I
RE-Powering America's Land Initiative Discussion Paper
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
HI j
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
^ ft /
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
Contents
1. Introduction....... 1
2. Types of Infrastructure on RE-Powering Sites and Why They Are Valuable 2
2.1 Electricity Transmission and Distribution System Equipment 2
2.2 Road or Other Site Access 3
2.3 Physical Security 4
2.4 Dormant Power Generation 4
2.5 Civil and Structural Facilities. 4
3. Finding Valuable Infrastructure Among RE-Powering Sites 5
4. Estimating Benefits from Existing Infrastructure 5
5. How to Utilize Infrastructure Benefits 8
Appendix: Notes on Estimated Infrastructure Values 10
REFERENCES 13
April 2020
-------
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
ki//
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
1. Introduction
Snapshot of Existing Site Infrastructure That
The size of a renewable energy project, its ability to readily Can Support Renewable Energy Development
interconnect with the surrounding power grid, the ease or
difficulty of the construction process, and the physical
security of the project all depend greatly on the
infrastructure in place. The existing infrastructure at a site
can make millions of dollars of difference in project
installation and operating costs and can even determine the
outright economic viability of a renewable energy project.
Existing infrastructure can be a critical, positive
differentiator for many of the formerly contaminated lands,
landfills, and mine sites whose reuse is facilitated by EPA's
RE-Powering America's Land Initiative. This paper is
targeted at the types of infrastructure commonly found on
RE-Powering sites and characterizes where, and to what
extent, this infrastructure affects the prospects for site
redevelopment.
Where beneficial infrastructure exists on RE-Powering
sites, it can reduce project installed costs by
approximately $45 to $113 per kWAc of renewable
capacity, compared to otherwise similar sites lacking
this infrastructure. That value represents 3% to 7% of
total installed costs1 for solar and wind projects.
To develop those metrics and understand their context and
limitations, the paper is organized to answer the following
key questions:
¦ What are the main types of existing infrastructure on
RE-Powering sites and why are they valuable for
renewable energy development?
¦ Which sites are likely to have existing infrastructure?
¦ How much is the existing infrastructure worth?
¦ What steps can be taken to maximize the benefits of
existing infrastructure?
Broadly, there are five types of infrastructure that
may be present on formerly contaminated lands,
landfills, and mine sites and offer value to the
development of renewable generation projects.
¦ Electricity transmission and distribution
system equipment - Nearby substations with
unused capacity and other grid equipment to
accommodate the injection of new electricity
output can greatly reduce or eliminate the grid
upgrade or line extension costs otherwise
required.
¦ Road or other site access - Existing
roadways to and within sites can be essential
to construction and to maintenance over the
20+ years of renewable project operation.
Adjacent rail lines or waterways can also lower
equipment delivery costs.
¦ Physical security - Due to the value of
generation equipment, existing physical and/or
electronic security equipment lowers
expenditures.
¦ Dormant power generation - Out-of-service
generation assets at a site may be re-purposed
as part of biogas or biomass projects or aid in
the construction process for other renewable
technologies.
¦ Civil and structural facilities - Unused
buildings, water supply connections, storm
water drainage systems, and other existing
features can avoid the need to construct
expensive new facilities.
1 Installed costs include all costs involved with the direct deployment of the renewable energy project such as all equipment;
transportation of equipment to the site; land rights; installation labor; professional services labor for design, engineering, legal, finance,
etc.; interconnection to the transmission or distribution grid; permits and other fees; taxes; and profit. Capital costs is sometimes used as
a synonym for installed costs, but the latter is the terminology used in this discussion paper. This discussion paper steps through the
elements of this calculation and Appendix A provides additional detail and references.
April 2020
1
-------
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
' '¦> 1
Renewable Energy Development
2. Types of Infrastructure on RE-Powering Sites and Why
They Are Valuable
This section provides examples of five types of infrastructure that commonly exist on former
contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites and describes the roles such infrastructure serve in the
development and operation of renewable energy projects. The land itself at RE-Powering sites,
while often valuable, is not considered infrastructure for the purposes of this paper. Solar and, to a
lesser extent, wind technologies are emphasized as they are the most common technologies
deployed on RE-Powering sites.
