The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20160064.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO , PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Bruce Johnson , that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission . Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2015-27 REVISED PRESENTED BY: MICHELLE MARTIN REQUEST : IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING , WITH AMENDMENTS , CHAPTER 21 AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE INTEREST AND CHAPTER 23 ZONING, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners . Motion seconded by Benjamin Hansford . VOTE : For PassaQe AQainst Passaqe Absent Benjamin Hansford Bruce Johnson Bruce Sparrow Jordan Jemiola Joyce Smock Michael Wailes Nick Berryman Terry Cross Gene Stille The Chair decfared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I , Kristine Ranslem , Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission , do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County , Colorado , adopted on May 3 , 2016 . Dated the 3�d of May, 2016 Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem q�� Y�.�yL Date: 2016.05 .06 10:09:55 -06'00' Kristine Ranslem Secretary � /G - � � � � ' � a��.�-�7 Sec. 21-3-20 . - Definitions. In addition to the terms defined in Section 2 I - 1 -90 of this Code, the following terms specific to the designation of site selection and construction of major facilities of a public utility shall be construed to have the meanings set forth as follows : Large Scale Solar Faciliry: A fiacility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy , other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and YYI � � {�-1TIT�~ � n " � n Y�]}p/� !� �] HO /� � +ll lTYil /l +�lY } � /l1l }y� tY�lr � t �` �NOR0 � � /] �}P !1N b b all equipment is located on more than �8 320 acres . This designation shall not include roof and/or ground mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use( s) on site . Power plant : Any electrical energy generating facility with a generating capacity of fifty (50) megawatts or more, and any facilities appurtenant thereto, or any ^ �' �' � * � �� *� ��*� expansion , extension or enlargement thereof increasing the existing design capacity e€�#e #=a�i-4+�� by fifty (50) megawatts; or a large scale solar facility e�-r�e�e . Sec. 23- 1 -90. - De�nitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, certain terms or words used herein shall be interpreted as defined in this Section . The following specific words and phrases, when appearing in this Chapter in uppercase letters, shall have the meanings stated in this Section : Small Scale Solar Faciliry: A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy , other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines under 1 15 kV, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and �� ; ; ; "u�� : * • ^{ *� �� . � ��**� ^r �+�# all equipment will be located on � 20 acres or less. This designation shall not include roof and/or ground mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site . Mediurn Scale Solar Facility: A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy , other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines under 1 15 kV, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers u,u �:; . . � ; �"�: �u��, � �� *�� ^ � Mi1l� 1 }� i RY�/l+�Y ��, ,, � .ti ..00 � � ' mo�r � , � ; � ** � � � a ' � � � *" .� � *" ; .�� , ' 2n ' mo�r � � • ,^ ** � and all equipment is located on �8 greater than b b 20 acres and 320 acres or less . This designation shall not include roof and/or ground mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site . Large Scale Solar Faciliry: A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy , other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electricaf energy to users, a customer or customers and t � " II � , +� �Y NOII � !1 N/1}O�y !� /lY1/] /� � }tl lrMpq }pN � � OH *� 1N�\ � � 11 \ �M }} vY � � l �r � L� �{y � I �UYt. U IiTLT, J all equipment is locate on more than �8 320 acres . This designation shall not include roof and/or ground mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use( s) on site . Large Scale Solar Facilities are permitted in all zones through permits issued pursuant to the procedures found in Chapter 21 of this Code. POWER PLANT: Any electrical generating facility with an energy generation capacity a€ less than fifty ( 50) megawatts ^�� and any facilities appurtenant thereto, or any expansion , extension or enlargement thereof increasing the existing design capacity � but still less than fifty (50) megawatts er-►�e�e. Sec. 23-3-20. - Uses allowed by right. No BU [ LD [NG , STRUCTURE or land shall be USED and no BUILDING or STRUCTURE shall hereafter be erected, structurally altered, enlarged or maintained in the A (Agricultural) Zone District except for one ( 1 ) or more of the following USES . Land in the A (Agricultural) Zone District is subject to the schedule of bulk requirements contained in Section 23 -3 -50 below. USES within the A (Agricultural) Zone District shall also be subject to additional requirements contained in Articles IV and V ofthis Chapter. CC . SMALL SCALE SOLAR FACILITY Sec. 23-3-40. - Uses by special review. The following BU [ LD [NGS, STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed, occupied, operated and maintained in the A (Agricultural ) Zone District upon approval of a permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Article [ [ , Division 4 of this Chapter. r r � � n � r cr n r ❑ enr n n ❑ n rrr rrry � . n � MM . MEDIUM SCALE SOLAR FACILITY Sec. 23-3-310. - I-1 (Industrial) Zone District. B . Uses Allowed by Right . No BUILDING, STRUCTURE or land shall be used in the I - 1 Zone District, and no BUILDING or STRUCTURE shall hereafter be erected , structurally altered , enlarged or maintained , except for one ( 1 ) or more of the following USE5. The USES must be conducted in compliance with the performance standards contained in Sections 23-3-340, 23-3-350 and 23 -3-360 of this Division . 1 . Any USE of a research , repairing , manufacturing , fabricating , processing , assembling or storage nature may be conducted in the I-1 Zone District. SCREENING may be required if USE is not compatible with adjacent uses . 2 . Areas for parking passenger vehicles . 3 . SIGNS , as long as the SIGNS are located and designed in accordance with the requirements of Article IV, Division 2 of this Chapter. 4 . UTILITY SERVICE FACILITIES . 5 . PUBLIC SCHOOL extension classes . 6. COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS , limited to indoor instruction . 7 . Police and fire stations or facilities. 8 . Disposal of DOMESTIC SEPTAGE subject to the additional requirements of Chapter 14 , Article VI of this Code . 9 . TEMPORARY seasonal uses , including fruit and vegetable stands , and facilities for the sale of fireworks and Christmas trees , subject to the permit requirements of Article IV, Division 7 of this Chapter. 10 . Asphalt or concrete batch plant used temporarily and exclusively for an on-site construction project or the completion of a PUBLIC road improvements project. The six-month limitation for this TEMPORARY use may be extended in six-month increments at the discretion of the Director of Planning Services up to two (2) times, and thereafter by the Board of County Commissioners . 11 . One ( 1 ) TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA TOWER subject to the provisions of Article IV, Division 10 of this Chapter. 12 . OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES . 13 . TRANSLOADING . 14 . CHURCH . 15 . SMALL SCALE SOLAR FACILITY D . Uses by Special Review. The following BUILDINGS , STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed , occupied or maintained in the I - 1 Zone District upon the approval of a permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Article II , Division 4 of this Chapter. 1 . AIRSTRIPS when they are ACCESSORY to the Use Allowed by Right . 2 . One ( 1 ) microwave , COMMERCIAL radio , television or other communication transmission or relay tower seventy (70) feet or less in height per LOT. Commercial towers subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-800 . 3 . RESEARCH LABORATORY . 4 . WIND TURBINE . 5 . PROCESSING . 6 . CEMETERY. 7 . WIND GENERATOR(S) requiring the issuance of Use-by-Special Review Permit, as per Chapter 23 , Article II , Division 4 and Chapter 23 , Article IV, Division 6 of this Code. 8 . CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. 9 . TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA TOWERS , which require a Use by Special Review Permit , subject to the provisions of Article IV, Division 10 of this Chapter. 10 . Oil and Gas Support and Service . 11 . MEDIUM SCALE SOLAR FACILITY Sec. 23-3-320. - I -2 ( Industrial) Zone District. D . Uses by Special Review. The following BUILDINGS , STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed , occupied or maintained in the I -2 Zone District upon the approval of a permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Article II , Division 4 of this Chapter. 1 . REPEALED . 2 . AIRSTRIPS when they are ACCESSORY to the Use Allowed by Right. 3 . COMMERCIAL JUNKYARD or salvage YARD . 4 . Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants. 5 . Coal Gasification Facilities . 6 . Open Pit Mining and Materials Processing subject to provisions of Article IV, Division 4 of this Chapter. 7 . Microwave , Radio , Television or other Communication Towers over forty-five (45) feet in height (measured from ground level) . 8 . TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA TOWERS , which require a Use by Special Review Permit, subject to the provisions of Article IV, Division 10 of this Chapter. 9 . PROCESSING . 10 . RESEARCH LABORATORY. 11 . HEAVY MANUFACTURING - PROCESSING . 12 . WIND TURBINE . 13 . CEMETERY . 14 . WIND GENERATOR(S) requiring the issuance of Use-by-Special Review Permit, as per Chapter 23 , Article II , Division 4 and Chapter 23 , Article IV, Division 6 of this Code. 15 . COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS . 16 . CORRECTIONAL FACILITY . 17 . DISTILLERY. 18 . MEDIUM SCALE SOLAR FACILITY Sec. 23-3-330. - I-3 ( Industrial) Zone District. D . Uses by Special Review. The following BUILDINGS , STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed , occupied or maintained in the I -3 Zone District upon the approval of a permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Article II , Division 4 of this Chapter. 1 . AIRSTRIPS when they are ACCESSORY to the Use Allowed by Right. 2 . MAJOR FACILITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES . 3 . COMMERCIAL JUNKYARD or salvage YARD . 4 . OIL AND GAS STORAGE FACILITIES . 5 . Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants . 6 . Coal Gasification Facilities . 7 . Open Pit Mining and Materials Processing subject to provisions of Article IV, Division 4 of this Chapter. 8 . Microwave, Radio, Television or other Communication Towers over forty-five (45) feet in height (measured from ground level) . 9 . TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA TOWERS , which require a Use by Special Review Permit, subject to the provisions of Article IV, Division 10 of this Chapter. 10 . PROCESSING . 11 . RESEARCH LABORATORY . 12 . HEAVY MANUFACTURING , PROCESSING . 13 . WIND TURBINE . 14 . CEMETERY . 15 . WIND GENERATORS requiring the issuance of Use-by-Special Review Permit, as per Chapter 23 , Article II , Division 4 and Chapter 23, Article IV, Division 6 of this Code. 16 . COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS . 17 . CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. 18 . BREWERY. 19 . DISTILLERY. 20 . MEDIUM SCALE SOLAR FACILITY Add Section 23-4-1030 Division 15 in its entirety : Division 15 Section 23-4-1030 . -Solar Facility A . The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall consider the fiollowing criteria in making their determination in approving or denying a Special Review Permit for a Solar Facility in addition to those criteria enumerated in Chapter 23 , Article II , Division 4 and its impact on prime agricultural land which is detined as soils with agricultural capability classifiications of f . II and III as indicated on maps completed by the U . S . D. A . Natural Resource Service . B . A Decommissioning Plan . Adequate tinancial assurance to cover the decommissioning of the facility may be required as a condition ofapproval ofthe Decommissioning Plan . C. Landscaping is extremely important for enhancing the quality ofi development in the area . Trees, shrubs and other plantings add greatly to the aesthetic appeal while reducing glare . As no single landscaping plan can be prescribed for all developments due to differing land fieatures, topography and soils, these guidelines encourage flexible and creative landscape designs . Landscaping/screening shall include, at a minimum , decorative fencing, berming, and/or vegetation such that the facility is aesthetically pleasing as viewed from adjacent properties and rights-of-way . D . All reasonable alternatives to the proposed location have been adequately assessed, and the proposed action is consistent with the best interests of the people of the County and represents a balanced use of resources in the atfected area. E . The nature and location or expansion of the facility will not unreasonably interfere with any irrigation systems on or adjacent to the solar facility . F . No outdoor storage of any materials and equipment including but not limited to solar panels and support structures which are not in use, will be allowed . G . No equipment associated with the solar facility shall be located nearer than thirty (30 ) feet to the boundary of ADJACENT properties, irrigation ditches and/or right-of-ways . The Board ofi County Commissioners may set a greater distance than mentioned above when, in its opinion , it is justified . H . A Property Maintenance Plan is required for the facility . The Property Maintenance Plan shall address dust, weeds and erosion . The property shall be maintained in such a manner as to control dust, weeds and drainage that could cause erosion . Sec. 23-12-30. - Drainage policy. F . Exceptions . 1 . Exceptions to stormwater detention shall not jeopardize the public health , safety, and welfare of public and private property . Exceptions shall be supported with an approved drainage narrative which must describe at a minimum : • List which exception shown below is being requested for consideration • Where the water orginiates if it flows onto the property from an offsite source • Where it flows to as it leaves the property • The direction of flow across the property • If there have been previous drainage problems with the property Exceptions to the stormwater detention aa� shall be limited to the following : a . No stormwater detention will be required for sites that meet any of the following conditions . Requirements of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System ( MS4) areas remain applicable. 1 ) Use by Right or Accessory Use in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. 2) Zoning Permits in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. 3) A second dwelling permit in the A (Agricultural) Zone District . 4) Towers including , but not limited to , cell , wind , and telecommunication towers . 5) Pipelines or transmission lines. 6) Gravel pits if the stormwater drains into the gravel pit. 7) Residential developments where all the following conditions exist : a) Nine (9) lots or fewer. b) The average lot size is equal to, or greater than , three (3) acres per lot. c) Downstream roadway criteria are not exceeded . d ) The total post-development imperviousness for the rural residential development does not exceed ten percent ( 10°/a) , assuming that all internal roads and driveways are paved , or will eventually be paved . 8) Development of sites where the change of use does not increase the imperviousness of the site. 9) URBANIZING areas where the total project stormwater runoff of less than , or equal to, 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the 1 -hour, 100-year, storm event. 10) NON-URBANIZING areas where the total project stormwater runoff of less than , or equal to, 10 cfs for the 1 -hour, 100-year, storm event. 11 ) Parcels with total area less than , or equal to , a 1 . 0 gross acre . 12 ) Individual parcel with an unobstructed flow path and no other parcel (s) between the Federal Emergency Management Administration ( FEMA) regulatory floodplain channel and the project. 13) A parcel greater than 1 gross acre and less than , or equal to , 5 gross acres in size is allowed a onetime exception for a new 1 , 000 sq . ft. building or equivalent imperviousness . 14) A parcel greater than 5 gross acres in size is allowed a onetime exception for a new 2 , 000 sq . ft. building or equivalent imperviousness . 15 . Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) , Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) and Housed Commercial Swine Feeding Operation (HCSFO) which are covered and approved by the Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) regulations . Portions of the site not included or covered by the CDPS permit, shall comply with the Weld County Drainage Code requirements . 16�) Approved by a variance. Sec. 23-12-60. - Street drainage,for Use by Special Review, Commercial, Industrial, Planned Unit Development and Residential subdivisions A . Design Depth Criteria . 1 . The primary design objective is to keep the encroachment of stormwater on the street or road below an acceptable limit for a given flood return period . When stormwater collects on a street and flows down a gutter or swale , the stormwater encroaches into the roadway. If left unchecked , the encroachment will hinder traffic flow and may become hazardous . The maximum encroachment depth is outlined in the table below: Road Encroachment Minor Major Road Classification Design Max Design Max Encroachment over Storm Encroachment Storm crown Local 10 yr 6" 100 yr 18 " __ . _.._ _ _ _ _ _. Collector �5 10 yr ��^ ^ ^^ ' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ 6" 100 yr �18 " __ _ _ . _ __ _ _ _ _ . �� [fnn�� n � m� r�i � n � -� r� �� .. _ _ _ � . .. . .. _ . _ Arterial §8 10 yr 6„ 100 yr 918 " ; Sec. 23-12-70. - Major drainage. A. Design Flows. 1 . The major drainage system must be able to convey the fully developed flow from a watershed for the 1 -hour, 100-year event without significant damage to the system . B . Open Channel Design Principles . 1 . Grass-lined open channels conveying less than 50 cfs may reduce the minimum 1 . 0-foot freeboard requirement to the freeboard required to convey 1 . 33 times the �4�ea� 100-year design flow. The reduced freeboard may only occur if a 1 . 0-foot minimum freeboard is not physically possible and a variance request is submitted . 2 . Maximum side slopes may be as steep as 3H : 1V. However, the design engineer should address how the channels will be maintained since it may not be safe to mow on slopes that are greater than 4H : 1V. Sec. 23-12-80. - Culverts,in Public Right-of-Way A. Sizing . 1 . The Department of Public Works sk�ld will be contacted to determine which types of storm sewer pipes are permissible for use in public rights-of-way or public drainage easements . 2 . Culverts � should be designed to the following maximum headwater to depth HW/D requirements . no� :,,�^ #aALf B 3A-Vf �:9 _ __ _ . .. _ ._._ _ . _ r_ � n� � Ran e of Diameter or Hei ht or Rise Inches Maximum HW/D Less than 36 inches 2 .0 36 inches to 60 inches I . 7 Lar er than 60 inches but less than 84 inches 1 . 5 84 inches to less than 120 inches 1 .2 120 inches or lar er 1 . 0 Sec. 23-12-150. - Stormwater drainage criteria variances. The following variance procedures are intended to allow additional exceptions to the code explicitly listed in Section 23 - 12-30 provided certain requirements are met . Subsection A below is intended to be a lower cost option which allows anyone to apply for a variance with or without stamped engineering documentation . Subsection B below is intended to be used when more detailed analysis and engineering support is required . D . Variances required for maintenance or projects tying into the county road network shall be approved by the County Engineer. SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday , April 19 , 2016 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration Building , Hearing Room , and 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair, Jordan Jemiola , at 12 : 30 pm . Roll Call . Present: Bruce Johnson , Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola , Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman , Terry Cross . Absent: Benjamin Hansford , Joyce Smock . Also Present: Chris Gathman , Diana Aungst, Michelle Martin , and Tom Parko , Department of Planning Services ; Wayne Howard , Department of Planning Services — Engineering Division ; Lauren Light and Ben Frissell , Department of Health ; Janet Lundquist , Public Works; Bob Choate, County Attorney , and Kris Ranslem , Secretary. Motion : Approve the April 5 , 2016 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Bruce Johnson . Motion passed unanimously . CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2015-27 REVISED PRESENTED BY: MICHELLE MARTIN REQUEST: IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS , CHAPTER 21 AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE INTEREST AND CHAPTER 23 ZONING , OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE Michelle Martin , Planning Services , presented Ordinance 2015-27 and provided a brief explanation of the proposed code changes relating to drainage criteria . Ms . Martin stated that there were some combined recommendations from the Weld County Public Works Department and Weid County Planning Department. Ms . Martin also provided an explanation of the proposed code changes relating to solar facilities . This was initially brought before the Planning Commission where it was proposed that solar facilities be located in the Industrial Zone Districts under the Use by Special Review process and the Planning Commission recommended denial of this Ordinance . As a result from additional meetings with the solar industry and the Board of County Commissioners , they have made adjustments to these proposed changes . Therefore, these changes will include three ( 3) different categories of solar facilities and the land use permitting process corresponding to those categories . Commissioner Jemiola believes that acreage is the best way to categorize the size and scale because you can have more efficient panels and recommended following the acreage rather than megawatts . Commissioner Berryman asked what rationale was used to separate the three (3) levels into acreages and megawatt sizes . Ms . Martin said that they listened closely to the comments from the public and the industry and the Board of County Commissioners hoping to find a happy medium . She added that this was the comfort level that was reached with the County Commissioners based on the comments heard from the public. Commissioner Jemiola said that he struggles with regulations and doesn 't want to add more regulations to an industry and discourage solar development in the County. He understands that screening may be required on a 200 acre solar panel field ; however he feels the industrial location is excessive. Commissioner Johnson said he has talked with the industry the last couple of years and he keeps hearing that 3 megawatts can be squeezed onto 16 acres but they would prefer it on 20 acres . He said that over time he believes that they will be more efficient to where either larger systems will fit on the same amount of land or they will use less land . Mr. Johnson said that when comparing the 3 megawatt to 30 megawatt the land size is only increasing four times and it seems to be out of balance. He commended staff on the proposed categories as they impact the neighborhood differently . 1 Ms . Martin said that they understand the parcel may be 20 acres or larger; however if the equipment and facilities can fit on 16 acres they would be able to meet the criteria under the small solar scale facility definition . Commissioner Jemiola said he would like to encourage more solar development in the County . He added that the language was drafted wonderFully ; however he believes it is more of a policy issue and he doesn 't agree with the policy of adding regulations to any industry. Commissioner Sparrow said that this could be a survival tool for a family farm and that is what he likes about solar facilities . Ms . Martin said that currently there is nothing in the Weld County Code that talks about solar; therefore they are trying to put something in the code to provide clarification , specifically to solar facilities . Commissioner Jemiola suggested that it should be a Use by Right up to 20 acres. He said that he doesn 't want to limit it to Industrial or require a USR to put it in agricultural land . He added that he wants to allow that farmer to augment his income with solar or any other form of energy he can develop on his land . Commissioner Stille said that it should be limited to the number of acres and allow property to be used for financial benefit. Commissioner Berryman asked if there are examples from other counties in Colorado that have done this. Ms . Martin provided a chart which showed what other counties and municipalities have done in Colorado . The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application . Jerry Marizza , Energy Program Coordinator with United Power, said that United Power agrees with everything that is written and appreciates the different categories . He referred to the medium scale with an 80 acre limit and said that the standard is 8 to 10 acres per megawatt. He said for the maximum 30 megawatts to fit on 80 acres is difficult. He added that these systems require a certain amount of acreage and agreed with the comments that as technology evolves that acreage will come down . Therefore, they recommended to leave the language for the exception of the small scale as they would prefer to use the 10 acres per megawatts so they would like to increase the 16 acres to 30 acres and with the medium scale they would like to see it changed from 80 acres to 300 acres. Commissioner Sparrow said that one of the concerns is soil erosion and weed controi and asked him to explain the effect of the panels on growing any vegetation . Mr. Marizza said that in some regulated areas the solar panels were affecting the way rain was hitting the ground . Therefore they have had to collect water differently but for the most part these farms have to mow the grass and manage the site. Commissioner Berryman asked if locating on industrial property would add to the cost of projects and understands it would depend on how close it would be to substations as well . Mr. Marizza said that location is really critical to them and as they get to the medium scale they have to be closer to their substations . Therefore that is why they didn 't like the idea of industrial and agricultural and making that determination . Commissioner Johnson said that he would like to see 3 megawatts with no acreage limit to encourage the use of solar on agricultural land . He said that 80 acres in Weld County is a standard and common measurement and suggested that no megawatt limit be placed . Beyond that we are looking at quarter- sections and half-sections and that is a large impact on the neighborhood . Commissioner Jemiola said that he doesn 't want to limit the industry by production and is in favor of having 20 acres as a Use by Right in the agricultural zoned districts and 40 acres as a Use by Right in industrial zoned districts. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, said that any proposed solar facilities currently requires a Use by Special Review Permit and it would remain a Use by Special Review in the small and medium facilities in the Agricultural Zone and a Use by Right for the small scale in the Industrial Zone Districts . All large facilities will require a 1041 Permit . Commissioner Jemiola asked if there is any kind of administrative process we could have for the smaller facilities in the agricultural zone district. Mr. Barker said that the issue is 2 compatibility and the Use by Special Review takes into consideration the compatibility with the neighborhood . Commissioner Jemiola feels solar is a very benign industry in terms of impact. Tom Parko, Planning Services , said that solar wasn 't allowed at all in the code so we have had some solar facilities that have come in and we have taken them through the USR process. He add that there isn 't a mechanism right now to have an administrative process . Commissioner Jemiola asked if there is a regulation agency that regulates the solar industry . Mr. Barker said that the PUC (Public Utilities Commission ) regulates the system itself but not the zoning . He added that there is no state agency that deals with zoning type concepts . Mr. Jemiola said that his concern with solar would be causing a problem for motorists or a massive field of having that light directed into someone' s line of sight. He added that he doesn 't want to regulate megawatts because if they were to make panels more efficient they would replace the panels and have to come through the process again . David White, Poudre Valley REA, 7649 REA Parkway, Ft. Collins , Colorado , said that this has been a great discussion . He agrees that the best approach would be to do nothing but feels it should align with the technology today and should match up with the acreage . He agreed that the 8- 10 acres per megawatt is standard . He asked for clarification on Section 23-4- 1030 . F . Ms. Martin said that this is not intended for the construction phase; however it is for any panels that would be removed when not working and stored on site . Mr. Barker said the better word would be unused panels . Rich Werner, Upstate Colorado Economic Development, concurred with the testimony today in regard to thanking the staff in revisiting this issue that is more acceptable to promoting additional projects and having a system that relates to that 8- 10 acre industry standard . Gene Stille left the meeting at 6 pm . Regan Farr, Nashville, Tennessee (via phone) , said that they are property owners in Weld County and currently have proposed projects with Poudre Valley REA and United Power. He said that they have two (2) recommendations to the proposed code changes : 1 ) deploy solar on industrial properties under the USR process and 2) allow solar facilities on agricultural zoned property through a USR permit. Richard Miller, Clean Energy Collective, said that they build small scale solar facilities, up to 2 megawatts . He said that they were concerned with being excluded out of the agricultural zone districts as they can 't afford industrial land . He said that he has permitted facilities throughout Colorado and added that Garfield County requires a 1041 process , which is excessive for what they are proposing . Jefferson County allows small solar facilities on all land uses with a Site Plan Review process . Mr. Miller said that these proposed code changes are headed in the right direction and added that it is important that a Use by Special Review is required under the agricultural zone district because that does allow you to put conditions that are specific to that location . Dave Kisker, 6681 Apache Road , Johnstown , Colorado, said that he is a user of solar and familiar with it. After listening to the testimony , he came to the conclusion that there may be two (2) sets of regulation , one regulation for agricultural and another regulation for industrial . On agricultural land , he suggested that the small scale systems should not have a megawatt limit with a size limit of up to 25 acres. He added that the medium scale facilities should be regulated by size of land rather than power. On industrial properties , he suggested that small solar facilities be allowed as a Use by Right and require a USR for medium solar facilities . Commissioner Wailes asked where the power requirement came from for these proposed changes . Ms . Martin said after talking with the Board of County Commissioners and looking at different examples and drafts it was a way to regulate the size of the facility . John Marcarelli , Silicon Ranch , Nashville , Tennessee (via phone) , stated that they like the discussion of picking the acreage that aligns with the industry standard . It is consistent and doesn 't discriminate based on where technology is today or where it may be headed tomorrow. He said that 300 acres seems like it would be impactful on the neighborhood and believes that is why the USR process is in place . Paula Stueve, 13576 CR 6 , stated that as a realtor she has been working with a solar company and also three (3) landowners . She said that allowing solar would keep the ground in the family name without the 3 need of selling the property . She said that having it as a Use by Right in the agricultural Zone district and not having to rezone it is critical for long term retention of our farms . The Chair asked if the Planning Commission is comfortable making amendments now or continuing this case for further review. He added that he prefers Commissioner Johnson's suggestions of allowing up to 25 acres as a Use by Right, 26-299 acres as a Use by Special Review and 300 acres or more through the 1041 process . Mr. Barker recommended changing the 299 acres to 320 acres because it is a half-section . Motion : Continue Ordinance 2015-27 Revised to the May 3 , 2016 Planning Commission hearing , Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Terry Cross . Motion carried unanimously . The Chair requested that this case be placed first on the May 3 , 2016 Planning Commission agenda . Meeting adjourned at 6 :44 pm . Respectfully submitted , Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem 4�j�6rac� y��G�� Date: 2016.04.25 10:20:48 -06'00' Kristine Ranslem Secretary 4 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, May 3 , 2016 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration Building , Hearing Room , 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado . This meeting was called to order by Chair, Jordan Jemiola , at 12 : 34 pm . Roll Call . Present: Benjamin Hansford , Bruce Johnson , Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola , Joyce Smock , Nick Berryman , Terry Cross . Absent: Michael Wailes . Also Present: Kim Ogle, Michelle Martin , and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services ; Wayne Howard , Department of Planning Services — Engineering Division ; Lauren Light , Department of Health ; Janet Lundquist, Department of Public Works ; Bob Choate, County Attorney , and Kris Ranslem , Secretary. Motion : Approve the April 19 , 2016 Weld County Planning Commission minutes , Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Joyce Smock. Motion passed unanimously . CASE NUMBER : ORDINANCE 2015-27 REVISED PRESENTED BY: MICHELLE MARTIN REQUEST: IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING , WITH AMENDMENTS , CHAPTER 21 AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE INTEREST AND CHAPTER 23 ZONING , OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE Michelle Martin , Planning Services, presented Ordinance 2015-27 , reminding the Planning Commission that this case was continued from the April 19t'' Planning Commission hearing . Ms . Martin briefly described the three categories for solar facilities as presented at the April 19�h Planning Commission hearing and provided a handout of the suggested changes from the Planning Commission . The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application . John Marcarelli , Silicon Ranch Corporation , 150 3�d Avenue South , Nashville, Tennessee, stated that there is no way you can site a 30 megawatt plant on 80 acres . He said that from the last meeting there was consideration of upwards to a half section of property for 30 megawatts . If it is going to be defined by the power generating capacity , he encouraged a revision of having the land commiserate with the capacity standard . He reminded the Planning Commission that the standard is 10 megawatts per one ( 1 ) acre. Commissioner Sparrow referred to the panels existing today and asked how much energy is captured . Mr. Marcarelli said the efficiencies range from plus/minus 17 to 20 percent on a given module. He added that they have seen some efficiencies in the technology ; however in the past 15 years they have achieved 1 . 