Summary Review: Columbia's Research Report of State-by-State Local Renewable Energy Facilities Ordinances and Laws ABSTRACT The Columbia Law School's research paper "Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities in the United States" is a State by State Local government breakdown of renewable laws and ordinance as renewable facilities siting is facing massive opposition Thus, the overarching goal of this review was to evaluate Columbia's research paper from the perspective of how or if local laws, ordinances, and/or moratoriums impacts solar developments on compromised lands, i.e., the RE-Powering Initiative. DISCLAIMER/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This review paper was supported in part by an appointment to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Research Participation Program administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ORISE is managed by ORAU under DOE contract number DE- SC0014664. All opinions expressed in this paper are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the policies and views of US EPA, DOE. or ORAU/ORISE. February 2023 Reviewed by: Sandra Cutts, PhD - EPA ORISE Fellow EPA Publication Number: 540S23001 ------- Introduction1 To meet our country's clean, green energy and climate change goals of reducing carbon emissions, will require development of renewable energy (RE) facilities such as solar, wind, and hydropower. Thus, many of these facilities will be built at various locations with areas supporting the potential benefits while other areas will be in opposition to the siting of these facilities. As such, the common phrase 'Not In My Backyard,' or NIMBY is associated with the public's opposition to the siting of such facilities. The NIMBY attitude appears to be gaining traction in the siting of renewable facilities and is the focus of Columbia Law School's research paper entitled "Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities in the United States." Columbia's paper provides State by State Local government analyses of laws, ordinances and moratoriums that delayed, blocked, restricted or banned renewable developments. Renewables include solar, wind and hydro energy of which, local governments established legislation and regulations such as zoning amendments, setback allowances, and aesthetic conformities. While many local governments welcomed or allowed renewable energy facilities, restrictions, regulations or temporary injunctions were imposed on these renewable energy developments. On the other hand, numerous municipalities contested the siting of renewable facilities and their development approval was delayed, scaled down or design modified but proceeded and in some cases, the project was withdrawn due to overwhelming opposition. In March 2022, Columbia's research found 121 local policies that restricted or blocked renewable energy facilities and 204 contested energy facilities, which represented a 17.5% and 23.6% increase over the report's September 2021 update. Additionally, some of the states that have seen the most renewable energy development—such as Texas, New York, and Kansas—also have relatively greater incidence of opposition. Mississippi was the only state where no local ordinances blocking renewable facilities were found and no local opposition. Columbia's research paper only discusses State laws where renewable energy developments were impeded due to state-level siting restrictions. In addition, this research paper did not discuss all policies affecting renewable energy such as net metering, subsidies or renewable energy standards and focused specifically on renewable siting standards. Thus, the overarching goal of this review was to evaluate Columbia Law School's research paper from the perspective of how or if local ordinances, laws, and/or moratoriums impacts solar development, i.e., the RE-Powering Initiative. Columbia Law School's disclaimer statement: "This research report was prepared as part of the work of the Renewable Energy Legal Defense Initiative (RELDI), a joint project of Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the law firm of Arnold & Porter. RELDI provides pro bono legal representation to local residents and community groups that support renewable energy developments in their communities but are facing opposition." 1 All information retrieved from: Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School. Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities in the United States: March 2022 Edition, pp 96. Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities in the United States: March 2022 Edition [ Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (columbia.edu) 1 Summary Review: Columbia's Research Report of State-by-State Local RE Facilities Laws & Ordinances EPA Publication Number: 540S23001 ------- Summary: State-by-State Local Solar Energy Ordinances Although some restrictions and legal delays may have been enacted (e.g., limit size, use of farmland, public opposition, location), there were limited local policies, ordinances or laws that would hinder RE- Powering Initiatives to allow solar energy projects. Many of the locally issued moratoriums arose out of outcry from the public, have expired, or are stalled and only one local ordinance was found to totally outlaw solar developments. Bethany Beach, Delaware's ordinance prohibited solar developments, thus negatively impacting the RE-Powering Initiative. Note, local project oppositions are mainly provided for the purpose of referencing community protest and may be locations where the RE-Powering Initiative could encounter challenges. The following table summarizes local renewable solar ordinances based on Columbia's Law School research paper "Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities in the United States," and how the RE- Powering Initiative may be impacted by the ordinances, moratoriums and/or laws. Alabama ¦ No local solar ordinances but wind ordinances exist. Alaska ¦ No local ordinances but wind opposition occurred. Arizona ¦ No local ordinances. ¦ November 2020, Mohave County's 1200 MW Sterling Solar project was granted a 2-year extension as the project seeks approval due to local opposition for the past ~10 years. Arkansas ¦ No local ordinances but wind protest and cancellation. California ¦ San Bernardino County bans solar panels on roof therefore, RE-Powering as a community solar (which provides public households with solar) project could be an option. ¦ Livermore Valley's Aramis and SunWalker Solar projects are on appeal blocking use of agriculture land for solar development. Specific legislation restricting use of pristine land, size, or height as to not block visuals would still allow for solar projects, e.g., minimizing the impact to the RE-Powering Initiative. ¦ San Diego County's solar/renewable policy is to be developed due to opposition concerns re: noise, dust, and decline in tourism that exists. The planned Jacumba Solar Project stalls while awaiting policy that should have been in place in 2022. Colorado ¦ Washington County public protest gave rise to a temporary MOU on a solar farm permit which impacts solar development projects (i.e., RE-Powering Initiative). ¦ Tessera & Pueblo County projects had opposition due to noise, decline in property value of residents -other sites were evaluated to move forward with solar development projects. Connecticut ¦ No local solar but a 2017 State Act banned utility-scale solar development on forest and prime farmland. Provided the solar project is not developed on pristine, prime land, the RE-Powering Initiative would not be impacted or minimally if another location needed to be found. In addition, a smaller development would be another option. 2 Summary Review: Columbia's Research Report of State-by-State Local RE Facilities Laws & Ordinances EPA Publication Number: 540S23001 ------- Delaware ¦ Bethany Beach's 2018 ordinance prohibits commercial solar installation which would impact RE-Powering's ability to development solar farms on compromised lands (perhaps certain sizes could be an option). However, the City allows rooftop solar systems. Florida ¦ No local ordinances. ¦ Mt. Joy's solar project is being protested due to construction in an Agricultural Conservation Zone. The proposed large development (1,000 acres) could be scaled down and if possible, located in a non-restricted zone which minimizes the impact on the RE-Powering Initiative. ¦ The Sand Bluff Solar Project was protested due to the lack of outreach and the siting of the system in a historically Black community. Georgia ¦ Thomas County implemented an embargo in 2018 on solar energy facility construction and was still in place as of December 2020. Stalls solar development impacting RE-Powering. ¦ Lee County placed a moratorium on solar farm construction in May 2019. ¦ February 2017, a 60-day solar panel moratorium was issued due to the surrounding Grady county's residents' concerns of the construction of a solar farm. ¦ Tanglewood's solar project, in Mitchell County, was contested but after a lengthly approval process, it was completed in June 2020. ¦ October 2019 Sumter County approved 10,000 acre solar farm however, public environmental conservation, aesthetics and decline in property value concerns have delayed project completion. Hawaii ¦ No solar ordinances/laws found but wind energy opposition. Idaho ¦ No solar but wind ordinances implemented. Illinois ¦ No solar but wind ordinances exist. Indiana ¦ Delaware County on February 22, 2022 issued a one year moratorium on solar farm development due to requested review and implementation of ordinance changes such as developing large corridors for large animal passage and increasing setbacks to 100 feet between solar farms and homes. ¦ Noble County Commission is developing regulations for utility-scale (less than 5 MW) solar projects but no operational rules currently exist for commercial-grade (distributed) solar. ¦ In October 2021, Elkhart County Commission voted against rezoning agricultural land to build a large solar energy project in addition to public concerns of aesthetics and decline of property values with the development of a solar array. Solar development land restrictions can have some impact, e.g. minimally impacting the RE-Powering Initiative. Iowa ¦ In March 2022 for six months or until Iowa legislature passes solar farm laws, Greene County issued a mortarium on a utility-scale solar farm project. Develop small solar projects could be an option there by minimally impacting the RE-Power Initiative. ¦ In April 2020, Iowa City's Waterworks Prairie Park Solar project's lease agreement was stopped due to the use of viable greenspace, not enough outreach early in the process and the impact of the solar project on Park aesthetics. Solar project may want to consider a different location alleviating the use of prairie lands, minimizing impact on the RE-Powering Initiative. ¦ Lin County contested solar project but the Clenera project was approved. Kansas ¦ No solar but wind ordinances exist. 3 Summary Review: Columbia's Research Report of State-by-State Local RE Facilities Laws & Ordinances EPA Publication Number: 540S23001 ------- Kentucky ¦ Clark County has a pro-solar zoning ordinance that allows for solar projects on zoned agricultural purpose lands but passage has not occurred and the public is against the ordinance citing concerns of environmental health, destabilization values of property and decline in infrastructure efficiency. ¦ Mercer County contested and withheld approval of proposed solar project due to public farmland preservation concerns. ¦ Madison County's solar mortarium expired and approval of a 1,100 acre solar project is stalled due to public concerns of aesthetics (being an eyesore) and health risks of solar farm. Louisiana ¦ No local solar but wind ordinances exist. ¦ A West Baton Rouge planned large-scaled solar farm project is being contested as residents cite safety, health, and impacts on habitat concerns. Maine ¦ Augusta issued regulations that developers will limit visual (aesthetic) impacts of solar projects. This may limit the height of solar system, impacting RE-Powering minimally. ¦ October 2021, Dixmont issued a mortarium on solar panel arrays until a decommissioning process of solar installations ordinance is established. ¦ October 2021, Ellsworth issued a 6-month moratorium on new solar developments until appropriate land use zoning ordinances have been established. Moratorium extended and expired October 13, 2022 for medium to large-scale solar developments. ¦ After City Council's moratorium, two 2020 solar projects were put into service May 2022 and entered a 20-year bill credit agreement under the Maine Commercial Institutional Customer Net Energy Billing-Tariff Rate Credit Program which will allow Ellsworth to purchase bill credits associated with the generation of solar power (https://www.wabi.tv/2022/05/09/ellsworth~holds- ribbon-cuttinq-solar-proiects/). ¦ November 2020, the Town of Belgrade issued a mortarium to create regulations for commercial solar projects. November 2021, a public hearing occurred for proposed solar project and as of August 8, 2022, new solar ordinances proposed which allowed projects to move forward (https://www.centralmaine.com/2022/08/08/belqrade~moves-forward~with~new~ solar-ordinance-aims-to-have-town-vote-in-november/). ¦ November 2021, the Town of Mechanic Falls issued a 180-day moratorium on solar development until ordinances were developed. ¦ March 2022, residents of Otisfield voted on a 180-day moratorium on commercial solar facilities. Scaling down a solar development could be an option to consider. ¦ January 2022, Lovell issued a 180-day moratorium citing visibility impact concerns of large- scale solar project. Maryland ¦ No local solar but wind ordinances exist. ¦ Washington County residents appeal of the siting of a solar farm in their community was dismissed. Massachusetts ¦ In 2019, Charlton