits (Homer Solar’s exhibit is unavailable).  Six of the seven projects exceed the DAM goal for limited conversion.  I should also note the DAM has made the point that once this land is converted to industrial solar panels that is unlikely that it will be converted back to farmland simply because the need for solar power will never go away as the Climate Act net-zero goals are implemented.  The developers piously claim that the most of the project footprint can be converted back but I side with DAM that this is a transparent excuse of no value.

The solar development scorecard lists a total of seven applications that have been approved for a total of 1,339 MW.  The total project areas cover 17,430 acres and the project footprints total 7,912 acres.  Despite the best efforts of Department of Agriculture and Market staff to prevent the loss of Prime Farmland, these projects were approved and the prime area lost for farming in these projects totals 4,216 acres or 24% of the combined project areas.

Discussion

In early January Governor Hochul announced approval of siting permits for three major solar energy centers including Tracy and Riverside.  Frankly I was wondering if any industrial solar development would propose to develop land that met the DAM 10% goal so I was pleased to see the Tracy application.  It is possible to develop solar facilities on marginal farmland.

I think the Agricultural Resources exhibit descriptions of the Riverside Solar and Tracy Solar projects are instructive.

The Riverside Solar application states:

The Applicant has worked with participating landowners to site Facility components in order to minimize impacts and allow for continued agricultural use on land adjacent to the Facility Site. The Facility will be constructed in accordance with the NYSAGM guidance document “Guidelines for Solar Energy Projects – Construction Mitigation for Agricultural Lands”, dated October of 2019 (NYSAGM Guidelines), which is discussed further below in Section 15(c). During the construction and operational life of the Facility 1,012 acres of land within the Facility fence line will be taken out of agricultural production and will be utilized for solar energy components. Additionally, the Facility Site includes approximately 366 acres of land located in areas of MSG 2-4. There are no occurrences of MSG 1 soils at the Facility as is indicated in Table 15-4 below. Areas not within MSG 1-4 were evaluated for the feasibility of siting Facility components as practicable. However, for various reasons such as landowner preferences, presence of wetlands and streams, and efficient siting of Facility components to reduce fragmentation and appropriately consolidate the Facility and minimize the overall footprint, the Applicant was unable to further consolidate or arrange the Facility layout to significantly reduce the use of land in MSG 2-4 areas. Following the decommissioning of the Facility the land can be restored to its agricultural use. While in operation, the Facility will utilize agricultural land for solar energy production. This will ensure that parcels remain intact during the life of the Facility, rather than being sold or subdivided for other purposes that may not allow the land to be reverted to agricultural use. The Facility will allow for continued agricultural use on parcels excluded from the Facility and will protect the viable agricultural land being utilized by the Facility for future use following decommissioning at the end of the Facility’s useful life.

In the absence of a state policy for responsible solar siting, out-of-state developer AES  can come in with these lame excuses and take another 292 acres of prime farmland out of production.  The referenced Table 15-4 is nearly six pages of individual soil types without a summary listing.  I interpret the obfuscation relative to the relevant prime farmland statistics to mean that they know full well just how inappropriate this application is.

On the other hand, the EDF Renewables Tracy Solar project clearly defines their impacts to agriculture:

The Facility footprint consists of 864 acres, defined as the area within the limits of disturbance (LOD). Within the Facility footprint, 816 acres are active agriculture, based on the active agriculture analysis described in Section 15.9.1. Table 15.8-1 summarizes the agricultural areas of the Facility footprint affected by construction and operation. Construction will result in temporary impacts where it will not be feasible to continue farming due to construction laydown areas and temporary workspaces. Operation will remove active agricultural land from farming for the life of the Facility.

Figure 15-8 in Appendix 15-A depicts mineral soil groups present within the Facility Site. Table 15.9-1 identifies the mineral soil coverage within the Facility Site and Facility footprint. Soil groups identified by NYSDAM as Mineral Soil Groups 1 through 4 are considered to be highly productive soils (NYSDAM 2021). Mineral Soil Groups 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are present within the Facility Site.

It is apparent that the Tracy Solar project has proposed to install solar panels on marginal farmland.  Surely this is an example that should be the standard for all future development.

Conclusion

The implications of these two projects does not reflect well on the New York State solar siting requirements.  The Tracy Solar projects shows that marginal farmland can be used for solar panels.    As it stands now solar developers are free to come into the state and put up as many solar panels as they want on as much prime farmland as they want in direct contravention of DAM goals.  In addition, there are no solar capability standards so developers are free to install fixed panel racking systems that cost less but do not meet the capacity expectations of the Scoping Plan.  The state has not updated its cumulative environmental impact assessment for the larger renewable energy capacities in the mitigation scenarios so the full consequences of the necessary 40,000 MW of solar development are unknown.  I submitted a comment to the Council in March calling for a moratorium on utility-scale solar siting in March that was ignored.  The most frustrating part to me is that the State has instituted responsible solar siting guidelines in the policy option roadmap for the proposed 10 GW of distributed solar development.  The failure to simply require those requirements for utility scale solar developments is baffling.

Until the Hochul Administration institutes responsible utility-scale solar siting guidelines similar to the roadmap for distributed solar development there will be significant and irreplaceable loss of Prime Farmland and damage to farming communities across the state. 

The last several years I have spent an inordinate amount of time evaluating the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) and its legal mandate for New York State greenhouse gas emissions to meet the ambitious net-zero goal by 2050.  I recently published an article describing some of the overarching issues that have not been adequately addressed in the transition plan to meet the net-zero goal.  I used the Climate Action Council’s failure to protect prime farmland from utility-scale solar development as one example.  This post highlights recently signed legislation and an announcement by Governor Hochul that provides further proof that when the government says we are here to help it is likely a day late and a dollar short.

Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that they can afford to and not be unduly burdened by the effects of environmental policies.  I submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan and have written over 250 articles about New York’s net-zero transition because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that will outline how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the strategies.  That material was used to write a Draft Scoping Plan that was released for public comment at the end of 2021. The Climate Action Council is required to finalize the Scoping Plan by the end of the 2022. 

In order to meet the net-zero target the general strategy is to electrify everything primarily using newly developed wind and solar resources.  According to the NYISO 2021-2040 System & Resource Outlook there were 1,985 MW of land-based wind and 2,148 MW of solar in 2019.  The Draft Scoping Plan spreadsheet Appendix G: Annex 2: Key Drivers and Outputs projects that in 2040 when all the electricity in New York must be zero emissions that there will be 12,242 MW of land-based wind and 43,342 MW of solar.  I documented that the solar projects in the Article Ten queue in 2020 averaged 9.3 acres of equipment area per MW.  Using that estimate of land required, the Draft Scoping Plan mitigation scenarios would require over 900 square miles of solar equipment. 

This post explains why the state’s response to the impact of the land needed for these developments is too little and too late to prevent serious issues. I have written enough articles on solar siting issues that I have setup a page that summarizes them all.  Given the massive amount of projected utility-scale solar generation capacity required to meet Climate Act goals the rush to develop solar projects could easily lead to the permanent loss of significant amounts of prime farmland that will hurt farming communities and endanger Climate Act strategies to sequester carbon in soil. Solar developers argue that a landowner gets revenue when a solar project is developed.  However, when land is taken out of production it will reduce farm jobs and the economic activity may be improved during construction but 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 made in facilities, livestock, or equipment.  

State Actions to Protect Farmlands

First, let me describe New York’s inaction.  In a recent post describing the Climate Action Council’s transition plan approach I explained that there are already serious land use issues because there is no implementation plan in place.  Because there is no policy regarding utility-scale solar siting requirements relative to prime farmland the developers are thumbing their noses at the Department of Agriculture and Markets.  The Department has a policy in place to protect prime farmland but developers claim that there is “no statutory or regulatory support” for the policy so it can be ignored. The Hochul Administration permitting authorities have apparently placed renewable development as the highest priority without any assessment of the impacts identified by its regulatory agencies. 

On December 12, 2022 Governor Hochul announced that “a special working group of state agencies and agricultural community stakeholders will collaborate to support New York farmers and help boost the agricultural industry”. The press release stated that “This working group will be critical to tackling several challenges within New York’s agricultural industry, and my administration will continue to work with farmers to address their needs and reimagine farming in our state.”  The press release explains that:

The Task Force will initially focus on, but not be limited to, the following topics:

• Transportation – address challenges involving the movement of agricultural commodities and products while understanding the needs for investment in roads, bridges and other vital infrastructure to bring products to market.
• Labor – identify and build the next generation of farmers and farmworkers to support a diverse industry with the skills and workers required to operate modern farms.
• The environment – address and remove obstacles to capital investments in manure management, on-farm energy production, and the transition to alternative fuel sources that limit the ability of some farms to meet the State’s climate goals and become carbon neutral.
• Housing for workers – increase worker housing to provide workers with a safe living environment that is close to farms and assures for sustained and daily production.
• Taxation – provide clearer guidance on property tax administration and improve access to existing tax relief programs.
• Farmland protection – review existing programs and identify ways that the State can ensure that productive farmland remains accessible, in production, and continues to feed New Yorkers.
• Expand procurement – of local food products by various state agencies to build local food supply chains and better connect with New York farms.

On December 6, 2022 Senate bill (S8889A) to create the Agricultural and Farmland Viability Protection Fund was signed.  It will bolster efforts to protect agricultural land from being permanently removed from farming to make way for solar development.  The press release for this states:

Currently, all solar projects receiving funding through NYSERDA’s NY-Sun incentive program that site projects on active farmland must pay a penalty, which currently goes into the State’s General Fund. S8889A-Hinchey requires that all penalty money collected be deposited instead into the new Agricultural and Farmland Viability Protection Fund and allocated to state and local farmland protection programs.

I apologize but I am not going to get into the details of this legislation.  I applaud the intent to get the money where it should logically go to try to redress the problem.  However, it does not seem likely that it will be much help to a farmer who lost the land he needed and was renting to a solar developer that can afford to pay more.  Furthermore, NY-Sun is the state’s initiative to expand distributed solar so this law does not cover the utility-scale solar projects that are my primary concern.

The most frustrating thing is that a solution is readily available.  Last December I described a webinar hosted by New Yorkers for Clean Power (NYCP) and Alliance for Clean Energy NY (ACENY) entitled “What’s the Deal with Renewable Energy & Agriculture?” that discussed the compatibility of renewable energy and agriculture in New York State.  One part of the solution discussed during the presentation could be the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority Agricultural Technical Working Group.  This group released an interim final report last May that described “strategies to integrate renewable energy sources into working landscapes with minimal impact on agriculture, including the need for more research; the potential for financial incentives; and proposed tools for State and local governments”.  Protection of prime farmland is a prime component of this report.

Incredibly it gets even more tone deaf in New York.  The NY-Sun program is New York State’s initiative to encourage distributed generation solar. The projects participating in the NY-Sun program are “typically five MW alternating current or smaller, and do not fit the definition of a Major Renewable Energy Facility”.  The interim final report notes that:

On April 19, 2022, the Public Service Commission approved the Roadmap, charting a path towards achieving an expanded goal of at least 10 gigawatts of distributed solar by 2030 and continues the NY-Sun program. NY-Sun Commercial/Industrial (C/I) projects located in an agricultural district must comply with AGM’s Solar Construction Guidelines. If the project utilizes over 30 acres of MSG 1-4, it is required to make Agricultural Mitigation Payment to the fund administered by NYSERDA. Since being implemented, these requirements have already demonstrated their effectiveness. In 2021, all 50 distributed solar projects subject to these requirements, totaling 1,037 acres of affected area, have committed to avoiding and minimizing impacts to important agricultural lands in consideration of the solar layout and complying with the Solar Construction Guidelines.