5 to 2 percent efficiency bumps in the panel technology. Commissioner Cross said that it is quite a leap to go from 80 acres to 320 acres and feels that there will be some resistance from surrounding property owners when it goes through a USR process . Mr. Marcarelli handed out a visual layout of a site with 13 megawatts on a quarter section of land . He said that on any given tract of land in Weld County there are existing wells , agreements or prescriptive easements for oil and gas , which make it difficult to site a solar facility . Commissioner Sparrow asked why the County would be concerned with how efficient a facility is when we should be worried about land use. Commissioner Jemiola agreed and said that he doesn 't want to put a limitation on megawatts. He added that we should regulate the amount of land a facility would occupy rather than production of the site . Mr. Jemiola said that the only thing we need to take into consideration are the transmission lines and how large those are. He added that for the small and medium solar facilities he doesn 't want to regulate the efficiency or the power generated on the site . Mr. Marcarelli clarified that their projects are at distribution level and serving United Power or Poudre Valley and added that these are not transmission level projects . 1 Commissioner Jemiola said that the State makes mandates to energy providers and doesn't want to add more regulation . He would like to see the wattage removed and regulate the facilities by the size of the land . Commissioner Sparrow clarified if Mr. Marcarelli is asking to eliminate the 30 megawatts or increase the acreage limit . Mr. Marcarelli said he is requesting to increase the 80 acres size . If the spirit of the code changes is to allow distribution solar at 30 megawatts or below, they would like to request that the land allowed for that be enough to accommodate the facility. Mr. Sparrow asked what he thought about the idea of limiting it to just 80 acres . Mr. Marcarelli said that it would then be limited to an eight (8) megawatt facility. Mr. Sparrow said that they would be moved to the next level then . Mr. Marcarelli said that it would be a much more onerous process at that level . Commissioner Johnson said that the purpose is land use . In his opinion , he said that he doesn 't care about the technology and is more concerned with the impact to the neighborhood . He added that an 80 acre farm is a large piece of ground , especially when it is located in the irrigated areas and near rural residences ; however it may not seem large when it is located on rangeland . He believes it is important to look at the site impact to the neighborhood and added that 80 acres is a substantial impact to the neighborhood . Mr. Marcarelli said that the USR process allows any issues that impact the community to be revealed and there would be an opportunity for public comment. Commissioner Johnson asked Ms . Martin to explain the 1041 process versus the USR process . Ms . Martin said that in terms of time frame, it is the same as a standard USR . The difference is just in the application submittal materials , such as alternative locations and some environmental factors . Bruce Barker, County Attorney , said it also provides for additional mitigation measures as well as notice requirements. Mr. Marcarelli said that the application preparation for a 1041 Permit is a longer process than a USR application . He added that it might take a year to prepare the 1041 application to bring it to Weld County and it would not serve the needs of their project partners and the members and bringing energy onto the system in a timely fashion . Commissioner Johnson asked if Weld County can find efficiencies in the 1041 process. Mr. Barker said that he hears it doesn 't serve them but reminded the Planning Commission that you serve the people of Weld County in a land use sense and you need to ask if that greater review is necessary to take care of the needs of your constituents . Commissioner Jemiola said that we need to establish the size and scope of this project in terms of land . He asked if the Planning Commissioners want to retain the megawatts as a limit. Commissioner Sparrow stated that he has an opinion but would like to hear the rest of the public comments . Dean Hubbuck , United Power, 500 Cooperative Way, Brighton , Colorado, said that there is a contradiction between the size of the capacity and the land . Mr. Hubbuck said that wherever they site these facilities they have to use it right there on their distribution system so whatever they have built in Weld County will be served within their substations areas that they have. With limiting the acres to the larger projects (30 megawatts) you need to consider that there will be multiple sites rather than a large parcel . Commissioner Johnson clarified if it is more efficient to build a 30 megawatt facility than three 10 megawatt facilities . Mr. Hubbuck replied yes and added that all the equipment can be located in one area rather than three separate areas. Additionally, the cost of the equipment could be considered as there are price breaks that they can pass along to their members and citizens . Commissioner Jemiola added that they would only come through the process once . Commissioner Smock said that 320 acres is a lot of property and added that she can understand solar facilities being located on 15 , 20 or 80 acres but expressed concern taking out 320 acres of agricultural production for solar. She said that the wind farms are entirely different because the towers are spread out and the cattle can graze and you can still farm around them 2 Commissioner Stille said it seems that we need to add another level . He suggested removing the megawatt limitation and setting the acreage limits at 25 acres , 80 acres , 160 acres and 320 acres . He added that anything over 320 acres would require a 1041 Permit process . Mr. Hubbuck said it is important to see at what power level we take this delivery at. He added that the large scale solar has been delivery at the transmission level , whereas the distribution system you need to have the utility who is able to use this power locally . Dave Kisker, 6681 Apache Road , Johnstown , Colorado, said that because this is a land use issue we don 't want to specify production and instead limit the area. The USR does allow public input as well as other criteria that must be met, such as supporting agricultural land . He said that one way to resolve it is by having multiple levels of land sizes , as Commissioner Stille suggested . Another way is to consider acknowledging that agriculture is not the same as industrial and have size limits that are different on agricultural land versus industrial land and still be within the USR process . Commissioner Johnson asked how he would feel about putting a solar facility west of where he lives now. Mr. Kisker said that he previously had a residential solar system installed and never had traffic , odor, noise, and dust issues . In his opinion , if it had been 260 acres of solar rather than what is proposed it would be much better. He added that with proper screening you can easily reduce the impact to the neighbors . The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners for their thoughts. Commissioner Johnson suggested changing the small scale solar facility to a Use by Right up to 20 acres. Mr. Johnson inquired if they should create a category for irrigated and non-irrigated land . Commissioner Jemiola agreed ; however he feels that they would sell the water rights and then it's no longer irrigated . Mr. Johnson suggested that the medium scale solar facility would be a Use by Special Review (USR) up to 80 acres in the agricultural zone district and up to 160 acres in the industrial zone district. Additionally, the large scale would include anything over those acres . Commissioner Stille believes that there should be four (4) levels as he previously commented . He feels that they are unable to make a decision today based on the information they received . He added that it should be rewritten and expressed that we need to do it right. Commissioner Cross doesn 't disagree with the staff recommendation . He believes that trying to get a USR passed on 320 acres will be virtually impossible because there will be such an outcry from surrounding properties . He added that he could possibly see a forth designation for the transmission type situations . Mr. Cross said he is in favor of staff' s recommendation . Commissioner Hansford said that he missed the first hearing on this; however he did read the minutes and reviewed the material . He believes that 320 acres is a bit much and is more inclined to go with the 80 to 160 acres for the medium scale solar facilities . Commissioner Berryman said that he would support the small scale solar facilities as a Use by Right up to 30 acres either in industrial or agricultural zone districts . He also agreed to remove the megawatts as it over complicates it. With regard to the medium scale solar facility, he added that he would be comfortable with allowing it up to 320 acres in the industrial zone district as a Use by Special Review; however allowing only 160 acres in the agricultural zone district under the Use by Special Review process . The remainder would fall under the 1041 Permit process. Commissioner Smock is in favor of removing the megawatt capacity . She said that would be very opposed to having 320 acres of solar panels close to her property because it is agricultural land . She added that 320 acres is too much land for these facilities. Commissioner Sparrow agreed to removing the megawatts and deal with land size . He doesn 't want to go any bigger than 16 acres in the small scale solar and would be comfortable taking the Use by Right down to 10 acres. He likes the proposed limit of 80 acres because above that it is a lot of land . Commissioner Jemiola said that if it is going to have 115kV or higher it should be a 1041 Permit process . He said that their purpose is to make sure that the community is not substantially impacted by a major site 3 like that. He is in favor of the USR process even for the smaller sites ; although he felt that there should be some kind of acreage established for a Use by Right. Motion : Delete the capacities for production on ail of the categories, with exception to the transmission lines , Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Bruce Johnson . Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary : Yes = 8) . Yes : Benjamin Hansford , Bruce Johnson , Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille , Jordan Jemiola , Joyce Smock , Nick Berryman , Terry Cross . The Chair referred to the suggested four categories of small , medium , large and major (more than 320 acres or more than 115 kV transmission line) and asked for discussion . Commissioner Johnson said that our only options are Use by Right, USR or 1041 process so we only have three alternatives . Motion : Amend the Small Scale Solar Facility definition to allow solar facilities as a Use by Right in both the Industrial and Agricultural Zone Districts up to 20 acres in size , Moved by Bruce Johnson , Seconded by Terry Cross . Vote : Motion passed (summary : Yes = 7 , No = 1 , Abstain = 0) . Yes : Benjamin Hansford , Bruce Johnson , Gene Stille , Jordan Jemiola , Joyce Smock , Nick Berryman , Terry Cross. No : Bruce Sparrow. Commissioner Sparrow doesn 't disagree with the Use by Right but is concerned that the size is a little large for a Use by Right. He is more comfortable with 10 acres in size as a Use by Right. Motion : Amend the Medium Scale Solar Facility definition to allow solar facilities as a USR ( Use by Special Review) up to 80 acres in the irrigated Agricultural Zone District and 160 acres in the Industrial Zone District, Moved by Bruce Johnson . Motion failed due to lack of second . Motion : Amend the Medium Scale Solar Facility definition to allow solar facilities as a USR ( Use by Special Review) up to 80 acres in the Agricultural and Industrial Zone Districts , Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Terry Cross . Vote : Motion passed (summary : Yes = 7 , No = 1 , Abstain = 0) . Yes : Benjamin Hansford , Bruce Johnson , Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola , Joyce Smock, Terry Cross . No: Nick Berryman . Commissioner Berryman believes that 80 acres is an insufficient size to be a viable project without having to go through a 1041 process. He would rather see greater acreage as he previously stated . Motion : Add a Major Scale Solar Facility definition to require a 1041 process for more than 320 acres and the Large Scale Solar Facility would be less than 115 kV for transmission lines and up to 320 acres , Moved by Jordan Jemiola , Seconded by Gene Stille. Commissioner Jemiola and Commissioner Stille rescinded their motions . Motion : Add a Major Scale Solar Facility definition to require a 1041 process for more than 320 acres and 115 kV or greater for transmission lines , Moved by Jordan Jemiola , Seconded by Gene Stille. Commissioner Johnson asked to clarify if this process is included in both the agricultural and industrial zone districts. Bob Choate, County Attorney , clarified that the 1041 process is not limited to a zone district ; therefore you do not need to designate the zone district. Commissioner Johnson asked why a designation of a major solar facility is required in this circumstance . Commissioner Jemiola said that Commissioner Stille suggested a 4'h category and this is to accommodate that. He added that he believes a major facility also has to do with the transmission line. Commissioner Sparrow said that before the vote is called he would like to have some idea of what we are going to call the category below it. Commissioner Jemiola said that this is adding a category at the end rather than the middle and added that it would be a 1041 for a major solar facility and it maybe that for a large solar facility as well . He said that he just wanted to add a category and stipulate the criteria . 4 The Chair called for the vote . Vote : Motion failed (summary : Yes = 3 , No = 5 , Abstain = 0) . Yes : Benjamin Hansford , Gene Stille, Terry Cross . No : Bruce Johnson , Bruce Sparrow, Jordan Jemiola , Joyce Smock , Nick Berryman . Commissioner Sparrow said that he doesn 't disagree with the motion but doesn 't understand what the criteria will be in between the medium and major solar facilities . Commissioner Smock said she is unclear with where this is going . Commissioner Berryman said he would rather see three ( 3) categories than four (4) categories . The Chair asked if the Planning Commissioners had any ideas of criteria for the large scale solar facilities . Mr. Barker said that the three (3 ) categories were chosen because there are currently three (3) types of processes. He reminded the Planning Commission that they have set the small scale solar facility as a Use by Right and the medium scale solar facility as a USR permit. He added that now the question is what the trigger is for the next phase, which would be the 1041 permit process . Commissioner Johnson said that so far we have established the area in the small and medium scale solar facilities and therefore the next step would be a 1041 process for anything over 80 acres in size. Commissioner Stille is not comfortable with having a 1041 process for over 80 acres based on testimony given by the public since it is the most difficult process . Commissioner Johnson feels that 320 acres is just too much of an impact to surrounding properties . Commissioner Stille said that we want to make business in Weld County a lot easier than having to do a 1041 process . He feels that anything less than 320 acres we should want to encourage business . He added that solar is going to be the wave of the future and wants to make sure we get this right and at the same time enhance business opportunities in Weld County . Commissioner Cross said that there was discussion of whether this should be for distribution or transmission purposes . He asked how many 320 acres site we need in Weld County if they are going to support the oil and gas industry . He felt that the distribution sites are more of what the industry is speaking to . Commissioner Hansford said that this has gotten more complicated than it needed to be . He would like to see the medium scale solar facility allowed up to 320 acres as a USR permit and anything over 320 acres would be a 1041 permit. Commissioner Berryman said that currently the way medium scale solar facility is defined is unworkable . He expressed support for Mr. Hansford's suggestion . Commissioner Smock agreed that this is more difficult than it should be as well . At the end of the day , the County Commissioners wili review it and make changes that they feel are necessary . She added that she would be comfortable with making it simpler, as suggested . Commissioner Sparrow said that he could be comfortable with having more than 80 acres as a 1041 permit. Commissioner Jemiola agreed with Commissioner' s Hansford , Stille and Berryman and added that it should be simplified . Motion : Anything below 320 acres would be allowed under the USR permit process and anything more than 320 acres and 115 kV transmission line would require a 1041 permit , Moved by Benjamin Hansford , Seconded by Gene Stille . Commissioner Jemiola clarified if this would still retain the changes of eliminating the capacity and require that anything from 1 to 320 acres would require a USR permit as well as anything more than 320 acres would require a 1041 permit. Commissioner Hansford asked if the Use by Right under 20 acres would be used a lot. Staff replied yes . 5 Amend Motion : Eliminate the small scale solar facility and require that anything less than 320 acres would be a USR permit and anything more than 320 acres would be a 1041 permit. Moved by Benjamin Hansford , Seconded by Gene Stille. Commissioner Berryman said that if Commissioner Hansford wanted to revise his motion to keep the small scale solar facility size and then everything from 21 to 320 acres fall in the medium scale solar facility, he would be in favor of that. Amend Motion : Retain the small scale solar facility as a use by right under 20 acres ; the medium scale solar facility would require a USR permit for less than 320 acres , Moved by Benjamin Hansford , Seconded by Gene Stille. Vote: Motion passed (summary : Yes = 7 , No = 1 , Abstain = 0) . Yes : Benjamin Hansford , Bruce Johnson , Gene Stille , Jordan Jemiola , Joyce Smock , Nick Berryman , Terry Cross . No : Bruce Sparrow. Motion : The large scale solar facility will require a 1041 permit for over 320 acres , Moved by Bruce Johnson , Seconded by Benjamin Hansford . Vote : Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary : Yes = 8) . Yes : Benjamin Hansford , Bruce Johnson , Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola , Joyce Smock, Nick Berryman , Terry Cross . Ms . Martin referred to Section 23-4- 1030 . F and reminded the Planning Commission that they made a proposed change to clarify which structures would be allowed . Therefore, staff added the language "which are not in use" to the sentence . Motion : Amend Section 23-4- 1030 . F as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Bruce Johnson . Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary : Yes = 8) . Yes : Benjamin Hansford , Bruce Johnson , Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille , Jordan Jemiola , Joyce Smock , Nick Berryman , Terry Cross . Motion : Forward Ordinance 2015-27 Revised to the Board of County Commissioners along with the attached amendments and the Planning Commission 's recommendation of approval , Moved by Bruce Johnson , Seconded by Benjamin Hansford . Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary : Yes = 8 ) . Yes : Benjamin Hansford , Bruce Johnson , Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Nick Berryman , Terry Cross. Meeting adjourned at 3 : 35 pm . Respectfully submitted , Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem �� yL Date: 2016.05 .06 14: 13 :45 -O6'OO' Kristine Ranslem Secretary 6 ...., _ .��-� r BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Terry Cross, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning ' Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2015-27 PRESENTED BY: MICHELLE MARTIN REQUEST: IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 23 ZONING, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE � be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: Motion seconded by Joyce Smock. VOTE: For Passaqe Aqainst Passaqe Absent Benjamin Hansford Bruce Johnson Bruce Sparrow Jordan Jemiola Joyce Smock Michael Wailes Nick Berryman Terry Cross Gene Stille The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on November 17, 2015. Dated the 17th of November, 2015. Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem �;i��y��d�.Q�YL Date:2015.11.20 09:24:48-07'00' Kristine Ranslem Secretary 2016-0064 �� _ 0201 �-- � 7 Sec. 23- 1 -90 . - Definitions. , Sec . 23 -3 -40 . - Uses by special review. The following BUILDINGS , STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed , occupied , operated and maintained in the A (Agricultural ) Zone District upon approval of a permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Article II , Division 4 of this Chapter. S . Any use permitted as a Use by Right, an ACCESSORY USE , or a Use by Special Review in the COMMERCIAL or industrial zone districts, , provided that the property is not a Lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions . PUD development proposals shall not be permitted to use the special review permit process to develop . Sec . 23 -3 -320 . - I -2 ( Industrial ) Zone District. D . Uses by Special Review. The following BUILDINGS , STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed , occupied or maintained in the I-2 Zone District upon the approval of a permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Article II , Division 4 of this Chapter. 1 . REPEALED . 2 . AIRSTRIPS when they are ACCESSORY to the Use Allowed by Right. 3 . COMMERCIAL JUNKYARD or salvage YARD . 4 . Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants. 5 . Coal Gasification Facilities . 6 . Open Pit Mining and Materials Processing subject to provisions of Article IV, Division 4 of this Chapter. 7 . Microwave , Radio , Television or other Communication Towers over forty-five (45) feet in height (measured from ground level) . 8 . TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA TOWERS , which require a Use by Special Review Permit, subject to the provisions of Article IV, Division 10 of this Chapter. 9 . PROCESSING . 10 . RESEARCH LABORATORY. 11 . HEAVY MANUFACTURING - PROCESSING . 12 . WIND TURBINE . 13 . CEMETERY. 14 . WIND GENERATOR(S) requiring the issuance of Use-by-Special Review Permit, as per Chapter 23 , Article II , Division 4 and Chapter 23 , Article IV, Division 6 of this Code . 15 . COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS . 16 . CORRECTIONAL FACILITY . 17 . DISTILLERY. 18 . Sec . 23 -3 -330 . - [ -3 ( Industrial ) Zone District . D . Uses by Special Review. The following BUILDINGS , STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed , occupied or maintained in the I-3 Zone District upon the approval of a permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Article II , Division 4 of this Chapter. 1 . AIRSTRIPS when they are ACCESSORY to the Use Allowed by Right. 2 . MAJOR FACILITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES . 3 . COMMERCIAL JUNKYARD or salvage YARD . 4 . OIL AND GAS STORAGE FACILITIES . 5 . Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants. 6 . Coal Gasification Facilities . 7 . Open Pit Mining and Materials Processing subject to provisions of Article IV, Division 4 of this Chapter. 8 . Microwave , Radio , Television or other Communication Towers over forty-five (45) feet in height (measured from ground level) . 9 . TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA TOWERS , which require a Use by Special Review Permit, subject to the provisions of Article IV, Division 10 of this Chapter. 10 . PROCESSING . 11 . RESEARCH LABORATORY. 12 . HEAVY MANUFACTURING , PROCESSING . 13 . WIND TURBINE . 14 . CEMETERY . 15 . WIND GENERATORS requiring the issuance of Use-by-Special Review Permit, as per Chapter 23 , Article II , Division 4 and Chapter 23 , Article IV, Division 6 of this Code . 16 . COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS . 17 . CORRECTIONAL FACILITY . 18 . BREWERY. 19 . DISTILLERY. Section 23- 12-30 . Drainage Policy . F . Exceptions. 1 . Exceptions to stormwater detention shall not jeopardize the public health , safety, and welfare of public and private property and shall be limited to the following : a . No stormwater detention will be required for sites that meet any of the following conditions. Requirements of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) areas remain applicable . 1 ) Use by Right or Accessory Use in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. 2) Zoning Permits in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. 3) A second dwelling permit in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. 4) Towers including , but not limited to, cell , wind , and telecommunication towers. 5) Pipelines or transmission lines . 6) Gravel pits if the stormwater drains into the gravel pit. 7) Residential developments where all the following conditions exist: a) Nine (9) lots or fewer. b) The average lot size is equal to , or greater than , three (3) acres per lot . c) Downstream roadway criteria are not exceeded . d) The total post-development imperviousness for the rural � residential development does not exceed ten 1 p e r c e n t ( 10% ) , assuming that all internal roads and driveways are paved , or will eventually be paved . 8) Development of sites where the change of use does not increase the imperviousness of the site . 9) URBANIZING areas where the total project stormwater runoff of less than , or equal to, 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the 1 -hour, 100-year, storm event. 10) NON- URBANIZING areas where the total project stormwater runoff of less than , or equal to , 10 cfs for the 1 -hour, 100-year, storm event. 11 ) Parcels with total area less than , or equal to, a 1 . 0 gross acre . 12) Individual parcel with an unobstructed flow path and no other parcel (s) between the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) regulatory floodplain channel and the project. 13) A parcel greater than 1 gross acre and less than , or equal to, 5 gross acres in size is allowed a onetime exception for a new 1 , 000 sq ft building or equivalent imperviousness . 14) A parcel greater than 5 gross acres in size is allowed a onetime exception for a new 2 , 000 sq ft building or equivalent imperviousness . 15) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) , Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) and Housed Commercial Swine Feeing Operations ( HCSFO) which are covered and approved by the Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) regulations. Portions of the site not included or covered by the CDPS permit, shall comply with the Weld County Drainage Code requirements . 16�} Approved by a variance . SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday , November 17, 2015 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration Building , Hearing Room , 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair, Jordan Jemiola , at 12 : 30 pm . Roll Call . Present: Benjamin Hansford , Bruce Johnson , Bruce Sparrow, Jordan Jemiola , Joyce Smock , Terry Cross . Absent/Excused : Gene Stille, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman . Also Present : Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman , Diana Aungst, Michelle Martin , and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services ; Wayne Howard , and Jennifer Petrik, Department of Planning Services — Engineering Division ; Lauren Light , Department of Health ; Bruce Barker, County Attorney , and Kris Ranslem , Secretary . Motion : Approve the November 3 , 2015 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Bruce Johnson , Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Motion passed unanimously . CASE NUMBER : ORDINANCE 2015-27 PRESENTED BY: MICHELLE MARTIN REQUEST: IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING , WITH AMENDMENTS , CHAPTER 23 ZONING , OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE Michelle Martin , Planning Services , presented Ordinance 2015-27 , and briefly explained the proposed changes . She said that recently you have seen several solar farm projects and as a result the Board of County Commissioners decided to look at where the appropriate place is for solar farms . In conversations with the County Commissioners , they feel that solar farms are more of an industrial type of use and therefore are recommending that these uses be located in the I -2 and I -3 Zone District. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application . Richard Miller, Land Manager with Clean Energy Collective, stated that they build community solar farms . He said that as land manager he finds a location that has good location to solar exposure, access to 3- Phase power, and no tree cover. The concept is that customers from a utility can purchase a panel and use this power to reduce their utility bill . Mr. Miller said that they are not a utility scale operation as they typically build 1 to 2 megawatt facilities and they occupy between 7 and 14 acres of land . He added that the utility scale operation is typically in the 10 to150 megawatt and occupies in excess of 1000 acres of land . Mr. Miller said that they, as a smaller generating facility , cannot afford to locate within the industrial zoned properties . He asked to consider the facilities , up to 3 or 4 megawatts , fall under a Use by Special Review so that you can allow it based on compatibility with surrounding land uses . He understands if the utility scale operations need to be located in the industrial zone district; but requested that the smaller scale operations continue to be allowed under the Use by Special Review in the agricultural zone district. Commissioner Johnson said that we are limited on the amount of industrial zoned property. He asked if there is a special kind of ground that these facilities need or can it be various sizes and shapes . Mr. Miller said that they look for good southern exposure on the property with minimal trees or areas that block exposure . Their facilities are typically located in the agriculture zoned areas. Jon Sullivan , Sun Share , 1441 18th Street, Denver, Colorado, stated that he agreed with Mr. Miller and added that they look at all the same criteria for their potential locations as well . He requested that the existing code change remain as written . He added that if they had to purchase industrial properties they would need to escalate the cost of electricity . The majority of Weld County is agriculturally zoned and putting these facilities in the industrial zone is quite small . The proposed amendment appears to be incompatible with key elements in the Weld County Code . 1 Ms . Sullivan stated that solar farms exist for 20 years , as that is how long their contracts are for. The site is then decommissioned and the land is restored . It provides little impact to surrounding properties . Commissioner Johnson asked if there is an issue of reflection from the panels. Mr. Sullivan said that they absorb the light and not reflect the light . He said refiection might be the same as a car windshield . Commissioner Jemiola doesn 't feel that government should be picking winners or losers in the energy markets . He asked staff if there is any reason why a USR wouldn 't work on agriculture and asked if there were compatibility issues in the past. Ms . Martin said that in conversations with the Board of County Commissioners there is a feeling that these uses are better suited for the industrial zone districts . She added that the applicants can propose a change of zone for the property to I-2 or I-3 and then follow through with a Use by Special Review permit. Jim Vetting , 2143 45"' Avenue, Greeley , stated that this is a great interim use of land . His land sits next to Highway 34 and has access to 3-Phase power. This property was difficult to irrigate so he sold the water off the property and dried it up . He added that he would like the chance to have a solar farm in the interim period . He said that this is restricting the use of agriculture property with these proposed changes . Judy Firestien , 30951 CR 27 , stated that they have been recently approached by Sun Share for a solar garden . She said that they support agriculture and don't like to see land sold for development. However, many farmers also rely on their property to provide retirement income for them . These solar facilities would allow landowners to keep their land and lease it to the solar entities for regular income stream . A ban on solar seems to be similar to the ban on fracking . She added that this is about property rights and landowners in Weld County should be able to develop their property as they like whether it is creating a housing subdivision , developing their minerals and creating an oil and gas facility or leasing their land for a solar project that provides energy to the community . Ms . Martin noted that there are two parts of the proposed code change. She added that the second part is a change to Chapter 22 Article VII of the stormwater drainage criteria by adding another exemption . Commissioner Sparrow said that it doesn 't limit agriculture ground from being a solar facility ; it just has to go through a change of zone process . He said that you might end up with a piece of farm ground in the middle of a farm that will be zoned industrial forever. Ms . Martin said that the landowner could change the zoning back. Commissioner Johnson believes that this is overreaching by the county . He said that there is a lot of land throughout the agricultural zone district that is actually being used for nothing but weeds or is native grass and believes that these smaller facilities could fit easily on these properties . He would be supportive of facilities that would be less than 5 megawatts to be eligible for it to remain in the agricultural zone district and follow the Use by Special Review standards . He added that faci�ities larger than that would be a more industrial type of activity and restricted to an industrial zone. Commissioner Jemiola said that if there is no long term damage to the farm ground from having solar sit on agriculture and it goes through the USR process , he doesn 't see the purpose of rezoning it to industrial just to allow solar panels . Mr. Jemiola suggested striking the references to the solar farms in the proposed code change. Commissioner Sparrow agreed and added that the business time frame is 20 years and doesn 't know why they need to go through a change of zone. Commissioner Sparrow asked staff how they felt about placing a size limit on the solar farms to 5 megawatts . Ms. Martin said that this code change has three readings before the County Commissioners and she will propose that to them . Motion : Strike references of solar farms in Ordinance 2015-27 and keep the uses allowed for solar the same, Moved by Bruce Johnson , Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Vote : Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary : Yes = 6 ) . Yes : Benjamin Hansford , Bruce Johnson , Bruce Sparrow, Jordan Jemiola , Joyce Smock, Terry Cross . 