amended zoning regulations on ground-mounted, large-scale solar array and town-wide, only 30 installations are permitted (no clear if this is forever or for the year of 2019 and could impact the number of RE-Powering projects). ¦ November 2021, Amherst's Town Council is considering a moratorium on large solar arrays. ¦ In 2013, West Bridgewater zoning board rejected a 2 MW solar project citing property value impact and proximity of farm to homes. ¦ In 2012, the proposed Bullard Farm solar project was vetoed as residents cited concerns of health risks due to output of electromagnetic frequency and toxic chemicals from panels. Michigan ¦ May 2020, Watertown Township issued a moratorium on large solar developments and March 2021 a moratorium was proposed on solar system placement, construction, size, issuance of permits, licenses and approvals. This could have some impacts on potential solar developments, i.e., impacting the ability of RE-Powering projects. 4 Summary Review: Columbia's Research Report of State-by-State Local RE Facilities Laws & Ordinances EPA Publication Number: 540S23001 ------- Minnesota ¦ October 2020, Minnetrista issued a 12-month moratorium on the siting of solar development on agricultural preserve areas pending potential 2015 zoning ordinance revisions. Mississippi ¦ No ordinances or opposition exist. Missouri ¦ No solar but wind ordinances. Montana ¦ No solar but wind ordinances. Nebraska ¦ Gretna City Council issued a moratorium, July 2020, on solar development awaiting updates to city codes. ¦ January 2022, Lincoln-Lancaster County residents are challenging the County's Boards approval of a solar project citing approval violation of state and local law. Nevada ¦ No local ordinances/laws (lots of wind oppositions). New Hampshire ¦ No local ordinances/laws. ¦ In 2018, a West Portsmouth solar project was rejected by the zoning board citing too much impervious surfaces (pavements, hard areas that doesn't allow water soak into the ground) for residential open-space zoning. Different location may want to be considered to move project forward. New Jersey ¦ No local ordinances/laws. ¦ In July 2020, residents stated concerns of a proposed 2.2 MW solar development in Brandon citing depreciation of property value and use of agricultural land. New Mexico ¦ No local ordinances/laws. ¦ July 2020, a 100 MW solar development (future still on-hold) in Buena Vista faced opposition by an Otero County Commissioner citing the impacts on their 'oil and gas' industry. ¦ November 2018, Las Cruces denied of a 2-MW community solar project citing its expense. As development costs decline, solar projects may want to reconsider. ¦ In October 2021, Roswell-Chaves County Zoning Commission rejected a solar farm development permit citing concerns of health risk, radiation, siting of solar system, noise, wildlife effects and devaluation of property values. New York ¦ In 2020, the State expedited the siting and approval of renewable energy developments that were 25 MW or greater. Pro RE-Powering. ¦ In October 2021, Westerlo passed a renewable energy law which governs the siting of renewable projects. ¦ In July 2020, Porter issued a moratorium on large commercial developments 25 MW or greater but, construction of smaller projects are still permitted. ¦ Seneca's 2014 Local Law No. 6 has several solar system requirements, i.e., surface area of less than 4,000 square feet, rear or side yard location of the system, and reflective glare must be prevented onto any inhibited (where people assemble) buildings, roads, and properties. ¦ Coxsackie enacted an ordinance in 2019 which restricted solar development in industrial and commercial zones. ¦ Coxsackie & Athens Township protest ensued but as of July 2022, the 100MW Flint Mine solar project will be the largest facility in upstate NY (Greene County). ¦ Duanesburg, in January 2020, adopted a large scale solar development mortarium for six- month to evaluate changes to the 2016 solar law in order to understand impacts of the proposed Eden Renewables project. 