The bottom line is that there is a solar siting policy that addresses my concerns in place but only for the small solar projects.  Since I started tracking solar development project approvals late last year, a total of five applications have been approved for a total of 1,120 MW.  The total project areas cover 14,812 acres and the project footprints total 5,728 acres.  Despite the best efforts of Department of Agriculture and Markets staff to prevent the loss of Prime Farmland, the area that will be unavailable for farming in these projects totals 3,920 acres or 26% of the combined project areas.  This is bad enough but all three Draft Scoping Plan mitigation scenarios call for over 40,000 MW of solar development and there are no protections.

Conclusion

Hochul’s press release for the special working group included statements of support from New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Commissioner Richard A. Ball; New York Farm Bureau President David Fisher; Brian Reeves, President of the New York State Vegetable Growers Association; Tonya Van Slyke, Northeast Dairy Producers Association Executive Director; Jim Bittner, owner of Bittner Singer Orchards and Interim Director of the New York State Horticulture Society; and Jeffery M. Fetter, President of Scolaro Fetter Grizanti & McGough, P.C. and Chairman of the Business and Tax Practice and Agricultural Services Groups.  If these people truly care about the agricultural sector, then they should demand a moratorium on utility-scale solar developments until a responsible solar siting policy is put in place for utility-scale solar development. 

The moratorium would be lifted when the special working group develops policy recommendations. At a minimum that utility-scale solar developments should adhere to the Department of Agriculture and Markets goal 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.  It would be best if the same farmland protection criteria contained in the Public Service Commission distributed solar Roadmap were applied to all solar projects.

I have met people affected by these huge utility-scale solar projects.  It is so frustrating that their concerns and the viability of neighboring farms are being ignored when there are protections in place for smaller solar projects when the solutions are in place for small projects.  I wonder why and the only thing I can think of is that money talks. 

Last year I was contacted by one of the organizers of Conquest Against Industrial Solar and since then I have been following the Article 10 application of the Garnet Energy Center.  On October 27,2022 the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting Board) “granted approval to Garnet Energy Center, LLC to build and operate a 200-megawatt (MW) solar farm in the Town of Conquest, Cayuga County, with 20 MWs of battery storage capacity, one of the largest approved to date”.  While I am terribly disappointed with the approval from the standpoint of the local impacts to most of the residents of Conquest there are larger ramifications.  I describe two problems with this approval: the impact on local agriculture across the state and the failure of the Hochul Administration to protect local agricultural communities.

New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) Act establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  I have written extensively on implementation of the Climate Act.  Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that efforts will make a positive impact at an affordable level but actions like this do more harm than good.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Solar Siting Issues

I have written enough articles on solar siting issues that I have setup a page that summarizes them all.  I became aware of the particular issues of utility-scale solar development on agriculture after I had a couple of people contact my blog describing issues that they had and suggested that I look into the issue.  The problems that they raised are real, the solutions are available, but in the rush to develop as many renewable resources as quickly as possible the State of New York has dropped the ball on responsible utility-scale solar development.  Given the massive amount of projected utility-scale solar generation capacity required to meet Climate Act goals the rush to develop solar projects could easily lead to the permanent loss of significant amounts of prime farmland that will hurt farming communities and endanger Climate Act strategies to sequester carbon in soil. 

Solar developers are quick to point out that a landowner gets revenue when a solar project is developed.  However, when land is taken out of production it will reduce farm jobs and the economic activity may be improved during construction but 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 made in facilities, livestock, or equipment.  

Press Release Announcement

The press release announcing the siting decision describes the project:

The project will consist of commercial-scale solar arrays, access roads, buried electric collection lines, a collection substation, and electrical interconnection facilities. Additional facilities would include a 345-kV switchyard which will be transferred to New York Power Authority to own, maintain, and operate. The project will be located on land leased from owners of private property. The project will include a 20 MW energy storage system which will charge exclusively off the solar array.

The press release goes on to say:

The project area is about 2,289 vacant acres, and the project footprint is about 900 acres. The solar farm is expected to begin commercial operation in 2023. Through land agreements, the project developer says it supports the agricultural economy by infusing revenue into family farms and diversifying their income.

The focus of this article will be on these statements.  In the first place the 2,298 “vacant” acres include a “total of approximately 1,234.2 acres of NYSORPS classified Agricultural Land (Code 100)”.  Clearly agricultural land is not vacant.  I hope that was a typo, but if not, it is a sad testament to the disconnect between the Hochul Administration and the agricultural community. 

The bigger issue is the claim that the project supports the agricultural economy.  The New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets (AGM) testimony concluded that the project will have “significant and adverse disproportionate agricultural impact upon the local farming community”.  This article will explain why the best interests of the state as exemplified by the AGM testimony have been cast aside in the unplanned rush to build renewables as part of the transition of the economy to net-zero.

NextEra Response to Testimony

On March 10, 2022 Michael Saviola of the New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets (AGM) submitted prepared testimony on the Garnet Energy Center application.  On April 12, 2022 NextEra Energy Resources responded to the comments in Garnet Rebuttal Panel Testimony.  In the following I am going to discuss two issues where the Siting Board chose the developer’s rationale over the AGM.