2 Forward Ordinance 2015-27 , as amended , to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning Commission 's recommendation of approval , Moved by Terry Cross, Seconded by Joyce Smock. Vote : Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary : Yes = 6) . Yes : Benjamin Hansford , Bruce Johnson , Bruce Sparrow, Jordan Jemiola , Joyce Smock, Terry Cross . Meeting adjourned at 5 : 12 pm . Respectfully submitted , Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem 4�,�,(6fan.L Date: 2015 . 11 .20 09: 13 : 12 -07 '00' Kristine Ranslem Secretary 3 � ,� ;��i�� PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS �h� TO THE WELD COUNTY CODE (WCC) CHAPTER TO BE MODIFIED: Chapter 23, Article I (Definitions) and Article III (Zone District) SECTION(S) PROPOSED TO BE MODIFIED: Sections: 23-1-90, 23-3-40.LL, 23-3- 310.D.11, 23-3-310.D.12, 23-3-320.D.18, 23-3-320. D.19, 23-3-330.D.20, and 23-3-330.D.21 RATIONALE FOR MODIFICATION: This code change would allow Small and Large Solar Energy Systems in all the Industrial Zone Districts as a Use by Special Review and Small Solar Energy Systems in the A(Agricultural)Zone District as a Use by Special Review. PROPOSED MODIFICATION: Sec. 23-1-90. Definition: Small Solar Energy System: A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy From energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, pawer generation facilities, facilities for storing and transfonning ener�y, other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines under 115 kV, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and will have a rated capacity of three (3) megawatts or less and all equipment will be located on 16 acres or less. 1'his designation shall not include roof mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site. Large Solar Energy System: A i=acility wh_ich is used for the production of electrical energy fiom energy collected by the sun including solar energy c�llectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy, other applirtenant facilities and any transmission lines under 115 kV, which is developed for the pwpase of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and will either have a rated capacity greater than three (3) megawatts or all equipment is locate on greater than 16 acres. This designation shall i�ot include roof mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site. A (Agricultural) Zone District, Section 23-3-40.LL Small Solar Energy System I-1 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23-3-310.D.11 Small Solar Energy System I-1 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23-3-310.D.12 Large Solar Energy System I-2 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23-3-320.D.18 Small Solar Energy System I-2 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23-3-320. D.19 Large Solar Energy System I-3 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23-3-330.D.20 Small Solar Energy System I-3 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23-3-330.D.21 Large Solar Energy System �a�.�p o2nd �,��c� PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ��"�� ' J TO THE WELD COUNTY CODE (WCC) G�� /�G CHAPTER TO BE MODIFIED: Chapter 23, Article I (Definitions) and Article III (Zone District) SECTION(S) PROPOSED TO BE MODIFIED: Sections: 23-1-90, 23-3-40.LL, 23-3- 310.D.11, 23-3-310.D.12, 23-3-320.D.18, 23-3-320. D.19, 23-3-330.D.20, and 23-3-330.D.21 RATIONALE FOR MODIFICATION: This code change would allow Small and Large Solar Energy Systems in all the Industrial Zone Districts as a Use by Special Review and Small Solar Energy Systems in the A(Agricultural)Zone District as a Use by Special Review. PROPOSED MODIFICATION: Sec. 23-1-90. Definition: Small Solar Energy System: A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy collected by the sun including salar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transfonning energy, other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines, which is developed for the ptupose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a custo�ner or customers and will have a rated capacity of three (3) megawatts or less and all equipment will be located on 16 acres or less. 'I'his designation shall not include roof mounted solar systems located on existing pertnitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site. Large Solar Energy System: A iaciliry which is used for the production of electrical energy fi•om energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy, other appi�rtenant facilities and any transmission lines under I 15 KV, w�liich is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and will have a rated capacity greater than three (3) megawatts and all equipment is locate on greater than 16 acres. This designation shall not include roof motulted solar systems located on existing permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site. A (Agricultural) Zone District, Section 23-3-40.LL Small Solar Energy System I-1 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23-3-310.D.11 Small Solar Energy System I-1 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23-3-310.D.12 Large Solar Energy System I-2 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23-3-320.D.18 Small Solar Energy System I-2 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23-3-320. D.19 Large Solar Energy System I-3 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23-3-330.D.20 Small Solar Energy System I-3 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23-3-330.D.21 Large Solar Energy System � ( EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET ORDINANCE 2015 -27 Exhibit Submitted By Description PowerPoint Presentation Submitted 11 / 17/2015 A . Sun Share ( Planning Mtg # 1 ) � B . Ruth & Judy Firestien Letter of Concern , Dated 11 / 16/2015 ( Planning Mtg #2) C . Page Bolin Letter of Concern , Dated 12/04/2015 D . Preston Hartman Letters of Concern , Dated 12/ 14/2015 E . Jon Sullivan Letter of Concern , Dated 12/ 16/2015 F . Jim & Michele Vetting Letter of Support , Received 12/21 /2015 G . Shirley Howard Letter of Concern , Dated 12/ 14/2015 H . Ruth & Judy Firestien Letter of Concern , Dated 11 / 16/2015 I . Kim Womantree Letter of Concern , Dated 01 /04/2016 Matt Kisber/Silicon J . Ranch Letter of Concern , Dated 01 /05/2016 K . Sun Share Power Point Presentations , 12/ 14/2015 and 12/21 /2015 Darcy Ramirez L . @ South 40 Solar Letter of Concern , Dated 01 /21 /2016 Jeffrey C Wadsworth , M . Poudre Valley REA Letter of Concern , Dated 01 /21 /2016 Richard Miller, N . Easy Clean Energy Letter of Support, Dated 01 /20/2016 Jon Sullivan , O . Sun Share Proposal Letter, Dated 01 /20/2016 Richard Miller, P . Easy Clean Energy Proposal Letter, Dated 01 /22/2016 Q . Kim Womantree Letter of Concern , Dated 01 /25/2016 R . Sun Share Power Point Presentation , 1 /25/2016 Letter of Concern and Study , 02/02/2016 S . Maydean Worley Renewable Energy/Achieve Climate Targets The Impact of Methane Leakage on T . Maydean Worley Achieving Clean Power Study , 02/02/2016 U . Peter Parkinson Proposal Letter, Dated 04/20/2016 Comments Regarding ORD2015-27 ( Planning Mtg #3) Submitted 04/ 19/2016 and Land - Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States , 04/25/2016 V. Dr Dave Kisker, Ph . D . Comments Regarding Proposed Code Changes W. Michael Stowell , Ph . D . ( Planning � Mtg #4) Submitted 04/ 19/2016 2016-0064 � i M EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET ( Page 2 ) ORDINANCE 2015 -27 Exhibit Submitted By Description Dean Hubbuck , Comments Regarding ORD2015-27 Submitted X . United Power Inc 04/ 18/2016 ( Planning Mtg #5) Matthew H Kisber, Pres & CEO Letter of Concern , Dated 04/ 19/2016 Y . Silicon Ranch Corp ( Planning Mtg #6) Plat/Silicon Ranch — Fort Lupton Solar Array Z. Silicon Ranch Corp ( Planning Mtg #7 ) Dated 05/03/2016 Jeffrey Wadsworth , CEO AA . Poudre Valley REA Letter of Support — Dated 05/ 19/ 16 Exhibit presented at Comparison Maps — Dated 05/23/ 16 ( Presented by BB . BOCC 1 St Reading Planning Department — Michelle Martin ) Planning Staff' s Proposed Modifications Exhibit presented at to WCC — Dated 05/23/ 16 ( Presented by Michelle CC . BOCC 1 S� Reading Martin ) Planning Commission Proposed Modifications Exhibit presented at to WCC — Dated 05/23/ 16 ( Presented by Michelle DD . BOCC 1 St Reading Martin ) EE . FF . GG . HH . II . JJ . KK . , � � � � ; 2016-0064 � � 11/ 17/2015 �� /' � -- '1SunShare THE POWER TO CNOOSE Weld County Planning Commission Hearing November 17, 2015 Subject : Allowing Solar gardens on Ag Zoned Parcels & the Proposed Amendment to Section 23 - 1 -90 _ . _ _. ,:� .,,��; - PROPOSED MODIFICA71ON5 TO iHE W ELD COUMTY CODE (WCC) CF[APTER TO BE MODIFIED: Chapter �,, ,��r � �oe�w�,o��, �d An,��e �« ��A�e The proposed amendment to section 23- 1-90 of ��s�;�o SFrr�ONlS1PROPOSEDTOBEMODIFIED: SecGons: 23-I-Y0, 23-?-SUS. 23-3d20.D. 1e the Weld County Ordinance and 23-t-;70.D2U RA71ONALEFOR MODIFICATION: ThiscoM: changewouldon17a11owasolarlamisinthel-2andldzonedistncttivougM1theUre • Severely limits solar farms, a vibrant industry by Spa:iol Ravi��r Prceess /� /'� } ('� t PROPOSEDMODIFICATION: � n 1.010fa �`� t� al ��ers res � `^en "5� y,� Z,_,,,,, corporations, and governments savings on Defmition: SOLARPARM energy bills and landowners revenue on land . SOLAR FARMS (ulm F:nown as solar perks, solar fields or sol� gurdms) ere plwto.al�eic prola (PV) design� lDtthcvupplyol' mrn:hen� po�arin�o �heelec�ncirygrid. IflhePVpantls �rtimarily • Compromises landowner rights by denying powa u singlc rtviJence or a single busines, lhai it ix �rot a SOLAR FARM, even if il ttlls heck �Y =,�ys °'�"°"� '�°`�' ^" '^"�""g opportunity to develop solar farms on AlAenculluml) ZuneDislncLSec[ion23-3JQS agriculturally zoned land . Am a�e �nninui as a Use bv Aighl, an ACCHSSORY I ItiIS, or a Use M1r tiptcinl Review in �he COMMERCInLorindu.vialzo`u: distncu. exceptaSOLARFARM, proviAedthatthepropeny • Sets a preeedent for singling out and is iwl a I,ol in an approveA or rccurJcd suMrvision plul or lots pens of a map ur plan �llal pnor madop�iono�mrvmgula�ionscontmlW�gsuhlivi.ions. PUDdevelopmantproposnlsshall �wiFe prohibiting commercial endeavors in zones pem�iu�d m iue Ne spe�ial reritm pemiil process lo develop. �-_ ��,��;ll�„°°e °„�;«. ��,;°° Z,.j-=Z° ° �a where they are currently allowed . Solar farms SOLARPARM �_: «��,�,�, �<,,,� �„�;�,. s� �,a�, �,-,_„�, oZ„ today. .. . .what industry tomorrow? � SOLARFARM Share � , � � „ w . � � � . , o , . .. , _.�. . ., _ EXHIBIT � p�G( � I `�- - �� / / � � � 1 � �._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �. r , 11/17/2015 The proposed amendment would limit solar farms to I - 2 and I - 3 zones , eliminating it specifically from agriculturally zoned land . This action runs counter to local government decisions in Weld County that have recognized solar farms as a compatible, harmonious use for traditional agricultural land . August 25, 2015 the Greeley Planning Commission approved rezoning 70 acres of H-A land to R-E and then approved using this land for a solar farm. http://�reelev�ov.com/docs/default-source/communitv-develooment/olannine-commission/aeendas/08-25-15-minutes-siened pdf�sfvrsn=4 � • ��_ , SunShare ♦ M [ rowtR ia chnas [ _ _ . . .. - . ._ . _ . . : , . . . . vY.Y.'iowxi�ue�-ua�. -�i ..y,, . � , .� . . - :�.: . , : � � . . . . . ...., ..� :.. . - tX .. Weld County Zoning Map � : . �. �, . , , ., . _ . . - , . � . y : * ,�.z;=� ` ,: .. ; , .. . � .. , -z. , • ,� � ; •:_ _ , � d '�" w �� . , ,, _ . � . . . , Weld County �. .,� ,� :� � covers an area of 2 . 5 million ! PUD ( Clear with Biue) acres . Majority : .- . . , � is . o County ' _ , . v � . a . 4� e ,.�, � , , , zoned Ag. . : . .. , . . . .. � � y i . .;;.: " �, .. y; � • t ,a, ,. , ,.y .r,;��x.-,. , F� � �� ",� '� I a� ..�'^s,. �'�aa pef+,...w cc'a$� �e � � � x , . � w �, � 1 � ��_3 . . _ � �- �� !'!, . =`E'� � .�.�,��" `�' .'.,„:� a. , `�_y�•� .� .,�, � � far ��. �' .�-- '�--- :� . � � � � ' � ' ' �� . T�: �. '� �, � ' Prohibiting solar � � � " ' � ' on A land = �� ; " ' City of Greeley ' g . 4 '1 � ��n � � 5har{ �` _ � �' _ - � I ';#, __ � prohibiting solar. Lqf IOM ( II ! O i � -:: • . ... ., r,. " ._i . x ..,� . . . _ - [h IY� �R-'L.c �aJ� �.�__.. n . .. _.. . . 2 � � 11/ 17/2015 What similar uses ARE allowed on Ag land ? Use by Special Review : Use By Ri � ht : • Oil and Gas Storage • Oil & Gas Production • Open pit Mining and Materials Processing • Sand , soil and aggregate ' Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants mining • Coal Gasification Facilities • Animal waste recycling or processing • Race Tracks • Golf Courses ( heavy water ) Accessory Uses : • Airports • Junkyard ( noncommercial • Junkyards / SalvageYards • Correctional Facility • Heavy Manufacturing - _ � , � , ,. . , _ .� What solar gardens look like : � � . . ,. . . . a . . . , � �. . . m , : :. , � � ._:� __�. , ... _ �.. . . . . _ . . w . . � . �r . �: ., . . �w�� :.;- .., ,. , . . .. . „. . ,: , .. �,.. . ,:�. . . . .. . c �� .:1 _ .,- . . , . ._. . . _ � .. , ... . . . _. ._ . � ' . . . , . .; . _. . . � P ,; i a..a t, : . . ,' F- y�.. � � .L—+�+m+ �� .. . ��Y�� — _ _ � n _ . Y . .' . :...,., . .. , . .. . �—,. „ "„r _. . . . , . ��_.;�zsan�r3+S �_ �� rt r � ' r , e�s�� ` T�•_ . � Y ��/� ��r �� ..�� f� � - "" � �s��' .� M ' � �� ry �� '.a._� �+n.a w • � t'Ty _ .fl'4��P��,� .��1��!'aJ��lllis � r� ' ' � . ! bx � w .:5 x, . q�� S e{N 4+ �� ` ' ..- . y � p !( ev� � . 1+r ��.f�r�d� � �y c )3 1 hY w V. � �..; i � .+"�swS e . • �'. � .�'Rf Y i �. � !I} ' . � Y . . . , f t. , a � � � � ° . , y� .! . � �e �� . .., � �vr � �f s > Cdu" , l. , jjG�� „Y� • a A� �. . � , } ro � � , ' p r� 4 . . P . .11�. . . � Y . . �.m� . �#�� n� � � . i; �/krn.!��R�n �' {�� y i a. � .wd x � F � � lh u vyap�" 'f� . � . f • .. � �i " M ; 3�i�P` � n4 � '��l✓ �p.k � +R ; 1t�I'X my L ...'� �S ��u�^. i. . p \ � . ..• � taii ��' � m t r � cwF:'r� �� 1 -O+�^ m ` �� i{ � ' .yy� "��dy^,4.}I {4l /m�,y.Y �� 1 � I � 1 ' � R. '� '�?� ' x' . va� x "yy" ' f � f 4 " M ` a '$ . . . ` ' _ � ; p . i . .. � . rt"i9}.$ '" . M }�h : ., ' . . '.'.� �"i . . �; . ' .', . ��(,� ' . . � ' �' � . . � , {y :. � °� , :?q��y'iY•. , �4R ,. � a. •. � n ..p. ♦r I 1x n W�. � (� f � I � . iR .y� ��fV ..� r . � .. � � I , � �� i�`� a�rv�� •: ' . l�� .. � . � � y^� .� • � ' t: � � � . . �� Y } �i'nl � �� . .' � � n ' y h. � F t� R f� '1 i. '° � . . {� G��}A . i � � Y . ' � � i • f � . q �. .�a y�� y� ' _ � , ��1.`. ¢ '✓ t� {� . . . ° � . *�' ' ! •,�' 'M . '9' I . . �p a� � $ . � i i .�y ` i � R ♦. 1 ...\ • a �. � � ; ��,{eq�� . .� t wS,. Y� , y yi � � M.'� . h � � n:a � � t �� n _ i�4 4 Aykp. � � f. °g3l ' .. M �^�4 � � � / � " . . a 1 Q� I w I l • � '�i i, . � i'� ♦ V�nI i e '. e • y SR i 1� . . . . J ♦ �t 1"� 1r ��a ;i ,. .. .- )A "i�,f �� { � a� ,.-. .9 _ " ��' � 1 � � � � tx. �'� .s � by 1 . : e . ' yAp �. i �,- .aA' ./p �.� .: I � 'n - � � b � �ry h a� � . � �n;. � � . ui, . . li ,.. ., f . . d � . � a �! �y � : � . K ' � r �)� y'1�� , � y � y1 � � � k ( V �j � �L.. Y� y ! 1 y.l. . . . _�� n . � v1p1�� iy.lY �I �I r i�� , . . . �m x nn1 �.i � _ i' . � . e . I � a� F ^P� i t l � f� !)� �L � �}' . Mtlp� y. . .�r � � .�� '41f� .`=Y'). . p . 1G. . Y� ��`a.� ,� �i.rr.i. - _ . ' � . . �d w1. r+v '..M. i* '- �, 3 . . _ - i � _ . - � - - - � � __ � � 4�� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ .- ' _ - o- - _• . � � . _ _ ✓ 11/ 17/2015 � Solar Garden characteristics : . . � :� . . • Height approx . 6-8' tall " " • Silent, no emissions, no onsite � '� ' �. ..'= em lo ees . ''., ,` . P Y � �' � ,_ _ . � . - v � . - r • Chain link fence surrounds ' - - � - _ �� :•f _ � _� � .: .� i project . � • Cedar fence can screen from road ` = a. � �� , , �,, , • Reseed site after construction '� � � � with county and landowner � '� � ! �1 i� i �� 1. �i � � �j.: `' input . � �; �` Cfil t � 11_ _ �! 1- 1111 - ' � y �111ik� . Pollinator friendly seed mix � '� ` y'� � -. � . L.^�afM' . �J:.. .i . '� •� � _ . 1 a . . . . Y yI , it ] . ' S e n The proposed amendment appears incompatible with key elements of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, "the document intended to fulfill the master plan requirement pursuant to state law (Section 30-28- 106( 1), C. R.S. ) and, in part, to set land use policy pursuant to the Home Rule Charter. " - Sec. 22-1-100: Definition and purpose of Comprehensive Plan. A. Private Property Rights. One ( 1) of the basic principles upon which the United States was founded, which it continues to preserve, and Weld County upholds, is the right of citizens to own and utilize their property. Private property rights are not unlimited rights but, rather, rights balanced with the responsibility of protecting community health, safety and welfare . It is the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to promote opportunities for County citizens, while protecting private property rights. D. Recognition of the County's diversity. The County's nearly four-thousand-square-mile area is diverse geographically, demographically, culturally, socially and economically. Therefore, land use policies must be flexible to adapt to the specific location and circumstances of each proposed land use change. It is also important to weigh the cumulative impacts that specific land use changes will have. E. Regulations Addressing Land Use Changes. Land use regulations which address land use changes should be written so they protect the rights of private property owners and the public health, safety and welfare. F. Economic Growth. Land use policies have a significant impact on economic conditions in the County and should be structured to encourage economic prosperity and economic growth . (Weld County Code �fdIt1811C2 2008-13 �- Sec. 22-1-120. - Comprehensive Plan guiding principles � SunShaare - - - - - - - m «.:t;..�.xr::� .� .. .,:: . . , . . . . 4 � � 11/ 17/2015 Sec . 22-2-20 . - Agriculture goals and policies G . A . Goal 7 . County land use regulations should protect the individual property owner' s right to request a land use change . 1 . A . Policy 7 . 1 . County land use regulations should support commercial and industrial uses that are directly related to, or dependent upon , agriculture, to locate within the agricultural areas, when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal , or can be mitigated, and where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable . a. Recommended StrategyA . 7. 1 . a. Review the zoning regulations to ensure that they are consistent with this Policy. � �� '1SunShare . � � .o, � . ,o < . � o , � "�a�w,��x�:� � , , _ _ _ . , .'K.,�.. �;:�x?�rL�� • Solar farms exist for 20 years and then are decommissioned , land restored . • Solar farms allow counties to protect valuable agricultural and water resources . • No water use , no onsite employees , no noise . . . a very low impact " neighbor ". Weld County is consistently one ( 1) of the top ten economically producing agricultural counties in the entire United States. Two (2) waterways in the County - the Platte and Cache la Poudre Rivers - are some of the most important sources of water in the otherwise semi- arid western Great Plains. - Sec. 22-1-20. - Overview of Weld County. /� u�� , Sun5hare rx � rowf � ro cwoos � "�.." ' � . . . . . . .. . . 5 S ♦ . . . ' -_ ..� Ii� ' 11/ 17/2015 � Tax Revenue for Weld County : • Per State law, property taxes are defined by use and not zoning . • i . e . solar portion of Ag land could be taxed as I &C. • Pushing solar into the I & C zones will result in no solar development and thus a loss of property taxes . • i . e . Industrial land too expensive for solar. Developers will abandon Weld Co projects . This means NO tax revenue or economic benefit from solar. • Average tax revenue/acre for agricultural land is about $ 20 • Other counties assess solar farms in other zones as vacant commercial or industrial land . This could be as much as $ 1, 000 or $ 2, 000/acre . This would be a loss of $ 50, 000 - $ 100, 000 over a total of 50 acres • SunShare plans 3 projects on a total of 50 acres . • CEC plans 3 projects on 50 acres . • 100 acres x $ 1000 or $ 2000 per acre = $ 100, 000 - $ 200, 000 of annual revenue from solar projects . We partner with the utility to provide solar gardens �� ' �:.. � Xcel Energy5M , � �..� r� Share � TME VOWER TO CHOOSE • Xcel mandated by State Law to provide solar gardens to customers . • Solar developers partner with Xcel to develop solar gardens . • Solar garden energy helps Xcel solar garden customers save money on their electricity expenses . • Weld County residents that choose to subscribe to a solar garden will save money. � Distributed generation such as solar helps bolster Xcel 's "grid ". We work with Xcel to find good interconnect locations . 6 _�. . . � 11/17/2015 The potential savings for are significant : "The city of Greeley, as an example, has two solar arrays helping power the Greeley Family FunPlex and its water and sewer wastewater plant — both large energy users. Two more solar gardens power the city's water filtration plants in the foothills. The city may be considering more " The city had been paying about $23,000 a year in its wastewater energy bill . The solar arrays help shave up to $ 10,000 off that bill, Dingeman said . In addition , the city receives renewable energy credits — about 11 cents for every kilowatt hour the system produces — which equates to about $87,000 a year, Dingeman said . = Bakken, July 20, 2015 httq: //bakken .com /news/id/241453/solar-proiects-expected -to-contribute-more-to-colorados-ener�y-profile/ �� '� Su n Shaore . : . �.9.� _ :. ._. .. ��a�_ , , . . . �. .... .._ Prohibiting solar farm development, on 75 % of Weld county land is not in sync with the the spirit and mission of this thriving community. " leading with responsive, innovative and cost effective services . � — Weld County Mission Statement .�; , . � , SunShare 1Nf �OW1 � i0 Cn005f WM!MI.-J_ �- '. ' n':LI 1 '� 'L _ . _ - 7 I _ � . . -,� _ . ... . . .� .�. _ -... . _ _ - Y �-� - .�._�w�. � • • 11/ 17/2015 All of the Above Energy Policy • Oil and gas development is excellent for Weld County and Colorado . • Renewable development is also excellent for the local economy. • Surface use is subservient to the mineral estate ( dominant ) . • Solar projects must work with oil and gas companies to get surface use agreements, avoid pipeline ROW, etc . • We've successfully worked with Conoco, Anadarko, and several small operators on solar garden projects . • These technologies can and do easily co -exist in Colorado . -.c ,N„+. }wo-.re+�... n... em,cw�aaw�. ou+�W �:ran�i:v+w., �•M,• . a 5 ..7 g � � �( g ,� _ , . ` ..t'; , r "— .m:.. Ipil��#ir++� � .r�iar � {]�._ � � ��—.FY x : .. . "91% _ ' _� . . . .. . ��s.�, . • " � f • � a ._ » _- .r u [ r _ � � ° - -•r- - - Solar Industries Goal • Do not amend ordinance ; leaving ordinance as is will continue to allow solar projects to be developed . • Work with solar developers via the Use by Special Review process to design and plan projects that the community supports . • Help Weld Co benefit from tax revenue, energy savings, and economic activity from solar garden development . • Avoid potential lawsuits from solar industry and private property owners . � � �� '1Sur Share THE VOWER TO CHOOSE 8 November 16, 2015 Weld County Planning Commission 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Members of the Weld County Planning Commission We are writing to express concern over the proposed modification to the Weld County Code to only allow solar farms in the I -2 and I -3 zone district and to no longer allow solar farms on agricultural land . We support agriculture and don 't like to see land sold for development. Most farmers feel the same way. However, many farmers also rely on their property to provide retirement income for them . When farmers are able to sell their land and water, this provides a nice retirement. The same idea could be applied to solar. These facilities would actually allow landowners to keep their land and lease it to the solar entities for a regular income stream . In addition , these solar projects would have the ability to support agriculture if they were to plant I pollinator friendly plants on the project land and house beehives , as is being done on a solar farm in Adams County. Honey bees are an integral part of agriculture. One mouthful in three of the foods you eat directly or indirectly depends on pollination by honey bees . According to a Cornell University Study, the value of honey bee pollination to U . S . agriculture is more than $ 14 billion annually (www. ars . usda . gov) . A ban on solar seems to be similar to the ban on fracking . This is about property rights and ' landowners in Weld County should be able to develop their property as they like whether it is creating a housing subdivision , developing their minerals and creating an oil and gas facility, or leasing their land for a solar project that provides energy to the community. . Weld County is a great supporter of oil and gas which has benefited many landowners in the County. Weld County is also home to Vestas, manufacturer of wind tur4ine blades, which shows support o# wind power. Why not support solar power also , especially when it stands to bring in additional property taxes and create jobs in the County? , We support Sunshare and would like to see ttais portion of the Weld County Code remain as it is to allow solar projects on agricultural land an Weld County. Sincerely , . j��f"�v � / � . . Ruth Firestien Judy Firestien � ' 30953 County Road 27 30951 County Road 27 . Greeley, CO 80631 Greeley , CO 80631 EXHIBIT ��-/) '�'15 "�� ____ 1 T . I EXHIBIT . Esther Gesick � �, , ;-�-� .� � ✓��j From : Michelle Martin Sent: Monday, December 14 , 2015 9 : 45 AM C5<' G / Tj - � To : Esther Gesick Subject: FW : Ordinance 2015-27 Hi Esther, I just received the below email regarding today' s proposed solar code change can you please include the email in the file . Also can you please print a copy for me to hand out to the BOCC, thanks . Michelle Martin Planning Manager 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, C0 80631 mmartin@co.weld . co. us PH0NE : (970) 353-6100 x 3540 FAX : (970) 304-6498 � . „ �._ � . � � xa � � .. �. � C �: tiaY � _ .. _ Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e- mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : Bolin - DNR, Page [ mailto : page . bolin@state . co . us] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 8 : 38 AM To : Michelle Martin < mmartin@co . weld . co . us> Subject: Ordinance 2015-27 Ms . Martin , I am writing to you today to express the Land Board 's opposition to proposed Ordinance 2015 - 27, the Ordinance amending the Zoning Code to restrict Solar Farms to I - 2 and I - 3 zone districts only . The State Land Board is the owner of significant land in Weld County , most of which is zoned Agricultural , and we have a long history of farming and ranching on trust lands . We support our agricultural partners and want them to be successful . We also support development of renewable energy projects , such as Solar Farms , on trust lands throughout the state , re�ardless of zoning , because we believe that bein � sustainable is equally important . We have , throughout the state , � been successful in compatibly mixing agriculture uses and renewable energy facilities and feel that the proposed ordinance will not be beneficial to the Land Board 's assets in Weld County . Limiting Solar Farms to Industrial zone districts will unduly hinder the development of renewable energy facilities in Weld County , and could potentially deny farmers / ranchers a tool to help keep their costs under control . Industrial property is too urbanized and developed to be easily compatible with Solar gardens due to the shadows that would likely be cast by the development of adjacent i properties . Additionally , the location of industrial zoned property , in more urban areas , is often poorly located for the customers who want it or need it the most . Solar facilities need flexibitity to locate in the most suitable areas , close to customers , in the service area of the utility that will purchase the power , and near the necessary transmission facilities to deliver it . Additionally , the amount of space taken up by solar farms is limited but concentrated and can be easily integrated into a farming operation , to cause minimal disruption . The State Land Board is currently supportin � six ( 6 ) solar farms on a variety of land types in the state . We anticipate doubling this in the coming year , most of the new facilities on agricultural properties . None of these projects will create a conflict with existing agricultural operations . Renewable energy such as that provided by solar farms can be extremely beneficial to farming and ranching operations , providing a cost effective and reliable method of etectricity . The Land Board has found the solar garden development community to be very sensitive to the needs of our a� ricultural partners and extremely willing to be flexible and solutions - oriented . We strongly urge the Board of County Commissioners to follow the lead of the Planning Commission and deny the Ordinance change . Work with the development community to identify Best Management Practices that will address the concerns of the Commissioners relatin � to loss of valuable agricultural ground . The community at large has shown that they are interested in the benefits of solar gardens and the demand is there . Denying this ordinance and working with both farmers / ranchers and the solar developers to create a compatible environment for these uses on Agricultural ground will be the best way to support successful and sustainable farming and ranching in Weld County . Page Bolin Renewable Energy Program Manager/ Real Estate Portfolio Agent , Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners , 0 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 303 . 866 . 3454 x3335 � C 303 . 915 . 4789 1127 Sherman Street , Suite 300 , Denver , CO 80203 pa�e . bolinC�state . co . us � www . colorado . �ov / trustlands � ! � � , z EXHIBIT � � Esther Gesick � ��_ 7 From : Preston Hartman < preston@mysunshare . com > Sent : Monday, December 14 , 2015 3 : 20 PM To : Esther Gesick Subject: Ordinance #2015-27 ( Solar) : SunShare Attachments : Firestien Letter_SunShare . docx; Shirley J Howard Letter 2015 . 12 . 14_SunShare . docx; Vetting Letter_SunShare . docx Hi Esther, My name is Preston Hartman and I work for SunShare . I attended today' s Board of County Commissioner meeting regarding Ordinance 2015 -27 . I would like to submit these letters for public record on the behalf of some of the Weld County landowners we are currently working with. Please let me know if you have any issues with the attachments . And if you wouldn't mind, please confirm you received this message . Thank you ! Preston Hartman � Project Development Associate � SunShare 1441 18th Street, Suite 400 � Denver, CO 80202 (M) 720 .457 . 9994 (E) preston(a�mysunshare . com www.mysunshare . com 0 _ a - o _ o - _ tr _ PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL : This email (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is prohibited . If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us ; and destroy all paper and electronic copies . i November 16 , 2015 Weld County Planning Commission 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley , Colorado 80631 Dear Members of the Weld County Planning Commission We are writing to express concern over the proposed modification to the Weld County Code to only allow solar farms in the I -2 and I -3 zone district and to no longer allow solar farms on agricultural land . We support agriculture and don 't like to see land sold for development . Most farmers feel the same way . However, many farmers also rely on their property to provide retirement income for them . When farmers are able to sell their land and water, this provides a nice retirement . The same idea could be applied to solar. These facilities would actually allow landowners to keep their land and lease it to the solar entities for a regular income stream . In addition , these solar projects would have the ability to support agriculture if they were to plant pollinator friendly plants on the project land and house beehives , as is being done on a solar farm in Adams County . Honey bees are an integral part of agriculture . One mouthful in three of the foods you eat directly or indirectly depends on pollination by honey bees . According to a Cornell University Study , the value of honey bee pollination to U . S . agriculture is more than $ 14 billion annually (www. ars . usda . gov) . A ban on solar seems to be similar to the ban on fracking . This is about property rights and landowners in Weld County should be able to develop their property as they like whether it is creating a housing subdivision , developing their minerals and creating an oil and gas facility , or leasing their land for a solar project that provides energy to the community . Weld County is a great supporter of oil and gas which has benefited many landowners in the County . Weld County is also home to Vestas , manufacturer of wind turbine blades , which shows support of wind power. Why not support solar power also , especially when it stands to bring in additional property taxes and create jobs in the County? We support Sunshare and would like to see this portion of the Weld County Code remain as it is to allow solar projects on agricultural land in Weld County . Sincerely , Ruth Firestien Judy Firestien 30953 County Road 27 30951 County Road 27 Greeley , CO 80631 Greeley , CO 80631 Shirley J . Howard 27249 W . C . R . 49 % Greeley, CO 80631 December 14, 2015 Weld County Commissioners c/o Preston Hartman , SunShare Dear Commissioners : I am a Weld County property owner of several hundred acres of farm land in the Agricultural Zone District . I am concerned about proposed modifications to the Weld County Code that would prohibit solar gardens in the agricultural zone . I am in favor of allowing solar gardens to be developed upon agricultural properties in Weld County . I believe the future development of solar gardens will be advantageous to not only farmers and ranchers, but to our entire community. As alternative energy facilities, solar gardens are environmentally friendly, reduce reliance on limited fossil fuels, have minimal impacts upon the land and potentially provide an additional source of revenue to agricultural operators, offsetting ever increasing costs of operation . These proposed modifications would restrict the allowable uses of agricultural parcels such as mine . Please consider these new restrictions critically and in light of the many benefits that solar gardens would bring to farm owners, energy users and Weld County citizens in general . Thank you . Sincerely, SY�rle�y fiEo-wa.Yc� L � tter � f � �� or� fo � � � lar �yst�ems to be �� v� � o� r� .