2.1 Electricity Transmission and Distribution System Equipment
Transmission and distribution equipment is often the most valuable type of infrastructure for
renewable development. For generation projects of the medium to large scale (1 MW+ in capacity)
typical at RE-Powering sites, the distance to a viable point of interconnection (POI) with the power
grid and the ability of the grid to accommodate new renewable generation without triggering major
upgrade costs are among the most important factors in project feasibility. Beyond distance to POI
and the condition of substations, the condition of other existing grid equipment including
transformers and reclosers is important.2 Even if grid equipment has been under-used or dormant
due to the elimination of a prior industrial or mining activity at the site, it will still be valuable if it is in
working condition or can be readily refurbished.
For projects without nearby, suitable grid infrastructure, developers must underwrite substantial
investments in design, study and ultimately construction costs to reach a POI and to ensure that the
grid can operate safely and reliably after their renewable project is interconnected (NALGEP, 2012,
page 15). This principle applies equally to renewable projects connecting to transmission and
distribution systems.3
Many RE-Powering sites have transmission and distribution grid infrastructure on-site or nearby due
to their history as industrial, mining, or landfill sites requiring power for operations, their proximity to
transmission corridors, or their iocations near population centers with surrounding electricity
requirements. For this reason, there are numerous examples of RE-Powering sites that have
leveraged existing grid infrastructure to lower the cost of renewable development including:
¦ A combined 39 MWwind and solar project on a former Bethlehem Steel Plant (Figure 1) in
upstate New York with a substation on-site (EPA, 2012; Buffalo News, 2014).
2 Transformers ramp voltage up (for efficient movement of power over iong distances) or down (as power gets closer to end-use), and
reclosers are circuit breakers that detect and interrupt momentary faults and restore service after brief outages. For more information on
common types of equipment for transmission and distribution grids, see Eaton,
http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/public/en/povi/er_systems/markets/utility.html (accessed April 2020)
3 Transmission networks consist of high-voltage power lines - often transmitting 100 kilovolts (kV) or more - designed to carry power
efficiently over long distances. Distribution networks, operated exclusively by utilities, deliver power at lower voltages (typically-
transmitting 35 kV or less) and over shorter distances to the consumer. Renewable generation projects can connect at either the
transmission or distribution level.
April 2020
2
-------
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
\
¦ A 10 MW landfill solar project in California
that is less than 1,000 feet from the POI
and "will be able to connect to existing
electrical infrastructure without requiring
significant extensions" (San Bernardino
County, 2015, pages 25 and 29).
¦ A 2.3 MW solar project as part of a
microgrid at a Vermont landfill where "no
upgrades to (the utility's) substation were
required to accommodate an installation"
(EPA, 2016a).
¦ A 1.5 MW potential solar development on a
landfill in Colorado that was approved by
the county in 2017 and benefits from a
Rural Electric Association power line
bisecting the site (Loveland Reporter-
Herald, 2017).
While existing transmission and distribution infrastructure accelerates renewable energy
development, its absence impedes development as shown in Massachusetts, where the second
phase of a solar project was deemed infeasible partly due to $1 million of new infrastructure costs
needed to interconnect the project (Falmouth Enterprise, 2017).
2.2 Road or Other Site Access
Solar projects preferably have three types of
physical access: (1) a road (or rail line or waterway)
leading to the main site entrance, (2) a road around
the perimeter of the solar project, and (3) an internal
road network providing access to the substation,
inverter(s), and solar array. The internal roads
facilitate construction as well as planned (e.g.,
inspecting and cleaning) and unplanned (e.g.,
replacing damaged equipment) operations and
maintenance. RE-Powering sites with existing
access roads are likely to have reduced
development costs.
For example, the Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco, Inc.
Superfund site in North Carolina (Figure 2) utilized
nearby rail and interstate highway access to enhance development for its reuse plan that includes a
landfill solar project, an aerobic digester, and a biofuel conversion facility (EPA, 2015; EPA, 2017b).