The two issues are addressed in the Panel response to Saviola on page 124 at line 6 of their rebuttal testimony. Question: “Please address the direct testimony of AGM staff’s witness Mr. Michael Saviola.”  The answer:

Mr. Saviola states that AGM “discourages the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use” (AGM staff Testimony, p. 6, ll. 4–5). With respect to utility-scale renewable energy projects, Mr. Saviola states that “[t]he 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” (AGM staff Testimony, p. 7, l. 21–p. 8, l. 2).

On page 125 line 3 the rebuttal testimony poses the question: “Does siting the Project on Prime Farmland soils amount to a permanent conversion of agricultural soils to a non-agricultural use, as Mr. Saviola argues (AGM staff Testimony, p. 8, ll. 18–20)?  The response states:

No. Although agricultural land within the LOD will not be available for farming during the life of the Project, the soils will be suitable for agricultural use after the Project is decommissioned.

Saviola’s testimony explained the AGM concern:

Due to increasing NYS energy goals encouraging renewable energy development, we see no reason facilities will not be upgraded and re-leased to maintain the growing or static renewable energy demand, in this case, 35 years from energization. The Department further asserts that as long as NYS incentives for the development of renewable energy exists, the complete decommissioning of solar electric energy generation, and full resumption to agricultural use is not likely to occur.

The developer’s response to this claimed it was speculation on the part of Saviola and reveals their development rationale and the shortcomings of current State policy.  On Page 127 line 4 the rebuttal testimony states: “In our view, however, it is equally speculative that State incentives will remain constant, that no participating landowners will elect to resume agricultural activities within the Project Area, and that all participating landowners will agree to release their land for solar generation at that time.”  Parsing out “State incentives will remain constant”, it is obvious that the developer believes that without state incentives aka subsidies they would not consider redeveloping the site.  It seems to me that they admit that solar development in the future will still depend on subsidies.  The decision to return to farming or leasing to farmers is primarily driven by money.  While I have no personal animosity towards landowners that offer their land for solar development, the fact is that the NYS solar incentives provide more than enough money to outbid the value and risks of farming so it is an easy choice for land owners.  However, if nearby farmers were renting land used for solar, there is no hope that they can compete with the state money.  AGM developed guidelines so that solar development would not reward a favored few at the expense of the entire agricultural community.  They are saying you have to keep most of the Prime Farmland available for farming purposes.  The Siting Board and Climate Action Council have failed to support the AGM opinion that “the facility will result in or contribute to a significant and adverse disproportionate agricultural impact upon the local farming community”.

NextEra arguments hinge on the definition of permanent.  It points out that on page 126 line 15 that:

As the Siting Board has previously explained, although agricultural lands will be converted to non-agricultural use during the life of the Project, decommissioning and post-decommissioning restoration measures “result in minimal permanent impacts to agricultural resources.”

In my opinion the implicit concern of AGM is that even during the life of this project the loss of Prime Farmland is to be avoided.  Even if the project area is restored the avoided minimal permanent impacts likely are limited to the farmland itself.  It is unlikely that the failed family farms who depended on renting that property and the local businesses that went out of business when all the affected farms stopped farming will startup when the solar leases end and the land becomes available to farm again.  While solar developers want to be able to install panels on land that requires less work to maximize their profits, clearly it is in the best interest of the State to encourage responsible solar development that avoids installation of solar panels on Prime Farmland and directs it towards land with less value. 

On page 124 line 19 the rebuttal testimony gets to the crux of the problem:

Article 10, the State Energy Plan, the CLCPA and the recently enacted Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act (“Accelerated Renewables Act”) do not specify any agricultural standards that must be satisfied, nor do they attempt to usurp the rights of private landowners to voluntarily decide if they wish to grow food on all their land or use a portion of it to allow the generation of renewable electricity in order to support their farm operations.

This is all completely true and is the license which out-of-state developers are using to usurp the AGM’s attempts to protect to protect the state’s most productive farmland.  It is evidence of the Administration and Climate Action Council’s failure to act in the best interests of the state’s agricultural community.  The State has a responsible solar siting  policy option roadmap for the proposed 10 GW of distributed solar development.  However, there is not an equivalent set of policies for utility-scale solar development. Clearly there should have been a moratorium on utility-scale solar development permit approvals until those policies are put in place and I submitted a comment on the Draft Scoping Plan that made that suggestion.  Without responsible solar siting guidelines, the solar developers can thumb their noses at the AGM and the agricultural community they are trying to protect. 

On page 128 line 1 of the rebuttal testimony responds to the question “Does the Project minimize permanent conversion of Prime Farmland soils to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with AGM’s 10% goal (AGM staff Testimony at p. 12, l. 22 – p. 13, l. 3)?”.  The answer:

Yes. The Project’s LOD encompasses approximately 1,054 acres. As a result of the Applicant’s Update to the Application (January 2022), approximately 185 acres of solar arrays have already been eliminated from the Project layout (see App. Ex. 4 Update at 1). This reduction of arrays resulted in an overall reduction of Prime Farmland within the LOD by approximately 37 acres and reduced permanent impacts to Prime Farmland by approximately 2 acres. Approximately 492.2 acres of land within the LOD is classified as Prime Farmland. However, only approximately 12.6 acres (approximately 2.6% of Prime Farmland within the LOD) will be permanently impacted by the installation of Project Components (id.). The rest of the land will be restored and maintained in compliance with the AGM Guidelines to the maximum extent practicable. This permanent impact is well within AGM’s 10% goal.