� � Z� r� e � L. � r� t� wi�h a USR We have been owners , farmers and investors in property in Weld County for over 43 years . Throughout these times we could depend on the Commissioners to help protect our property rights . We question the need for this ordinance that is proposed to require solar project developers to only build on land that is zoned industrial . The use of solar panels to generate electricity seems like a good way for way Weld County to diversify its energy dominance in the State and West. Property taxes from this type of industry would give the County a stable and sustainable source of income for the next 20 to 30 years . This type of energy development does not require additional roads , road maintenance and other County services . It will allow agricultural landowners to diversify with another use for their land without stress on water supplies and land management. We have been offered a lease on 27 acres of land we own . The land is dry land and has only been used for pasture . We would like the opportunity to proceed with the lease with the solar company if we can obtain a Use by Special Review through Weld County Planning Department. If the solar farm developer were required to change the zoning it would be a very costly and time - consuming process . We think this is a great opportunity for Weld County to show that it is open to all energy sources by continuing to allow solar farms to utilize agricultural zoned land . Jim and Michele Vetting 2143 45th Avenue Greeley, CO 80634 Cheryl Hoffman To: Esther Gesick EXHIBIT Subject: RE: Solar Gardens in Weld County kt �� d � - From:Jon Sullivan [mailto:jon@mysunshare.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:47 PM To: Mike Freeman <mfreeman@co.weld.co.us<mailto:mfreeman@co.weld.co.us>>;Julie Cozad <jcozad@co.weld.co.us <mailto:jcozad@co.weld.co.us> >; Barbara Kirkmeyer<bkirkmeyer@co.weld.co.us<mailto:bkirkmeyer@co.weld.co.us> >; Sean Conway<sconway@co.weld.co.us<mailto:sconway@co.weld.co.us>>; Steve Moreno<smoreno@co.weld.co.us <mailto:smoreno@co.weld.co.us>> Subject: Solar Gardens in Weld County Good Evening Commissioners, I'm contacting you in reference to proposed ordinance amendment to Section 23-1-90. This amendment proposes to limit ground mount solar installs to I-2 and I-3 zones. Because a majority of Weld Co is zoned Ag, and because I-2 and I-3 land carries a higher value-the ordinance would kill solar. I've heard this may be the goal of the ordinance but wanted to present my case first. I presented at the Planning Commission on Nov 17th following your guys comments on public record regarding State control of Weld Co oil and gas procedures. I was able to convince the PC to vote unanimously in favor of striking the amendment. I was also set to present this Monday December 14th but was bumped from the agenda. I hope to present this coming Monday to explain the benefits we will offer Weld Co citizens. We've been working with many landowners, farmers, and residents to launch our Weld County solar garden idea. The benefits to Weld County and Weld County only(Not Boulder County or the State)would be: * 20 year fixed income via our land lease. Our lease rates are much higher than the value of ag production and ag leases. * Great use of remnant land or under productive ag land. Plus its hassle free. * We also aim to have several hundred Weld Co residents and businesses get energy from our garden.This will save them 5-25%on their electricity bills! We can save meters running well pumps (farms) a lot of money! * Property tax revenue on a solar garden is greater than the tax revenue on ag land. Permit fees for the USR and building permits will also add revenue to Weld Co operating expenses. * Local labor will be needed to construct the solar gardens. Yes, we will bring in outside labor for certain electric work. But we will use local labor for fencing, landscaping, general labor, excavating, and other miscellaneous tasks. 1 I was hoping to suggest some middle ground to help Weld County control the spread of solar with provisions such as: * 5 MW (40 acres) cap on system size. My company only does 2 MW (16 acres) and smaller systems. But figured I'd ask for 5 MW. * A height maximum of 15'. My company only needs 10' as a max height. * No concentrating solar technology(mirrors).This is the technology known for glare. It also needs alot more land generally. * Require a neighborhood meeting to ensure surrounding landowners have had a chance to understand the project. I'm developing 9 solar gardens in 2016 in Colorado. My goal is to have 3 of the 9 gardens be located in Weld County. 0 of 9 will be in Boulder County b/c the market is saturated and non-financeable due to Boulder voting to municipalize the Xcel utility grid.The other 6 will be in Adams, Arapahoe,Jeffco, and Mesa Counties. We try and evenly spread our growth to markets with large subscriber demand. Though I'm passionate about solar l do have a strong respect for oil and gas production. Most of my friends are in the oil and gas industry and I just completed a degree in the field. I think all of these technologies can benefit our state and especially Weld County. I look forward to our discussion on Monday. Let me know if you have any questions prior to my presentation. Respectfully, Jon L. Sullivan � Director of Project Development � SunShare 1441 18th Street,Suite 400 � Denver, CO 80202 (M) 303.718.3291 (O) 303.296.0919 (E)jon@mysunshare.com <http://mysunshare.com> www.mysunshare.com <http://www.mysunshare.com/> <http://www.mysunshare.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/MySunShare> <https://twitter.com/mySunShare> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/sunshare> PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL:This email (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient,you are notified that any review, 2 Letter of Support for Solar Systems to be �pproved on Ag Zoned Land with a USR We have been owners, farmers and investors in property in Weld County for over 43 years. Throughout these times we could depend on the Commissioners to help protect our > property rights. We question the need for this ordinance that is proposed to require solar project developers to only build on land that is zoned industrial. The use of solar panels to generate electricity seems like a good way for way Weld County to diversify its energy dominance in the State and West. Property taxes from this type of industry would give the County a stable and sustainable source of income for the next 20 to 30 years. This type of energy development does not require additional roads, road maintenance and other County services. It will allow agricultural landowners to diversify with another use for their land without stress on water supplies and land management. We have been offered a lease on 27 acres of land we own. The land is dry land and has only been used for pasture. We would like the opportunity to proceed with the lease with the solar company if we can obtain a Use by Special Review through Weld County Planning Department. If the solar farm developer were required to change the zoning it would be a very costly and time-consuming process. I We think this is a great opportunity for Weld County to show that it is open to all energy sources by continuing to allow solar farms to utilize agricultural zoned land. Jim and Michele Vetting 2143 45th Avenue Greeley, CO 80634 EXHIBIT � � � L�' aoi5� Shirley J. Howard 27249 W.C.R. 49 % Greeley, CO 80631 December 14, 2015 Weld County Commissioners c/o Preston Hartman, SunShare Dear Commissioners: I am a Weld County property owner of several hundred acres of farm land in the Agricultural Zone District. I am concerned about proposed modifications to the Weld County Code that would prohibit solar gardens in the agricultural zone. I am in favor of allowing solar gardens to be developed upon agricultural properties in Weld County. I believe the future development of solar gardens will be advantageous to not only farmers and ranchers, but to our entire community. As alternative energy facilities, solar gardens are environmentally friendly, reduce reliance on limited fossil fuels, have minimal impacts upon the land and potentially provide an additional source of revenue to agricultural operators, offsetting ever increasing costs of operation. These proposed modifications would restrict the allowable uses of agricultural parcels such as mine. Please consider these new restrictions critically and in light of the many benefits that solar gardens would bring to farm owners, energy users and Weld County citizens in general. Thank you. Sincerely, Shi,rle�y }f awa,rcL � a��5 C� `f� ��z . Gree�,C�c �3 ( EXHIBIT � �, v� �a�5- � November 16, 2015 Weld County Planning Commission 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Members of the Weld County Planning Commission We are writing to express concern over the proposed modification to the Weld County Code to only allow solar farms in the I-2 and I-3 zone district and to no longer allow solar farms on agricultural land. We support agriculture and don't like to see land sold for development. Most farmers feel the same way. However, many farmers also rely on their property to provide retirement income for them. When farmers are able to sell their land and water, this provides a nice retirement. The same idea could be applied to solar. These facilities would actually allow landowners to keep their land and lease it to the solar entities for a regular income stream. In addition, these solar projects would have the ability to support agriculture if they were to plant pollinator friendly plants on the project land and house beehives, as is being done on a solar farm in Adams County. Honey bees are an integral part of agriculture. One mouthful in three of the foods you eat directly or indirectly depends on pollination by honey bees. According to a Comell University Study, the value of honey bee pollination to U.S. agriculture is more than $14 billion annually (www.ars.usda.gov). A ban on solar seems to be similar to the ban on fracking. This is about property rights and landowners in Weld County should be able to develop their property as they like whether it is creating a housing subdivision, developing their minerals and creating an oil and gas facility, or leasing their land for a solar project that provides energy to the community. Weld County is a great supporter of oil and gas which has benefited many landowners in the County. Weld County is also home to Vestas, manufacturer of wind turbine blades, which shows support of wind power. Why not support solar power also, especially when it stands to bring in additional property taxes and create jobs in the County? We support Sunshare and would like to see this portion of the Weld County Code remain as it is to allow solar projects on agricultural land in Weld County. Sincerely, Ruth Firestien Judy Firestien 30953 County Road 27 30951 County Road 27 Greeley, CO 80631 Greeley, CO 80631 EXHIBIT � �� a � ��a Esther Gesick From: Jennifer Fuller Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 8:11 AM To: CTB Subject: FW: Solar ordinance Please add to file. From: Kim Womantree [mailto:kwomanl@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday,January 03, 2016 7:03 PM To:Jennifer Fuller<jfuller@co.weld.co.us>; Mike Freeman <mfreeman@co.weld.co.us>;Julie Cozad <jcozad@co.weld.co.us>; Barbara Kirkmeyer<bkirkmeyer@co.weld.co.us>; Sean Conway<sconway@co.weld.co.us>; Steve Moreno<smoreno@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Solar ordinance Dear County Commissioners, I am writing to argue against the proposed solar ordinance, which would restrict landowners from permitting solar installations. According to the Greeley Tribune of December 20, 2015, The change in code—as it's written now—would keep residents who own farmland from allowing companies to install small solar projects on their land, and it would keep solar companies from buying property to turn into solar facilities. At a time when natural gas and oil drilling is faltering,job loss is growing, and only the biggest companies are surviving, it makes sense to not put obstacles in the way of new industries and start-ups. Vestas, the wind turbine manufacturing plant, added 800 jobs in Weld County. These are well-paid, clean energy jobs. Solar arrays allow farmers to use their otherwise useless land to generate power, much as they did with oil and gas exploration. The only difference is that it needs no water, and agricultural activities are unaffected. Please do not pass the solar ordinance as written. Sincerely, Kim Womantree Greeley, Colorado EXHiBIT � � 1 � . i 4 . �� SILICON RANCH EXHIBIT January 5, 2016 � a Mr. Tom Parko ��pZd _ 2 Planning Director 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 353 -6100 RE : In the Matter of Repealing and Reenacting, with Amendments, Chapter 23 Zoning, of the Weld County Code pertaining to Solar Project Development Dear Mr. Parko : I am writing on behalf of Silicon Ranch Corporation in response to the proposed change to Chapter 23 of Weld County Code, which would restrict solar development to property with Industrial Zoning classification. Silicon Ranch owns over 500 acres of property throughout Weld County and is under contract to purchase up to 360 additional acres. As a landowner and solar project Developer- Owner-Operator that supports Weld County's local control agenda, we wish to submit the following points for your consideration as you decide what direction to take on any revisions to Chapter 23 of the code : Long-term land use It is, of course, in the best interests of Silicon Ranch and the electric utility partners it serves to maximize the project life span. No water is required and minimal traffic is expected to maintain these assets over their usable life. Once the contract term expires (i. e., typically after 20 years), solar projects are decommissioned (including recycling and/or re-use of the major system components) and the land is restored to as close to its original condition as possible. Requiring solar project sites to be zoned Industrial would restrict not only the current but the future use as well and lilcely will preclude future use of the property for agricultural or residential purposes. Weld County comprises 2 . Smillion acres in area with 75 % currently classified as agricultural. Estimated current ground- mounted solar capacity represents less than three one-hundredths (3 / 100) of one percent (0. 03 %) of the total land area in the County. Based upon the current procurement strategies and constraints of the utilities and cooperatives operating in the region, the load + 1 (615j 577-4786 150 Third Avenue South ( Suite 2000 � Nashville, TN 37201 Nnn�w.siliconranchcorp.com i � . i"�1 SILICON RANCH would have to increase by more than a factor of 30 to require as little as 1 % of available land to be allocated to solar use. Characteristics of Large-scale . Distributed Solar Distributed Solar Generation (DSG) projects are strategically sited to serve the area of greatest need for the utilities and consumers they serve. In the case of Silicon Ranch's projects with Poudre Valley REA and United Power, Inc., we have worked closely with each distribution cooperative to align both our project capacity and site selection with load profile of the members in Weld County to whom these projects supply energy. Simply put, these projects [two in Weld County, one in Greeley, one in Fort Lupton] would not have been possible were Industrial Zoning a requirement for approval, as no land so zoned is or was available near the area of concentrated load. Economic Development The Silicon Ranch utility-scale projects in Weld County will generate lasting effects on the entire region. Silicon Ranch has already invested millions of dollars in the local community. More than 200 construction workers, the large majority of whom were hired locally, worked to install more than 250,000 solar modules during 2015, with additional investment already contracted for 2016. Training of this workforce needed to install, maintain, and protect the solar farms is important to Weld County, and the economic impact will long outlive the construction phase. The projects highlight to industry, both domestic and international, that cutting-edge infrastructure is one of the many business-friendly attributes of Northern Colorado and differentiates it from other regions. The utility-scale projects move Weld County even further down the road to becoming a much more sustainable community, and that's a fact that matters to businesses trying to decide where to locate their operations. Economics and Scale During the First Reading of the Ordinance with the proposed code revision, it was proposed to treat small -scale differently than large-scale projects, requiring Industrial Zoning for the latter. As a representative from Poudre Valley REA stated on August 4, 2015 in the hearing of USR15 -0030, the distribution cooperatives are motivated to procure renewable solar energy as a cost-saving and cost-hedging measure and have been procuring solar energy at a rate below that generated by fossil resources. In order to avail utilities and cooperatives like PVREA and United Power of this economic opportunity moving forward, projects will need to maximize scale in order to offset the embedded costs of development, such as interconnection and permitting. Placing a threshold on projects which would have to comply with a proposed + 1 (615J 577-4786 150 Third Avenue South � Suite 2000 � Nashville, TN 37201 �nnnrw.siliconranchcorp.cam -//� SILICON RANCH zoning change would arbitrarily punish large-scale owner-operators and eliminate the opportunity for utilities and cooperatives to procure cost- competitive solar energy in the capacity they require for the benefit of their members. We have appreciated the opportunity to work with Weld County in bringing projects of value to the rate-paying energy consumers in the community. We ask that you take the above into consideration as you deliberate the proposed amendment to the code. It is our position that withdrawal of the proposed change is to the benefit of the landowners and residents of Weld County. Sincerely, � � att Kisber President/CEO CC : Michelle Martin; Planning Manager � . i � I , ! � ; ; ; � i i I � , , i + 1 [615) 577-4786 150 Third Avenue South � Suite 2000 � Nashville, TN 37201 mnniw.siliconranchcorp.com EXHIBIT 1/5/2016 � � <<� 0�2� LolS- Z7 v. . �� .,,, e.. p .. .. . .. P j . P � �b1 . Y� pP�y.� . �<� ' � hare °, THe voweR ro cnoosF x • . • • • • • ' � . • � � • , � � r a . .D v. t S.y Y' .. .. .'rtiC . ya: . . 3 Y r 4 ^ ... . � � . . i . ; � . . . . � � �"a . . � �.� w ��Kv � . �v ... .: . . . . . � ��'. . _ . - N n ��..A7 . m � . � � � . . . �� . �� , � '�r � . . _� .- ... .. �� r, , .. / � si��DL�`�—.ovm��s � �'��lN: - r+ .. � rr� "9��s°��F .• rm�6�Ya�.r'�iiwissssps'�!—�� , G � � � y � �r��.�� i ��'� :� ' y ��„�� m ��e� �!i/pt{ W y �{ i a �P. � R T �{� �� 131 _ � � �� " $cn.h < � �� . ' o x ul � i Z '-�. � cr — . �� . , .'� .i �� • ,(.. j�� a .. #' � yy E . � ,� < � . � �, . .d' ` r` irJ1r . }^ :+- . � �h . .. s R7 ' t � �'" ` �: w�,R'�'��S..i .�- l t r^ k 4 ! 4�� F�yy��+ �� a • �• {i�� n 1 +• �IY'fI ��.� �i�I�. i' .. � � .,,� Yr f � .. � ♦" � �� s �sj \�' p�.� �y( ` ' � . n ..�,. � ''*r� � �F' ♦ � �� t J Y � Y � .-��AA'^f�l � ,r � x� � "' 8 ,� � � . r. . � . E � 7y:` . �''�, . ^ ,� , , . � . � �,�, r. � � +�, �u f , .: . � „ � . 4 � , . ., Fz a �y,!��a� w ". .; ��++,,��` �� 1� = 1 y�. . �-�.'�" �Yrl�. � Y��. e � � A � 1 � .0 j- ,�� r� fa : li �I ' I � � �;i ` � ' � �f�Tli _ ' • , � r C. • �J .. � + 'K.' .. \ e 1 r f..' , • ,. � � 1 1 i � � �. e v� Y 3 • � � � . ; � r � � . ...� . . . n L< �� . . . a .. � �. � , ��I� � � � • I . �Z{�'\ � y y @w ' K � � - �� . f . . } � T[ � ♦ � 1 , ' < i . � 6 � � ' 1 1 ' � � ♦ � 1 . �j� �� . • . ' � � � A � ' ' � � � 1• � � i- � �. 4 �� '}� �♦ � l � V � ' ♦ � > Y�Y � . a kX'��l i� + � � a' r � k ; : yV �� n t r ! � '� d � ,�t�l � {f .. � S� , ' � �'� , v �', .`�� ':. I .�{� �" � J r•, 1� � � � j pl '�+�Y 1 � � � � �V .� . . if S�i . t i �� L !�," �p i a) 3. a e � , { . ' t. `� . Si - I 4 ' ._� . � �� . � � �' ' . ' . '. . ' . .. n ,— e1 � 1 . � ' g. P4 y 1 � ..ni�F �(� �� A � ,,.t�,V`. . 1l . . JI _ ♦n�.�1 ! f � r � � r l .� � '.�• ••' '9. . . . �, � � .:♦ P � .�p_'\1. �. � .y. � ��r. � � � � . � ,� � . � , �M� ) • �y i:1'r . • 4 i . 4. . • . • ' .� •. _.< :. 1il' . N2 . N .n:'_. d . . .�. . i - � :. .. . . . m Iry Mm m. IF . . \ . �. . . M .:ry ... . • a .l .. . Ya . . . • . . . l . . I. . � � . - . .. The Proposed Amendment to Section 23 - 1 - 90 _ _ _ _- - — -- _ _ - -- iilVi .. .[ ., ,AiN. lii „ � p, . '.. � � �� < < ��, � �,� , � , < <,�>� � „< < � � • Severely limits solar, a vibrant industry in rw�srve Tp gg bpp�}�Ep; CA�p<r 3], Amck 1 (Ddmuim,) d A'uck W (]ms i Co I o ra d o, w h i c h : �, SSCRON(SIPMOIOHCDTOB[ MODIFlFD: Smiau: 2Yl-90, 23-}JO.S. IJ-}�p.D.lf • pffers residents businesses and W 1J.}770.D10 / I I governments savings on energy bills Thla wh mm6�wouW odl tlbw � wiv Mu� u 16c F3 wd i-1 zmc Nmia tbme� ihc Us ^� s��' �� • Offers revenue for landowners [BOPOSED MOpPIGiION: � Z},.� • Compromises landowner rights °`�"° �°'"" P""" • Denies opportunity to develop solar farms 90I.�R FARMB (Wo Imown a wW P�. nlv 6W a eolv �dm�) art Muu�dms pW� °"'"°�°"`�'�'�°"°`�`°°"��°�"'�'°'r�'" on agriculturally zoned land . A (Agi�Wwl) Zaee Oietn, 9rcum 2J-3J0.4 AvyurtpamiiKdnoUsbyNiyhl.rlACY:ES300.YUSE. oeaUscbySpccalfG.iicwwtlu • Sets a precedent for singling out and COMMERCULwinduNi�ImocdiWiro. atcept�30URFARM. pNvihd�hnWcpupmy prohibiting commercial endeavors in u �rot �Iul in ui ypmvad m rtemJei wWiviwron pW a Wu puu uf u mYp ue pW fld peiu b edopponof my rtgu6auw cwwlliog�ubtliwwu. PUU Ecv4oman�pr�pwa4 ehell �wt bc pemutld lo wc Ihe�p¢ia: mviex pmei[ p�ou.v w develop. 41 (IOEutlmplasU�Ncl, Yabw2J-}�ZO. D.IB zones where they are currently allowed . 80LARFARM • Solar today . . . . .what industry tomorrow? Id (IndmWap Zme Diaria, Sm�ion D-)-�)0. ll.20 $OLANI�AkM ..,,._ a_...�_.�,... ..». _... - . �. . , .. . . . , . . . . . _ _ . a� .wi' I � I� �ry��x �� 1 1/5/2016 The Proposed Amendment to Section 23 - 1 - 9 � • Limits solar farms to I - 2 and I - 3 zones , — Agriculturally zoned land eliminated — Runs counter to local government decisions in Weld County that have recognized solar farms as a compatible, harmonious use for traditional agricultural land . • August 25, 2015 the Greeley Planning Commission approved rezoning 70 acres of H-A land to R-E and then approved using this land for a solar farm . http://RreelevQov.com/docs/default-source/communitv-develoament/plannins-commission/aRendas/08- 25-15-m i n utes-sian ed.qdf?sfvrsn=4 �_ _ .._ y . _ , : �. .ti�^ . . . F��_C� . . � K Y . . ... .. . . . .. - � . ) . I� i .. . . . . . . . . ... .. � .. ,1\ . . . l Weld County Zoning Map � 6 3 k W. .. ..1�� '� IV •i� (� 1 � . : ♦ li: ' k � : l S 8 . ➢ w & rvr V�= ��^ . � w� . .� � . . C � dl • � � 4 , . �°� � �a. . . . �•• � . � � . v. . ffi f . . �� . '. �. il . �_ nP �� a�. � � � 3 n 1 t .-� . .. . k l F . . .. .yr E rY � � y <a uv. �° ��' • t':x�ity�gsafiketlt•.. . { ' �°s i i °a�� . � .. , n ra a i" � . � � '—�� VV � � 1..1 �VU � lY � : z wi � f%M'+" �a j+i � aj } { p e nf �' �$ gs ID Sa � �� . ;� l 'YF � z. j� § ea (yi�(1��"a&#� al a � "�. : qF s �. � j' 1�". f..- a 2 . 5 Million j� vd �" �r� �i <^ r �°� ^ ry . jY . " .. • .t� i " �. . �.:` v . \i I. � • � V�y '� 1 1 e Y Y � . �i� � .�� . � � ] �� F1� x ' t � w x _a� a ` r I� .�+�s., �x , . .v_t , - . o- ,,: . . , � �_,..0 acres i . i i3 i N. /�°-t . . } wFlyf. ry v ,� ° � � � %s 'a "5 �'"e ..�. t � _ _ `� a 4' — � 1 ' � ��'�•"E.CxFH+YIx�� q"="� «��k1'# ��«a3` � ' . � � � {I"=I�Su� � • i � . ; �� • '� - � l • � Agricultural �� °�� r� * �;�{ -; ro�•� ,n , _�� ,� 's .,as. �� „ ,.a : ��. � �, , - �s `�� ' ' M8 OI'It — �` zoned AG PU � ( Clear • Prohibiting with elue ) Solar on AG = , ¢� ;� ,:•., �� „ . �' �"„�} �f�° ' �. ��' • � » Prohibiting i , ' .' L g f !a � ' . � . " a � o- � - �" a �" " ' �' � �'� '��„' �. Solar � : .,� � � � . _ ,, �� •�" ' k - � C�} w �. r �" '�� ` �n� � � � � � � r : ' i ' i F . ..e1 .„:A . � � R, • _. '.. . « 1 . ..b. � �� ._ a s�'�� .�� , __ _ _ _. .�,„,.. ._m _ ___ _ - . _ _ _ , , . �. . _ a . � , -�;� . , .,, � . � „�-f..:.-.:�. �� • - - _ _ _ �r� _ 2 1/5/2016 What Similar Uses ARE Allowed on A � Land ? Use BV Right : Use By Special Review Oil & Gas Praduction ' Oil & Gas Production � • Open Pit Mining and Materials • Sand , soil , and aggregate mining Processing • Asphalt and Concrete Satch Plants • Coal Gasification Facilities Accessory Uses : • Animal Waste Recycling or Processing • Junkyard ( Non -Commercial ) ' Race Tracks • Golf Courses ( Heavy Water) • Airports • Junkyards/Salvage Yards • Correctional Facility • Heavy Manufacturing ..�__.__�T __ _ . _ _ _ , .,. _ � .. �� . :. . The Proposed Ordi � � - Appears incompatible with key elements of' the Weld County Comprehensive Plan • "the document intended to fulfill the master plan requirement pursuant to state law ( Section 30-28 -106 ( 1 � , C . R . S . ) and , in part, to set land use policy pursuant to the Hame Rule Charter. " - Sec. 22-1- 100: Definition and purpose of Comprehensive Plan . A. Private Property Rights . One ( 1 ) of the basic principles upon which the United States was founded, which it continues to preserve, and Weld County upholds, is the right of citizens to own and utilize their property. Private property rights are not unlimited rights but, rather, rights balanced with the responsibility of protecting community health, safety and welfare . It is the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to promote opportunities for County citizens, while protecting private property rights. D. Recognition of the County's diversity. The County's nearly four-thousand-square- mile area is diverse geographically, demographically, culturally, socially and economically. Therefore, land use poticies must be flexible to adapt to the specific location and circumstances of each proposed land use change . It is also important to weigh the cumulative impacts that specific land use changes will have. E . Regulations Addressing Land Use Changes. Land use regulations which address land use changes should be written so they protect the rights of private property owners and the public health, safety and welfare . F. Economic Growth . Land use policies have a significant impact on economic conditions in the County and should be structured to encourage economic prosperity and economic growth . (Weld County Code OrdlndnC2 2008- 13 �- Sec. 22-1-120. - Comprehensive Plan guiding principles . _ . , , . . �� _ , . - , . .. .,. , ; ,� �i �...4�a �� . 3 1/5/2016 Th �e Proposed Ordinance • Sec . 22 - 2 - 2U . - Agriculture goals and policies • G . A . Goal 7 . County land use regulations shoutd protect the individual property owner ' s right to request a land use change . • 1 . A . Policy 7 . 1 . County land use regulations should support commercial and industrial uses that are directly related to, or dependent upon , agriculture , to locate within the agricultural areas , when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal , or can be mitigated , and where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable . �. _ . __. _� n ��.� -��,�- _ _ �. �� _ - �. _ - �� ...- . .. .,.. . . . � . . , ._ ,. , - � : � � � �� The � Proposed Ord�ina� n�ce • Prohibiting solar deveiopment, on 75 % of Weld county land is not in sync with the the spirit and mission of this thriving community. "Leading with responsive, innovative and cost effective services :' — Weld County Mission Statement ° ,�'"'""" '.� � .� "'.-�- i �y,- ' , . � .a_ . , .•. � , .. . . .. � - . �� .... . � ��;� � ; . 4 1/5/2016 Utility Scale Solar vs . Community Solar Utility Scale ( Comanche Solar Farm � � • Location : Pueblo, CO : ' �' � f'� ' � �� . ,��; . �._. - _ - ,�.. � . . _ . ..�.. • Project Size : 156 MW � _ --= } �, — _ ----r•��;�i., � .. , � � � �e ,.,� „ • Acres : 1 , 000 .., . ��,.. .. � - � - � � _, . „ , .�, . 5, . . y . .._ . � �. .r � .. � .�; . -:- . � . . _ ,+o ��iM1'. " '��-`zi � � �. � ,.: ^ . — 1 = . » �:. . � _ ,.. . ' � "_ �. . 4 _ � »,�........ ........ . . . . .. . . we' .,.__ . "Y-.e . -r_ . . � -�w �e 'b � ��—��` Communitv Solar �,� _ '�.�� — _ .n � ,. . . _ � . • Project Size : 2MW � �^- � ' � � � s. -» ' °^.+. _�' __ °�,�:.,W«.- � _ ,_ .. .,, ._ �. , � .. ... . � - - . � . . . �„� qx. �„ .. • Acres : 16 , .- -� " . , a..�. � � _ _ � � . . . `� ,, � . __ _w . ,K." -b _ .� ._,, . - �"`_ „ _ � � � ,_. ._. _.. _� - u. , �_ �,. ., �- �� - m. v , � ,. . .. � -..,. . . . .... . . ... . . . Utility Scale Solar vs . Ca� �munity Solar r --- � � , . . i ..� ' �c,e.sa p � - ' Utility Scale (Topaz Solar Farm ) i s " - ^ 1 � �, r ; . , • Pro ect Srze: 550 M W `° � s " �: � , • Location : San Luis Obispo i � � County, CA � x�,' ' � �m � �d . • Acres : 4, 700 ��µ � . .� � �� •r � � � � ,. � , . �,:�� . i� .4 x . y ��` c t•�.' '� } . . , * � t" ,. . . . . , ._ ., . . 0 atno . ti° ' . rw � � � y� . . . . . . �. � . b "� g° _ � � �, Community Scale ' �: '�Fr-�'` •-Y i3; • Project Size : 2MW � , �;: `�' �,� ," � d:i X _ , : :v ; , �1 , .3 'tro � � • Acres : l6 �,; ��A,, �� M� ,. � „� .� , , , ; �",. p.,e ..µ& , � . a'r , . _ . Tv .s. N'\ZR :v �i4" . . � �� ' +1 I . 4 M.T.� . . � n �_ , rt `y� ".t� �. � rytw�'� ��.;, ' . �I ' a.� a� . 9 l � � . � 1An . I m Y M$ e^ . s '. � � V �... � � . .. . . l� ' ' '� N{ �?' , P �+ . . ... p y- Ya . „�C�sa.rv.—�.. __ ... — :( .r.. x .a y . ... . _ .• � � �`�� :. -t�� 5 1/5/2016 What Solar Gardens Look Like : . « w Il i� � il�' ��i^r rmJ� ")hpzsv� l . '. � . �. .: i✓un � ` � Y `^ _YY ,� l �+i{ _ t a e . ' i•i. . , ' .. . .`. .. : v�' L.� � ' n . . . g� : • " . �n r� . . . c . ov � .. Y. I� �-a..�.... ... �� . � "�R . � 0. k . � ♦ - P iC N`�' � . . '�( ��.: . . e �� y . �Y. ? P rx �v � ��W i� { R . .y�. , � . > ,r r � ; p.� . o r a S . +. : ng . , � : :-,.�aa� , � � �.� � - .,:„�ar . �.w. " � . . _ , ..r . ,' � r .,aQ' � u .: a . . . . . . . . . .. .. :.t a r �v �. �pa. " .� Y� - . . . . •hP��uc � � 1'L .. � " ' r. �1 - . . . w � 1� � 1 . . ' � '-_.�� ' -A�' ... �' • I . 4 � r ._. -x... . _ i .. . .._ .. . -., RiCl1eL'S . _" P� '� y . . . �� .. .l .� � .._ - _ , .nY%"_ ."_�F ` . . .� a • � � � . ' �T�"�'��! ,�x �.��}� i x�a a � r, S ( • jJ ♦ . . . ... Po„gK� �y� � ' 9 ; @Iti �}R3 S. i } �%� An , i. � ' ' - nr.: * �- • �� . . : • f..� � II�I Nn: �� ,..� w^^tF n....�.m .eF�`� F , g � % � � . ._ , ,� j � 1 �� U p �� 4 . � ai�a h { �. ' ' ` � �F � � ry n� r�. �� _� L . . . ..- , • . . y`}'��^ .�. .a 8 F1� r .d . .. ~.�' 'i. � �� a1 � � y ' W. Y �,i � w ' . � W ry5 , , ry` . , , . .�.L. ' ID '. F . , � � y , � i� , �y � ar n :.. ' ` R . ' . . • ' �� !,..r ' {:. . �� m @ 1P � . �i iA� T �. �� 7 �. � �✓ �tls�'1� ^a . .._ "� � � °{, I �u� [e'+!� _ } �`�:Z �. \ � ' .� � r a. k , " �" �� , ii �,� �"� � i14L�4'' " � � e t ' l .. . . . . . . . . , . ' n� r i' P � - .� °�� ° n '� : .>- . n. . � ..'��c # . � � ! . ^� 6 @ .. �.'S .�. . ' . . � �)}'a' q. ,° �.y . . i r^ �n v r� n 1u a . ...: . . . ....rm � .� . . t i 1 . ..,. . .. . __ . .._ _ . . .. � �.... . . . , + � . . � .. . . . . . i . — " . . ..�- ..e. .. - . .. � . 4n n �� I• 1 � � �� • Height approx . 6- 8 ' tall ; , s � -- :: , �� .,� �-� � � � _ � � I ,•. ..��.. e�, �: _ It • Silent, no emissions, na onsite � •� ; y14�. � � ,� � . {� 4 . _ � i i � � /IeGF. ni i 1 l� � i. I . � . . . . . . . �. ,. �'• y � �ci _ '_ employees . ; ; ; • Chain link fence surrounds � � project . � � � � .., , _.r ; � • Reseed site after construction ' � . � � , ' � w �,. � , `c� .:�. . � , -. with county and landowner . - - , � �... . _ � � �i .. :. � � ,.. , � -. . � � +�i input . r � .; .. � .. .T. �;`y�� -� � �: . � -w� � K_- �in��•� — Pollinator friendly seed mix `;� ��T'�; .,� � ::��• � �� , �'`�� ,,,�`� rt�A ��=� � � �. � � / i i. �" 4 � � Y W�� / �1 � � �� ' � � V . . . . .�. . �. ti. .. . . � .�� t AI✓.. .�. 1 �� . . . ... I' ��r ..w . . ' �. �. . .. � . 6 1/5/2016 Solar Garden Characteristics • Solar Gardens exist for 20 years — Site decommissfoned , land restored ( ag land can rest and replenish ) • Allows counties to protect valuable agricultural and water resources . • No water use- conserves a valuable resource ! • No onsite employees, no emissions, no lights, no noise . . . a very low impact " neighbor ". • Saves residents money on home or business expenses . • Excellent use of dry land , remnant land , under utilized land , etc . • We find that the jurisdictions we work with are actually very proud of the solar projects they ' ve approved : — EI Paso Co, Adams Co, Arapahoe Co, Denver Co, Jefferson Co, Mesa Co . . .. . Nl .s4.� + � � I I ... .'� .� . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . .. _�,�� . . I�: . .. . . . . W .. P '. . 8 . . -...: . m. ...r . . . . . . ... _ ... . _ .. . . _ _ . _. . Weld County Tax Revenue • Per State law, praperty taxes are defined by use and not zoning . — i . e . solar portion of Ag land could be taxed as I & C . • Pushing solar into the I & C zoned lar� d will result in no solar development — Results in foss of tax revenue . — i . e . Industrial land too expensive for solar. • Developers will abandon Weld Co projects. � NO tax revenue or economic benefit from solar • Average tax revenue/acre for agricultural land is about $ 20 • Other counties assess solar on ag land as vacant commercial or industrial land . This could be as much as $ 1, 000 or $ 2, 000/acre . This would be a gain of $ 50, 000 - $ 100, 000 over a total of 50 acres — SunShare plans 3 projects on a total of SO acres . — CEC plans 3 projects on 50 acres . — 100 acres x $ 1000 or $2000 per acre = $ 100,000 - $200, 000 of annual revenue from solar projects. . , i�� r � � � ,,. � .- . _ � _ 7 1/5/2016 Sun5hare and Our Partners ,; Sh � r� � Xcel EnergySM � T H f P 0 W E R T O C H O O 5 E • Solar developers partner with Xcel to develop solar gardens . • Solar garden energy helps subscribers save money on their electricity expenses . • Weld County residents that choose to subscribe to a solar garden will save money. • Well pumps on demand meters (farms ) get excellent savings ! • Distributed generation such as solar helps bolster Xcel 's "grid ". We work with Xcel to find good interconnect locations . I , �� ii y . , _ . _. �✓ �� ._y�. .. .�.. - .-- .. i .. .y . . .. . , . ..� .n :.. . .:e _.._'. :. . . .... .... .. . >_'--. ._ _ . _ . .. . . . _ _ _ � . °.m t;- . . . . . . . . . . - �. . .. . . � . . . # o' �en � � ^ avings are Significant • " The city of Greeley, as an example, has two solar arrays helping power the Greeley Family FunPlex and its water and sewer wastewater plant — both large energy users . Two more solar gardens power the city 's water filtration plants in the foothills . The city may be considering more ." The city had been paying about $ 23 , 000 a year in its wastewater energy bill . The solar arrays help shave up to $ 10, 000 off that bill , [Tom ] Dingeman said . In addition , the city receives renewable energy credits — about 11 cents for every kilowatt hour the system produces — which equates to about $ 87, 000 a year, Dingeman said ." — Bakken , July 20, 2015 • http ://bakken . com/news/id/241453/solar-proiects-expected-to-contribute-more-to- colorados-ener�v-profile/ �. , _ _ _ . m_._ w rw � �x - ,� -�,• r . _, I��r �ii �� , �''�� _ s 1/5/2016 All of the Above Energy Policy • Oil and gas development is excellent for Weld County and Colorado . • Renewable development is also excellent for the local economy. • Surface use is subservient to the dominant mineral estate . • Solar projects must work with oil and gas companies to get surface use agreements, avoid pipeline ROW, etc . — We' ve successfully worked with Conoco, Anadarko, and several small operators on solar garden projects . • These technologies can and do easily co- exist in Colorado � _ _- � : ._ , . �. .i��_._1��.