Friday, June 11, 2021
CapitalPress.com 11
Solar: ‘You may start seeing clusters of solar facilities’
Continued from Page 1
able portfolio mandates and other
government incentives, the solar
power industry has now found its
financial footing and is expanding
due to demand from utility compa-
nies, experts say.
“The market is driving the
boom,” said Mark Zwieg, Hecate
Energy’s development manager in
charge of the Bonanza project and
other proposals. “Our cost of mate-
rials is going down every year.”
A lower cost of construction is
also spurring the growth, he said.
“There’s more firms constructing,
so there’s more competition, and
competition drives costs down.”
A megawatt of solar power
capacity requires about 5 to 10
acres and costs about $780,000
to $910,000 to install at the utility
scale, depending on the technology.
The Bonanza project alone is
projected to increase Oregon’s
solar capacity by 150-300 mega-
watts, depending on the configura-
tion of the final design.
Though installation has grown
cheaper, siting remains a chal-
lenging aspect of the solar devel-
opment process. Projects require
suitable land that’s close enough to
transmission lines and substations
to make economic sense.
“You may start seeing clus-
ters of solar facilities in one area
because of those attributes,” Zwieg
said.
Resistance from surrounding
landowners is a less tangible but
very real impediment to develop-
ing a solar facility.
Hecate Energy is still con-
ducting its due diligence on the
Bonanza site, which was chosen
partly because a natural gas facil-
ity was approved there by Ore-
gon’s Energy Facility Siting Coun-
cil nearly 20 years ago.
The many objections to the
project — including the loss of
irrigated land, wildlife habitat and
cultural heritage — will be worked
through as the company discusses
the details with stakeholders,
Zwieg said.
“We want to be good neigh-
bors. We want to minimize our
impacts,” he said. “You don’t want
to look at all the projects the same.
Your approach to opposition needs
to evolve with each project.”
‘Really big problem’
Even so, the controversies
repeatedly encountered by solar
projects in Oregon have taken a
toll on the industry, experts say.
“Anecdotally, we’re hearing
from developers that it’s a really
big problem,” said Max Greene,
regulatory and policy director for
the Renewable Northwest non-
profit, which advocates for solar,
wind and geothermal projects.
Unless Oregon comes up with a
way to make the public more com-
fortable with solar projects, it will
be difficult or even impossible to
build new facilities in the state, he
said.
“I don’t think we’re there yet.
We’re at this flashpoint,” he said.
“It’s a sign we need to do some-
thing to get people together and
figure this out.”
Battles over large-scale facili-
ties occur before the EFSC, whose
decisions can be appealed directly
to the state’s Supreme Court.
Smaller projects approved by
county governments are chal-
lenged before the state’s Land Use
Board of Appeals, whose decisions
Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press
The Woodline Solar Project, developed by Pine Gate Renewables, is a solar facility that’s already been
constructed in Oregon’s Klamath County. Suitable conditions can encourage clusters of such projects,
experts say.
Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press
Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press
Alyssa Andrew, an Oregon State University grad-
uate student, visits with sheep resting beneath
solar panels at a campus facility in Corvallis, Ore.
are reviewed by
the Oregon Court
of Appeals.
Bills governing
solar siting are also
regularly debated
in the Legislature,
Samantha which
recently
Bayer
gave county gov-
ernments increased
jurisdiction over such projects.
Farmland preservation groups
prefer the EFSC siting process
because they’re afraid county gov-
ernments aren’t equipped to thor-
oughly analyze solar facilities.
However, the EFSC process
also has critics, such as Donnie
Boyd, a Klamath County com-
missioner opposed to the Bonanza
project.
“If the project is a certain size,
they can go around the county and
do whatever they want,” he said.
“The EFSC process takes out the
local input. I don’t think the state
government should be able to dic-
tate to local citizens how they want
their area.”
Key rule
One of the more significant
changes affecting solar develop-
ment has occurred on the regula-
tory front: A 2019 rule from the
state’s Department of Land Con-
servation and Development effec-
tively prohibited solar facilities on
the two highest classes of soil.
The impact has particu-
larly been felt in Western Ore-
gon, where solar development
has largely ground to a halt since
the rule was enacted, said Angela
Crowley-Koch, executive director
of the Oregon Solar and Storage
Industries Association.
“Most people feel like the Wil-
lamette Valley is off the table right
now,” she said.