The Garnet application Updated Exhibit 4. Land Use describes the project area impacts to agricultural land:

The Project Area was evaluated to determine impacts to Agricultural Land, including mapped Agricultural Districts, as part of the Project. A total of approximately 1,234.2 acres of NYSORPS classified Agricultural Land (Code 100) is mapped within the Project Area. The Project will have a fenced-in area of approximately 901.6 acres. Although the Project is sited entirely within mapped Agricultural Districts, the fenced area will only occupy 0.3 percent of all lands designated as mapped Agricultural Districts within Cayuga County and 5.0 percent of all lands designated as Agricultural Districts within the Town of Conquest. Finally, of the 1,054.1 acres of LOD, only 464.7 acres will occur on land classified as Prime Farmland which is only 6.5 percent of all Prime Farmland within the Town of Conquest, and 0.25 percent of all Prime Farmland within Cayuga County.

When I look at the numbers, I get a different result.  The total project area is 2288.7 acres, 464.7 acres of prime farmland will be on Prime Farmland and that works out to 20% of the project.  That is double the AGM guidelines that led to the conclusion that the project will have “significant and adverse disproportionate agricultural impact upon the local farming community”.  The percentages of prime farmland in the town and county are only listed to give the appearance that this is not a big deal but there are not standards for those parameters. 

There was another paragraph responding to this question:

In addition, no statutory or regulatory support is cited for AGM’s proposed 10% or less Prime Farmland soil conversion “goal” that “the production of food is more essential than the generation of [renewable] electricity,” or that soil classifications 1-4 should be avoided, even if it means interfering with the development of a renewable facility contracted to sell renewable energy credits to NYSERDA. The Certificate Conditions conserve and protect agricultural lands; it is the responsibility of AGM, and not private solar developers, to encourage the development of farming. That charge cannot be used to thwart the renewable energy goals of the State.

I was shocked at the tone of this rebuttal to Saviola’s testimony.  In this example we have out-of-state developers lecturing state agencies on policy.  Of course, their only concern is throwing up as many solar panels as possible as soon as possible before the Administration figures out that there are negative consequences to irresponsible solar development that should be considered and not ignored.  Sadly, the lack of a planning by the Climate Action Council has resulted in no regulatory guidelines so developers are free to thumb their noses at the agencies. 

Finally, there is no more tone-deaf response to the AGM arguments than on page 127 line 8: “New York State is combatting the devasting impacts of climate change now”.  This pathetic attempt to appeal to emotions demands a response.  Given that New York’s total annual GHG emissions are less than the annual increase in global emissions averaged since 1990 the likelihood that the climate change value of this solar project is greater than the “significant and adverse disproportionate agricultural impact upon the local farming community” is vanishingly small.

Conclusion

New York State has stacked the deck against home rule and the consequence is going to be a disaster for communities dependent upon local agriculture when vast swaths of Prime Farmland are converted to solar panels over the life of the project.  I am terribly disappointed with the Garnet Energy Center project approval because I believe it will have local consequences that will out-weigh any climate change benefits due to the solar development.  Unfortunately, it is just a symptom of a much larger disease.

Since I started tracking solar development project approvals a total of five applications have been approved for a total of 1,120 MW.  The total project areas cover 14,812 acres and the project footprints total 5,728 acres.  Despite the best efforts of AGM staff to prevent the loss of Prime Farmland the area unavailable for farming in these projects totals 3,920 acres or 26% of the combined project areas.  This is bad enough but all three Draft Scoping Plan mitigation scenarios call for over 40,000 MW of solar development.  Unless the Climate Action Council institutes responsible solar siting guidelines similar to the policy option roadmap for the proposed 10 GW of distributed solar development there will be significant and irreplaceable loss of Prime Farmland and damage to farming communities across the state.

The Garnet Energy Center project approval is an example of the State’s net-zero transition unfolding disaster.  As NextEra states “Article 10, the State Energy Plan, the CLCPA and the recently enacted Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act do not specify any agricultural standards that must be satisfied” so developers are free to use as much Prime Farmland as they want.  In addition, there are no solar capability standards so developers are free to install fixed panel racking systems that cost less but do not meet the capacity expectations of the Draft Scoping Plan.  The state has not updated its cumulative environmental impact assessment for the larger renewable energy capacities in the mitigation scenarios so the consequences of the necessary level of development are unknown.  Finally, the State has not released actual cost estimates of their proposed control strategies. To sum up, current state policy does not protect Prime Farmland, unless guidelines are promulgated even more solar capacity will be required causing even more undefined cumulative environmental impacts, and there is no estimate how much this will all cost.  What could possibly go wrong?

There is a consistent disconnect between reality and the State’s consideration of climate change incorporated in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act).  Nowhere is this more obvious than in the op-ed by NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Basil Seggos and NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets Commissioner Richard Ball published in the Auburn Citizen on August 30.

New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) Act establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  I have written extensively on implementation of the Climate Act.  Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that efforts will make a positive impact at an affordable level.  My analysis of the Climate Act shows that the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy outstrip available renewable technology such that the transition to an electric system relying on wind and solar will do more harm than good.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

New York Permitting Requirements

New York’s Article Ten process defines the permitting requirements for all large-scale electric generating new construction or expansion.  It includes extensive and time-consuming public notification and public participation requirements.  The 2011 revisions to the Article Ten law were intended to speed things up but were largely ineffective in that regard.  In early April 2020, NYS passed the Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act (AREGCBA) as part of the 2020-21 state budget.  The legislation was intended to ensure that renewable generation is sited in a timely and cost-effective manner.   Unfortunately, the result has been an unchecked land rush of solar development in the state with no limitations on the conversion of prime farmlands to utility-scale solar development. 