� .. �. . . , . ., ;lili��___�__ . � .. w I . i . . . .p ... . . n. . . . 1g m. .e . .ar :n grc : _ . . rvr�V . � . . '..i . � 1 • . .... -_ .. . � �. I. . . Quotes from Weld County Plannrnq Commissron 'Hearinq, 1Vovember 17, 2015 "From a private property standpoint. . . l did nat run for County Commissioner to give away private property rrghts, that rs not the Weld Cor�nty way. " Sean Conway, Weld County Planning Commission Hearing, November 17, 2015, 16:51 "we have a huge respect and a very strong respect for private property rights. And that is numbered in policies and goa/s in our comprehensrve plan, that strong respect for prrvate property rights. " -Barbara Kirkmeyer, 5 : 14 "We do have a duty to protect our property owners, the surface owners as well. They are the ones that are really being shut out of the loop in this thing. That really goes to the basis of why we are having this conversation. " -Mike Freeman, 59:46 - -.��.�.. .._.� _ _ . _ . ��. .. � �. .� �,. . J . , . r �'�,- � r r � , 5� . �r .. ... v . ��. . . 9 1/5/2016 The Goal of the Solar Industry • Do not amend ordinance ; leaving ordinance as is will continue to allow solar projects to be developed . • Work with solar developers via the Use by Special Review process to design and plan projects that the community supports . — Even better would be a quicker administrative review. • Planning Commissioner Bruce Johnson suggested a system size cap of 5 MW. — SunShare can agree to this idea . • Help Weld Co benefit from tax revenue , energy savings, and economic activity from solar garden development . • Avoid potential lawsuits from solar industry and private property owners . __�-- ,_, : _ _ ; _ _ � .. _ ��. . .�. ,�. � t� 10 EXHIBIT � 1/5/2016 � CZ ) oRo zo� 5-2 � �� ,ta� �,h , :�.. . ?�-:� � •^^^. . . � : � , .,�: .;. .�., . „ . . . . .. . :.. . , � . � . . . .. . . , . . ._. . . _ � .. ., . . ..... . . . .:� , . , . .. :. , _ . _. . - � � �i � t"� . TN E PO W E R TO CI! 00 } [ . , , " r .. �,i + , r s' . _ . v t � .� � . �i�i 1i " � . W ii ' ro ` ' " � . � . . v . x '¢c;.�` r.�e . � w v �ary c x y A* „.� R fl 3 . . °x,. a . � »R . . +, ra � s , # . .�` , � ., _.. .. +.-..� . ; n -*�`�"'�•'...`.. w � ��- _.. �'. � �..,.:..:.-,.�"—i� �_ .....T ..�.��- _ � . . � • , ✓yVMAYrv..... w �i°'... - �"2^'23 t�i-- ��—'�a� . { . . �M.r:+� •f ��e.K: ` ..:'.,'f`d �� /',/j�y��// �iMl�i �� { iT L ` � � � � tw �� /�� /,,,,,,,, � / . e m._,. � T'.�. �� ♦ l"` }�f S s � �'Y � ^`9A n. ` ' 3 �„ /III� r i ?� � . r � ej � r > -1SYeYs �' $t�u.� ... o [ ` 1 a }a �.. P "YkR�,. C , � ; i 1 1 - �![ �.- � . �fj � �. d ? m.i fgW*` fr a P yA y��.: 1.� i - iH ��ti�.�r ' s '� '�. ��^� n �JI � F ' . � � � �� .�✓ . {�) y�� : • ir/�Y ♦ . . � rt. a.. � � F � 1 4Mh�� ♦ U V � ' ♦ 1 � ♦ �R� . � .i F 1 � ' ' � yu� *�3�.�11'.�� ".�'f• • ' � v ��,�I � `}t . „ I !.` �'1.�+��r� ' x :� � e Z, i x � C .. . ' !Z �Y�.vi 1 � �.�, . .. . t �;.� x � t . � � � rA • � Y if �. il1 1 . .. � }. � � R4 �L�F` 1 f�, ' � ' � >�e`! �a � i � tu . '� ' i'+ '`�� ,- ' � � ' �� , i->Z ' 'ue= " 'f1-_y ��S a I . � � � �� i.�. I� t I � l !�� . . . . • � tD t ` ' ty. � � >1� � � I I ! I h � � `'' � II1}.♦ I f� � I I r ' A.. b^�" �a tlf . ' ' � . � h �� x�� j��''� � ° a� 4 P. ; i ` I � . � �. . . A'} . . ' . 1,-� � � .. • . �.. . . �1l� .,¢, , r; a , � �� .y� �^L ' '. F " , .� yn . . . ; AY , � _ �• ♦ mf�is � � �{� � yi � d � �� i • . . . �( . C._ ;1'i' �, f ,h � 0 � � '�.t ' " • � 1.� • \ �} y,. . � �"` � �. . � - � . ' . � R • ' d� �h�i � . �N r �. `r . r<� � � . '� �i � � ' � , _.� • .. : � r .- �. . • j��v� . - ' ♦ .. > 5 S d �d :,d . , -. ; � � . � . ��f�,* p � �Y - , d - i � :�. y�, � . . � -�i � �r�"� r � !i �� y \ .� � `. I '. : � � � c , �i � .4, , 1 3 , � ; � �� . . �. _ �r� .� � r� �I .. � V. `�� } �l ��^�{ V . . � l.i / �N SunShare Company Overview �� ° ° � � � �� ° �� , • We develop community solar gardens Share Thf PQW � A TO CHOOSE • Founded in 2011 in Colorado Springs — HQ now in Denver • Currently we have 55 employees — 30 in Denver, Colorado — 25 in Minneapolis, Minnesota • Existing solar garden locations and subscribers : — ( 3 ) Colorado Springs, ( 1 ) Adams County, ( 1 ) Arapahoe Co, ( 1 ) Denver Co, and l ( 1 ) Jefferson Co — School Districts, Water Districts, City and County Govts, Water World , Colleges . . . . . hundreds and hundreds of residents . 'I _ . . _ . . .��.��";�� "". , . �=i�_'�1�__` 1 1/5/2016 ��. � a - � �.. . _ -� ,,. SunShare Gardens in Development • 2016 Project Portfolio : — ( 2 ) Adarr� s County Gardens = "'°°` `°"'°�°°` ,w , . »}.... 'S {� /� ..., � . O[i�4n9 B�rin �.Fv — ( 2 ) Arapahoe Co Gardens T. a � /� vr$ .�.m bRs �O / .� . . .,.� — ( 3 ) lefferson Co Gardens � ' A � �x �w.e �..A w, � *f� ,ir - r u.. � A � � . . �YpY�Y � � — ( 1 ) Denver Garden " '� ` " . LL ... , — ( 2 ) Douglas Co Gardens '� '"' .� � ' .,� Y * �y � . b ,� x � � " . �... ._._ _ — ( 2 ) Mesa Co Gardens _ � ..�.., �..�, . u ; * — ( 3 ) Weld Co Gardens ? ? ? ` '- , . , �.,- — New CO Portfolio = 15 New Gardens � ., . �` `A � "'-°'r � ._ wlr.,. , �, , � � �.� ..� � � P � . � �� , � � _.�_ � . � MN Portfolio = 150 MW .�� `�,� � - ° �� '"'�` %� m� M� . / / f.` i � VqM \�.� NY Portfolio = 50 MW �� - ' ��,� �. _ . , . _ ._ . -� � G _:_ ,, m , . .. , . <. _ . � . , _ The Proposed Amendment to Section 23 - 1 - 90 _ _ _ _ ' reo�vato ,�o�i6 u.., uo>i � 10 f11EN'ELllCOI:Nh' (:WLIWCQ • Severely limits solar, which : seenta ro sc �wongn. cro�r�. n. ,w�r � (u�,�) .,e ,w�k m (� , a"`"' , Offers residents, businesses, and . srsl�rRarosrnroee +wno-�rn: s�: ui-�o. uNos. ziaam.o.�e �n.�.3bDlo ' governments savings on energy bilis Q.non,�.e voa MomAc�nor: ,ti;,� �.,� a�, �,,,,�. .,,,p �, o �,., � ,., ��;, �„ � Ur • Offers revenue for landowners ��W �. � 8(1P06EOMODIi7U77(IY: � Compromises landowner rights : &4BA � n�-� • Denies opportunity to develop solar on °`�` �°'"° F""" agriculturally zoned land . sowt FARM4l.�w Ymwn r wlQ pui., ewr sd6 a ed.�udm1 oe�do�ari� venel� �"''�°'�`�"�°"°`�'°°�`"�`'"�'°� • Sets a precedent for singling out and A fA�iculomq 7aoe Dimsy Srcuoo 27-Ji0.3 I AvywepawVedsselixbyRghl+� ACCFSSOItYUSE,maUsebySpeculRniewio �he prohibiting eommereial endeavors in i COl19NFACIAL a ivd�id moe dittnes, aap�SOW! PARM. Pm��dad Ihet �he Pw�Y umcal� mm �ppmvcdarmoAdedwbdiveionpla« Imaponsaf� m�apWfiledprwr zones where they are currently allowed . b dopnan ofany rtgu400w wntdliog sibdiv6ioos. PUD Mvdupmmt pmpaeeLv shall nm bc peanened m ue t6especul miev pamit pottss m dwelop. F] poA�wid)IarcDimicf,Semm27-1720. D.18 • Solar today . . . . .what industry tomorrow ? SOLARFARM ., �. *"�.�y+... ,. . _„.. �� .... -.,," � I-t (��ellluu' Dlssritl. Stttion ?3J.370. D20 _ _� SOLAft FANM � 2 1/5/2016 . n �_ . . a . . . :... ,, t ' .:.. ' . .. .. e ^wre. . ._ .�:�. . . . !^ ' .t"' . " '.. a. .. ` . ... w . ... .. . .. . ..... . v x e„n .ra �u e .. . w. The Proposed Amendment to Section 23 - 1 - 9�0 • Limits salar farms to I - 2 and I - 3 zones , — Agriculturaliy zoned land eliminated — Runs counter ta local government decisions in Weld County that have recognized solar farms as a compatible, harmonious use for traditional agricultural land . • Conflicts with Sec . 22- 2 -20 . - Agriculture goals and policies — G . A . Goal 7 . County land use regulations should protect the individual property owner' s right to request a land use change. — 1 . A . Policy 7 . 1 . County land use regulations should support commercial and industrial uses that are directly related to, or dependent upon , agriculture, to locate within the agricultural areas, when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal , or can be mitigated , and where adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable . _�. _. � . .-�- ; � . � . ,. . . .. ��, s- � _ . . . - - -.:�._ . . .� . . Weld County Zoning Map g - _ ,�� _ , , , � � � � � G. " � e". . i ^ � � � f .f" ' ' '. .�1 �.. 8 q r s . " e ! e '$ t ' .��$ t .�..d "e '8' (ze ' a a �� . , . .. � �. . . � �_ :. , l, : , w p � . . ° t , �..�= Weld CountV . a "��!p\ , � i. �,, . . . o { 2 !� &yic�'rr+��' R.)irF" � igs ,:: iss ,}7 ' sl . : . : ' e � � .. 4>* ' `, , � jr; 1 ;; • 7 (� y� ��' I.'vjle }��yYlY Y4vYa� Y� w . : . yn � vn� [ i . M/..9 i� . G . � � � � � � 1✓ II y�y �lc . . A � } 1�' �( S �c [ . � � •��p[ � e F r �w�' A��l}� • e � aya t� S . lfl ₹ Cq Y jPy � . y 1) 41% i II��_ t � � �� '] /` Y'pp 1 1P)� IB V W } � ( 1➢ 44fd I 4 E� S YS 8 6 e pP I `�I Ul. l CiJ ��k ' �) Y X{ 6 4♦ � ! .�� v�� #'� � - � ¢ia�. r� ' o- , ac< � v� a�w"aa"ska �. + - " . �'� ♦ 'rr . .K L.cn ."' ilF .: ' . � *ti9. � . p �: v .✓ ; � �x . � � �L. � /� * rQgjM�� U � IUCt� � .�� y �. `� > � � { __ . r � .x '1 _'sv) •� Iv"� .dA v� 9#�#lay°ia x�t ° � x,� , g . . � • IVIC�� Qr� l� . .i' i`1 .; .5, , �v " �°"_ . . , .� . ,. . rkx� ' � .. ,. , "t� ' , • • 5%::A .A, _ . _ , ' � , � - zonedAG , Pu � � ciear • Prohibiting with Blue ) � � �. � Solar on AG = � �"`� , � � a s a ..vV�� n ;� � :.s" �+�- 9 � � � � 1 4^ , ♦ ,�.} , , biti ' w � "' �z � � � ` L�'..� r �. x ' ` �m . . ( ng .,... •MG � x . k . � � s � J � � — � �p. a � e , . R� o a r � . x ,.. �� '� � 1� �'�II[ )�$t >' t .N'oYl "� � •� �,yP,e � ��1! � �� ' � � C � 1 . � i ��. � 1I 14i � o'Ps. J' j� . i .!4 I C' 1 i. i.k � ea,.�f� y�z ,.;� ' � . . . h �t: - . N . . „ � � k Ilu ��I '�1 P�V� . v. ++T C"'�� u'. �.�1�, n � . p1v�,: �I .. . . ._ . �. . � I,t � . �.�� . j- , M . : ,� . p ��yY1 � � r ,h , � ...y .�.'�m�u��.ory —v—...�._ _. , r- M� '�.k'a'f .: . W3 . .. � �� .. .. &3 . .. .. _._. '� ` , ,.... . . r � �_1'�C. " �� 'Z ` ... �`L l'�J-v.� ` �a�.oa"""iP��.'�. �� i_�►__. 3 1/5/2016 . .. , , , . . , What Similar Uses ARE Aliowed on AG Land ? � Use Bv Special Review Use By Ri�ht: Oil & Gas Production • Oil & Gas Production • Open Pit Mining and Materials • Sand , soil , and aggregate mining • processing • Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants • Coal Gasification Facilities • Animal Waste Recycling or Processing Accessory Uses : Race Tracks • Junkyard ( Non-Commercial ) • Golf Courses ( Heavy Water) • Airports • Junkyards/Salvage Yards • Correctional Facility • Heavy Manufacturing _ �. _. _ a,. � AAlll� � : .. �� . '- . . The Proposed Ordinance Incompatible with key elemerrts of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan • "the document inCended to fulfill the master plan requirement pursuant to state law ( Section 30- 2& - ld5( l � , C . R , S. j and, in part, to set land use p� licy pursuant to the Home Rule Charter. " - Sec. 22- 1- 100: Definition and purpose of Comprehensive Plan . A. Private Property Rights . One ( 1 � of the basic principles upon which the United States was founded, which it continues to preserve, and Weld County upholds, is the right of citizens to own and utilize their property. Private property rights are not unlirnited rights but, rather, rights balanced with the responsibility of protecting community health, satety and welfare . It is the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to promote opportunities for County citizens, while protecting private property rights . D. Recognition of the County' s diversity. The County' s nearly four-thousand-square-mile area is diverse geographically, demographically, culturally, socially and economically. Therefore, land use policies must be flexible to adapt to the specific location and circumstances of each proposed land use change . It is also important to weigh the cumulative impacts that specific land use changes will have . E. Regulations Addressing Land Use Changes. Land use regulations which address land use changes should be written so they protect the rights of private property owners and the public health, safety and welfare . �, F. Economic Growth . Land use policies have a significant impact on economic conditions in the County and I should be structured to encourage economic prosperity and economic growth . (Weld County Code I OfdltlaflCe ZOOS- 13 �- Sec. 22-1-120. - Comprehensive Plan guiding principles i _ __ _ _ g p�^'� _ � . �,� - -, , . �. ' �'�. ]I x I �� .� . . ��"' ' ,.L�C "y' �1.�Y..� �SY' � � . � • ��„�__� . 4 1/5/2016 .�.'.. n x �.fe . . d a •.y: " e . ♦ . '.. x . .. . �e "" x yx: ' x " . . il• vd h 1... a d . w . .... ..( " -:.. " " .. .. � • .. .. ..qrv . x � x .1:: . §V � x � n n .�:" 1 .i&iYn.a41 The Proposed Ordinance • Prohibiting solar development, on 75 % of Weld county land is nat in sync with the the spirit and mission of this thriving community. " Leading with responsive, innovative and cost effective services :' — Weld County Mission Statement -�......:..�.,` __,�.. . . .-.r _r .:�, � .. - . . .�r . . , . � .. . , . . _ . -. . . . .. .. . . .. ... .. _ . . . ..� . ,, . w. ...�� I . . . Utility Scale Solar vs . Community Solar Utility Scale ( Comanche Solar Fa rrrti - . ;:>,. _ .._. . _ ; e , ,�,.� . .ww�^��, m�,- • Location : Puebio, CO �. �,�=� ,. , �• �,� ,.,� � _ _ _ _. _ _ a _ • Project Size : 156 MW � � • � - - .^—.� -.a`�� .. . - . `.� �a �. • Acres : 1 , 000 "'� � � � ` '� ` ,. �, , �y m— .�.et:. ' , .• a. `,�� xwv�-. - r�;` . J��..:.. , t t • - � _� i '+f .. ""D�—"``sYr .,. . ..e . ..� . . . . � ._, . �9 . ..m. ..am�+ .. ..... ' m `k . .. � _ Y ��my � � � .T .. � . . •.. . � . . ' ' � ��n � _ (S�� T Y. Communitv Solar -i "�� .� , � ' a :f. _ . . ° � "�` ..��,.. �:::� � • Project Size : 2MW ~ p° x.. � �' � . . .r ,� ,,..�s. —�,s, . , � � - . . • Acres : 16 ��.�+� �� . .�., o- ..� �, .� . .. . . . . _ . _ . . , ' _'-x „.. ... . . — � :,_ . . . ��w,,,.,,�„�,.. ^ . ,�. � , � � �... ` hn �' tl � . . w. . ... .�:�.am ... ... . .. -.' .. . . . . . .. .... „ ,„ � .. . . � ' �� Y�l�R�L�ii'�i��_i��.`�� . . �/� �r� � ��a�.�i��_ 5 1/5/2016 Utility Scale Solar vs . Community Solar �� ,..�u.._. .... :. .. � - - I ` „� � i Utility Scale (Topaz Solar Farm ) � ` ''�� ` � � � " ; � � � • Project Size: 5S0 M W � ' �� " � ' ' ' `'' • location : San Luis Obispo ' � � County, CA �, '� µr" = _� � � i : , ,ti . � , � • Acres : 4, 700 � �,. � � r, � . �� .aa � , � . �� . , , „ ,o � r . . . F .g �.�� ` . . � . . �a . a�� . �{.v�rP�$ta �°� �� . . ♦ _ �.� . . . � 4 " q� � 4 &r.i . � � . . . ��R � %'wV"n`�F �� ' Community Scale a A { m � � , • Project Size : 2MW ,F� , � � " """ . � $�� ,. - �� • Acres : 16 �.°a� � � ��,, :�� ,� ��a p3 � � "^0 �g .e . � Y ..`i °Y' � y ... Iu� � Y� y� �fi g¢ 14 . . }'Sti � . ��" � � . �t," d)V� �♦.yF .fSny}'$ fifM . vr '. F �4abTlk.�, �� Y . { t f � [M � �S k{A ] �m ; � �. �v �iJ \ ` .. S�Q ... � .�e.�y.�. .. _ . ..�. �� . . .+ . . , _ _ . _r � � . . �. �• � �� .��Z�_�� `_ What Solar Gardens Look Like : . . �--r:+5�. „ •�s..,t. r.-. . , . . .... � 4\. ] � ..Il; ,�� .� � P . .. � . _ ' . . _ . �' : � ,� r : �� .. _.. , . , �� s . . . : ,.: _ . _ . ,-. _. _ _ . _ . . . ,; ° �«. - " _ ; . � �.. , ..� , . � � u , , , , . »;„., .va. A. � � �+r „� e � � i 5 j j .f � W 04�Wi1lRqN � p } YY4% r. .. � �� . . � . . W .. . �+ M 'xTY .. . . .. ..: u .« . . � . . . � r*d .: •._� : .. . . . . . � . � � � r�� . y ( i�Y :1 . . . . . . . . . . _ � . .. . . . �y' s� . . �7� _�., � . ... ... �� i � v�� .. . �n1 � �v � , �r'O��G : . . . q]Z� w ,_ � � � w .rb . « . Ti � x.r 4 p.y� I . 1 ♦ � � � yp'!'��'&}y I !� . . � ��. . �� . .. � � � { �i�� h:. � I . . � '[ . � �� .. . - � �� n `� � � �� ' A � . f� r �fn J ' ,� b. w �ry" 'i. tS�� a 4 " . . . ' . .. ' w * k ' - ..a�. .�y. 1 � _ _„ � ... � .,, „ , , �„ r�t �..:.. " � . ., ; h : Yiey N } r e { 5 -: e . ..iP.1.: f .i I — � � � � � 4 � A 4ry • t p + r �\ N � ( � q'� ym�j YI r � :l� q v( p q � � W({ � � �� L y � �1. i� Y1kY � 1r`I � � B � : r .e � � a �r r a ry n`�'{r / 3 "� .� r Lti0 1'4 M� \ ty�B . � . I . xi . �i �• Y � ♦ � ij. ;. � w . � �� " m �.p\' . ` V`a 7 u. vy �Jp'.�y(,�: .— r � {'}�...i: '' � � . � e �k e� .[ ' i .. ^. liy l�� } x Y�� J , � . � :�,-. ,.d � . . ;1�_ - ��.:. 6 1/5/2016 � . . a . r—. v .. . ..._'vf. n... vi . �.. S . . Y. . • l . �Ta [1 3 . e. . . _ [. ta1' • ry mx w :l- '� nx . Ei4a1 .�: .�.a Ln.�m ' . . 6�t� �L. v '. i _ . . n . l '. 0 Solar Garden Characteristics • Height approx . 6 -8 ' tall � ..1 t� �+ ' � .:� { _ _� lll �l c��. • Silent, no emissions, no lights , ' ,� � � � � ;� ��,�, � , :�; �, ,, no onsite employees . � • Chain link fence surrounds � �i project . � �. - . _ . • Reseed site after construction � ' � � . � r ,, ,. , ��;:� `� ip,S � , .. with county and landowner `rv� _ � � ' . u� � � q��. \ r R input . ` ` _ . " ' - _�� s � � � �� M • JS � � 4 �e� � � � ' — Pollinator frien I M � � .�' �` _ � - ' � .` � :� " � d y seed mix ' NR a ..y�f ir+� 4 � 'a� �� ^W` �n � '+ `� �S.� n e � _� . / w *ey .,�� .F � ' �p�:, {t�. �' � �, �' u� � � y . +�AM�a. l.� v - � ' . � . . .. � p . . .�. � 4�V . .� . . .. . . ... .. . . r . .� . ..� ' . . ��_.. . - ..ti�i . - . . Solar Garden Characteristics • Solar Gardens exist for � 20 years- an interim use — Site decommissioned , land restored ( ag land can rest and replenisn ) • Allows countres to protect valuable agricultural and water resources . • No water use - conserves a valuable resource ! • Saves residents money on home or business expenses . • Excellent use of dry land , remnant land , under utilized land , etc . • Local , domestic energy production ! • We find that the jurisdictions we work with are actually very proud of the solar projects they've approved : — EI Paso Co, Adams Co, Arapahoe Co, Denver Co, Jefferson Co, Mesa Co . . _ -..�� ..: . �.. . Lm �.... .T.RN . . -... 'r.,.... . : -�v. -� C� JC� YL:�: :, . . .. '��t�.w�i\'-��.�"i°�i�.a.� ��"_`_` 7 1/5/2016 " .... t . . . :rvc n . 5 tu* . . Weld County Tax Revenue � � � � � � � � • Per State law, property taxes are defined by use and not zoning . — i . e . solar portion of Ag land could be taxed as I &C. • Pushing solar into I & C zoned land will result in no solar development — Results in loss of tax revenue . — i . e . Industriai land too expensive for solar. • Developers will abandon Weld Co projects. � NO tax revenue or economic benefit from solar • Average tax revenue/acre for agricultural land is about $ 20 • Other counties assess solar on ag land as vacant commercial or industrial land . This could be as much as $ 1, 000 or $ 2 ,000/acre . This would be a gain of $ 50, 000 - $ 100, 000 over a totai of 50 acres — SunShare plans 3 projects on a total of SO acres. — CEC plans 3 projects on 50 acres . — 100 acres x $ 1000 or $2000 per acre = $ 100, 000 - $200, 000 of annual revenue from solar projects . � . _� . . '__ SunShare and our Partners d:� . �, r� ' -<a�� . . . . � . . � �f7�t''m��, � ^w . . . . . . _ . , . :�:�. . , .. . `� ">, . + . . �� Shar � � Xcel EnergysM � � T H E a U W E R T Q C H G O 5 E . � � • Solar developers partner with Xcel to develop solar gardens . • Solar garden energy helps subscribers save money on their electricity expenses . • Weld County residents that choose to subscribe to a solar garden will save money. • Well pumps on demand meters ( farms ) get excellent savings ! • Distributed generation such as solar helps bolster Xcel 's "grid ". We work with Xcel to find good interconnect locations . Weld County has many excellent areas . W _ _ . . _ � M. �, . , - _ ._ _ . . . , �� _"�°;�""��s .��'�� . �_ _ ��___"__� . 8 �I � 1/5/2016 ,. . . , . , - . �. , . . , _. . , . ., , , , , . , . All of the Above Energy Policy g • Oil and gas development is excelient for Weld County and Colorado . • Renewable development is also exceilent for the local economy. • Surface use is subservient to the dominant mineral estate . • Solar projects must work with oil and gas companies to get surface use agreements, avoid pipeline ROW, etc . — We ' ve successfully worked with Conoco, Anadarko, and several small operators on solar garden projects . • These technologies can and do easily co-exist in Colorado --- �,ry ,w _ ��_ i�� ao� . 0 uotes rom Weld Count Plannrn Commrssion Hearin November 17 2015 "From a private property standpoint. . . l did not run for County Commrssioner to give away private property rights, ihat is not the Weld County way. " -Sean Conwpy, We/d County P/anning Cornmission Hearrng, November 17, 2015, 16:51 "We have p huge respect and a very strong respect for private property rights. And that is numbered in policies and goals in our comprehensive pfan, that strong respect for private property rights. " -8arbara Kirkmeyer, 5 :14 "We do have a duty to protect our property owners, the surface owners as well. They are the ones that are really being shut out of the loop in this thing. That really goes to the basrs of why we are having this conversation. " -Mike Freeman, 59:46 . . . .. . . . .w.� �vx� ..x. ..w�.F . ` . yw� �Y v.w." -Liu. ti 1�l�� . �P"�� ..._ � . :. . . ... . . � � ��-�_ _ �� I 9 � 1/5/2016 '..a .". §. n . . . m.a+. . . c : � .c � c :. . . . . . s . ._ �e :.uLLy . r . e . . . .u� . � � }..e . .. �v. fl 1. .. � ... .. . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . n a . . .: f ., . ,. ,.. , w.,,. .. p p ....: . The Goal of the Solar Industry • Do not amend ordinance ; leaving ardinance as is will continue to allow solar projects to be developed . • Work with solar developers via the Use by Special Review process to design and plan projects that the community supports . - Even better would be a quicker administrative review ( Use by Right ) . • Planning Commissioner Bruce Johnson suggested a system size cap of 5 MW. - SunShare can agree to this idea . • Help Weld Co benefit from tax revenue, energy savings, and economic activity from solar garden development . - Don ' t let the surrounding counties hog all these benefits . _�;. , , ry � , - - - �r ; � . __ r� , _. , . . �� 10 1 . � � . Solar Power .m � .a� . :� � , - v.�� Reinvented ��a � � � � � x�� ,. �.` �wi- . a�. . , . w , , »'° � . , .. 1 . ��+ v '4 .� ��'�'. � , . r� , .� , . , . „ , p . _ flF M1i. .. Y o "� w. �r._� •y'�{y f �Pwg j{i Y Ca � " er}4 .'. @Y° � . �Yw .. , �yy�r � ' � Johnson Par4uly �� , - ' i r � ..a . �� > �� rlfn - - ��' `y��t �"t'!YAeV�n.('�.♦ ' . " • r `�„+� r.';'� r: . � t+ • � � r .iR.-�>,l�rrR,rprfe^rc . � �r.rJ+i � .�-�' .�V'� .� '- �y.�.. r .mT �� !'�h'...1 "'1" �`«,��f�� r � r �. I ��.� � f r � � .�Y_:*'s_ '`3�Fz � -,_ _ �;�,RY Y F'Y��`�N�..L '�Y/.'.'�I.rI-:: _ ! Y.�i ' � L ... .ry � ^y �� .�_ _ .. - ' [ �1 . ,..._ � ' :G _ � - � _ " v ��1�✓ -: '.. .r�.� d i . _ . •- �r..- � . - . . � -. �'.. �- " ` . �, --. a. . � ' t F+ ' � � • 1, . ,'" � k • • � 'h�'r��A _'.'� � � �, � � --• . i � x � i' ' { � " • �-/ � - _ -. . . . �� f • - . - - . . : . _ . . - . . . - , � � - �, . :� . � � � . 1 � � � 79 kW Metro Dis[rict ' I ( . y B4 Y .J 4 S ^ `♦ • • 1 � � � • � C �Y ,� ��& %ry ��j p' & 4 • r� x • S wry � � TA q � `� ( � K � � " � ��• q � �A N �Y�' Y ia � P�. � , � ��. � � � � � � �� 4�� ry � �w�� / �� L`n YT � ¢1 . v � , x . $ � +� dA �4wry . � n .. n. . < ^sn �1.e"? ��tl � • • • . • ' . k , . . X • _s . . . . . .. .. .., .,, . md^^.ti ^� ^ � / • • • • • • • • • I `. � Y . . .<. �: � . .. . 7 �.H • �- . 'a. µ , . ' - _ � . �r , �r{ w.. 'tr n. p • . _ .. T. _ . - �e " e 'ti4n ^� '� � vT � : . , �ffs "' . . ' - . �'`' K .: � . • ... . .,.. [_.-: Cheryl Hoffman From : Michelle Martin Sent : Friday, January 22 , 2016 11 : 06 AM EXHIBIT To : Cheryl Hoffman Subject: FW : ORD2015-27 � Follow Up Flag : Follow up O� �� Flag Status : Flagged Michelle Martin Planning Manager 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin@co . weld . co . us < mailto : mmartin@co . weld . co . us> PHONE : (970 ) 353-6100 x 3540 FAX : ( 970) 304-6498 Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged , confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e- mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : Darcy ( mailto : darcy@south40solar. com ] Sent : Thursday, January 21, 2016 9 : 24 AM To : Michelle Martin < mmartin@co . weld . co . us> Cc : Ken Hall < ken_hall@kjhall . com > Subject : Re : ORD2015-27 Hi Michelle - The wording of this proposed code change may have the unintended effect of burdening homeowners in Agricultural Zone Districts who wish to install ground-mount residential solar energy systems. We assume this code change is intended primarily for commercial applications, not residential . We wish to distinguish " residential" applications from "Small Solar Energy Systems" with something other than "roof mounted ." This code change would allow Small and Large Solar Energy Systems in all the Industrial Zone � Districts as a Use by Special Review and Small Solar Energy Systems in the A (Agricultural ) Zone District as a Use by Special Review. PROPOSED MODIFICATION : I Sec . 23- 1-90 . Definition : I Small Solar Energy System : A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy �, from energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy, other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and will have a rated capacity of three ( 3 ) megawatts or less and all equipment will be located on 16 acres or less. This designation shall not include roof mounted solar systems located on existing permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use ( s ) on site . Our residential solar energy system at 7554 County Road 74 : has a rated capacity of less than 3 megawatts ( 10 kW), is located on less than 16 acres ( 1/ 15th of an acre ), and supplies power "to the principle use ( s ) on site ." However, since it is not located on a roof, this language would require that we apply as a Use by Special Review. We suggest either: striking the words " roof mounted " and " located on existing permitted principal and accessory buildings" from the final sentence, or � adding "ground - mounted solar systems of less than 1 square acre" before " . . . and designed to supply. . . " Edited language : This designation shall not include solar systems designed to supply power to the principle use ( s ) on site . or � z This designation shall not include roof mounted solar systems located on existing permitted principal and accessory buildings, or ground -mounted solar systems of less than 1 square acre, and designed to supply power to the principle use ( s ) on site . Thanks for including us in the discussion, and we plan to attend the second reading of the proposed code changes . < http ://www. south40solar. com/uploads/6/5/9/0/65909685/ 1452718107 . png> Darcy Ramirez www. south40solar. com < http ://www . south40solar. com > � 970 .460 . 6454 � darcy@south40solar. com < mailto : darcy@south40solar. com > From : Ken Hall < mailto : ken_hall@kjhall . com > Sent : Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12 : 14 PM To : Michelle Martin < mailto : mmartin@co . weld . co . us> Cc : Darcy < mailto : darcy@south40solar. com > Subject : Re : ORD2015-27 Thanks Michelle . We are a startup that installs small ground - mount solar systems for rural property owners . Is there a reason the word " rooftop " needed to be included in the exceptions? Does that mean all our small ground -mount systems in Weld county will require a special review ? Thanks, Ken Hall South 40 Solar www . south40solar. com < http ://www . south40solar. com > 3 On Jan 20, 2016, at 11 : 38 AM , Michelle Martin < mmartin@co . weld . co . us < mailto : mmartin@co . weld . co . us> > wrote : Hi Everyone, I would like to invite you to the second reading of the proposed code changes ORD2015-27 regarding solar facilities on January 25, 2016 at 9 :00 am at the Weld County Administration Building 1150 O Street, Greeley, CO 80632 . I have attached a copy of the proposed code changes for your review and welcome any comments . Hopefully I will see many of you on Monday . If you have any questions please don 't hesitate to contact me . Michelle Martin Planning Manager 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin@co .weld . co . us < mailto : mmartin@co . weld . co . us> PHONE : (970j 353-6100 x 3540 FAX : (970 ) 304-6498 < image001 .jpg> Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged , confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e- mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . <Code Change Ch 23 -solar farms . pdf> 4 EXHIBIT Poudre ' � Valley • � �� Powering Your Future January 21, 2016 Mr. Tom Parko Planning Director 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 � RE : Solar Facilities on Ag Zoned Parcels & Proposed Amendment to Section 23 -1-90 Dear Mr . Parko : As an electric utility serving over 20,000 residents in rural Weld County, including many in the agriculture industry, Poudre Valley REA ( PVREA) is concerned over a proposed modification to the Weld County Code to regulate solar arrays based on their size and location . PVREA is a member owned cooperative driven by a purpose to provide safe, reliable, and affordable power to our members . Our reason to pursue energy generated by local solar arrays is not driven by federal or state mandates, nor do we want it to be . In 2013 we testified against Senate Bill -252 , Increase to Colorado's Renewable Standard, and most recently we urged our members to provide comments to the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) on their Clean Power Plan . Our grassroots effort, in conjunction with electric cooperatives around the nation , resulted in over one million comments to the EPA regarding the Clean Power Plan . When government, regardless at what level, begins to place restrictions on our industry it impedes our ability to have local control and has a direct impact on our affordability and reliability. Utility scale solar must be placed in areas with specific characteristics within our electric grid to remain reliable and affordable . Specifically, the arrays need to be located near a substation to minimize line costs and maintain reliability . The arrays also need to be built in areas where there is sufficient need for energy. The construction of utility scale solar allows PVREA to lock in a long term price for energy sourced from the arrays. This aids us in hedging against future rate increases for our members . The proposal, as written , would effectively prevent PVREA from managing our resource generation mix according to our needs and may give more ammunition to unwanted federal and state regulations/mandates . Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association • 7649 REA Parkway • Fort Collins • Colorado • 80528 • 800-432- 1012 P . O . Box 272550 , Fort Collins, CO 80527-2550 • www. pvrea. com • pvrea@pvrea . com Your Touchstonc t?nergy�' Cooperarive ��f �-- January 21, 2016 Page 2 PVREA is an active community partner and has helped to enrich the lives of Weld County residents since 1939 . The proposal, as written , is not in the best interest of our members and is picking winners and losers within the solar industry . I encourage the Board of County Commissioners to take our concerns into consideration as they deliberate the proposed amendment . Sincerely, C. �„' Jeffrey C. Wadsworth Chief Executive Officer ', CC : PVREA Board of Directors ' Michelle Martin ; Planning Manager poudre Valley Rural Electric Association • 7649 REA Parkway • Fort Collins • Colorado • 80528 • 800-432- 1012 P . O . Box 272550 , Fort Collins, CO 80527-2550 • www. pvrea. com • pvrea@pvrea. com Your 1'ouchstone Gnergy�' Cooperarive �a( � Cheryl Hoffman From : Michelle Martin Sent: Friday, January 22 , 2016 11 : 06 AM EXHIBIT To : Cheryl Hoffman � Subject: FW: ORD2015-27 /� � IY Follow Up Flag : Follow up �j � � , Flag Status : Flagged Michelle Martin Planning Manager 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin@co . weld . co . us < mailto : mmartin@co .weld .co . us> PHONE : (970) 353-6100 x 3540 FAX : (970 ) 304-6498 Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged , confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e- mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : Richard Miller [ mailto : richard . miller@easycleanenergy. com ] Sent : Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12 : 39 PM To : Jon Sullivan <jon@mysunshare . com > Cc : Michelle Martin < mmartin@co . weld . co . us>; David White <dwhite@pvrea . com >; jmarizza@UnitedPower.com ; dhubbuck@UnitedPower. com ; John Marcarelli <john . marcarelli@siliconranchcorp . com >; Ken Hall < ken_hall@kjhall . com >; preston@mysunshare . com ; Troy Spraker <Troy .Spraker@Ira - inc. com >; peter. candelaria@siliconranchcorp . com ; Jonathan Fitzpatrick <jonathan .fitzpatrick@easycleanenergy . com > Subject : Re : ORD2015-27 Hi Jon and Michelle, I like the 3 MW language, without the acreage specified . 1 Thanks for allowing our input . Best regards, Richard Richard L. Miller, AICP 303 . 809 . 2128 Sent from my iPhone The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged . It is intended solely for the addressee . Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized . If you are not the intended recipient of this email, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful . Nothing contained in this e- mail shall be considered a legally binding agreement, amendment or modification of any agreement, each of which requires a separate fully executed agreement in writing with signatures . On Jan 20, 2016, at 12 : 32 PM , Jon Sullivan <jon@mysunshare . com < mailto :jon@mysunshare . com > > wrote : Hi Michelle, et al, Thanks for looping us in to the language for the next ordinance reading . After reading the proposed language I think we are really close to language we can all agree on, but not quite there . I have a few revisions I ' d like to suggest: * On small energy facilities Weld Co has proposed a 3 MW or 16 acre cap . 3 MW will not fit on 16 acres . 3 MW would need about 24 acres of space . The ratio is generally 8 acres per MW for single axis tracker racking (which yields the best energy economics ) . Long story short I ' d like to suggest that the cap be increased to 24 acres to be congruent with the 3 MW number. * Or even simpler, just drop the acreage language and just say a 3 MW cap . * I also think there is some gray area in how that acreage would be defined . Would the acreage cap be applied to the entire site plan including access roads and unused awkward space ? Or would the acreage cap only apply to the exact footprint of the electrical equipment ? For example, on a 24 acre site with 3 MW on it, 21 of the 24 acres might be solar equipment and the remaining 3 acres is access road and negative space . I think this should be clarified before next reading or final reading . I 've cc ' d everybody and also included two of my competitors from Clean Energy Collective . Other industry professionals may have differing opinions and I ' m open to that . Or they may agree thus strengthening my suggestions. z An wa looks like we are close we look forward to resolution so we can be in submittin some site s ecific II Y Y, , g g p permits . Thanks, Jon L. Sullivan � Director of Project Development � SunShare 1441 18th Street, Suite 400 � Denver, CO 80202 ( M ) 303 . 718 . 3291 (O ) 303 . 