Investments in the U.S. renewable energy market are expected to hit $114 billion by 2031, according to a recent report from Wood Mackenzie. This indicates a 78% increase from $64 billion in total investments at year end 2021, and is attributed to the decarbonization momentum being spurred by the landmark Inflation Reduction Act. Such rapid expansion, however, will inevitably lead to issues related to siting.
One attractive solution to this is siting renewables on brownfield sites, which are current or formerly contaminated sites. This includes landfills, former power plants, and mine sites, among other locations. Lawyers for the Legal Pathways to Deep Carbonization Model Law Project are aiming to make this easier. The group recently published a new model law to provide liability exemption for renewable energy developers under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
CERCLA, commonly known as a Superfund, authorizes the federal government to assess and clean up properties contaminated with hazardous waste, with hefty fines for liable polluters. The model law would provide a “statutory exemption for wind and solar energy developers” in line with current protections, and “removes the need for EPA enforcement discretion as to imposition of CERCLA liability.” Also, it would limit CERCLA liability by transferring wind and solar brownfield site authority to state response authorities. However, an exception to the EPA’s role would be retained where it is warranted by regulation, “such as sites posing a threat to the sole-source drinking water aquifer or a sensitive ecosystem.”
These changes would build upon the EPA RE-Powering Initiative which encourages renewable energy development on brownfields. The EPA estimates that there are approximately 13,000 potential brownfield sites with over 22 million acres nationwide. A report from the RE-Powering Initiative in October tracked 502 renewable energy projects on brownfields across the country, amounting to 2.4GW installed, with 93% of those installations being from solar. Surprisingly, 26% of those installations are based in Massachusetts as the result of state financial incentives coupled with a streamlined permitting process.
An example brownfield solar development is the 50 MW Sunnyside Solar Project that’s being developed south of Houston, with 2 MW from the project designated for community solar. Located on a former landfill, that had been abandoned for 50 years, the development is expected to become the nation’s largest urban brownfield solar farm. The 240-acre plot will provide enough electricity to power up to 10,000 homes or take an estimated 120 million pounds of carbon out of the atmosphere annually. A part of the agreement between the city and Sunnyside Energy, Sunnyside will provide power discounts to low-income residents in the neighborhood and will train 175 residents through local colleges and employ more than 100 local workers to construct the project.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.
What stands out here, is the idea that lowest cost solar “large array” infrastructure – siting (dependent on keeping the “free wasteland” culture going) – no matter how it may affect everything else between the project and the users – will be guaranteed. Permitting will have every avoidable cost avoided, every concocted advantage possible, inserted, and the contract will have been streamline processed, fast-tracked, start to finish. Locally, we have had that explained to us, as the proper job of the BLM: to facilitate continuous sale of the use, of public natural resources, for money to send to the US Treasury. – Added, they are doing their job.
In that situation, aren’t descriptions of the “effectiveness” of the EPA RE-Powering Initiative, the Legal Pathways… Law Project – by their own, respective offices – a high school comical, noise screen? …”removes the need for EPA enforcement discretion as to imposition of CERCLA liability…also provides for a transfer of CERCLA’s “wind and solar brownfield site” -business cost management authority? physical site management cost authority? over to state – response?- authorities”. (!) Except for water contamination problems…impressive.
As always, I am always happy, if I am wrong in my understanding of what will happen.
By submitting this form you agree to pv magazine using your data for the purposes of publishing your comment.
Your personal data will only be disclosed or otherwise transmitted to third parties for the purposes of spam filtering or if this is necessary for technical maintenance of the website. Any other transfer to third parties will not take place unless this is justified on the basis of applicable data protection regulations or if pv magazine is legally obliged to do so.
You may revoke this consent at any time with effect for the future, in which case your personal data will be deleted immediately. Otherwise, your data will be deleted if pv magazine has processed your request or the purpose of data storage is fulfilled.
Further information on data privacy can be found in our Data Protection Policy.