Discussion

The primary purpose of the op-ed was to congratulate Greenfield Farms in Skaneateles, NY for being “the recipient of this year’s prestigious New York Leopold Conservation Award for its extraordinary environmental protection efforts, uses healthy soil practices that enhance water quality and strengthen carbon sequestration”.  That is a great achievement and I believe it should be a keystone component of the state’s efforts for a resilient agricultural economy.

The op-ed also describes New York State’s innovative Climate Resilient Farming Program.  This program “assists farmers who proactively tackle climate concerns by providing cost-shared grants to incentivize transformative management practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and increase carbon storage in soils and woody plants.”  Those are laudable efforts, are necessary for Climate Act implementation, and I support them. 

However, the op-ed goes off the rails when it continues: “At the same time, it helps protect at-risk agricultural land across the State.”  I have written multiple articles about solar siting with respect to agriculture in New York.  Based on that work I believe that the biggest risk to agricultural land in New York State is the lack of a responsible solar siting framework for the massive utility-scale solar projects needed to meet the Climate Act targets.  There is a policy option roadmap for the proposed 10 GW of distributed solar development.  However, there is not an equivalent set of policies for utility-scale solar development.  

On July 25, 2022 a press release from Governor Hochul announced siting approval of New York’s largest solar facility to date.  The release said that the “New York State Office of Renewable Energy Siting has issued a siting permit to Hecate Energy Cider Solar LLC, to develop, design, construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a 500-megawatt solar facility in the Towns of Oakfield and Elba, Genesee County.“  In the press release Commissioner Basil Seggos was quoted as saying:

DEC applauds Governor Hochul’s ongoing prioritization of renewable energy development to support our state’s necessary transition away from fossil fuels. As more solar projects continue to be approved and come online, we are closer to achieving the goals and requirements set in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. This will continue to provide renewable energy benefits here in Genesee County and throughout the state.

In my article on this approval, I noted that according to the exhibit titled “Farmland Classification Mapping” that lists landcover class data.:

According to NLCD data, the dominant landcover class in the Project Site is active agriculture, followed by forestland. Agricultural lands in the Project Site are comprised of active agricultural land (both row crops and mowed/maintained hayfields) and there are numerous family and commercial farms and farm structures in the Project Site. Row crops comprise approximately 68% (3,143 acres) of the Project Site, and less than 1% (23 acres) of the total Project Site is maintained hayfields. Additionally, there is approximately 3.5% (161 acres) of the Project Site where the dominant land cover is grasslands or pasturelands.

Relative to agricultural soils, the Project Site includes approximately 41% (1,912 acres) of land classified as Prime Farmland, 27% (1,252 acres) as Prime Farmland if Drained, 19% (891 acres) as Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 13% (596 acres) as Not Prime Farmland (Natural Cooperative Soil Survey 2020).

The prime farmland and prime farmland if drained categories total 2,143 acres well in excess of 1,400-acre Greenfield Farms.

I believe best practices for solar development should meet the Department of Agriculture and Markets target for prime farmland conversion.  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.”   Four recently approved solar projects totaling 920 MW all exceeded that threshold and converted 3,456 acres of the state’s prime farmland to industrial use.  Overall, those projects converted 28% of the prime farmland in the Project Areas.  In addition, none of these projects propose practicing responsible solar siting consistent with the state’s distributed solar development roadmap.  For example, there are no provisions for agricultural practices consistent with the solar panels.

Conclusion

The current projections for utility-scale solar development call for over 43,000 MW in order to meet the requirements for zero-emissions power.  At the current rate of converted prime farmland to capacity development upwards of 161,000 acres of prime farmland could be lost.  Until such time that the state adopts responsible solar siting guidelines for utility-scale development consistent with existing policies for distributed solar, the impacts of solar development will have bigger impacts on agriculture than those purported to occur because of climate change.

Obviously, Commissioner Seggos recent press releases are hypocritical.  Regarding the massive solar project, he states that “Solar farms of this scope produce enough energy to power thousands of homes while also creating well-paying, family-sustaining jobs and breathing new life into our local economies.”  His op-ed states that the Climate Resilient Farming Program “helps protect at-risk agricultural land across the State”.  The fact is that unbridled utility-scale solar development is the major risk to agricultural land in the State and no amount of protection from any virtue signaling state agricultural program is going to stop that.

I have described several New York Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) solar project application decisions and was all but certain that no project would ever be rejected.  On August 9, 2022 the The New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting Board) denied approval to North Side Energy Center, LLC (North Side) to build and operate a 180-megawatt solar farm in St. Lawrence County.  This post describes the decision.

New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) Act establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  I have written extensively on implementation of the Climate Act.  Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that efforts will make a positive impact at an affordable level.  My analysis of the Climate Act shows that the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy outstrip available renewable technology such that the transition to an electric system relying on wind and solar will do more harm than good.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

New York Solar Development

I prepared a detailed description of the New York permitting process in a recent post so I will not repeat all that information here.  In brief, in order to expedite the permits for wind and solar projects New York State has established the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) which is housed within the Department of State.  ORES has the authority to over-rule any local objections to renewable projects if they are unduly burdensome.  To this point all the projects proposed have been approved.

I have been writing about problems associated with utility-scale solar development in New York based on input from readers of my blog.  In my opinion if you are going to develop solar on the scale proposed in the Climate Act, then there should be a plan for responsible siting. My recent post on another solar project included background information for New York solar development.  The takeaway message is that New York has not implemented any kind of a policy that protects prime farmland or addresses responsible solar siting for utility-scale developments.  Frankly I was beginning to think that no solar development project would ever be rejected.

North Side Energy Center Decision

North Side Energy Center is being developed by a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC.  NextEra Energy Resources is the world’s largest generator of renewable energy from the wind and sun. According to their website, the company has been investing in clean energy for more than 25 years and has a track record of safely building and operating renewable energy centers.  The docket for the application is available here.