296 .0919 ( E �jon@mysunshare . com < http ://mysunshare . com > www . mysunshare . com < http ://www . mysunshare . com/> < http ://www . mysunshare . com/> < https ://www.facebook. com/MySunShare > < https ://twitter.com/mySunShare> < https ://www . linkedin .com/company/sunshare > PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL: This email ( including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain privileged or confidential information . If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is prohibited . If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us; and destroy all paper and electronic copies. On Wed , Jan 20, 2016 at 11 : 38 AM , Michelle Martin < mmartin@co . weld . co . us < mailto : mmartin@co . weld . co . us> > wrote : Hi Everyone, I would like to invite you to the second reading of the proposed code changes ORD2015-27 regarding I'� solar facilities on January 25, 2016 at 9 :00 am at the Weld County Administration Building 1150 O Street, Greeley, CO 80632 . I have attached a copy of the proposed code changes for your review and welcome any comments . Hopefully I will see many of you on Monday . ' 3 If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me . Michelle Martin Planning Manager 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin@co . weld . co . us < mailto : mmartin@co . weld .co . us> PHONE : (970) 353 -6100 x 3540 <tel : %28970%29%20353-6100%20x%203540> FAX : (970 ) 304-6498 <tel : %28970%29%20304-6498 > < image001 .jpg> Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e- mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . 4 Cheryl Hoffman From : Michelle Martin EXHIBIT Sent: Friday, January 22 , 2016 11 : 06 AM � To : Cheryl Hoffman Subject : FW : ORD2015-27 / '_ Follow Up Flag : Follow up Flag Status : Flagged Michelle Martin Planning Manager 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin@co . weld . co . us < mailto : mmartin@co . weld . co . us> PHONE : (970) 353-6100 x 3540 FAX : (970) 304-6498 Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e- mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : Richard Miller [mailto : richard . miller@easycleanenergy . com ] Sent : Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12 : 39 PM To : Jon Sullivan <jon@mysunshare . com > Cc : Michelle Martin < mmartin@co . weld . co . us>; David White <dwhite@pvrea . com >; jmarizza@UnitedPower. com ; dhubbuck@UnitedPower. com; John Marcarelli <john . marcarelli@siliconranchcorp . com >; Ken Hall < ken_hall@kjhall . com >; preston@mysunshare . com; Troy Spraker <Troy . Spraker@Ira- inc . com >; peter. candelaria@siliconranchcorp . com; Jonathan Fitzpatrick <jonathan . fitzpatrick@easycleanenergy . com > Subject : Re : ORD2015-27 Hi Jon and Michelle, I like the 3 MW language, without the acreage specified . 1 Thanks for allowing our input . Best regards, Richard Richard L. Miller, AICP 303 . 809 . 2128 Sent from my iPhone The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged . It is intended solely for the addressee . Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized . If you are not the intended recipient of this email, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful . Nothing contained in this e- mail shall be considered a legally binding agreement, amendment or modification of any agreement, each of which requires a separate fully executed agreement in writing with signatures . On Jan 20, 2016, at 12 : 32 PM , Jon Sullivan <jon@mysunshare . com < mailto :jon@mysunshare . com > > wrote : Hi Michelle, et al, Thanks for looping us in to the language for the next ordinance reading . After reading the proposed language I think we are really close to language we can all agree on, but not quite there . I have a few revisions I ' d like to suggest : * On small energy facilities Weld Co has proposed a 3 MW or 16 acre cap . 3 MW will not fit on 16 acres . 3 MW would need about 24 acres of space . The ratio is generally 8 acres per MW for single axis tracker racking ( which yields the best energy economics) . Long story short I 'd like to suggest that the cap be increased to 24 acres to be congruent with the 3 MW number. * Or even simpler, just drop the acreage language and just say a 3 MW cap . * I also think there is some gray area in how that acreage would be defined . Would the acreage cap be applied to the entire site plan including access roads and unused awkward space ? Or would the acreage cap only apply to the exact footprint of the electrical equipment? For example, on a 24 acre site with 3 MW on it, 21 of the 24 acres might be solar equipment and the remaining 3 acres is access road and negative space . I think this should be clarified before next reading or final reading . I 've cc ' d everybody and also included two of my competitors from Clean Energy Collective . Other industry professionals may have differing opinions and I ' m open to that. Or they may agree thus strengthening my suggestions . Z I Anyway, looks like we are close, we look forward to resolution so we can begin submitting some site specific permits . Thanks, Jon L. Sullivan � Director of Project Development � SunShare 1441 18th Street, Suite 400 � Denver, CO 80202 ( M ) 303 . 718 . 3291 ( O ) 303 . 296 .0919 ( E )jon@mysunshare . com < http ://mysunshare . com > www . mysunshare .com < http ://www . mysunshare . com/> < http ://www . mysunshare .com/> < https ://www .facebook . com/MySunShare > < https://twitter.com/mySunShare > < https ://www . linkedin . com/company/sunshare> PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL: This email ( including any attachments ) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain privileged or confidential information . If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is prohibited . If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us; and destroy all paper and electronic copies . On Wed , Jan 20, 2016 at 11 : 38 AM , Michelle Martin < mmartin@co . weld . co . us < mailto : mmartin@co . weld . co . us> > wrote : Hi Everyone, I would like to invite you to the second reading of the proposed code changes ORD2015-27 regarding solar facilities on January 25, 2016 at 9 :00 am at the Weld County Administration Building 1150 O Street, Greeley, CO 80632 . I have attached a copy of the proposed code changes for your review and welcome any comments . Hopefully I will see many of you on Monday . 3 I If you have any questions please don 't hesitate to contact me . Michelle Martin Planning Manager 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin@co .weld . co . us < mailto : mmartin@co .weld . co . us> PHONE : (970) 353-6100 x 3540 <tel : %28970%29 %20353-6100%20x%203540> FAX : ( 970) 304-6498 <tel : %28970%29 %20304-6498> < image001 .jpg> Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . 4 I Cheryl Hoffman From : Michelle Martin EX IT Sent : Friday , January 22 , 2016 3 : 30 PM To : Cheryl Hoffman � Subject: FW : ORD2015-27 � ��" Michelle Martin Planning Manager 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin@co . weld .co . us < mailto : mmartin@co . weld . co . us> PHONE : (970) 353 -6100 x 3540 FAX : ( 970 ) 304-6498 Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged , confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e- mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : Richard Miller [ mailto : richard . miller@easycleanenergy . com ] Sent : Friday, January 22, 2016 3 : 29 PM To : Michelle Martin < mmartin@co . weld . co . us> Subject : RE : ORD2015-27 Hi Michelle, Thanks for sending the proposed code change as it relates to solar facilities in Weld County. Per my voicemail message to you, the only comment I have is that each MW of solar takes about 8 acres of land . If you are proposing a cap of 3 MW for Agricultural zoned land, that size facility will take approximately 24 acres, depending upon the panel wattage . I would like to suggest that you consider removing the reference to acreage and just cap the maximum size for solar on Agricultural zoned parcels to 3 MW . As you know, the panels are getting more efficient as time goes on and the required land area will go down as the panel efficiency improves. i Thank you for the opportunity to comment . Best regards, I Richard L. Miller, AICP Land Manager — Clean Energy Collective 303 . 809 . 2128 From : Michelle Martin [ mailto : mmartin@co . weld .co . us] Sent : Friday, January 22, 2016 3 : 15 PM To : David White ; jmarizza@UnitedPower. com < mailto :jmarizza@UnitedPower. com > ; dhubbuck@UnitedPower. com I < mailto : dhubbuck@UnitedPower. com > ; John Marcarelli; Ken Hall; preston@mysunshare . com 'i < mailto : preston@mysunshare . com > ; Troy Spraker; peter. candelaria@siliconranchcorp . com '� < mailto : peter. candelaria@siliconranchcorp . com > ; Richard Miller; Jonathan Fitzpatrick; Jon Sullivan ; Darcy Subject : ORD2015-27 Hi Everyone, Thank you for all your comments, ideas, and suggestions . I have forward all your email to the Board of County Commissioners to be considered in Monday' s second reading . Once again I would like to invite you to the second reading of the proposed code changes ORD2015-27 regarding solar facilities on January 25, 2016 at 9 :00 am at the Weld County Administration Building 1150 O Street, Greeley, CO 80632 . Attached is a revised copy of the proposed code changes for your review and welcome any comments . Hopefully I will see many of you on Monday . ' If you have any questions please don 't hesitate to contact me . z Michelle Martin Planning Manager 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin@co . weld . co . us < mailto : mmartin@co . weld . co . us> PHONE : (970 ) 353-6100 x 3540 FAX : (970) 304-6498 Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . 3 EXHIBIT Esther Gesick � a From: Esther Gesick � D! - Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 6:14 AM To: Kim Womantree Cc: Hollis Berendt; Marcia Free; Diana McLean; Jennifer Fuller; Michelle Martin; Tom Parko Jr.; Commissioners; Esther Gesick Subject: RE: solar farm ordinance Attachments: Code Change Ch 23-solar farms (choate edit).docx; Ord15-27.2nd.docx; Ag012516.pdf; Ord15-26.2nd.docx; miBOCC121415_exppdf.pdf; miBOCC122115_exppdf.pdf; miBOCC010416_exppdf.pdf Good Morning Ms. Womantree, Thank you for your correspondence- I will ensure that it is included in the file as an Exhibit for the Commissioners' consideration. Since the last reading, staff has compiled feedback from industry representatives and other governmental jurisdictions, and based on direction from the Board and consultation with the County Attorney's Office, they have presented my office with the attached revised staff recommendation. In response, we have modified the proposed Ordinance to incorporate the changes. Both documents are attached for your review. I have also attached today's Agenda for your reference (please see page 3, items#1 and #2 under PLANNING OLD BUSINESS). Ordinance #2015-27 (Solar facilities)will be discussed by the Commissioners and open to public input. However, staff will be requesting a continuance of Ordinance#2015-26 (also attached for your reference) to February 1, 2016, regarding proposed changes concerning certain Oil and Gas facilities. The audio files you requested are attached (miBOCC121415, miBOCC122115 and miBOCC010416). A copy of today's proceedings will be forwarded once the minutes are finalized, proofed and ready for public distribution. I have copied Planning Director-Tom Parko, and Planning Manager- Michelle Martin, on this message so that they are aware of your comments and can add any further information that I may have missed. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Regards, Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street�P.O. Box 758/Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970)336-7215 X4226 _ __ ,s.� �v Coniideritiality Notice:This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person ar entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action concerning ihe contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictiy prohibited. From: Kim Womantree [mailto:kwomanl@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday,January 25, 2016 5:35 AM To:Jennifer Fuller<jfuller@co.weld.co.us>; Esther Gesick<egesick@co.weld.co.us> Cc: Hollis Berendt<hollisbeth28@gmail.com>; Marcia Free<marcia.mae.free@gmail.com>; Diana McLean <diana@greeleyuuc.org> Subject: solar farm ordinance 1 Hello, I am Kim Womantree, formerly of Greeley, now of Brush, Colorado. I am trying to find out if the Commissioners will be considering the "Solar Farm Ordinance",which I think is proposing to modify section 23 1 90 Chapter 23 Article 1 and III of the Weld County Code. I can't tell from looking at your January 26 agenda if you are considering this today, or if it is to be continued until February 1. Many people are interested in this proposed ordinance, as it seems to be a "taking" of farmer's rights to use their unirrigated acreage as they see fit, and would unfairly penalize small scale solar installations, while continuing to allow oil and gas drilling and exploration to continue unabated. Here is a link to what I think is the proposed ordinance: http://www.co.weld.co.us/assets/ad087d2db9d4546c89BD.pdf Please advise as to whether this will be considered today, or if it is continued until February 1. I would also like to have access to digital meeting records of the BOC for January 4, for today, January 25, and for any other days in which this ordinance has been discussed. I am copying this to some of the interested parties and Greeley residents. Thanks for your help, Kim Womantree 2 EXHIBIT 1/25/2016 � , �YX. � �' .„�»« * . . ,,. . .. . ... ... L S� �AI �V � . . . . ..i '. . . i, . . . _ . _._ ., . .. _ _ . ' .C I . � w ✓ /i �. {.11�• r �r ir b + . : 9 . ' 9]� IG �V. fi. .l6� �i� °a . . '4 � . . d � II�F� a� vr � . . ' . . . . � . _ - 1 .' . , , ' � • �: ? Hf PONGV t0 LiiGQ5G � . � � � . . .. � �. .. - ' �. , � . . . + . . � . , �, , � . -. �[�. . ._. -... n � , a . � '�ni "[v. � °% i . n . \ P AtlPY Fx A .T V�: . Efl '. . � .ry� m. .- L�:: _� - ..� i ' .ry & ♦. 1 4iXA � ��,�. n � A ^P� r W X)!. Y Y .. b ♦� � W .�fY A. . . t . �vb �V�^,ftl��A1S� �+D$� �' .. . 'v°2 � . 4✓ 4 '++� ._ ( . � .P . _ 4v X . . . � ) iril ' i .wv 'y rvM. '� �' •4 . r �. . .L: v . .: '. v ...e .:: . . .� . r � :v. ! . �" n ' 3 . . r .. � � ..nu�. '. � � ..Y...�.�..uw- - . m. � ��r fM rT�� [ « / �� i � 1 � � � � • � * }'�hnkf � . � � � : � y , � /////////,�,� � =\ � , q�y ,a �sa �y � ' � , . a ' , rFT .{3^Y >�� ♦ . n ��i f .. � 1' ✓ '4 1a��. ' . � �^ x�Y �'I .,, � .. .. 1. .u.� �!� � � ., � 63W {"i � .. p y�v.� iry� ! x �. y n / \ , r � �i� • (ya �� ^3 � y � � s:! � Y � 1 x� ' 'm .Ib� �� -�� . L j� J� �� ; � � � ��9C ^� t � I � S � . � . rv'� . 1 rhbn + �` ` � � � �' �^ } �. � � J • 'N':��a .• _ TC f - y�f�.w..ra ♦- . " M1 � �'• �� ' , . �� I � I� �� . RT �n.� �Y d. ♦ il'hH � � . Y1 f J . �� . � . � � �+y�., A ' �. V � � �� • r� ��f t� � . . ��, �� #; =�T'J+ �� . �ry�. . �. �_ p �� . "'S.`� . .a � , , 4 :� �, '� � ' ' ",'�,l , r($ F � . ., � ' e �� i �l' �Ei 1 �� a � �� t� � � r .� ' � . I� w � ' ' � ♦: ^.4iJ �f5� . . i � ' , e � % . �t� JN . . • . � � . 1 H. � � A. — e .`Y I f1 � J � . • � ' . ) '�`• , ` �•� . � "r � > �� ', yr�`t��.� ,: . , � �� ., : . � " � I ' a. : � ,�' . � ',. . + . - � °. � � ` . � ' � ' , ,. .. � � j , r � . a . � n:.{.ty' y, `�. _ j,', '�" . � o . • . � p � � � � �i �,�. s��_'�!F'"'J � �f.� .'1T��. y.�' > . s '�Y. ' �r � " ♦ . � �� f � ,�, � ' � . f •i.. � � a'. � Q�� 1 �'?�- 1� M . y � y � f �. . d i , ( Y�+YW •i t ..' 1'M r . ��.. . ? '�� f< � i �_� ' _ � �A � i . "$ `f •r � , . t l. � j Yv �� :_� •Z �.. � . ! �� .. ,.'�\ 1 f � ��JC �� i .�'�li )�� . }p� o� 1 � � ��. � ) . .� . .� ;. � S� � ' . .. . . .: i . .. . . . . . . . _ ' . . . . . . _ � . . . �- . Recap from 12 / 21 BOCC Hearing ;�� r� . • The Proposed Amendment to Section 23- 1- • Benefits of solar for Weld Co on Ag 90 would : Land : — Limit solar to industrral and commercial land — Predictable and valuable revenue for — Very little I & C land , too expensive, too landowners, easier for farm operations to consolidated make ends meet . — Majority of Weid is zoned Ag �'75 % — Provide increased tax revenue on Ag land — Proposed ordinance amendment would kill solar ( solar company pays) in Weld Co — Provide electricity savings to Weld Co — Proposed ordinance singles out solar from USR residents that choose to subscribe . process when many more obtrusive uses are — N/e provide energy choice to all ; no more allowed . monopoly — Proposed ordinances takes away landowner — (Another) domestic energy source right/ability to develop land as they wish . — Economic construction activity — Great use of underproductive land — Great way to conserve water r _ _ ---� ,y _ _ _ � , �O�_ � i i � I 1 1/25/ 2016 , _. . :, � � . � � . �. . �� Weld County Zoning Map �� -. : ... ...�.�. Shar� � a . ..w w , . . ... . � •+'.e �µ .r . :. . � wm. . ."� _ ,. ar :.- iY-. - - .v. `: . n ' '+I ✓ ' . ✓�:..,W. .. .:� 1. x�.. .. . , �� t r 3 �`. . yn 1� P �k,�o .a �" ry �� ce I , LL ��, — „ . ': . * ,+ j� `1 .. . � + . ; ; . � " . . • . t.. . . " � . i . .. . . . . ^ Hf '. . � . . . .,f � ..:' .. e ';J M . w . , � _ i ' ; :. � r c .'. . �y �. , - . � , . �, x r , at �. � a.a�� t,F�@Y�7 � � � `�°�� P:� : � . t , . � ^ � ga 4s0 . � a ^ ai a9's� � ,. x . < �s�sa•y s� dn * ; � a " �� - " t � r-. • y � � � �,.a, , . � , . . . e , �, s � , ��_• " Weld Caunty . .,�� ,� � � ,K y. x � . �, a, , . , . ,�� $. ar r � , , � s aa , , `� � - °Vr ray e • x�{ va� +'ya['r tk ^ qI�' 4ry, ya'(r =a- 1j � w : ��•• m .�" � g y M � I 1 �1 M � e r N Y� b Y �X y J � � � 3 W I li�' S2} PY� h Yp k 1 4 I w Y .�' v a ry r.... �, � p s s�� ,�. ,�� I.�� . . � 25 Million ds r . v�^- �a41 p . �A". .,. � �' .,�, e m.�`o �; E SCW ° a Y �> Y`R k� �. y� ��'h r �T�� ` d�, �;}'�y., � ' H' ,r �' � �� n x � tF � r�e ra . 1 � � a.. .M , L wli � j , � � .�: � ,. �,� -� acres ±�� i '�� ,}� . .; � P� ($ � � tl}R}�"« eMw-tifi4'�� + � � � sa � r ` �� . d �� , �� ati� �* � �" . Majority Agricultural °' � — -- - - - . . zoned AG PUD ( Clear • Prohibiting with Blue ) p � ,,, Solar on AG = � . , � � � � ° ' Prohibiting �-2 � r'•�'"�' � �9t�� =` . ° :;.: � ,� � � . =_: „� : ��: '�` Solar , �� ,��.., a",�, }, X"" ' ' ��p �� .� " n'..yt a ' [ e� - < t r Yi ,�"' L, E4 yh.'� i �t` # 'y s� . `.� . ' Y . ♦ 12e i , (� �� n �"F M F � L.�"'v. '� ' . '� , ` � ; � � . : ,� .i� �'"1 G i - � '�,.. � yA✓eti'1- . � -. ,� i. � �� `T� s . " _ `i�f . _. RE�3� "'� � ' -� 4 ��,�Y�.i . .� l� ,�a � � �d � m � rc y , � ' �y a � � H x t f 13 a ♦. _ 9 �' ��4 � a( . � . . . . a J �v.UO'3C . � ..— .. � ' - . ' .� .. .� _ . � �i��1 : � � _ ... .. ., . e . . .,, . � a - . .;- �._ . . . � ` � �, w� � .<�._ . . .., ,. .,�,._, _ _ �.-_ � . a � � e 8 1 �4 • . p . . ;n41 (. Y E.. . ' r� .. ) . . . . . . _ Y � '.� ...- ag . . �.�... I. .� f Recap since 12 / 21 BQCC Hearing snar� , . � . • Planning Commission unanimously voted to allow solar on Ag �I land ( against amendment to ordinance ) . • County Commissioners generally agree solar should be allowed on Ag land . It should just be capped at a certain acreage or MW. • Newly suggested ordinance language is to cap system sizes at 3 MW or 16 acres on ag land . No cap on Industrial land . — Note : Industrial land is naturally capped by lack of land available . • SunShare and CEC commented that 3 MW fits on 24 acres . We'd prefer 24 acre and /or 3 MW cap to be congruent . .._.._.y, ..«.�- . . �y.. . _. ,y,. - , . . i �� T � i. r . ... . w- . -. . �- . - - -^I�. .� ' 2 1/25/2016 a , Acreage Cap � n �� . � • Approx . 8 acres per 1 MW R:: - _ --- Ex : 2 MW = 16 acres ` - ` -- � , . _. __ .._ w C . . . . . .. . n ...� _ . .. , u': � � � � I � � � w� � • Ex : 3 MW = 24 acres � ' � � ,,. . -'� • Ex : 5 MW = 40 acres �.• � • � � , , � : 4 •� i � � �' n,i�} � ' a I SunShare suggests quoting cap in '. � � � �` • � , , ` �Sl�`«a" � , "" lq9[ ' . RµF # � � 1 � �1 �. � � �� LS� JiSa MW rather than acres . � w �, • Does 24 acres imply whole site plan -:�, �;. . , , '' ,` ` includin roads and ne ative s ace ? � . � � � � � g g p � : ,� Or does it include foot print of �� . . �, electric equipment . � — Make it easy and just say 3 MW. __.___�_ �_ _ . -. . �� o y . ♦.. ` . � . . . ...t . . ♦. • . \! Y.� • . . . . . . . � . . � . � .. � . . � . �..� . y ! • I.� . 1"_l _ L . . Utility Scale 5 �► lar vs . Community Solar Utilwty Scale ( Comanche Solar Farm ) p�,.,,4 ' * - �... . � `.��p . 5p , � +�_ TnA �SA • • l ♦ t1 . Y ... .-.. � 1 •• '1°S� • .� . . u c � � \ .. . .. �Y. . . . . �.� .._• � � I - �.:��i .� 1. . ' � �'a' x yi�'�..+w.. • Location : Pueblo, CO � � � - ._-�`.,� • Project Size : 156 M W - �"' �'� = "� �' .. _. . ��.,: � � .� . " � _ � , :. .�,--� •,� _ . - • Acres : 1 , 0Q0 .� . ;�. �, � . - �� _ � . :� � ..r,�. . _ „ _ .� � �_�.,. ._ . , . ,v - _ , ,. _ _ , _ - �� m., r '��,�`.. _ � �� _, a Communitv Solar �» � . � " -�: rt� vY. y � .n � � ` . _. �.x�F�s . . � .. . • Project Size : 2MW '� ` �,,_ , . � l - - � x �- • Acres : l6 -"�°- --°__ �' _ .��""��.�: �.....� m � yk� . Share . ,, E o � ,.: � . , � < � oo , � �, . , H, . � . .,. ,.�k�ill��i . . ,. . .. . . .. ...., , + I 3 1/25/2016 n J .... . . . .za . �. w.. . .a. . a. . dv , . . . . , rv. ez' � . �.... . . . . : n . ... . . . .a.. .e . .. .. . . : . -.:.µ . .. .2v•n :M. . M�.. .. s n . . . . 1 . . � �. � Solar Gardens vs . Utility Scale Solar � � • Solar Garden : SunShare is happy • Utility Scale : with 3 MW Cap . — Generally very large systems — It suits our business model well . spanning several parcels and — Small electric increment should be landowners . compatible with existing grid — Generally require multi - mile infrastructure . transmission line build -outs — Is a good "community sized " solar — �Nhy would Weld Co want to array to serve local community. prohibit this from an economic activity, energy indy, landowner rights standpoint ? �__.w _ . 1� � -- ..i�..�. ,� . . , .q , ., q _ r_ , effi, Y ,}. � � .ti . � . — .� .� :� ,� . . � .,.l� . � � : .ro� �... �i :I . ... e . ' .� 8t r a . .. . .. . . . Y : 6�•e � � T.1 .• '... . . . w � .. . . . . .. . . � . 4 : ' �: . The Goal of the Solar Industry sh�r� . , . • Do not amend ordinance ; leaving ordinance as is will continue to allow I solar projects to be developed . I • Work with solar developers via the USR process to design and plan projects that the community supports . — Even better would be a quicker administrative review ( Use by Right ) . • Help Weld Co benefit from tax revenue, energy savings, and economic activity from solar garden development . _ _ ._ __ _ � __. .� . .�: �� 4 1/25/2016 , �3}i ygk � ' g ' F m�,� , . y y . , x � A atdCct{�a#��dgSYkMkp�,l'#",:�1 }�� i _ xR � ?� 6^s ,� '£t '� y.�f � �o- i° ibfp� — u ' a^ � , ?Xe Sn .a'§� �� . '. - 1 �� rc v a• W ! ,�r:. . , . a ..�: . �,�1 w , > ,S �.'.ti. sx4taR��* ;;�a� � � / � ry 4 .e. i" . . ,, <,. . .,„ . �..,. a . . , :x a . .-n ti�. . � . - . r. rl ... . . p � • ' L r . .. .a Pov.:. U�.. . Jon Sullivan ,.�.. . „ ., Director of Project Development „ � , �Y� _ ._ �" .. . � �� •ti . - � --- "' . .�� . ^ , . ,, „ � , �# S° 4 .- „ . � 0 YVtMF'.nflP'�� 4 � . ` ��\ • . � � • .. �4 � �.� p � �. .: . F� Oi� rR. ' Y' / �v . � ' i� �e � •� � . . � . J .. . � u e - .TY! - ,' � f^'•• i'� � : .. _ ' ., 6.� � . M u.y a � � , � + . . �4 . . �.a y� � � ... .. -� ' +�. . ) . � .. r. M�E� Ml � � � � }�. : �� y . � a �eayi -n*1� . ♦ i. ' ♦. . 'x�.T� � . .- L.MiW ..� rv� „�•a�wi," ' ./�._�. � ,�� "'* � '��..�'�'.V. .S:' �, �-' � �m1aP�A ��yyy�� . �y.��. !' � , �� }�'1y�1 x� ' � i v, . . : _ .. . .. _ }.w ' � . �Iw � f. w-�'- J4"�1M1�" "'} � �- nL � ' � . •e � � .. � ♦ � � iy � . � � - . �":3 �` " 't� , 'k+m �.i'- � °�'�y: .• eV� . . •. ' . �� _ '� ' � " Y * I , ax. l�. : n #�x w �+ n � i t " .. ! . .�Y � • � '��•. a-. • ' � 5 Esther Gesick From: Maydean Worley<mamworl@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 12:28 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Solar Power Attachments: Study.RenewableEnergy.AchieveClimateTargets.docx; ATT00001.bct Please direct my comments and the attached information to the Weld County Commissioners concerning solar in the county. Wind and solar power are considered of special interest by the state. Both are useful for power generation associated with electric utilities.The study just released discusses their importance in reducing greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Solar power, solar gardens, and rooftop solar will play an important part in keeping greenhouse gases in check. Weld County should not discourage solar energy. A link to the study is in the attached summary. Maydean Worley Greeley, CO 970-356-3002 EXHIBIT � /,�� i Study: Renewable Energy Best Way to Achieve Climate Targets under Clean Power Plan ❑Unaddressed Methane Leakage From Natural Gas Sector Could Undercut Emissions Reductions Oakland, California (January 27th, 2016) — New analysis from PSE Healthy Energy and University of California at Berkeley finds that increased deployment of renewable energy is the best way to meet or even surpass Clean Power Plan targets, as recent scientific measurements of inethane leaks from natural gas systems have found higher rates of leakage than those recorded in official inventories. States that plan to depend on switching their electricity generation from coal to natural gas under the Clean Power Plan risk failure to achieve meaningful greenhouse gas reductions. As the Obama Administration develops new rules for methane, such as last week's Bureau of Land Management regulations applied to the release of methane from new and existing oil and gas production sources on federally- managed lands, the study— using updated assumptions of inethane leakage — underscores the need to further address methane leakage in order to meet climate targets. The study, The lmpact of Nlethane Leakage on Achreving Clean Power Plan Emrssior� Goals, analyzes the whether America will meet electric generation sector emissions reductions targets under the Clean Power Plan with different mixes of energy resources on the electric grid, while taking into account a range of upstream methane leakage rates similar to those found in recent studies. The study shows that the U.S. is likely to miss emissions reductions targets if states rely on switching from coal to natural gas for electric generation as a primary means of emissions reductions in their implementation plans. However, it finds that by supporting the adoption of renewable energy and energy efficiency in state plans at rates already proven easy, practical and possible, the nation can not only meet its emissions reductions targets, but possibly even exceed those goals. Dr. Elena Krieger, director of the Renewable Energy Program at PSE Healthy Energy and co-author of the report, said, "Our research shows that the nation can easily meet its carbon pollution reduction goals by deploying clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency projects across the country at rates that we are already seeing on the ground in many places. This is an easy way for states to ensure that America will truly achieve the emissions reductions that will help our country meet the climate targets agreed to in Paris last December, and decrease the risk that methane leakage will undermine emission reduction efforts in the power sector." The Clean Power Plan calls for 32% emissions reductions below 2005 levels by 2030. The plan allows each state to determine how best to reduce their power sector emissions in that timeframe, and suggests three pathways: switching electric generation from coal to natural gas, improving the efficiency of coal power plants, and replacing fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) with renewable energy sources like wind and solar generation. U.S. EPA calculations state that nearly half of those reductions have already occurred due to historic coal-to-gas switching between 2005-2013. But recent science has found that this calculation does not reflect the full climate impact of methane leakage across the natural gas system, which erodes the climate benefits of switching to gas. This new study released today updates these historic emissions reductions to reflect lifecycle emissions of inethane. The study co-author, Zeke Hausfather of University of California, Berkeley, said "Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas, and a strong contributor to climate change. The most recent scientific studies show that methane leakage is variable, but can be quite high in some areas of natural gas production. Without taking into account the full lifecycle of natural gas, it is impossible to know the true climate impact of our energy decisions." Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than COz (over 30 times more powerful over 100 years, and over 80 times more powerful over 20 years), and numerous recent scientific studies have found leakage rates to be much higher than the 1.5% leakage estimated by the EPA in its Greenhouse Gas Inventory. This study considers the impact of inethane leakage rates on achieving the plan's targets. In the Clean Power Plan, the 32% greenhouse gas emission reduction target is achieved by 2030 when calculated using the U.S. EPA's low leakage rate of 1.5%. However, the study shows that if states adopt the likely energy mix projected by EPA, which relies heavily on natural gas, emissions are reduced overall nationwide by only 28-29% on a 100-year timeframe, and 22- 23% on a 20-year timeframe at a methane leakage rate of 4%. At a 6% methane leakage rate, the upper limit of the methane leakage range in the study, greenhouse gas emissions reductions are only 25-26% on a 100-year timeframe and well below 20% on a 20-year timeframe. However, the study also analyzed two energy mixes that include future growth in the deployment of renewable energy and efficiency at levels on par with current and historic annual renewable energy growth in the US. The study finds that even if inethane leakage rates are at the higher end of the analyzed range, the Clean Power Plan targets can not only be achieved but even surpassed by adopting such high-renewables energy mixes. This finding suggests that to reduce the climate impact of electricity generation in the U.S., there must be a greater focus on curbing upstream methane leakage rates from across the entire natural gas production, transmission and distribution chain, and, even more reliably, states should develop Clean Power Plan implementation plans that continue to support the rapid growth of renewable energy and energy efficiency rather than promoting the increased use of natural gas. PSE Healfhy Energy is a nan-prafrt energy science and poticy research instrtute d�dreated to supplying evrdence-based, screntrfic and technical information and resources on the public health, environmenfal and climate dimensrons af energy praductian and use. Our wark predor»inantly focuses on unconventronal oil and gas developmenf, renewable energy, and energy storage. The mission af PSE Heatthy Energy!s to bring screntific transparency and clarity to energy polrcy drscussrons, he/ping to /eve/ the playrng field for eitizens, advocacy groups, the media, agency sta�f and elected of�icials by generating, translafing, and disseminating scientific rnformation. No other inferdrsciplinary collabaration of physicians, scientists, and engineers exists to focus specifically on health and sustainabrlrty at the intersectian of energy science and polrcy. Esther Gesick From: Maydean Worley <mamworl@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 1:38 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Solar: Clean Power Plan and Renewables Attachments: Study.RenewableEnergy.AchieveClimateTargets.docx; ATT00001.htm Please forward these comments and articles to the county commissioners concerning the upcoming hearing on Solar and land use changes proposed by the commissioners. Maydean Worley Greeley, CO 970-356-3002 See below: ------------------------------------------------------- The EPA used old information 1.5% methane leaks for the basis of the clean power plan. A new study uses up to date information on methane leaks with variable scenarios and concludes we can increase renewables to counteract the impact of inethane on climate change. Weld County and Northern Colorado have seen a huge increase in methane emissions. Weld County needs a comprehensive solar policy that encourages solar in order to counteract emissions. Link to entire article: The impact of inethane leakage on achieving Clean Power .. and the summary of the above article below EXHIBIT � � O� � � .:vd4 Fa . v n.. ra y X . . ♦ . .. n n p •• . + w � x . . '..�. P ..:,.. . � ^ ' . . rvp J. .. F � � � . T� .�, . -v.. w .„,'o-ea+ ,,. : .' a x.:; " y_ � . . ' st. .me, . . ,. . . . „� . , . �;.. �„, __ . . . �� The impact of inethane leakage on achieving .�� Clean Power Plan emission goals a « w Wa p y� �b p a I� � (j ` ��'��.�*y�. �ni+y"p��M"S1n%*�.8'i"$ ti�($� nk�`�{4 " ..; R '�I Y IPMgP{ { TA + �tt qax,s@h% 4 8% .b$a�ee: .� x$}��$�r�"{S� 7.4 ",ax � . � aa vw t . � . . °� °"�` ' ^*�'3^ �.; . „ ' " ' F �"� � . I .. _. . , . ,. . ,. , . ^ ,, . . . . . ; � ,- ' . : . . . . -., . p , � . . . . » A_. % . . . .. .�. tW0 . � ' . . . .. . � x$ ix t 1 �', N .. �.,. t�+ w..W y . � '�" \ . y[.- V� ��" P^uN . . . 1 � �. � � �� n L Y � � / . . �� J� � m� . .. ;�i� {F �I � I � � . �� s68.it' � .o . �l�i � T.-dhvx�f �� "-v' � . �,�i V � � I ir�1��' nt ' �9 �` n1 i rz . � I�^ "' � � •� . � �' � . � ( ��y � . , � , � V „ ': w . .,.a^�'.'„"�t , ' q+'�; ygy' ;M�I . . P,., � -�., . s ��' ? rvY1`ri5Y$. . v . +a�x % G "r . m m.. . 1 / . . � . . . . .. . � 1 �I 1I�. f �� ; ��i � r `Fi , i �, f � v,� � �� , � , i � �: ,,, � r . .; l : 1 i � � � , f � �y�'- 1 � _ � a� '� 1 �yJ t fi) < �l : , � �� , �a , . . . � f � Il �: �� {ki .n � i. ' Fi. . � � � .. % � . n M b � . Z� 4 � ... � f S i� � . � a L ♦ � A s � 1 I �I� . � �. �n � _ . . �.�� 1 �. .:. „ "�Y y 4 y . "' �, � " ' � � , ' ,�i V � "'�fr,�.4� l��i� T<y RY�l1 • n I i � . , � � ' ' ; � ' ^ � � � �. . f � �, " !• �,v. .�� 8�e�� Y�� 'a y� �� .�✓ �� Y,.� i i � �i:.7 � �. Y�l . ( �.1. � � ��+� � � ' � � Y � 1 . �l� �'�� ii � � _ f I '. . . ._ , kS . . . r. � � '+ �y�. � e�- � f �,.��to � ' 4. " i� � N � ;� { .�� . ` . . �� .sv ... ;F:,� �.i'x'�' ix� � . G'.., � r. �- � �-:�.� '. � .,., �,. . . , 7 :. i , ;� � '�� ` . r ' � . , . �. . - - _. , �\ � w .:� . . . .. � J s � " 'T �,y,3U�'", .�o .� `' . . • '�. . .., . . s.�l . ' ' . 1' i � . n ..f.. � 2�n #�W rpr u`. . �\ _..�r..� I .- • � 6 ',. . 1 T i�)�'. ' y°� . � ` j ' i I . � ..�Y..r�.. Z . T �1 � .:V` v1nY .. ., �l. �!� • . _ � � � .� .�. r ��.�:� - ` . . . � : '"' _ . n. . . � ' . . _ . '�F !I � I :r. , y �. ._ . '. . . i ! . � � i � YY. .� A - . ,r . Zeke Hausfather � UC Berkeley/ Berkeley Earth „ Healthy Energy Elena Krieger , PhD � PSE Healthy Energy f'IntiawaScx�im�� C Fa�inin January 27 , 2016 Methane Leakage and the Clean Power Plan � 1 SUMMARY: The EPA's Clean Power Plan aims to cut 32%of power sector greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, for the first time regulating climate pollutants from the sector responsible for the largest portion of these emissions. However, if upstream methane emissions are not taken into consideration, these efforts may fall far short of achieving real reductions of this magnitude across the lifecycle of electricity generation. The EPA has projected that CO2-equivalent (COze) emissions from electricity generation will fall to 32% below 2005 levels under the Plan, but attributes nearly half of those reductions to historic coal-to-gas switching between 2005-2013, and projects continued switching in the coming years. However, this calculation does not reflect the full climate impact of inethane leakage across the natural gas system, which erodes the climate benefits of switching to gas. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than COz, and numerous recent sci- entific studies have found leakage rates to be much higher than reflected in the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Here, we consider the impact of inethane leakage rates from 1-6% on achieving the Plan's targets, reflecting these recent scientific findings. While the 32% emission target is achieved under the low leakage rate of 1.5% found in the Inventory, the EPA's Clean Power Plan compliance scenarios only reduce emissions by about 28-29% at a 4% leakage rate when using the 100-year global warming potential for methane; using a 20-year timeframe and 4% leakage, the emission reductions under these compliance scenarios are only 22-23%. The upper limit of our leakage range, at 6%, brings these reductions below 20%. We next introduce two scenarios with higher renewable energy mixes: in the first we deploy the full renewable energy potential cal- culated by the EPA, and in the second we assume that the maximum historic annual growth rate of renewables is achieved every year beginning in 2020. We find that even with high methane leakage rates, the Plan's targets can be achieved or even surpassed by adopting such renewable-based energy mixes. This finding suggests that reducing the climate impact of electricity generation requires a greater focus on curbing upstream methane leakage rates or, even more reliably, that state implementation plans encourage the continued growth of renewables to match these historic national deployment rates. 1 Introduction The power sector is the 5ii�gle large5t con- The EPA introduced three carbon-cutting tributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions •`building blocks" t�o achieve these tar- [1], and therefore the reducYion of these gets: 1) improved efficiency at coal plants; emissions is critical for rnitigating the risks 2) switching generation from coal to n�t- of clim�tite change. The U.S. Environmen- ur�l gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants; tal Protection Agency (EPA) releaeed the and 3) displacitig fossil generation with Clean Power Pla.n in August, 2015, to 5et renewable resources like wind and solar tlie fir5t i►atiuiial cax�boii pulltition staii- generation. However, the calcttlation of dards for power plant�s and curb green- these emission reductions does not re- house gas emissione from electricity gen- flec�t thP most rPcent rP�sear�h on lifPcy- er�tion. Under the rule, sta�tes are re- cle greenhouse gas emissions, arid there- quired to develop implement�tion plans t.o fore th� upst�re�m meth�ne emiesione frorn iiia�t� stat��-sp��ific cinission targc�ts, wiY�h gas productioti may greatly reduce the real an overarching goal of reducing greenhouse climate benefits of� the EPA's projected gae emie5ions from the power sector in Clean Power Plan compliance scena�rioe. 2030 by 32`�o from 2005 level� [2]. Methane Leakage and the Clean Power Plan � 2 Recent studies (e.g., [3, 4, 5]) ha�ve sug- mixes than tho5e projected by the EPA gesYed tha�t fugitive methane ernissions to riieet or even surpass the Plan's tar- fronl natural gas systeizte m�tiy be mttch gets, iiiclucliiig liiglier levels of efficiericy hioher than reflected in the EPA's Green- and renewables. Here, we compare the house Gae Inventory [1], meaning that the greei�house gas emission5 of the EPA's pro- actual clirnate benefit of switching coal to jected base case and EPA-modeled Glean gas for electricity genera�tioi�i is likely much Power Plan compliance cases to two higher lower tha�n estimated by the �PA. renewable energy scenztirios we desigried based on the EPA's own calcula�tions of potential renewable resources. We ana- lyze a range of upstream methane leakage �( rates found in recent studies (1-6%), uae ... upstream methane emissions the most recent conaen5iis values for rhe from gas produetion may greatly global warr7iing pot,enti�l5 of inethane from reduce the real climate benefits of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate th2 EPi4�5 pl'O�eCtC'C� �12a11 POW21' Change (IPCC) Fifth AssessmenY, R.eport P�al7 COm�7�lal7Ce SCE'11aY1O5. (AR5) [7], compare the 20-,year and 100- » ye�tir timeframes of these global warming potentials, and assess the abilit,y for each re�oi.�rce scenario to achieve Clean Power Plan emission reduction targets when fiilly According to the EPA'e greenhouse gas accoui�iting fox• fugitive methane emissions estimation methodology, nearly half of with tYie mo5t current science. the Clean Power Pl�n's 32%� emission re- duction target had already been achieved by 2013 [6], due in part to coal-to-ga� 2 Metharie lea�ge switching fiieled by the U.S. shale gas boom. The Integrated Planning Nlodel, used by the EPA to calci.ilate electricitp Greenhouse gas emissions from electric- mixes and costs under different policy cori- ity generation include both direct emis- straints, only reflects combustion-related sions froni fuel combust,ion and indirect COze emissions. In an Appendix to the emissions, such as the leakage of inethane Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean fr•otn other parts of the natural gas sys- Power Pla.n, the EPA assessed t�he ir�i- tem before the gas reaches a power plant. pact of the Plan on upstreani meth��ne Upstream r�iethane emissions inclucle gas enussions, but used outd�ted valuee for vented or lea�ked during production, pro- I methztine'5 globa�l wanning poY,ential and cessing, transniission, distribution ancl lower leaka�ge estimates thaxi found in the storage a�cross the natural gas system. The latest field �neasure�ments [6]. If current rate of emissione of fugitive methane from fugitive meth�tine emissions from the oil natural gas systems a,re currently highly and gas sector a.re as high a�s those found in uncertain. The U.S. Greenhouse Gas In- these recent fie�ld mea�surements, then both ventory developed by the EPA reports hietoric and projected coal-to-gas switch- an emission rate of around 1.5% of total ii7g for Pla�n compli<�tice will mean the methane well withdra�wal� [1,3], calculated power sector will fall ehort of 2030 goals using a bottom-up a�pproach by adding up when accounting for lifecycle greenhou5e a11 of the estimated emi�5ions from each gas emie5ione. individual component and process across the n�tural gas system. About two thirds Under the Clea�ri Power Plan, statee ha�ve of these emissions occur during produc- an opportunity to develop their owu com- tion and transmissions�storage, while the pliance plans to �rieet emiesion reduction remaining third occurs durii7g processing goals. States c�n use different resource and di5tribution [1]. Methane Leakage and the Clean Power Plan � 3 Other recent studies h�ve found higher baeed a�nd �ia5s-based plans, and com- nattzral gas system leakage rates. ranging pared the results to a base case built on the from around 2% to 4`�0 or higher with sig- Anntta.l Energy Outlook (AEO) from the nificant uncertainties, priin�rily using toP- L;.S. Energy Infot•inat�ion Administration do�w�z approa�ches r�ieasuring atrsiospheric (EIA). The EPA's rate-based and mass- concenYr�tions of inethane [3, 4. 8]. There based compliance scenarios assursie an an- � are some studie5 of indi�•idtial a�s fields nual demand-side efficiency savings of 1% thaY find still hi�h�r l�aka��e rat�s rangin� per year,ra�mping ttp from each state's ciu�- i.ip Y,o 6 or 9.5`7o percent� [5. 9, 10], although rent efficiency s�vings by 0.2%per yeas be- there are strong suggestione that� t�hese are ginning in 2020 until the 1% target i5 met. not representa�tive of the ent�ire sector [3], in p�,rt due to the geolooy of'these specific In Figure 1, we show the electricity gen- fields. Some recent papers [ll, 12] have era�tion resource mix froin 2005-2030 for also Found results more in line wiYh EPA each of the scen�rios we analyze. The first estiffiates. Here, we an�lyze a systeni-wide "fix��i" s�ciiario is ba,scd on a ronstanY nlix methane leaka.ge range fiom 1-6%, enconi- of today's resources and projected dema�nd p�,seing the majority of these leakage esY,i- growth from the ``base" case. The next � mates. The low end falls within the 5cope three scenarios were developed by the EPA of �nrt-cnt Administration efforts to icl��ri- and include the ba�se case and two Clean tify and remediate methane lea�ks from oil Power Plan compliance scen�rios (rate- and ga�s prociuction [13�, and the high end and mass-based). Finally, we include two is an upper limit for natural gas lea�kage if additional high-renewable, high-efficiency fugitive methane ernissions are on the high scenarios. In order to comply with the end of estimates and all me�aured excess EPA's emission reduction targets, it is not methane i� attributable to the natural gas tiecessary to deploy the full potential ca- sector [14]. W"hile higher rates of lealca.ge pa.city of renewable energy resources used have been recorded, avera.ging across all to calculate the regional targeYs (Build- ficicls stigdcsts lcal��gc rates iu tlic 2-4'% ing Block 3). As a. re5ult, non-hydro re- range. newable5 are under-utilized and provide only 12% of generation in the EPA's rate- and mass-based compliance scenarios. We therefore deployed these higher potential 3 Energy scenarios levels of renewables in our fin�l two scen�r- ios to illuatrate how wind, solar anci other resources can help meet and exceed emis- The EPA developed state-specific emis- sion reduction goa15. sions t.ztirgets under the Clean Power Plan by first calcul�t�ing potential deployrnent The EPA scenarioe also include lower lev- levels for each of iY.s three sugge�sted forms els of anmial ��f�'i�i��ncy savin�s Yhan arc of exiiisaioxi reductioiis (coal plarit eifi- achievable and ra�rsip up these savings ciency, coal-to-NGCC switching, and re- slowly, so we include higher rates of ef- newa�bles growth) across the three grid in- ficiency to r•cHect full eleployrnciit of tliis Yerconnects—Ea5tern.West�ern and Texa�s. resource potential. In the HighRenewl The EPA then applied Yhe�e regional tar- scenario, we assitme a demand-side effi- gets to the resource mix in e�ach state. ciency 5a�vings of 1.3%� per year, and in Targete are given either as a reduction the HighR.enew2 scei�ario a� demand-5ide in the rate of emissioi�s (lbs COz�I�ZWh) PfficiPuc�• savin�s of 1.5% per year. Both or reduction in total mass of eniie�ions efficieiicy ratea ai•e reached }�y ratiipuig iip (5hort ton� COz). The EPA employed frotn present-dav savings by 0.5% per year ICF's Integrat�ed Pla�nning 1�iodel (IPI�I) beginning in 2020 (Figi.ire 1). The EPA re- to assess t�he lea�t-cost pat�hways and re- ports tha.t in 2013, 15 states had an a�nnual source mixes to comply under the rate- incremental efficiency savings of' greater Methane Leakage and the Clean Power Plan I 4 — Coal — Gas Oil — Biomass Solar Wind Hydro — Nuclear � 1 ) Fixed 2) Base � 3) Mass � � � S < � ^"— g � � o � � � � � � � � � o 0 2W5 2070 2015 20'10 2025 2030 20p5 2010 ZO15 2020 2025 2030 2(p5 2010 2015 2020 20�25 20,70 g 4) Rate g 5) HighRenewl g 6) HighRenew2 53 SS S� }{ S o ff �I a � � . . F o � . . L � . � . � � � 8 N N 8 C O 0 _ a o 0 zoos zoio zois zozo zoas xa+o zaos zo� o zo , s zczo zozs za+o 2aos zo�o 2ois �ozo zozs 2oao Figure 1 : Electricity generation resource mixes from 2005-2030 for six scenarios : 1 ) fixed resource mix; 2 ) EPA base case ; 3) EPA mass-based Clean Power Plan compliance case , 1 % efficiency ; 4) EPA rate- based Clean Power Plan compliance case , 1 % efficiency; 5 ) high renewable scenario using full EPA renewable resource potential and 1 . 3% efficiency; and 6 ) high renewable scenario using maximum EPA renewable resource growth rate beginning in 2020 , 3. 1 % rooftop solar by 2030 , and 1 . 5% efficiency. than 1 % , with a high of 2 `7o in R.hode the full renewable energy resource poten- Island , so these rates fa.11 in the ra�nge ti� l and assume that it displaces a mix of of historic demand-side efficiency s�,vings coa.l a.nd gas , ultimately reaching the same [15] . �Ve note that these levels of efI'i- proportion of coal generation to gas gen- ciency, while a�chievable, would require a eration as in the mass-b�sed compliance concerted effort to accelerate efficiency in case (although with a lower net level of regions that� have hist�orically lir�iited expe- foseil generation ) . Althoiigh the EPA cal- rience in this area; in the results section we cul� ted its regional targets by assuming will discuss the� impact of achieving only renewables displaced coal and gas in pro- the 1 % annual savings used h,y the EPA . portion to existing generation mixes , we � coiieider it unlikely that both fiiels wotild Iii adclitiari to efficiency, we iticlu�le a be displaced at the same rate given cttr- higher level of renewable energy in these rent electricity generation trends and pro- two Hi�hRPnPw scPnario, , with oiir fir�t jections that the Clea.n Power Plan is ex- case based on the full deploytnent of re- pected to reduce coal generation ; there- newa�ble energy ca.pa�city incli.tded in the fore we deem the EPA 's compliance case EPA building block calculations . The EPA to provide a� rea5onable ra.tio of coal to it�5elf ran a s�parate IP1�I model with full g�s under Clean Power Plan regi.ilations . deploymeriY of the potential renewable en- Tlie HigliR.etiewl sceii� i•io yielcls a firial ergy capa�city used to calculate state tar- resource r�iix of 21 . 7% renewable energy gets , but included lower efficiency savings . (e:ccluding hydropower ) in 2030 . We note In onr HighRenewl scenario, we deploy that some region5 , such as Califoriva, have Methane Leakage and the Clean Power Plan � 5 already- have surpaese�d this fracY,ion of in- deployment rate is still lower than pro- stztite renewable generation [16] , a.nd t�here- jected for the LT . S . Departmei7t of Energy 's fore these level5 ehottld be very achievable . SunShot Initiative [18] and is likely to prove conservative . We assume that these� In HighRenew2 , we inet�ead use the poten- resources primarily di5plac�e coal , which tia�l renewable energy growth rate assumed would re�quire a� targeted focus on reducing by the EPA , but aestime this growth be- coal generation on the grid. Overall, these gins in 2020 ra.ther than wa�iting tmtil �ffi�i�ncy and rencwahlc encr�y cleploy- 202 � . To c� lculate the renewable eriergy ments fall witYiin the scope of the EPA ' s resource potential , the EPA first calcu- estimates , but are simpl,y deployed on an lated the historic aver�tige and maximum accelera,t�ed timeline , rather than waiting annual renewable energy a�dditions from until 2024 to reach �iaxiiYium deployment ; 2010-2014 . They adde�d this average re- these le�vels have been historically demon- newable5 growth rztit.e to base projections strated and are at- a similar rate to recent beginning in 2022 , and this niaximum yeare . growth rate beginning in 202-� . For the HighRenew2 scenario, we �aaume this av- erage renewable energy growth rate con- tinues until 2020 , and thexi growth in- 4 R,eSllitS crea,ses to the niaximum historic annual growth rate for the years 2020-2030 . .In short , we assume the historic rnaximum �Ve a�nalyzed the einission reductione fior�i deployr7ient rate would be a�c�ueved agztiin our six energy resource scenarios ( fixed , in 2020 , rat�her tha.n delayed until 2024. base ca�se. mass-baeed complia.nce , rat�e- This approach yields a final renewable e�i- based compliance, HighRenewL HighRe- ergy fract,ion of 26 .3 % of utility-ecale gen- new2 ) compared to 2005 emissions using a eration . Unlike the IP1��I model we also in- metha�ne leakage range of 1-6% and com- clude the deployment of rooftop solar fol- paring both 100-year 3 �x and 20-year 86x lowing Lawrence Berkeley National Lab- global warming potentials for methane [7] . oratory reFerence estimates [17] , reach- In Figure 2 , we first present the CO�e ing 31 % of t�ota.l dema.nd in 2030 . This greenhouse gas emission reductions from Fixed Grid Mix Base Mass Rate High Re�ew i High Renew 2 Percent Change in Emissions (CO2-eq) Radiative Forcing (watts per meter squared) � � 0 � `8 � — . m . . . . . . . o . g __ � � \ o � o _ � 0 � � 2�05 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Figure 2 : Percent change in power sector COze greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels for all six scenarios using the EPA ' s 1 . 5% leakage estimate and a 100-year global warming potential for methane ; and the radiative forcing for each of these scenarios . Methane Leakage and the Clean Power Plan � 6 Fixed Base Mass i00% ioo� �00% � so� so% eo� eo^� ea^� �o% �o� �o% so% so� so% � � so% 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 203� 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 203 O� 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 � Rate HighRenewi HighRenew2 iooq �ao% ioo^s so� so� so% eo� eo% ea� �� o% �ox so�, soes so� � so% sox � � � � � � , � � � � 2005 2010 2075 2020 2025 2030 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2005 2010 2075 2020 2025 2030 Figure 3: COze emission reductions from the power sector from 2005 levels, showing 1-6% methane leakage range (blue line = 1.5%) and using a 100-year global warming potential for methane. the power sector for each of these sc�enarios also note that the base case alone is ex- using the EPA's 1.5% methane leakage es- pected to reduce COze emissions by 17.5% Y,i�late and typical 100-,year timeframe for by 2030 under a 1.5% leakage rate, so the global wa�rming potential, as well as the re- compliance scenarios are not much rliore sultant radiative Forcing from each of these aggressive than base projections. scenarios. The radiative forcing numbers follow the approach outlined in Hausfather In Figure 4, we show the emission reduc- (2015) [19]. The highest renewable en- tions for each scenario when taking into ergy scenario, under these assump- account a 20-year global warming poten- tions, achieves 61% reductions while tial for methane. Under these scenarios, the base case scenario achieves 17% the ernission reduction potential of rate- reductions from 2005 emission levels. �nd mass-based compliance scenarios is eignificantly erode�d uilless leakage is very In Figure 3, we show the impact of up- low. Using a 20-year global warm- etream methrtne lealcage Froin oil and gas ing potential, the rate- and mass- systems (1-6%) on greenhouse gas emis- based scenarios achieve only 21.7% sion reductions, calcttlated using a 100- and 22.8% COze emission reductions year methane global warrning potent,ial. from 2005 levels at 4% leakage, and The EPA estimate of 1.5% leakage is only 16.6% and 17.9% at 6% leak- shown with a blue line. While the r�te- age. However, the first retlewable energy and mass-based compliance cases achieve scenario achieves 32% emission reductions the 32% erriission reduction target un- under leakage rates below 5.4% ueing a der low lealcage, at 4% leakage these 20-year timeframe. The second renewable scenarios reduce emissions by only scenario ensures targets are surpassed un- 28.3% and 29.1%; with 6% leakage der all considered leakage rates. W hen these cases only reduce emissions by using a 20-,year global warming pot,ential, 25.6% and 26.5% respectively. Leak- lerzkage rates must be helow 0.7% for the age rates would have to be bel�w 1.��, for rate case and 0.9% for the mass case to the rate case and 1.8%for the ma�s5 case for achie�ve the 32% reduction target. the 32% reducY,ion target Y,o be achieved. The high renewable energy cases both eas- We also looked at the ee�nsitivity of a num- ily surpa�es enu55ion reduction t�a�rget5. We ber of the assumptions included in Y�hi5 Methane Leakage and the Clean Power Plan I 7 � Fixed Base Mass i00% i00% iao% so% so% so^6 eo�� so% eo% �o% �o% �o% so� so% so9s so� so�� so� � aoyy � ao�� , � ao96 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 20.90 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Rate HighRenewl HighRenew2 i00% i00% t00% so96 so% so% eo% eo% so� �ov �o i �o% so96 so9e so96 so% so�i so^6 � � � � � � � � � � 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Figure 4: COle emission reductions from the power sector from 2005 levels, showing 1-6% methane leakage range (blue line = 1.5%) and using a 20-year global warming potential for methane. analysis. If we a�ssume renewa�bles and ef- nent of reducing L.S. einissions of climate ficiency pi•imarily displace coal in Hi�hRe- pollut�tint�. However, the power 5ector ie newl, rather than a coal and gas mix, we unlikely to achieve the target green�louse find �n �ddition�l 7%o reduction in green- gas emission reductions of 32% of 2005 house gas emissions at low leakage rates levels by 2030 if states comply with the using a 100-year global warming poten- Clean Power Plati in alignment with EPA tial for methane; but less at high leakage projections, which aesume ai� increaee in rates and even less using a 20-year global natural gas generation from current lev- warming potential. Targeted displacement els, if the upstream methane leal:age rate of co�l provides the greatest greenhouse is in the range found in many recent� stud- �as en�iission rcdncYion5, bnt this cff��t is ies. This target shortfall i� largely due much le5s pronounced at higher leakage to historic coal-to-gas switching between rates and over shorter timeframes. �%e 2005 and 2013, which the EPA credite wit�h next compare the HighRenewl sce�naxio achieving nearly half of the target emissiari (with coal dieplacement) to a.scenario with redtictions. If upst�ream methane emis- 1% pe�r year deinand-side e�fFiciency sav- sions are higher t�han the 1.5% estimated iiias, ratlier tYiati 1.3%, and fiiicl erriissioii in the EPA greenhouse gas invei�itory, then redi_ictions a�re cut on the order of 3"10 per- the power sector h�s much further to go cent, varying with the timeframe and le�,k- to acti.tally a�chieve� these levels of emis- age rate. Even in this lower efficiency sion reductions. Furthermore, if we con- rate scenario, however, the Clean Power sider the 20-,year global warming pot�ential Plan's emission reduction targets can be of inethane. then any increase in methane exceeded at high leakage rates under a 100- leakage even more drama�tically erode5 crtil- year timeframe and moderate leakage rates culated emission reductione. under � 20-year t,imeframe. Regulatory e$'orts to curb metliane leak- age on the staY�e and federal level can help 5 �1SCUSSIOri minimize the risk of high leaka�ge ra�tes. btit� pur5uing energy tiiixes based on re- newables ancl efficienc�• can ensure that Cutting greenhouee gas emissions from GHG reductions are achieved with more � electricity generation is a critical cotripo- certainty, even if reducirig leakage prove5 Methane Leakage and the Clean Power Plan � 8 difficttlt. Furtherinore, iiidividtt�l states COritaCt �annot nPCPssaril,y p�u'sne efforts to rPdncP the bulk oF upstream metharie emis5ions, unless gas production is in-state. suggesY,- PSE FIealthy Energy ing that in m�,ny cases the best approach 436 14th St., Suite 808 for states to help reduce national upstream Oakland, CA 94612 methane emissions m�y be to reduce their info@psehealthyenergy.org reliance on natural gas. States are not re- quired t,o include upetream methane emis- sions when developing their Clean Power R,efereriCeS Plan ir�iplementation plans, but doing so would help ensure that their plans yield tYle gl'e�test }Jeriefits to t��1e Clllnat�e. [1] EPA, "Itrvcutory of U.S.greenhousc gas emis- Sions and sinke: 1990-2013," Tech. Rcp. F.PA ' 430.R-1�-004, U.S. Environinental Protcc- States ar� K�iv�il si��lificant flexibility in t;on A�E�n�y, April 2015. how they can comply witki the Clean [2] EPA, "Carbon po]lution cmission guidcline5 Power Plan. Those states th�t. hope to for existing stationary sourcee: Electric util- ilcllieve tlle greatest clirxlate berlefit call ity gonerat�ing unitti," Final Rule FR Vol. �lse the opportunit,y to pursue a�n electric- 8o No. 205, U.S. Environmcntal Protection ity resource mix that ensures real reduc- Agcncy, Augutit 2015. tione in greerihouse gas emission� rather [3] A. Brandt, G. Hcath, E. Kort, F. O'Sullivan, than a mix that i5 likely to fail to achieve G. Pctruu, S. Jordaau, P. Tan�. J. Wilcux, A.Gopstein, D.Arcnt, et o�l.. `1�Iethanc lcaks these targets when lifecycle er�iissions are fron� North A��<�ri�•an ndtural gas systcros," fully aCCOLinted fOr. We have ShOwn tWo Science,vol.3�k3.no.6172,pp.733-735.2014. �cenarios tha.t incorporate moder�te in- �4] S. NL Ivliller, S. C. Wofsy, A. ��L n�iichalak, crea,ses in efficiency ancl a hi�her reliancP E. A. Kort, A. E. Andrews. S. C. Biraud, on renewable energy, both based on al- E..T.Dlugokcncky,d.Eluszkiowscz,�I.I..F9e- ready achieved hisYoric cleployment rates cher,�G. .Ian55en5-�idenhout, et ol., -°Anthro- lri t�le U.S. T�1BSe SCeriaIIOS WOUICI d110W P�genic Cmissions of inet}lane in the Lnited States," PToceedings of the National Acade�ny the power sector to not only reach but ac- of Scie�ces,voL ll0,no.�0;pp.2U01�20022, tually surpass the 2030 emission targets, 2013. even when accounting for potentially high [5] G. Pecr�r,. A. Ka�;o,�, C. Sweer�ey, B. R. methane leakage rates. Rather than rely ��T�ll�r, S. A. niont�kd, G. .l. Frotit. on continued coal-to-gas switching, states �I. 1�ainPr. P. T�ns. A. AndrPw�. .I. IioflPr, c�n develop plans in line with t�lese sce- et al., "A new look at mothane and non- methane hydrocarbon emis5ion5 from oil n�rios and realize real reductiorie in green- a��d natural gas operxtio��s in the Colorado �lOllBe g��S eTT11SS10IIS fPOTTl t�le pOW2P S2CtOS Dcuvcr-Jtilcabtu'g Baain,'' Jour�,al of Geo- t0 �121p CUI'b CllIIlat�e C�18rige. ph�ysical Research.: At�aospheres, vol. 119, no. 11, pp. 683(i-6852, 201�1. [6] EPA, "Regulatory impact analyais for thc Cle�n PoR•er Plan final rule." Tech. Rep. EPA 452-R.-15-003, U.S. Environmcntal Pro- toction Agcncy, August 2015. .ACl{T1OWIeC1 eTT1eI1tS �7� G. Myln-e, D. ShindelL F. Breoii, W. Colliri�, g J. Fuglcstvcdt,.1. Huang, D. Koch,,I. Larriar- quc, D. Lcc, B. bicndoza, et ¢l.. "Anthro- pogenic and natural radiativc forcing," Cli- VIany thanks to Seth Shoilkoff. Renee ��ate �h.anqe, �ol. 423. 2ot3. Sttintot'o, anCl Da.isy Plstey-Lyhne �PSE [8] S.Schwietzke,�V. M.Griffin,H.S.l�fatthews, Healthy Energ,y) and Arvind Ravikumar dn� L. M. Bruhw�lor, -°Nat��r�l gas fugit;�c cinissione rates constrain��d by global atino- (SYa�nford University) for their helpful spheric mctha,�e and crh��c,'' Fn2��,�ro��nen- feedbd�Ck. C'over photograph by Seth tal Science F? Tech.n,olog�, vol. �S, no. 1�, Sllonkoff. pp. 7714-7722. 201 1. Methane Leakage and the Clean Power Plan � 9 [9] A. K�rion, C. 5weeney. G. Petron. G. Ftost, R. MicLael H�irdesty, J. Kufier, B. R. l�Iiller, T. Newberger, S. Wolter, R. Bant�, et al., '`h'Icthanc emiesions catimatc frorn airbornc mcasurements ovee a we5tern United States n�tural gas field," C.eoph,ysical Research Get- ters, voL 40, no. 16, pp. �393-4397, 2013. [10] O. Schneitiing. J. P. Burrows, R.. R.. Dickcr- son, �I. Bucliwitz, �I. Rcutcr,and H. Bovens- tnann, `'Remokc sensing of fugitive methane emis5ioris from oil �nd gaa production in North American tight gcologic formations," Earth.'s Fvtvre, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. �48-��i��H, 2014. [ll� D. T. Allen, V. NL Torros, J. Thomas, D. W. Sullivan, NL Harri5on, A. Hendlcr, 9. C. Ha•ndon,G.E.Iiolb,1�'f.P.Fraser,A. D.Hill, et al., "bleayurement5 of inethane cmis5ions at natural gas production aitea in the United Statos," Proceedi�g,s of the N¢tio�al Acade�rty of Sciences,vol.110,no.�4,pp. 1776ti-17773, 2013. [12� J. Pcischl, T. R.ycrson, I<. Aikiti, J. Gouw, J. Gilman, J. Holloway, B. Lcrner, R. �1ad- karni, .I. Ncuman, d. Nowak, et al., "C�uat�- tifying atmosphcric mc�thanc emissiona from the Ha,yne5villc, Faycttcville, and riorthea�t- ern 1��Iarcellus shale ga.ti prodttction regiona," Jour�al of Geophysical Research: .4trrzo- spheres, vol. 120, no. 5, pp. 2119-2139, 2015. [13] Thc White Housc, "Climatc Action Plan — Strategy to reduce methane emissions," tech. rep., The White House, Washington, DC, 2014. [l4] A. Brandt, G. Hcat.h, E. Kort, F. O'Sullivan, G. Petron, S. Jordaan, P. Tans, .J. Wilcox, A. Gopatein, D. Arent, et ��1., '`Supple- mc�tai�y daLa filc sl: l�ic�.hanc lrakti from iVorth Amcrican natural gati S,y5tems," Sr.i- e�ece, voL '343, no. 6172, pp. 733-735, 201�. [15] EPA, "Demaud-side energy efficiency techni- cal support document," tech. rep., U.S. Envi- ronmcmtal Protection Agency, Augu5t 2015. [16� EIA, "Elcctric powcr monthlv, with data for Dcccmbcr 2014," tcch. rcp., li.S. Energy Iriforrnation Admini5traYioii. Dcpartmcnt of Encrg,y, Washington, DC, 2015. [17] N. R.. Darghottth, R. H. Wiser, G. Barbose, and A. D. Mills, `Net metering and markct fecdback loope: Exploring thc impact of rctt�il ratc deaign on dititributed PV dcploym��nt.�� Ap�lied Energy, voL 162, pp. 713-722, 2016. [18] E.Drury.P.Dcnholm,and R..I��Iargolis, "Scn- sitivity of rooftop PV projections in tho Sun- Shot vision studp to market assumptions," Tech. Rcp. NREL�TP-6A20-54620. National Rericwablc Encrgy Laboratory, 2013. [19] Z. Hau5father, "Botmding thc climatc viabil- it�y of natural gas ati a bridgc fucl to dieplacc coal,' E�e�gy Policy, vol. 86, pp. 286-294, 20 L�. EXHIBIT Che I Hoffman � �/�� From: Michelle Martin Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 2:15 PM To: Esther Gesick Cc: Cheryl Hoffman Subject: FW: Solar Ordinance Hi Esther and Cheryl, Can you please include the below email in the file for ORD2015-27. Thank you. Michelle Martin Planning Manager 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin@co.weld.co.us<mailto:mmartin@co.weld.co.us> PHONE: (970) 353-6100 x 3540 FAX: (970) 304-6498 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Peter Parkinson [mailto:pparkinson@mysunshare.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 10:02 AM To: Michelle Martin <mmartin@co.weld.co.us> Subject: Solar Ordinance Hi Michelle, 1 I heard you had a long day yesterday and ended up continuing the hearing to May. Anyway, I wanted to put my comments we discussed in writing. In the definitions section, I think it would be prudent to define the Mega Watts as AC, as most utilities are interested in what is the output onto the system and DC can really vary based on technology. Also, the MW and the acreages don't match to what sort of acreage is needed for solar. Not sure this really matters, but I wanted to point it out. In B), we would like to see some detail on how the assurance would be calculated so we could in put it into the financial modeling. In C), we would like to see the screening limited to existing ROW and existing uses less intense uses, like residential. It doesn't seem to make sense to us to screen to cows and crops. That is what see in neighboring counties. In D), we feel the language is fairly vague and would like to see in detail what sort of analysis that the county wants the developer to provide. Visual impact, greater tax analysis, socioeconomic analysis, etc. In E), we would like to clarify that outdoor storage requirement does not include during construction. In G), we would like clarification that if the facility is built across several parcels, that this requirement does not force the layout to have 60' swaths internal to the project. Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions or need clarifications to my comments. Best Regards, Pete Parkinson � Project Manager of Development � SunShare 1441 18th Street,Suite 400 � Denver, CO 80202 2 (M) 303-503-1753 (O) 303-296-0919<te1:303-296-0919> (E) pparkinson@mysunshare.com <mailto:pparkinson@sunsharecorp.com> www.mysunshare.com <http://www.mysunshare.com/> <http://www.mysunshare.com/> PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL: This email (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us; and destroy all paper and electronic copies. 3 Cheryl Hoffman From : Michelle Martin Sent: Monday, April 25 , 2016 2 : 22 PM To : Esther Gesick ; Cheryl Hoffman Subject : FW : files Attachments : Comments regarding ORD2015-27 . pptx; NREL Report56290 . pdf Hi Cheryl and Esther, Can you please add the above attachments to ORD2015-27 . Thank you . Michelle Martin Planning Manager 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin@co . weld . ca . us PHONE : (970 ) 353 -6100 x 3540 FAX : ( 970 ) 304-6498 _ __ _ _ . .. _. .. � � '� � � � ' „_ ,3 S }{.kia �. '� � . y 'ay...+eY � �II�YKKpA �' �� L � :. ':.. . . .� 's1 � � i . •.�g . . P ��v �y di5�F�' t.�u. � �. _. . . . Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged , confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e- mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : Dave Kisker [ mailto : dave . kisker@gmail . com ] Sent : Monday, April 25, 2016 1 : 26 PM To : Michelle Martin < mmartin@co .weld . co . us> Subject : files Good afternoon, Michelle, Here is the short PPT that I used last week at the PC hearing. I actually gave the Asst. County Atty . a hard copy , so it may already be in the system. Also , I've included the NREL document that discusses the land use necessary for Solar installations . Some of the Commissioners indicated some interest in that . Sorry for the delay, and thanks for your help, Dave EXHIB � � 5- � ., ._ . � � _- �: � ,_. � � � , � � , �, i � , � , � _ , � , � , � , • �� i � , . , � � , � , . ��, �, .. � , , , t.r,:�t o #,� ,Xt�e r€ ° sy � � x� �<#"yt . g � ��y�� ` .� 3 *f 'L��et��TY�� %"x;^s�;. � �� t d a � + u ; .} y: , e . . .. i r l ./ � �re•�w' . � � C . . � � ' L � , � L � � � � O � � � � � �n � � c� � � .� � o � � — o — — � - � � a� . _ � � � a--� � � . � � � N N � � S � v c� � v� — � �' O � s p � — c� • — �-+ N � V �^ ' � � ' _ dJ � � � Q � i � v � . � � 1�1 � � 4� � � � � � x V L � — � � � � � — � — • — � � � +� � +�.+ O � _ � ' - �^ > N �' +-� - � � � � � � � N � � _ , _ � � Q '�,, � � s '� � �1 • �, � � � � � � � • - � - pC O . _ . _ � �..� � � � i �"' � � N v� c� — � O � � � � � � � � � N . � � � � � � � � � N � � � � � � � �' � c� � � � 4J �1 N S � Q � � � O � � i � c/� . _ — � � � � � � � � � � � � p .. � Q � aJ � . � - ' � � � � � Q' � � a--� O � . � > > � - � o � • � 0 u • — � c� � � — v �1 — v �- O s � � � oc . � Q c�s � � � - - , � � � � � �' . � � � V � — • — � . � � � � �' � � dJ � � � � � � • — cn . . � � � � ' _ � � ' — � � � . � � � ' � �` � � � c� — '�'�+ � � '� _ � � � � � �+� � � � � v � L � � � � v � V � � � � � � � � O O � � v . _ � � . � c� �—' � � — � � p � � �n a � � � � � ' � � O . � V v� � c� �, o �, � � ,� � �, > � � � i � O � aJ � � � � • � � � . N � � V� � . � � � � � m O Z = � N _ �. ;; � � °� I ; N � �f � � N y �1 X � � � I � � I.i .1 N V �y d }% � • ■ � �'`� ! � � ` ' a � .� • w o v � • . _ o ! c � o }' ._ � � � � _ oo ' � �n �� ' � ; � +r � I ' ♦ y � i � � �O a. ; r W v-i C i � � ; � o � t► a+ � ♦ � V t_O O . � Q � � O �' � U � 3 = � - Z c, � " N g ' •- o � . ! « •� � N � _ �. a � � � +• _ `� E ' � o A '' E � U �n � * � ,� �, � � � � � � ° °' J . - oo � � T � � �� . E � � a � + � � r ♦ � ♦ ; � ` � w ' � �� ; w ♦ � ii r ' y � 4J � � � i � � � N f� � y � 3 � � a� �� ` � -a � � � tv C � � ��' � �� r� a J � �/ U ~ — ; � ■ ��/► i, ws'� 'M•� � ' � ; � . . � � � • • , _ � Q � t� O i ' 00 �D d' N C] 00 �O � N O � � rLS � �� s-1 S-I r-I �-i �--I :� � V1 Z �MW/sa��tll asfl P ��'l I�;cl u- � � � ' O � � � � � �1 . _ c� i i — N � J � . � � l/� � � L � V � � � � . � V � O `� � C� . ' _ �— � � � v n a� `'�.' � � O . � N � . � � � � � l— i � -� 4- � � � � 0 � � � � �' � � � � a� O � �. � u � `� c� s � � � c� � � � u � = p O 4� � � — � � , _ a..r � � �—' Q — a� ' — Q � � � � � � � � � _ � s � � a� � � �- � . _ � s � o � � a� ., � � �, � }, . _ � Na o � �� • �, �, � U a--' c� a.., � . � � — � � � v� � s � � ' �, �0'� � O ), � +-� � - — � � � � � � � � N � � N � ' — � � � � � i • — � � '�'� � , _ . V �n � � � — � � c� � — �O Q a--+ � � � � � u �- � � p �• z � �n u � � � i � � C0 �. . _ o � c� o U �n � � � � � � i w � �"' � � M � 4� O I � � s � - s � -� � - � Q �' � z � Q. � a^ � . � N c� s � � � s = s � � � � � � � � � � � �-' � • - - �' oC O � � � . _ v� p � � V � � � • — c� • — � � � � � 4— �, � � c� ' _ � � � � i S � � � � _ — � � � � � � � — � L. — � � p . _ � � i c� � � � � _ � � � � `� � � _ ,� � � � � � O � c� — — o � � � � � � � � � a� � � v� � - � a� � � � � � � � � p � � � � � � L• � N v O 4J cn � � � � � O � .