Solar Moratorium-Part II

Context

The Mesa County Commissioners are expected to finalize the Land Development Code (LDC) update which includes provisions for solar power production at their April 23rd meeting. The draft LDC is a reasonable compromise, with broad allowance for behind the meter projects and reasonable regulations for front of meter. Unfortunately, a last minute NIMBY initiative raised points which were already discussed and agreed to in a previous commissioners meeting. I drafted this letter to the commissioners, thanking them for their work and addressing the three last minutes issues raised. I then worked with two local organizations, who edited and co-signed the letter, increasing the impact of the message.

Second Letter to County Commissioners

Dear County Commissioners,

On behalf of the Grand Valley Citizens’ Climate Lobby, members of Western Colorado Alliance, Citizens for Clean Air Grand Junction, and the undersigned, we sincerely thank you for your timely efforts on the solar LDC update. We encourage you to finalize the 3/26/24 revision of PRO2024-0022, ensuring the county and its residents are able to financially benefit from the rapid growth of renewable energy rather than being passed over for other counties.

The proposed draft is an excellent compromise, enabling individuals, businesses, and communities to benefit from the cost savings of solar. The conditional use for energy generation can create jobs, provide tax revenue, and decrease electricity costs for the entire county. And the provisions related to agri-voltaics allow Mesa County to retain and expand its agricultural roots while enabling the economic and environmental benefits of solar power.

It has come to our attention that there remain some outstanding questions from members of the community. Although these topics were discussed at the March 21st public meeting, we wanted to provide fact based input on these questions to ensure the timely finalization of the LDC update.

1. Regardless of if solar power facilities are built within or outside a Fire Protection District, all solar developments must be built in accordance with the strict Colorado Fire Code. This code directly mirrors the International Fire Code and adheres to the International Building Code and the National Fire Protection Association National Electric Code, which is applicable to all 50 states. Referencing the Colorado or National codes would be unnecessarily redundant. The additional language “The relevant Fire Protection District’s adopted standards, based on current fire code, shall apply” allows for additional standards above and beyond the State Code. Additionally, the risk of solar panel fire is generally overstated—a recent German study shows the risk of serious fire damage to be 0.006% of Germany’s more than 2 million solar projects.

2. The latest version of the LDC includes numerous provisions to ensure decommissioning is adequately planned for. Unlike oil and gas decommissioning when a well is no longer profitably producing, solar production facilities can be “repowered”. The developer already owns the land and built the interconnection infrastructure, providing a natural incentive for removal of outdated panels and reinstallation of new, state of the art panels. Additionally, the American Clean Power Association shows it is possible for the salvage and resale revenue to exceed the decommissioning costs, as seen in the Two Creeks project in Wisconsin, further incentivizing decommissioning. Necessitating a bond adds considerable project cost for an eventuality which may not come to pass, and this additional cost may prevent Mesa County from capitalizing on the economic and environmental benefits of solar power production.  

3. Innumerable research papers, including from the University of Oregon, National Renewable Energy Lab, and the U.S. Department of Energy, show that agri-voltaics are among the most economically and environmentally sustainable form of solar power generation. Crop yields as much as triple and water requirements decrease due to reduced temperatures from the shade, and solar panel efficiency improves thanks to the cooling effect of plants. Alternatively, if used for livestock, grazing can reduce the costs associated with trimming or using herbicides. The optimum height for agri-voltaics remains a topic of study, and current research shows mounting agri-voltaic cells 3-5 m (9.8-16.4 ft) above ground is optimal for crop production. While it would not be expected that agri-voltaics exceed 5 m, allowing for that possibility enables future projects to maximize the agricultural and power generation benefits as the science of agri-voltaics matures. Additionally, there is little incentive for projects to be taller than is beneficial given the increased costs of materials and labor.

Again, we greatly appreciate your work on this matter, and we hope the draft is finalized at the April 23rd meeting.