According to the Order denying the application:

The Project as proposed would generate up to 180 megawatts (MWs) of solar energy and would consist of commercial-scale solar arrays in a tracker racking system of approximately 8 to 13 feet, but as much as 18 feet, in height. The Project also includes inverters and other components; approximately 7 miles of access roads with widths between 12 and 20 feet; parking, materials and equipment laydown, and construction staging areas; approximately 33 miles of buried and overhead electric collection lines; a collection substation covering approximately 2.2 acres of currently forested land; electrical point of interconnection facilities; an adjacent 230 kilovolt (kV) switchyard; transmission lines; and chain-link fencing seven feet in height around the entire Project.

The press release for the project denial states:

The North Side project area consisted of approximately 2,235 acres of leased land. The project was to be sited in rural areas in each of the three towns, which is comprised of agricultural and forested land and includes 37 wetland areas and 11 regulated streams. The wetlands total 1,504 acres, or 67 percent — more than two-thirds – of the project area. The project components were proposed to be located on approximately 1,200 to 1,400 acres of the 2,235 acres making up the project area, and were estimated to impact more than 500 acres of wetlands. In addition, seven threatened or endangered species were documented in the project area.

The Order explains the rationale for the disapproval:

After a thorough and complete review of the project and its impacts, the Siting Board denied the application because the adverse environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the project, specifically impacts to wetlands and threatened and endangered species, have not been minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable, as required by law. In addition, the project developer was unable to demonstrate it would comply with applicable State environmental laws related to wetlands and threatened and endangered species.

The presence of several threatened and endangered species, as well as species of special concern in the project area, is not disputed by North Side. The species observed on the site include: Endangered: Short-Eared owls and Golden Eagles; Threatened: Blanding’s Turtles, Northern Harriers, Sedge Wrens, Upland Sandpipers, and Bald Eagles; and Species of Special Concern: Vesper Sparrows, Grasshopper Sparrows.

I have been involved with environmental permitting applications for years.  One of the cardinal rules is to avoid wetlands as much as possible.  It is amazing that the developer thought that they could get a permit for a project that impacted more than 500 acres on a project footprint of 1,200 to 1,400 acres.  Apparently, the word is out that New York is wide open for development and NextEra thought they could get away with it.

My focus on past decisions has been the impact of agricultural lands.  For once a project has been proposed that does not exceed the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets goal for agricultural land conversion.  According to the Ag and Markets brief:

Of the overall 2,241-acre Project Area assessed. The Applicant states that approximately 35 percent (781.5 acres) will be used for Project Components within a fenced area of 980.7 acres to generate 180 MW of renewable energy.  The Applicant also states that the remaining land outside of the Project’s fenced area will remain under its existing uses. The Project is sited within mapped Agricultural Districts. One hundred twenty-one (121) acres of soil within the Project Area are classified in mineral soil groups 1-4. Similarly, 82 acres of the lands classified as Prime Farmland are proposed to be impacted withing the 1,100-acre Limits of Disturbance.

The Department’s goal is for a project to limit converting agricultural areas to no more than 10% of mineral soil groups 1-4 classified by the Department’s NYS Agriculture Land Classification, which the Department has identified as New York State’s most productive farmland.

In this case, the Applicant has met the Departments’ siting policy in that the settlement layout and does not propose to impact more than 10% of agricultural lands comprised of Mineral Soil Groups 1-4, as described by the NYS Agricultural Land Classification.

Ramifications

One amusing aspect of the State’s description of the decision was the apologetic tone of the press release.  First was the caveat that they have been approving projects:

To date, the Siting Board has approved 17 renewable energy projects since 2018. North Side is the first renewable energy project rejected by the Siting Board. Additionally, the recently created New York State Office of Renewable Energy Siting has approved five renewable energy projects to date. North Side was expected to begin commercial operation in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Then the description claimed that the State tried to get the developer to make changes thus deflecting blame:

It’s important to note that significant efforts by State agency parties were made throughout the review process to have the developer change the project to reduce the impacts on wetlands and endangered species, including by reducing the size of the project. The developer can seek rehearing and appeal the Siting Board’s decision or file a new application.

While it is encouraging that the State did deny the application for a renewable project it is important to note that the application was incredibly arrogant.  The idea that a project that a project that impacted 500 acres of wetlands (over a third of the disturbed area in the project!) would be approved should have been rejected out of hand by the developer.  That NextEra thought they could get away with it speaks volumes about the impression that outside of the state developers have about New York solar siting.

Unfortunately, there is no sign that ORES is concerned about the effect of massive utility-scale solar development on New York’s agricultural industry in general and on the loss of prime farmland in particular.  Until such time that utility-scale solar is required to meet the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets guidelines for responsible solar siting irresponsible solar developers like NextEra will continue to destroy prime farmland.

People ask me questions about aspects of the articles I write.  I recently described the New York Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) approved Hecate Energy’s permit for the 500-megawatt (MW) Cider Solar Farm.  The question that came up asked about the business model of the solar developers.  I did some digging and found enough information to eviscerate any claims that solar developers do not get subsidies.

New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) Act establishes a “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  I have written extensively on implementation of the Climate Act.  Everyone wants to do right by the environment to the extent that efforts will make a positive impact at an affordable level.  My analysis of the Climate Act shows that the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy outstrip available renewable technology such that the transition to an electric system relying on wind and solar will do more harm than good.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Draft Scoping Plan that will “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda”.  The basis of the document is strategies developed in the integration analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants.  The Draft Scoping Plan projects total solar resource capacity will be between 41,420 and 43,432 MW in 2040.  There is a target for 10,000 MW of distributed solar so for an upper bound assume that utility-scale solar resources of at least 31,420 MW will be needed by 2040.