While the area is notoriously
soggy and cloudy, it still receives
enough ultraviolet light to allow
for productive solar facilities,
Donnie Boyd, a Klamath County commissioner, is
opposed to a proposed 2,700-acre solar facility
near Bonanza, Ore. Boyd said the state-level En-
ergy Facility Siting Council takes away local con-
trol over such projects.
Crowley-Koch said. Critically, the
west side is also where most of the
state’s power demand is.
“The decision was really using
an ax when you should have used a
scalpel,” she said. “The DLCD rul-
ing didn’t allow for any nuance.”
Advocates of farmland pres-
ervation see the rule change as a
victory. The regulation came after
the Oregon Farm Bureau, 1,000
Friends of Oregon and local non-
profits raised an alarm about the
proliferation of solar proposals on
farmland.
In the experience of the farm-
land preservation nonprofit Friends
of Yamhill County, most farmers in
the area have received solicitations
from solar developers, said Kath-
ryn Jernstedt, the organization’s
president. “We’re constantly fight-
ing the misconception that agricul-
tural land is vacant land. It’s not.”
Friends of Yamhill County isn’t
opposed to renewable energy but
doesn’t consider solar panels to be
the best use of high-value farm-
land, since they don’t depend on
high-quality soil or provide the
same “economic multipliers” as
agriculture, she said.
Though solar developments
can provide income for farmers,
that doesn’t justify building them
on valuable soils, she said. “Run-
ning a hotel on farmland would
diversify their income but it’s not
an appropriate use of high-value
farmland.”
Landowners are paid from $300
to $2,000 per acre annually —
depending on the project’s size,
location and other variables — for
solar facilities installed on their
properties. Contracts are usually
for about 20 years and cover the
productive lifespan of the project.
The siting process
The solar industry didn’t do
a good job explaining the siting
process, which gave rise to wor-
ries that new projects were mush-
Wolves: Minnesota rancher says he
lost 26 calves to wolves one year
Continued from Page 1
administration) do their thinking,”
she said.
Wolves already were delisted
in Idaho and the eastern one-third
of Washington and Oregon and
were not affected by the November
rule.
Environmental groups argue the
Trump administration prematurely
lifted federal protection for wolves
elsewhere. Wolves have not recol-
onized their historic range, the
suits claim.
The environmental groups say
their members interact with wolves
for recreational, spiritual, aesthetic
and scientific benefits.
A Humane Society of the
United States member in Minne-
sota declared in a court filing she
has “formed relationships with
individual wolves whose unique
howls and behaviors she has come
to know.”
Hunters and farmers also say
they are personally affected by
wolves and that they would rather
Getty Images
Wolves were delisted in Idaho and the eastern one-third of Washing-
ton and Oregon and were not affected by the November rule.
have states and tribes manage the
predators, rather than the Endan-
gered Species Act.
A
Wisconsin
taxidermist
declared he wanted to hunt wolves
to maintain the deer population and
“reduce conflicts between humans
and wolves.”
A Minnesota rancher declared
he lost 26 calves to wolves one
year. “Waking up in the morning, I
often wonder how many cattle are
dead or missing to gray wolf dep-
redation. It has been a nightmare.”
The lead plaintiffs in the three
lawsuits are Defenders of Wildlife,
WildEarth Guardians and the Natu-
ral Resources Defense Council.
rooming across the landscape, said
Crowley-Koch of OSSIA.
“It must have felt like if you live
in the area, farmland is disappear-
ing and solar is appearing every-
where,” she said.
In reality, developers lease mul-
tiple properties before deciding
which parcel is appropriate for
development, Crowley-Koch said.
“It’s an investment to even think
about having a solar project.”
While not every solicitation let-
ter would have resulted in a solar
project, such facilities do represent
a major form of development on
farmland.
Solar projects are among the
most commonly approved non-res-
idential uses in farm and for-
est zones, according to the state
DLCD.
At 966 megawatts, solar capac-
ity in Oregon grew by more than
30% in 2020 alone, according to
the Solar Energy Industries Asso-
ciation. The industry is expected to
expand by 1,646 megawatts during
the next five years.
A megawatt is enough to
power about 190 homes for a year,
according to the association.
“Solar energy development
is rapidly growing in Oregon,”
DLCD said. “Many utility scale
solar facilities are opting to locate
on land zoned (exclusive farm use)
due to proximity to high-voltage
powerlines and substations with
interconnection
opportunities,
lower land acquisition or lease
costs, availability of unobstructed
sunlight, and ease of development
due to flatter slopes.”