Figure 1: Existing Grid Infrastructure at Former
Bethlehem Steel Plant
Photo credit: Landscape Architecture Magazine, 2012
Figure 2: Rail Access at Martin-Marietta,
Sodyeco Superfund Site
Photo credit: EPA, 2017b
April 2020
3
-------
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
V
Road access is also important for wind development, as noted for a 16 MW project at a former
petroleum refinery in Wyoming (EPA, 2011). For biomass projects fueled by off-site feedstock,
ongoing transportation access to feedstock is essential for operations.
2.3 Physical Security
Because renewable energy involves expensive investments, it is critical to protect equipment from
theft and damage. It is also important to prevent personal harm to workers, visitors, and trespassers
on sites. To offer that protection, a typical solar project will have several, or all, of the following
physical security components: strong fence, access gate with lock, surveillance cameras, alarm
system, closed-circuit monitoring, and incident response mechanisms. Even if a RE-Powering site
does not have up-to-date electronic security components, it could have fencing, gates, and other
useful physical security features.
For example, the 10 MW Exelon City Solar project in Chicago involved the construction of a fence
with a 1.3 mile perimeter to enhance safety and prevent further dumping at the site (EDI). While this
quality of fencing did not exist previously at the site, the choice to install it on what was the largest
urban solar project in the country at the time of its 2010 dedication demonstrates that such
infrastructure has particular value near population centers.
2.4 Dormant Power Generation
Though not likely to be found at many RE-Powering sites, the presence of dormant diesel, natural
gas, or combined heat and power generators can have value in site redevelopment. If these assets
can be refurbished and restarted in a cost-effective manner, they can provide power to a site's
support facilities, lighting, security apparatus, and other miscellaneous electricity loads. If a biomass
or biogas project is being developed, the dormant assets might be re-purposed directly for
renewable power generation.
2.5 Civil and Structural Facilities
There may be civil or structural facilities of value at a RE-Powering site, including unused buildings,
loading docks, water supply connections, and storm water drainage infrastructure. For example,
unused buildings can house solar project inverters and battery storage devices, which provide value
to the renewable developer. Another example is an existing water supply connection that could be
re-activated at a much lower cost than establishing a new utility connection.
Existing storm water drainage infrastructure can be especially important in reducing the complexity
and costs of a solar project by reducing the need for regrading and soil disturbance mitigation. The
careful, 100-year event analysis of storm water drainage required for some solar projects and the
benefits of having adequate existing drainage infrastructure is demonstrated in the approval
documentation for a 1.6 MW solar project at a Massachusetts landfill (MassDEP, 2012).
April 2020
-------
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
In contrast to the examples above, there may be other circumstances when existing civil or
structural facilities impede renewable project development if they are physically in the preferred
path for project construction.
3. Finding Valuable Infrastructure Among RE-Powering Sites
While there may be a substantial amount of valuable infrastructure on RE-Powering sites, it is not
evenly distributed among those sites nor equally valuable in all locations. Some sites are closer to
transmission and distribution interconnection points than others, and some are in urban areas or in
other locations, such as remote locations with building restrictions, that are challenging for
greenfield renewable energy projects. Prior uses of the sites include industrial, landfills, mining, and
other activities that cause potential land contamination, and these differences in prior use can also
affect the viability and costs of renewable project development.
Below is a brief synopsis of where the most valuable existing infrastructure may reside within the
RE-Powering site portfolio.
Locations near substations: While the distance to a substation alone does not provide
information on the capacity of that substation to absorb new renewable generation, it is a good
indicator of where developers may encounter low line extension costs and more choices in POI.
The free RE-Powering Mapper tool provides distance to nearest substation, as well as several other
important screening criteria for RE-Powering sites, and is available at https://www.epa.gov/re-
powering/re-powering-mapping-and-screening-tools.