Solar Subsidies

A reader asked about the subsidies available to solar developers.  This article will address direct subsidies that are the ones we usually think of and I will also describe a massive indirect subsidy. 

The solar industry story as exemplified by the Hecate Energy Cider Solar Farm description about solar’s affordable energy states:

Because sunlight, the fuel source for solar energy, is free, solar energy has steady, predictable power production costs. As the price of other power generation grows, solar energy will help to mitigate overall electricity price increases.

In theory because the solar farm doesn’t need to pay for fuel their generation costs are so low that they should be profitable just getting the market price of the power that they produce.  However, there are direct subsidies that are available to solar developers.

New York provides so many incentives that companies that provide financial capital for solar development have web pages devoted to New York.  For example, SolRiver Capital is “interested in New York because of its strong state programs and incentives for solar, including remote net energy metering and the NY Megawatt (MW) Block program. In addition, the state has a high volume of direct PPA’s and utility PPA’s with high-quality offtakers.”  

SolRiver Capital describes the incentives.  Remote net energy metering or RNEM “allows a farm or non-residential utility customer to generate energy in one location to apply against their meter in another location. This enables customers to use solar that would otherwise have a site that’s unsuitable or too small for it.”  The New York Megawatt Block program “provides regional incentives for commercial and industrial solar projects (>200kW). The incentive comes in the form of a $/kWh rebate based on the expected system production.”  In my opinion these subsidies don’t have much of an effect on consumers.

A Utility Purchase Power Agreement (PPA) is an agreement between a utility and a generator, in which the utility buys power from a solar system that’s interconnected to the utility grid. In addition to buying power, it’s common to see a utility purchase renewable energy credits.  New York utilities are required to disclose environmental information on “the types of fuels used to generate electricity, air emissions resulting from generating electricity, and a comparison of those emissions to a statewide average.”  If they are not already doing so the electric service providers will be required to provide certain percentages of renewable energy to their customers.  In order to track those energy attributes, the state has set up the New York Generation Attribute Tracking System (NYGATS) which is used to track renewable energy credits.  In order to meet the mandates, the utilities have to buy the renewable energy credits in a purchase power agreement and those costs are passed on to consumers. 

A direct power purchase agreement refers to an agreement between a customer and a generator, in which the customer buys power from an on-site solar system. According to SolCapital “This is a plain-vanilla structure and very common for solar projects”.  This is another subsidy that I don’t think has much of an impact on consumer costs.

In addition to those subsidies, developers get Investment Tax Credit for solar developments.  Commercial and utility-scale projects which have commenced construction before December 31, 2023 may still qualify for the 26 or 22 percent ITC if they are placed in service before January 1, 2026.  NYSERDA provides subsidies that vary by location and by each bidding round.  There are non-recourse loans for solar project development cost plus exemption from sales and mortgage taxes and fees plus state mandated payment in lieu of taxes agreements imposed on local governments.  I have no idea how much those direct subsidies total but those costs are eventually passed on to consumers.

Indirect Renewable Energy Subsidy

In my opinion, the biggest effect on consumer costs are the indirect costs needed to make renewable energy work.  Wind and solar resources and intermittent and diffuse. A reliable electric power system is very complex and must operate within narrow parameters while balancing loads and resources.  Obviously, the energy generated from solar facilities is zero when the sun is not shining and zero from wind turbines when the wind is not blowing.  In order to provide the energy needed at all times someone has to pay for the storage resources needed when wind and solar resources are unavailable.  Because those resources are diffuse the transmission system is necessary.  It turns out that wind and solar resources do not support the grid.  New York’s conventional rotating machinery such as oil, nuclear, and gas plants as well as hydro generation provide a lot of synchronous support to the system. This includes reactive power (vars), inertia, regulation of the system frequency and the capability to ramping up and down as the load varies. Wind and solar resources are asynchronous and cannot provide this necessary grid ancillary support.

Some, but not all of the disadvantages of solar and wind energy in this regard can be mitigated through electronic and mechanical means. When these renewable resources only make up a small percentage of the generation on the system, it is not a big deal. The system is strong enough that letting a small percentage of the resources that don’t provide those services to lean on the system. But as the penetration of solar and wind energy increases the system robustness will degrade and reliability will be compromised without costly improvements.  All of these costs are necessary and none of those costs are supported by the wind and solar developers. 

In my Draft Scoping Plan comments on the electric system I estimated the costs for the projected generating capacity described in the Draft Scoping Plan Integration Analysis.   I estimated that the mitigation scenarios overnight cost just to develop the resource capacity needed to transition to a zero-emissions electric system in 2040 range from $220 billion to $400 billion. I also found that the costs for energy storage and the zero-carbon firm resource necessary to provide power when there is an extended period of little to no wind and solar resources were more than half the total cost.  In other words, wind and solar developers are indirectly subsidized because they do not pay for the resources needed to make the electric grid reliable at all times.  That cost appears to be on the order of the cost of the development itself.

Conclusion

There is no question that there are massive subsidies for wind and solar development that will affect the energy costs of all New Yorkers.  I believe that at the end of the day affordability will become a major issue in New York just like it has in every other jurisdiction that has attempted a net-zero transition. 

In my recent post on the Hecate Energy Cider Solar Farm I expressed my disappointment that the State has abrogated its responsibility to protect prime farmland from solar development. Given all these subsidies it is obvious why a solar developer can out-bid a farmer to rent prime farmland.  Until there is a state policy that codifies the Department of Ag and Markets prime farmland protection guidance for solar development, out-of-state developers will come in and plop down solar farms wherever they can outbid farmers for land that is easiest and cheapest for them to build.