5 Summary Review: Columbia's Research Report of State-by-State Local RE Facilities Laws & Ordinances EPA Publication Number: 540S23001 ------- ¦ Clifton Park issued a six-month moratorium on greater than 25 KW capacity ground-mounted solar systems. ¦ In October 2021, Riverhead enacted a 12-month moratorium on commercial solar developments. ¦ Lockport issued a six-month moratorium on new solar developments in July 2021 and extended again in February 2022. ¦ Valhalla, Westchester County's Planning Board voted against a proposed 5.75 MW solar farm application based on potential mudslides due to the clearing of trees. ¦ February 2022, St. Lawrence County Planning Board vetoed a proposed solar farm in Madrid stating concerns of the impacts on agricultural lands. North Carolina ¦ Hertford County Commissioners issued a moratorium on solar development in October 2020 citing public outcry. ¦ Enacted in October 2019 extended but expected to expire April 2021, Rowan County Commissioners issued a moratorium on large solar farms. ¦ In December 2015, Woodland Town Council vetoed a proposed solar farm. ¦ November 2020, Culpeper County Planning Commission rejected a proposed 1,700 acre, 149 MW solar project on rural farm citing historical and environmental impacts. ¦ October 2020, Yadkin County did not grant a permit for a 22 MW, 285 acre solar farm citing concerns of impacts on water quality, flooding and tourism. North Dakota ¦ No solar but wind ordinances. Ohio ¦ July 2021, State Law give counties the power to veto renewable energy projects and developers must be granted approval from the Ohio Power Siting Board (two lines of opposition to overcome). ¦ In October 2021, Delaware County Commissioners instituted restricted areas to minimize solar development, implementing another step for required approvals to build solar developments (essentially making solar developments more difficult to build). ¦ October 2021, Greene County Commissioners rejected a proposed 175 MW solar array, Kingwood Solar, citing violation of land use conformity regulations, e.g., too close to state park and setback requirements. Oklahoma ¦ No solar but wind ordinances. Oregon ¦ State Legislation, May 2019, restricted use of certain category farmland for solar development ¦ No local ordinances. ¦ June 2018, Jackson County rejected permit approval of an 80 acre solar facility citing project development was not protected under the farmland law. Pennsylvania ¦ No local solar but wind ordinances. Rhode Island ¦ No local solar but wind ordinance. South Carolina ¦ No ordinances but potential (discussed, not action) solar opposition. South Dakota ¦ No local solar but wind ordinances. Tennessee ¦ No ordinances. ¦ In January 2022, Jackson City Planning Commission approved a proposed solar project that has stalled and has received opposition from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) who currently supplies energy to the area and is asking the TN Public Utility Commission to reject the proposal. 6 Summary Review: Columbia's Research Report of State-by-State Local RE Facilities Laws & Ordinances EPA Publication Number: 540S23001 ------- Texas ¦ No local solar but wind ordinances. ¦ August 2021, Dike local residents are opposing to the Engie Solar Project citing concerns of runoff and loss of carbon dioxide absorbers due to the clearing of trees. Utah ¦ Hyrum's March 2017 moratorium and on new solar installation fee structure were issued and lasted six months. ¦ October 2020, Fairfield's two proposed 160 MW solar projects remain uncertain as residents object and cite concerns of project cost, low revenue returns and uncertainty of undeveloped land. Vermont ¦ No local ordinances. ¦ June 2020, VT Public Utility Commission issued a restraining order halting Bennington's two solar developments citing public opposition, September 2021 project still stalled. ¦ September 2021, a Manchester 500 kWsolar project certificate was denied by VT Public Utility Commission citing public concerns of flooding and aesthetics. Virginia ¦ No local solar but wind ordinances. ¦ October 2021, Charlotte County developer aims to build a utility-scale 800 MW solar farm, of which, a lawsuit was filed to dissolve the contract agreement with the landowner. ¦ Henry County approved two proposed solar farms. However, due to public opposition and concerns of aesthetics and mandates of solar land use maximums, in November 2021, the County Board of Zoning denied the projects, ultimately approving a special use permit for a large-scale solar farm, December 2022. Washington ¦ No local ordinances. ¦ In 2017, Kittitas County Commission issued a moratorium on developing large solar projects in an effort to block Ellensburg's Columbia 200 area solar project which was ultimately approved April 2018. West Virginia ¦ August 2021, approval of Local Zoning Ordinance was amended that allowed development of industrial solar projects on Residential and Rural Growth Zone District property, although there was public concerns of ecological impacts. Wsconsin ¦ No local solar but wind ordinances. Wyoming ¦ No local ordinances but wind opposition. 7 Summary Review: Columbia's Research Report of State-by-State Local RE Facilities Laws & Ordinances EPA Publication Number: 540S23001 ------- |