Locations near urban areas: A large proportion of RE-Powering sites are within three miles of
urban areas (EPA, 2016b).4 Given that construction costs and complexity can be higher in urban
areas than elsewhere, storm water drainage systems and other civil and structural facilities are
likely to be particularly valuable in these areas. Security measures like fencing and gates may be
more valuable in urban areas as well (EDI). Urban sites also tend to have more choices on POI,
due to the prevalence of on-site and adjacent electricity consumption loads compared to rural sites.
Data on distance to urban area can be obtained from EPA's RE-Powering Mapper.
Remote locations with building restrictions: For RE-Powering sites in remote areas with
restrictions on new construction (e.g., desert habitats), the presence of existing external and intra-
site road access, even in less than perfect condition, can help greatly in moving the personnel and
equipment required for solar or wind project construction and operations.
4. Estimating Benefits from Existing Infrastructure
Table 1 provides rough estimates of the cost savings that existing infrastructure may offer to
developers of renewable generation on RE-Powering sites. These are estimates of the average
4 The 2016 EPA discussion paper indicated that more than 92% of RE-Powering sites passing screens for applicability to community
solar programs are within three miles of an urban area. While the current discussion paper on existing infrastructure is not restricted to
community solar projects, the community solar data from 2016 indicate that RE-Powering sites are often close to population centers.
April 2020
5
-------
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
installed cost of building required infrastructure, if it is not already present. For any given RE-
Powering site, the actual value of the existing infrastructure may be higher or lower than these
estimates.
The estimates are presented on both a per kW of generating capacity basis and as a percent of
total installed costs. For the percentage data, the "Estimated Infrastructure Value per kW' columns
in Table 1 are divided by the installed cost of each renewable energy technology. That installed cost
is $1,729/kWAc for solar projects and $1,610/kWAc for wind projects.5 Descriptions of the
calculations and sources for each "Estimated infrastructure Value per kW are in the appendix.
Due to the extremely wide variation in the extent and condition of infrastructure on any given
RE-Powering site and its value - together with the equally large variation in the types of
renewable technology configurations that can be deployed, regional differences in costs,
distinctions in interconnection costs among transmission and distribution grid operators,
and the disparate needs of surrounding communities - the data in Table 1 should be viewed
only as illustrative. Before investing any significant time or cost in a renewable energy opportunity,
developers or other interested parties should conduct their own due diligence in calculating and
securing the benefits from existing infrastructure. Finally, while existing infrastructure often lowers
renewable project development costs, it can increase those costs if it must be removed, improved,
or it constrains design and engineering choices.
5 The installed costs were derived from National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) solar (NREL, 2018b, page 36) and wind (NREL,
2018a, page 8) reports. Solar installed costs are an average of fixed-tilt and single-axis tracking 10 MWDc PV configurations and are
converted from direct current to alternating current for consistency with wind costs using NREL's conversion ratio of 1.33 kWDC to 1.00
kWAc. (NREL, 2018b, page 38) That conversion ratio is the average of the fixed-tilt and single-axis tracking conversion ratios in the NREL
PV report. The 10 MW size was used for solar project calculations in this paper because that size is closer to the typical size of a RE-
Powering solar project than the larger (50 MW and 100 MW) project sizes also available in the NREL PV report.
April 2020
6
-------
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
V
Table 1: Rough Estimates of Existing Infrastructure Value for Renewable Development
Cost Mitigated by
Existing
Infrastructure
Estimated
Infrastructure
Value Per I
-------
HI j
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
^ ft /
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
5. How to Utilize Infrastructure Benefits
For a RE-Powering site to be developed with a solar, wind, or other renewable energy project, it
must offer one or more meaningful benefits that are not found on other sites. Existing infrastructure
at RE-Powering sites is not a benefit in itself, but it can create benefits that are valuable to
renewable energy developers, if the answer to one or more of the following questions is positive.
Does the infrastructure:
1. Make a project viable in an electricity market where other sites are simply not viable (e.g.,
have minimal prospects for transmission grid, utility, or community approval)?
2. Greatly speed project development?
3. Substantially reduce installation costs?
Below are four steps that developers and other parties involved in a potential renewable energy
project can take to gather the information needed about the benefits of existing infrastructure at RE-
Powering sites. Following these steps will also help secure infrastructure benefits.