Up to 75,000 acres in Oregon
could be converted to solar facili-
ties in the next 30 years, according
to the American Farmland Trust.
“I think you’re going to have
local communities pushing back
or at least having a say in how
those projects are developed,” said
Addie Candib, the group’s Pacific
Northwest regional director.
The farmland preservation
group 1,000 Friends of Oregon
would prefer that solar facilities
be steered toward industrial areas,
similar to the way residential sub-
divisions are constructed within
“urban growth boundaries.”
“It’s not occurring because
just like every other industry, it’s
perceived as cheaper to develop
farmland rather than be creative
and innovative with land that’s
already been developed,” said Jas-
mine Zimmer-Stucky, the nonprof-
it’s working lands engagement
manager.
Statewide inventory
The Oregon Farm Bureau
believes a statewide inventory or
map of lands available for solar
development could expedite those
projects that are broadly beneficial,
said Samantha Bayer, the organi-
zation’s policy counsel.
“We need to establish more cer-
tainty on the front end of where
these projects should go,” she
said. “There is a place for solar in
the system. It just seems like a lot
of the places that are cheapest for
solar projects are on valuable agri-
cultural land.”
Representatives of the solar
industry say that local govern-
ments prefer industrial areas to be
dedicated to facilities that gener-
ate more permanent jobs than solar
projects. Mapping, meanwhile,
may not recognize the complex-
ities of siting solar arrays on spe-
cific properties.
Co-locating new solar facilities
with continued agricultural uses
— known as agrivoltaics — offers
one possibility for compromise.
Chad Higgins, an associate pro-
fessor at Oregon State University,
began studying the subject after
noticing some sheep congregat-
ing under solar panels at a campus
installation.
His research has determined
that grass below the panels grows
slower but reaches dormancy later
in the season, consuming less
water while extending the pas-
ture’s productivity in summer.
The growth rate of sheep isn’t
reduced if they graze beneath the
panels, which they preferred to do
because of the shade.
Sheep raised in open pasture
will actually gaze longingly at
their companions beneath solar
panels and try to get past a fence to
join them, said Alyssa Andrew, an
OSU graduate student involved in
the research.
“They seem to like it a lot,” she
said. “They’re under there pretty
much every time I’m here.”
Higgins is now comparing sev-
eral agrivoltaic arrangements at
another site, though he acknowl-
edges the co-location strategy may
face obstacles and limitations.
“Any grower who looks at an
array, their first question is: How
do I get a tractor in there?” he said.
Farmland preservationists say
the idea is worth exploring, though
they’re concerned that solar panels
may permanently hinder the types
of crops and equipment a property
can support.
Some concepts, such as plac-
ing beehives in fields with solar
facilities, have raised suspi-
cions whether the agricultural use
may simply provide a fig leaf for
development.
Preventing agrivoltaics from
creating such a regulatory loophole
is a matter that must be decided by
policy makers, Higgins said.
Fire: Outlook calsl for warmer,
drier than average conditions
Continued from Page 1
Central Oregon and southeast-
ern Washington likely will have
above-normal potential for large
fires starting in June. An increase
to above-normal risk is expected
in June and July in parts of the
Coast, Sierra and California Cas-
cade mountain ranges.
National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration Climate
Prediction Center outlooks call
for conditions that are warmer and
drier than average in June in Ore-
gon and Washington, except for
equal chances of dry, normal or
wet conditions from the Olympic
Peninsula through western Ore-
gon, NIFC said.
Forecasters expect above-nor-
mal potential of significant fires
in the Southwest through June
before the monsoon arrives.
Above-normal risk is expected
to expand north and east, into the
Great Basin and Rocky Mountain
region, through August.
NIFC pegged the risk of sig-
nificant wildfires at above
normal in most middle and
upper-elevation areas of cen-
tral Northern California from
June through August. Above-nor-
mal risk is expected in Septem-
ber, except in parts of the state’s
northeastern area.
Elevated risk in much of South-
ern California is likely for July
through September. NIFC said
drought continued to worsen in
May, and much of the area is under
severe to extreme drought. Dead
fuels are especially dry.
Low snowpack and “significant
long-term exceptional drought” at
middle and higher elevations of the
eastern Great Basin mean signifi-
cant wildfire potential is expected
to increase through August in that
area from south to north, the report
said.
In the Northern Rockies,
above-normal risk of large fires is
expected in July west of the Conti-
nental Divide — where drought is
developing following a dry spring
in northern Idaho and northwest-
ern Montana — and in August
region-wide.