1. Select renewable technology configurations and project sizes that match the existing
infrastructure. For example, thin-film solar panels and solar racking that rotates to track the
sun require more land area than fixed-tilt projects using crystalline-silicon panels.7 If the
existing road, physical security, or storm water drainage system is space-constrained, that
suggests the most compact solar system design may be optimal. The capacity of nearby
grid infrastructure also can affect technology selection - if that infrastructure can only
accommodate 5 MW of new capacity before triggering expensive upgrades, consider
selecting a technology and design that maximizes profit given the 5 MW capacity constraint.
2. Obtain information on the capacity of nearby transmission and distribution system
infrastructure to absorb additional renewable generation by requesting interconnection pre-
application reports, reviewing utility hosting capacity analyses, and reviewing transmission
and distribution queue information, if such information is readily available.
3. Understand how the soft costs (permitting fees, engineering costs, and expenditures of
project development time) may be reduced or increased depending on how existing
infrastructure is used. For example, the duration (and the internal and external costs) of the
interconnection study process may be substantially reduced if existing infrastructure allows
for an interconnection application that passes initial screens. Conversely, removal of existing
infrastructure or re-design of a renewable energy project to avoid that infrastructure may
impose delays and additional design and engineering costs.
7 While thin-film systems typically require more land area than crystalline-silicon systems to achieve the same capacity, there may be
other reasons to choose thin-film, such as cost or certain types of performance. For tracking systems, while they require more land and
cost more than fixed-tilt systems of the same capacity, they have higher annual electricity output.
April 2020
8
-------
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
4. For site owners, avoid narrow procurements that are overly prescriptive technically (e.g.,
that specify exact equipment, or infrastructure, that must be used and how systems are to
be configured). It is critical to attract developers or engineering, procurement, and
construction firms that have an understanding of both renewable energy development at the
scale desired and also an understanding of the specific challenges and opportunities
(including the potential benefits of infrastructure reuse) of RE-Powering sites.
April 2020
9
-------
HI j
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
^ ft /
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
Appendix: Notes on Estimated Infrastructure Values
Table 2, below, contains explanatory notes for how the per kW values for existing infrastructure on
RE-Powering sites were estimated.
Table 2: Notes on Existing Infrastructure Values Estimated for RE-Powering Sites
Notes on Estimates of Value Per kW
NREL models transmission line extensions for utility-scale
solar projects at up to $.02/wattoc, which is equivalent to
$20/kWDc, or$27/kWAc (NREL, 2018b, page 31 for line
extension costs and page 38 for DC to AC conversion as the
"inverter loading ratio"). The DC to AC capacity conversion
ratio of 1.33 I
-------
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
Cost Mitigated
by Existing
Infrastructure
Estimated Infrastructure
Value Per kWAc of
Renewable Energy
Capacity
Access Road
Construction
$0 to $10
Notes on Estimates of Value Per kW
break-out of certain cost categories (NREL, 2015, page 30).
For further comparison, the utility Xcel Energy Minnesota
places typical distribution interconnection costs for community
solar projects larger than 1 MW at $5,000 to $1 million (Xcel
Energy, 2017, page 3). In Massachusetts, the range of
interconnection cost upgrades was estimated between
$100,000 and $2 million+ for solar landfill projects
(MassDOER, 2012, page 22). The wide range for
interconnection costs reinforces both the great variation in
renewable energy projects themselves and the high value, in
certain circumstances like those highlighted in section 2 of
this paper, of being able to reduce interconnection costs if
sufficient infrastructure is already in place.
If new substation equipment is required for large renewable
energy projects, the cost can range from $12.5 million for a
69 kV substation to $15 million for a 230 kV substation
(CAISO, 2017).
The information in this section means that if a RE-Powering
site can avoid new substation construction or significant
upgrades, it can potentially save the developer millions of
dollars, and its infrastructure value could significantly exceed
the estimate at left.
This value is estimated at up to one-fifth of the total site
access and staging costs of $48/kWthat NREL reports for
wind projects (NREL, 2018a, page 8). The one-fifth estimate
is based on the observation that access roads are only a
portion of site access and staging costs, which should also
cover establishing a staging area, securing materials before
they are installed, and building temporary platforms related to
system installation and that any existing access roads may
need improvements to accommodate the renewable energy
project. NREL, on pages 6-7 of the same report, notes that
equipment transportation costs, which may be reduced by
RE-Powering site infrastructure are also in other categories.
For further reference, the construction cost of a simple, bi-
directional 12-foot wide shared use path is estimated at
$287,393 per miie by the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT, 2019),
In cases where access roads built specifically for RE-
Powering sites would not be the primary means of
transporting materials and installation labor, the value of the
access roads would be minimal.
April 2020
-------
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
Cost Mitigated
by Existing
Infrastructure
Estimated Infrastructure
Value Per kWAc of
Renewable Energy
Capacity
Notes on Estimates of Value Per kW
Physical
Security
$0 to $15
The author's industry research puts the cost of chain-link
fencing with barbed wire and privacy slats (six feet in height)
at $15/linear foot. For a 4,000 kWAc solar project of 22 acres
with a perfectly square layout, the perimeter would be 3,916
feet and cost $59,000 (or $15/kWAc) to secure. Any
configuration other than perfectly square would be more
expensive to fence and increase this infrastructure value. The
acreage per kW data are for fixed-axis PV systems of 1,000-
20,000 kW (NREL, 2013, page v). Exterior gates and
electronic security systems on RE-Powering sites may
provide additional value.
For solar projects in areas where physical security is of low
importance, fencing may be of minimal value as it would be
on most wind projects.
Dormant Power
Generation
Rarely Applicable to Solar
and Wind Projects
Though dormant power generation may be very valuable in
some cases (e.g., directly for biomass or biogas projects or
when support facility power is needed for any project), it is not
likely to be present and in condition to be easily refurbished at
many RE-Powering sites.
For reports on the value of mid-sized fossil fuel generation
units, see EPA, 2017a and EPRI, 2003.
Storm Water
Drainage System
$4 to $8 (solar)
$0 (wind)
This is an estimate based on professional judgment for a
2,000-5,000 kWAc solar project. It reflects drainage
requirements for a comparable greenfield site and not the
added drainage needs for remediation that may be present
on formerly contaminated lands, landfills, or mining sites. For
comparison, urban storm water best management practices
imply a cost of approximately $17 per kWAc.10
Wind projects do not create acres of impermeable surfaces
parallel to the ground that can substantially change storm
water drainage patterns like solar projects and, therefore, this
type of infrastructure will be of limited value for wind projects.
Other Civil and
Structural
Facilities
$0 to $5
Due to the extremely wide range of facilities in this category,
a cautious estimate is used here based on professional
judgment.
10 This calculation is based on best management practices construction costs of $8,709 for 5-acre sites plus $1,329 in administrative
costs per site, inflated to the current year and assuming that solar projects cover 5.5 acres per 1,000 kwAc (EPA, 1999, page 6-40). For
inflation adjustments, please see U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator, https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
(accessed April 2020).
April 2020
-------
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
F SSPSPIP?
Renewable Energy Development
pp if *
REFERENCES
California Independent System Operator (CAISO). (2017). 2017 PG&E final generator
interconnection unit cost guide. Retrieved from https://www.caiso.com/Documents/PG-
E2017FinalPerUnitCostGuide.xls
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). (March 2003). Costs of utility distributed generators, 1-10
MW.
Environmental Design International Inc. (EDI), (n.d). Exelon City Solar. Retrieved from
http://www.envdesigni.com/site/files/972/114228/388916/620534/Exelon_City_Solar.pdf
EPA. (August 1999). Preliminary data summary of urban storm water best management practices.
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/urban-stormwater-
bmps_preliminary-study_1999.pdf
EPA. (November 2011). The Casper Wind project uses a collaborative public participation process
to successfully site renewable energy on contaminated land in Wyoming. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/success_casper_winds.pdf
EPA. (May 2012). Development of wind power facility helps revitalize Rust Belt City. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/success_steelwinds_ny.pdf
EPA. (November 2015). Reclaim, restore, reinvent: Creating jobs and cleaner energy: The Martin-
Marietta, Sodyeco, Inc. site in Charlotte, North Carolina. Retrieved from
https://semspub.epa.goV/work/04/11014872.pdf
EPA. (July 2016a). Traditional New England city builds a modern microgrid. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/re_on_cl_rutland_case_study.pdf
EPA. (December 2016b). Community solar: An opportunity to enhance sustainable development on
landfills and other contaminated sites. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
12/documents/epa_repowering_community_solar_discussion_paper_final_120716_508.pdf
EPA. (September 2017a). Catalog of CHP technologies. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/catalog_of_chp_technologies.pdf
EPA. (December 2017b). Superfund sites in reuse in North Carolina. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopment-initiative/superfund-sites-reuse-north-carolina
Feldott, B. (2017, May 19). Second solar phase at Falmouth Landfill on hold. Falmouth Enterprise.
http://www.capenews.net/falmouth/news/secnd-solar-phase-at-falmouth-landfill-on-
hold/article b6a328be-21ad-5e25-bf69-2646fe9ed620.html
April 2020
13
-------
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
pp if * ^
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). (July 2019). FDOT long range estimating system
- production. Retrieved from https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-
source/programmanagement/estimates/lre/costpermilemodeis/o01.pdf?sfvrsn=dfe7cd6_4
Kwiatkowski Radlich, J. (2014, July 13). 'Steel Sun' project would add solar panels near wind
turbines at former Bethlehem Steel site in Lackawanna. The Buffalo News.
http://buffalonews.com/2014/07/13/steel-sun-project-would-add-solar-panels-near-wind-turbines-at-
former-bethlehem-steel-site-in-lackawanna/
Mclntyre, L. (2012, August 9). Juice from junk sites. Landscape Architecture Magazine.
https://landscapearchitecturemagazine.org/2012/08/09/juice-from-junk-sites/
Hindi, S. (20T7, January 24). Solar facility proposed for county landfill. Loveland Reporter-Herald.
http://www.reporterherald.com/ci_30748824/solar-facility-proposed-county-landfill
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (MassDOER). (2012). The guide to developing
solar photovoltaics at Massachusetts landfills. Retrieved from
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/green-communities/ems/guide-to-developing-solar-pv-at-
massachusetts-landfills.pdf
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). (2012, September 26).
Approval with conditions, post-closure use permit application for the Acton landfill. Retrieved from
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/energy/solar/pcup-acton.pdf
National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals (NALGEP). (January 2012).
Cultivating green energy on brownfields: A nuts and bolts primer for local governments, page 15.
Retrieved from http://www.nalgep.org/uploads/pdf/publi02.pdf
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). (June 2013). Land-use requirements for solar
power plants in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf
NREL. (September 2015). U.S. photovoltaic prices and cost breakdowns: Q1 2015 benchmarks for
residential, commercial, and utility-scale systems. Retrieved from
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf
NREL. (September 2018a) 2017 cost of wind energy review. Retrieved from
https://www.nrel. gov/docs/fy 18osti/72167. pdf
NREL. (November 2018b). U.S. solar photovoltaic system cost benchmark: Q1 2018. Retrieved
from https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72399.pdf
San Bernardino County. (January 2015). Planning commission staff report, SunEdison - Victorville
Landfill Solar LP, pages 25 and 29. Retrieved from
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/lus/pc/VictorvilleSolarStaffReport3.pdf
April 2020
14
-------
EPA RE-Powering Discussion Paper
The Value of Existing Infrastructure for
Renewable Energy Development
PiWKtII
Xcel Energy. (2017, January 31). Solar*Rewards® Community® - engineering frequently asked
questions. Retrieved from https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe-
responsive/Admin/Managed%20Documents%20&%20PDFs/M N-SRC-Engineering-FAQs.pdf
Note: Website links to all references were accessed in March 2020.
April 2020
15
------- |