� � � � � � � : _ � � � p � � . v_� — � � c� � O — — �-' O ��' O � °n °� � � �' N � � - �' � 4� � o . _ � � o � � � � � o � s ' � 4J � � � � � � � � � � S 0 a- '— � . � Z (/� l/� �..r � o 0 � • • • � f • • .. . . _ _ .. . . � .. . . . :. ..: . ._ .y;.: . . � . . . . . : . . . .. . . . . .. . : � .. ... . _ . , � b r '� � $ ��.�µ '.� . f B Nix.� l . T n � � � • � � . . � y \ �� ry -N � }}� . ,� . . � ♦ ' �e p n{"* qw -. }� yT/q ..� , .,-, i .�� Y� 4^��M�j •� ' Y �a. .. � � ,� ' �� . � ' �� . f � '' p , m � . . . y� .WV T. �. iY�wY. I � rN ♦ i' � ' M� V M . � � � l . • � � � � dT + ` I i � • ♦ r �I.—!^—�//� / � 3�e.. � � 1 . . ��i� •/ ,' / /, � � * ..� i �. m W��n ♦ � a � ♦.} ..t MVH a � . �s`'j �AY. � ♦ I � ' � � �k � � }� . % � f� � '�s�F`� .q,� �� ry .. . _ ��y � �� r , '�" � •� . ,', � tM . , . � 3��yµR�y�t��tt��r��a , . ,� -�ra ,. e�+.x. � � � � �y.�+ �� /� � �� y 'F � � ti �Y � . Ye �i . 3��:k. 4idt{ � . w� . . I r � � � � � � r� � , i y �4 � t � r. . - � � ` ,� �� . _ � ,�'� _ _ � � / • i � ��-_ . � . rv� : - il� .� � � .� • - x .. Land - Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States Sean Ong , Clinton Campbell , Paul Denholm , Robert Margolis , and Garvin Heath NREL is a national laboratory of the U .S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency 8 Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC . This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications . Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-56290 June 2013 Contract No . DE-AC36-08GO28308 �j�� 1� ll ��e�� NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY Land - Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the U n ited States Sean Ong , Clinton Campbell , Paul Denholm , Robert Margolis , and Garvin Heath Prepared under Task Nos . SS12 . 2230 and SS13 . 1040 NREL is a national labo�atory of the U .S . Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency 8� Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technica ) Report 15013 Denver West Parkway NREL/TP-6A20-56290 Golden , CO 80401 June 2013 303-275-3000 • www. nrel. gov Contract No . DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE � This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees , makes any warranty , express or implied , or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy , completeness , or usefulness of any information , apparatus , product, or process disclosed , or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights . Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation , or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications. Available electronically at httq://www. osti . gov/bridqe Available for a processing fee to U . S . Department of Energy and its contractors , in paper, from : U . S . Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P . O . Box 62 Oak Ridge , TN 37831 -0062 phone : 865 . 576 . 8401 fax: 865 . 576 . 5728 email : mailto: reportsCc�adonis. osti . gov Available for sale to the public , in paper, from : U . S . Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield , VA 22161 phone: 800 . 553 . 6847 fax: 703 . 605 . 6900 email : orders(a� ntis. fedworld . gov online ordering : http ://www. ntis. qov/help/ordermethods . aspx Cover Photos: Qeft to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721 . I: �� Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste . Acknowledgments This work was made possible by the Solar Energy Technologies Program at the U . S . Department of Energy ( DOE) . The authors wish to thank Billy Roberts, Jarett Zuboy , Trieu Mai , Nate Blair, Robin Newmark, Margaret Mann, Craig Turchi , Mark Mehos, and Jim Leyshon of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL ) for contributing to and reviewing various versions of the document, as well as Karen Smith, Rob Horner, Corrie Clark of Argonne National Laboratory far their thoughtful reviews . The authors also thank Mary Lukkonen of NREL ' s Communications Office for a thorough technical edit of the document. This report is available at no cost from the . . . National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) 111 at www. nrel . gov/publications Executive Summary By the third quarter of 2012 , the United States had deployed more than 2 . 1 gigawatts (GWac � ) of utility-scale solar generation capacity , with 4 . 6 GWac under construction as of August 2012 ( SEIA 2012) . Continued growth is anticipated owing to state renewable portfolio standards and decreasing system costs ( DOE 2012a) . One concern regarding large-scale deployment of solar energy is its potentially significant land use . Efforts have been made to understand solar land use estimates from the literature (Horner and Clark 2013 ) ; however, we were unable to find a comprehensive evaluation of solar land use requirements from the research literature . This report provides data and analysis of the land use associated with U . S . utility-scaleZ ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) facilities . After discussing solar land-use metrics and our data-collection and analysis methods, we present total and direct land- use results for various solar technologies and system configurations, on both a capacity and an electricity -generation basis . The total area corresponds to all land enclosed by the site boundary . The direct area comprises land directly occupied by solar arrays, access roads, substations, service buildings, and other infrastructure . We quantify and summarize the area impacted, recognizing that the quality and duration of the impact must be evaluated on a case-by- case basis . As of the third quarter of 2012 , the solar projects we analyze represent 72% of installed and under-construction utility-scale PV and CSP capacity in the United States . Table ES - 1 summarizes our land- use results . � All capacity-based land- use intensity figures in this study are expressed in terms of MWac or GWac. This is to maintain consistency within the paper because CSP power plants are rated in terms of MWac . The conversion factor between dc-rating and ac-rating is discussed in Section 3 . '` We define utility-scale as greater than I MWdc for PV plants and greater than 1 MWac for CSP plants . This report is available at no cost from the . National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) lv at www. nrel . gov/publications Table ES-1 . Summary of Land-Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United States . ,. _ ` Technol�JV Direct Area Total Area y iFv,: /�� q s.v:.. f... VJ .<' . .. .. . Capacity- Generation- Capacity- Generation- weighted �,�,eighted average Weighted Weighted average average land land use average land land use (acres/MWac) �acres/GWh/yr) �acres/MWac) (acres/GWh/yr) Small PV (>1 MW, <20 MVI� 5 . 9 3 . 1 8 . 3 4 . 1 Fixed 5 . 5 3 . 2 7 . 6 4 .4 1 -axis 6 . 3 2 . 9 8 . 7 3 . 8 2-axis flat panel 9 . 4 4 . 1 13 5 . 5 2-axis CPV 6 . 9 2 . 3 9 . 1 3 . 1 Large PV (>20 MVV) 7 . 2 3 . 1 7 . 9 3 .4 Fixed 5 . 8 2 . 8 7. 5 3 . 7 1 -axis 9 . 0 3 . 5 8 . 3 3 . 3 , i 2-axis CPV 6 . 1 2 . 0 8 . 1 2 . 8 � �,� CSP 7 . 7 2 . 7 10 3 . 5 Parabolic trough 6 . 2 2 . 5 9 . 5 3 . 9 Tower 8 . 9 2 . 8 10 3 . 2 Dish Stirling 2 . 8 1 . 5 10 5 . 3 Linear Fresnel 2 . 0 1 . 7 4 . 7 4 . 0 We found total land-use requirements for solar power plants to have a wide range across technologies . Generation-weighted averages for total area requirements range from about 3 acres/GWh/yr for CSP towers and CPV installations to 5 . 5 acres/GWh/yr for small 2 -axis flat panel PV power plants . Across all solar technologies, the total area generation-weighted average is 3 . 5 acres/GWh/yr with 40% of power plants within 3 and 4 acres/GWh/yr. For direct-area requirements the generation-weighted average is 2 . 9 acres/GWh/yr, with 49% of power plants within 2 . 5 and 3 . 5 acres/GWh/yr. On a capacity basis, the total-area capacity-weighted average is 8 . 9 acres/MWac, with 22% of power plants within 8 and 10 acres/MWac . For direct land-use requirements, the capacity-weighted average is 73 acre/MWac , with 40% of power plants within 6 and 8 acres/MWac . Other published estimates of solar direct land use generally fall within these ranges . Both capacity- and generation-based solar land-use requirements have wide and often skewed distributions that are not well captured when reporting average or median values. Some solar categories have relatively small samples sizes, and the highest-quality data are not available for all solar projects; both of these factors must be considered when interpreting the robustness of reported results. Owing to the rapid evolution of solar technologies, as well as land-use practices and regulations, the results reported here reflect past performance and not necessarily future trends . Future analyses could include evaluating the quality and duration of solar land-use impacts and using larger sample sizes and additional data elements to enable a thorough investigation of additional land-use factors . This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) � at www. nrel . gov/publications Table of Contents 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Solar Power Plant Land -Use Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 Solar Land-Use Data and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 . 1 Summary Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 . 2 PV Land- Use Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 .2 . 1 Evaluation of PV Packing Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 . 2 . 2 Impact of Location and Tracking Configuration on PV Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4 . 3 CSP Land- Use Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 20 Appendix A. CSP Solar Multiple Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 AppendixB . PV Projects Evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Appendix C . CSP Projects Evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Appendix D . Impact of PV System Size and Module Efficiency on Land -Use Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Appendix E . Impact of CSP System Size and Storage on Land -Use Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) vi at www. nrel . gov/publications List of Figures Figure 1 . NREL mesa top PV system—example of direct and total land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 2 . Map of PV and CSP installations evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 3 . Distribution of solar land- use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum values, box indicates 75'�' (top of box) and 25 `�' (bottom of box) percentile estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 4 . Distribution of generation- based solar land-use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum values, box indicates 75 `�' (top of box) and 25 `h (bottom of box) percentile estimates . Blue dot represents eSolar' s Sierra Sun Tower ( 10 acres/GWh/yr), separated for clarity (but not considered an outlier) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 5 . Distribution of small PV land- use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum values, box indicates 75 `h (top of box) and 25`h (bottom of box) percentile estimates . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Figure 6 . Distribution of large PV land- use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum values, box indicates 75 `" (top of box) and 25 `�' (bottom of box) percentile estimates . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 7 . Capacity-weighted average packing factor for PV projects evaluated—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum values, box indicates 75`" (top of box) and 25 `�' (bottom of box) percentileestimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Eigure 8 . Modeled data showing relationship between CSP thermal storage and land-use intensity . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure D- l . Total-area requirements for small PV installations as a function of PV plant size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure D-2 . Total -area requirements for large PV installations as a function of PV plant size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure D-3 . Capacity - based direct-area land- use requirements for all PV systems as a function of moduleefficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure D-4 . Generation-based direct-area land-use requirements for all PV systems as a function of moduleefficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure E- 1 . Total-area requirements for CSP installations as a function of plant size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure E-2 . Direct-area requirements for CSP installations as a function of plant size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure E-3 . Total generation-based area requirements for CSP installations as a function of storagehours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure E-4 . Total capacity-based area requirements for CSP installations as a function of storage hours . 39 List of Tables Table ES- 1 . Summary of Land-Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Table 1 . Summary of Data Categories Used for PV and CSP Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 2 . Summary of Collected Solar Power Plant Data (as of August 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 3 . Total Land- Use Requirements by PV Tracking Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 4 . Direct Land- Use Requirements by PV Tracking Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 5 . Impacts of 1 -Axis Tracking on Land- Use Intensity Compared With Fixed-Axis Mounting . . . . . . . 14 Table 6. Total Land- Use Requirements by CSP Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 7 . Direct Land- Use Requirements by CSP Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 8 . Summary of Direct Land- Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United States . . . . . . . 18 Table 9 . Summary of Total Land-Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United States . . . . . . . . . 19 Table A- 1 . CSP Solar Multiple Ranges and Corresponding Estimated Annual Generation Values . . . . . . . . . . 22 TableB- l . PV Land- Use Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table C- l . Concentrating Solar Power Land- Use Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 This report is available at no cost from the . . National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) vll at www. nrel . gov/publications 1 Introduction By the third quarter of 2012, the United States had deployed more than 2 . 1 gigawatts (GWac3 ) of utility -scale solar generation capacity, with 4 . 6 GWac under construction as of August 2012 (SEIA 2012) . Continued growth is anticipated owing to state renewable portfolio standards and decreasing system costs (DOE 2012a) . One concern regarding large- scale deployment of solar energy is its potentially significant land use . Estimates of land use in the existing literature are often based on simplified assumptions, including power plant configurations that do not reflect actual development practices to date . Land- use descriptions for many projects are available from various permitting agencies and other public sources, but we were unable to locate a single source that compiles or summarizes these datasets . The existing data and analyses limit the effective quantification of land-use impacts far existing and future solar energy generation, particularly compared with other electricity-generation technologies . This report provides data and analysis of the land use associated with U . S . utility-scale ground- mounted photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) facilities, defined as installations with capacities greater than 1 MW. The next section ( Section 2) discusses standard land-use metrics and their applicability to solar power plants. We identify two major classes of solar plant land use—direct impact (disturbed land due to physical infrastructure development) and total area (all land enclosed by the site boundary)—by which we categorize subsequent results . Section 3 describes our solar land-use data collection and analysis methods . We derived datasets from project applications, environmental impact statements, and other sources and used them to analyze land use based on the capacity and generation of solar plants . Section 4 presents our results. In addition to summarizing PV and CSP land use, we examine relationships among land use, plant configuration, location, and technology . Finally, in Section 5 , we identify limitations to the existing solar land-use datasets and suggest additional analyses that could aid in evaluating land use and impacts associated with the deployment of solar energy . Appendices include tables of our solar project data as well as mare detailed analyses of specific land- use relationships . 3 All capacity-based land-use intensity figures in this study are expressed in terms of MWac or GWac. This is to maintain consistency within the paper because CSP power plants are rated in terms of MWac. The conversion factor between dc-rating and ac-rating is discussed in Section 3 . This report is available at no cost from the 1 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications 2 Solar Power Plant Land - Use Metrics There are many existing and proposed metrics for evaluating land-use impacts . Recent methods for quantifying land use include evaluating the direct and indirect life-cycle use (Fthenakis and Kim 2009) and assessing temporary and permanent land-area requirements (Denholm et al . 2009) . While there is no single, generally accepted methodology (Canals et al . 2007), at least three general categories are used to evaluate land-use impacts : ( 1 ) the area impacted, (2) the duration of the impact, and ( 3 ) the quality of the impact (Koellner and Scholz 2008) . The quality of the impact (also called the "damage function") evaluates the initial state of the land impacted and the final state across a variety of factors, including soil quality and overall ecosystem quality (Koellner and Scholz 2008 ) . This report closely follows the methodology outlined in a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL ) U . S . wind power land-use study (Denholm et al . 2009) . We quantify and summarize the area impacted, recognizing that the quality and duration of the impact must be evaluated on a case-by -case basis . We consider two land-use metrics. The first is the total area, which corresponds to all land enclosed by the site boundary . The perimeter of this area is usually specified in blueprint drawings and typically fenced or protected. The second metric is the direct- impact area, which comprises land directly occupied by solar arrays, access roads, substations, service buildings, and other infrastructure . The direct-impact area is smaller than the total area and is contained within the total-area boundaries . Figure 1 illustrates the two types of areas, with the total area shaded yellow and the direct-impact area shaded orange . This report is available at no cost from the 2 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications /�r� \ \ f / � � , t . , - / i � ' a ' ' , / . _ - .'�".�F . . . .. ' . . . � _ . . j . �,I i ' � r � r � , �.� . . � � � . ' . �� 1 .. . . _ . / ' . ! f ;, � . . '�,,� � � - . �._` ' �-._�. . \ _��\ . t � � � e � � . '. y ; , � ! � , // � ` _ _ _ � _ _^ ` � ,� , j, �I 1 � � j ; - : ' f � � ; ; , j r , � _ � ,, , ; r_ _,:�.,_ ; _j S , . - , i i { � � � � � � Total Land Area � f , � ; � ' � Direct Land Area � � __ _ _ __ � -" . _ � � � - � � ,_ _ Figure 1 . NREL mesa top PV system�xample of direct and total land use' `' Access roads, infrastructure, and other direct impact areas are not shown in Figure I . This report is available at no cost from the 3 ' National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications 3 Solar Land - Use Data and Methodology We collected PV and CSP land-use data from four categories of sources , in the following prioritized order. First, where available, we collected official project data from federal , state , or local regulatory agencies, including environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, and project applications to regulatory bodies . These sources typically contain detailed project information, but their availability is highly dependent on federal, state, and local regulations as some states require very detailed environmental assessments, while others require little land- use analysis. Second, we collected project fact sheets, news releases, and other data provided by the project owner or developer. Data from these sources were used when additional information was needed and not found in regulatory documents . When no other source of data could be located, we used news articles, websites unaffiliated with the developer/owner or regulatory bodies, and other secondary sources . Finally, when official project drawings were unavailable or documents did not include information necessary to estimate total and direct land area, we analyzed satellite images to identify plant configuration, direct land use, and project- area boundaries. Table 1 shows the proportion of data source categories used for each technology and also indicates the percentage of sites where satellite imagery was analyzed in addition to the documents collected . Table 1 . Summary of Data Categories Used for PV and CSP Plants5 Official Developer Third -Party Percent of Projects Technology Documents Documents Sources That Required (°/a) (%) (%) Satellite Imagery PV 18 % 36 % 46 % 40% ___� _ � CSP -�_ 44% � 28% 28% 40% For PV, we used these datasets to analyze the relationship between land-use intensity (defined as land use per unit of capacity or generation) and stated PV module efficiency , array configuration, and tracking type . For CSP, we analyzed the land-use intensity of several different technologies . For PV and CSP, we limited the analysis to systems larger than 1 MW in capacity . We classified systems smaller than 20 MW as "small" and those larger than 20 MW as "large . " We quantified land-use requirements on a capacity (area/MWac) and a generation (arealGWh/yrb) basis . Capacity-based results are useful for estimating land area and costs for new projects because power plants are often rated in terms of capacity . The generation basis provides a more consistent comparison between technologies that differ in capacity factor and enables evaluation of land-use impacts that vary by solar resource differences, tracking configurations, and technology and storage options . Most of the data collected for this analysis included the reported capacity of power plants but not annual generation . Because capacity- I based land-use requirements are based on reported data, the capacity -based results are expected � to have less uncertainty than the generation-based results . S Percentages add up to over 100% because power plants evaluated with satellite imagery also required additional data sources to determine solar plant characteristics. 6 Generation results are reported in area/(GWh per year) which we display as area/GWh/yr. This report is available at no cost from the 4 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications We simulated PV and CSP electricity generation using the System Advisor Model (SAM ; Gilman and Dobos 2012) . When available, we used project-specific inputs, such as location, array configuration, derate factor, and tracking technology . When project- specific inputs were unavailable , we used SAM default assumptions (e . g. , if the tilt angle for fixed-tilt PV was unknown, we used SAM ' s latitude-tilt default assumption) . The PV derate factor � was determined by dividing the AC reported capacity by the DC reported capacity for each project. The weighted-average derate factor (0 . 85 ) was used for projects that did not report both AC and DC capacity . All capacity-based land-use intensity figures in this study are expressed in terms of MWac . For CSP projects, a range of solar multipleg values was used to simulate annual generation output (see Appendix A for CSP solar multiple assumptions) . Hourly solar resource and weather data for all projects were obtained from the NREL Solar Prospector tool9 for each project ' s latitude and longitude . Each power plant was assigned to a cell within the National Solar Radiation Database ( Wilcox 2007) equal in area to 0 . 1 degrees in latitude and longitude (approximately equal to a 10 km x 10 km square) (Perez et al . 2002 ) . PV and CSP projects were simulated with typical direct-radiation-year weather data1 ° (NREL 2012 ) . ' The derate factor is used to determine the AC power rating at Standard Test Conditions (STC ). The overall DC to AC derate factor accounts for losses from the DC nameplate power rating . We do not calculate the derate factor from component losses, but rather estimate the derate factor from the reported AC and DC power rating at each plant. For a discussion on derate factors, see http ://rredc.nrel . gov/solar/calculators/pvwatts/versionl /change.hhnl#derate (accessed April 2013 ). 8 The solar multiple is the CSP field aperture area expressed as a multiple of the aperture area required to operate the power cycle at its design capacity (NREL 2012) . 9 The Solar Prospector is a mapping and analysis tool designed to provide access to geospatial data relevant to the solar industry . For more information, visit http ://maps . nrel . �ov/prospector (accessed May 2013 ). 1 ° For consistency, PV and CSP data were both simulated using typical direct-radiation-year (TDY) weather data. Normally, CSP power plants are simulated using TDY data and PV power plants are simulated using typical meteorological year (TMY) data. This report is available at no cost from the 5 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications 4 Res u Its We obtained land-use data for 166 projects completed or under construction (as of August 2012), representing 4 . 8 GWac of capacity , and 51 proposed projects, representing approximately 8 GWac of capacity (Table 2) . Table 2 . Summary of Collected Solar Power Plant Data (as of August 2012 ) Small PV ( <20 MV� Large PV ( >20 M1/� CSP Projects Capacity Projects Capacity projects Capacity MWac MWac MWac Completed 103 413 10 256 9 508 Under construction 17 165 20 1 , 846 7 1 , 610 Proposed 6 70 36 6 , 376 9 1 , 570 Total 126 762 66 9 ,961 25 3,688 We collected data on 4 . 8 GWac ( 72 % ) of the 6 . 7 GWac of completed or under-construction U . S . utility-scale solar capacity reported by SEIA (SEIA 2012) . Figure 2 maps the solar projects evaluated. Appendix B and Appendix C detail all the projects and data sources . There are over 24 GWac of PV and CSP proposed (under development but not under construction) as of August 2012 � � ( SEIA 2012) , and the results reported in this study must be taken in light of a rapidly growing installed base . The results reported in this study reflect past performance and not necessarily future trends . For example, many of the largest PV systems currently proposed consist primarily of thin-film technology on fixed-tilt arrays, which may have different land use requirements than the results presented in this study . � � As of February 2013 , there are 26 GWac of PV and CSP proposed (SEIA 2013 ) . This report is available at no cost from the 6 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications WA B ME MT NO OR Mry ID TNH SD WI NY � n�� WY M� Rt � • C7 fA � CA N1 NV f�' �' . OH ,� � UT � � k. � � � � � DE � ,= CC� WV �� 'ND � '� '% Pm1i3 KY � � • � .. . �- 'J„7 C � � AZ �� c�K � TN � � � � AR SC � dV M � � MS AL GA • � � TX LA • � FL • • � � Nf � Pnotovolwic � Concenhating Solar Figure 2. Map of PV and CSP installations evaluated 4 . 1 Summary Results Figure 3 summarizes capacity-based total and direct land-use results for small and large utility- scale PV and CSP projects . Direct land-use requirements for small and large PV installations range from 2 .2 to 12 .2 acres/MWac , with a capacity-weighted average of 6 . 9 acres/MWac . Direct land-use intensity for CSP installations ranges from 2 . 0 to 13 . 9 acres/MWac , with a capacity-weighted average of 7 . 7 acres/MWac . Figure 4 shows generation-based total and direct land-use results . Direct land-use requirements for PV installations range from 1 . 6 to 5 . 8 acres/GWh/yr, with a generation-weighted average of 3 . 1 acres/GWh/yr. Direct land-use intensity for CSP installations ranges from 1 . 5 to 5 . 3 acres/GWh/yr, with a generation-weighted average of 2 . 7 acres/GWh/yr. Solar direct land- use estimates in the literature generally fall within these ranges but are often smaller than the PV capacity-weighted averages we report and on par or larger for CSP capacity- weighted averages we report . Hand et aL (2012 ) estimate 4 . 9 acres/MWac for PV and 8 . 0 acres/MWac for CSP . Denholm and Margolis (2008 ) estimate 3 . 8 acres/MWac for fixed-tilt PV systems and 5 . 1 acres/MWac for 1 -axis tracking PV systems . Our results indicate 5 . 5 acres/MWac for fixed-tilt PV and 6 . 3 acres/MWac for 1 -axis tracking PV (capacity-weighted average direct land- use requirements for systems under 20 MW; see Table 4 in Section 4 . 2) . Horner and Clark (2013 ) report 3 . 8 acres/GWh/yr for PV and 2 . 5 acres/GWh/yr for CSP . Fthenakis and Kim (2009) estimate 4 . 1 acres/GWh/yr for CSP troughs and 2 . 7 acres/GWh/yr for This report is available at no cost from the ,� National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications CSP towers . Our results indicate 2 . 3 acres/GWh/yr for CSP troughs and 2 . 8 acres/GWh/yr for CSP towers (see Table 7 in Section 4. 3 ) . � � 30 25 � � , 3 � � � _ Capacity Q 15 — Weighted .... Average a� N � 10 < � ' — Median c ; J 5 , 1 0 � _ _ __ _ _ _. ___. _ _ Tota� Direct Total Direct Total Direct Small PV Large PV CSP _- -- � - --- - - _ -_.. �. - ---- - Sample Size 115 92 32 15 25 18 ---- - . �. ---- - _ _ _ _ Cap. Weighted Avg. 8 . 3 5.9 7 .9 ; 7.2 10 7J - +- - _ , ----- -- + _ -'- ----- - = _ _.._-- ---� Median 8. 2 6A ' 8. 5 73 10 6.9 ' Figure 3 . Distribution of solar land-use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum values, box indicates 75th (top of box) and 25"' ( bottom of box) percentile estimates � '` Comparisons of generation-based land use results should be taken in light of the fact that annual generation (GWh) varies with solar resource ( location) . For example, generation-based results determined from solar power plants in a specific location may differ from results presented in this study, which includes solar plants from a variety of locations throughout the United States. This report is available at no cost from the g National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications 12 r { � � �. 10 + s t ' � 8 � v � u 6 a Generation � � ; Weighted � 4 .a Average c � J � Median � T Total IT Direct I Total Direct � Total Direct ; ; Small PV Large PV � CSP , ----� � Sample Size ' 115 92 32 ; 15 I 25 ' 18 -- _ _ _ � _ _ _ - � - -__ Gen . Wei hted Av -t- --* --._ _ -}— --- g g 4. 1 3 . 1 3 .4 ' 3. 1 3 . 5 2. 7 , , _ --- M edia n 4 . 0 2 . 9 3 . 8 3 . 2 3 . 7 2 . 8 Figure 4. Distribution of generation -based solar land -use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum values , box indicates 75`h (top of box) and 25�h ( bottom of box) percentile estimates . Blue dot represents eSolar's Sierra Sun Tower ( 10 acres/GWh/yr� , separated for clarity ( but not considered an outlier) 4 . 2 PV Land - Use Results Table 3 and Table 4 summarize PV land requirements by tracking type for total and direct area, respectively . Total-area data were available for all systems evaluated ; however, direct-area data were only available for a subset of these systems . Fixed-tilt and 1 -axis PV systems account for a majority (96%) of projects evaluated . On average, fixed-tilt systems use 13 % less land than 1 -axis tracking on a capacity basis but use 15 % more land on a generation basis . This difference is due to increased generation resulting from tracking technologies . One-axis tracking systems can increase PV generation 12%-25 % relative to fixed-tilt systems, and 2-axis tracking systems can increase PV generation by 30%-45 % ( Drury et al . 2012 ) . We evaluated ten 2-axis PV plants : four flat panel (non- concentrating) projects and six concentrating PV (CPV) projects . Two-axis, flat panel systems appear to use more land than fixed and 1 -axis plants on a capacity and generation basis, but general conclusions should not be drawn until the sample size is increased. This report is available at no cost from the 9 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications Table 3 . Total Land -Use Requirements by PV Tracking Type " Total Area Capacity-weighted Generation - Tracking Type projects Capacity average area weighted average ( MWac) requirements area requirements (acres/MWac) (acres/GWhlyr) Small PV ( less than 20 MW) Fixed 52 231 7 . 6 4 . 4 1 -axis 55 306 8 . 7 3 . 8 2-axis flat panel 4 5 13 5 . 5 2-axis CPV 4 7 9 . 1 3 . 1 Large PV (greater than 20 MV� Fixed 14 1 , 756 7 . 5 3 . 7 1 -axis 16 1 , 637 8 . 3 3 . 3 2 -axis CPV 2 158 8 . 1 2 . 8 Table 4. Direct Land-Use Requirements by PV Tracking Type14 Direct Area Capacity-weighted Generation- Tracking Type projects Capacity average area weighted average (MWac) requirements area requirements (acres/MWac) (acres/GWh/yr) Small PV ( less than 20 MW) Fixed 43 194 5 . 5 3 . 2 1 -axis 41 168 6 . 3 2 . 9 2-axis flat panel 4 5 9 .4 4 . 1 2-axis CPV 4 7 6 . 9 2 . 3 Large PV (greater than 20 MV� Fixed 7 744 5 . 8 2 . 8 1 -axis 7 630 9 . 0 3 . 5 2-axis CPV 1 31 6 . 1 2 . 0 Figure 5 shows the capacity -based total and direct land-use requirement distributions for PV plants smaller than 20 MW . Direct land-use requirements for fixed-tilt PV installations range from 2 . 2 to 8 . 0 acres/MWac, with a capacity -weighted average of 5 . 5 acres/MWac . Direct land- use requirements for 1 -axis tracking PV installations range from 4 . 2 to 10 . 6 acres/MWac, with a capacity-weighted average of 6 . 3 acres/MWac . Figure 6 shows the capacity-based total and 13 Forty-two proposed projects representing 5 ,842 MWac could not be categorized by tracking type owing to insufficient information . These projects are not represented in this table. ' a Forty-two proposed projects representing 5 ,842 MWac could not be categorized by tracking type due to insufficient information . These projects are not represented in this table. This report is available at no cost from the 10 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications direct land- use requirement distributions for PV plants larger than 20 MW . Relatively large deviations between the median and weighted average values are due to a few very large PV installations (over 100 MW) contributing heavily to weighted average results . We found that PV system size appears to have no significant impact on land-use requirements per unit of capacity (see Appendix D) . We also evaluated the impacts of efficiency on land-use intensity . We would expect land-use intensity to decrease with increasing module efficiencies, but we observed no significant trends between land-use intensity and module efficiency for small and large PV systems (see Appendix D) . Variations in land- use intensity that remain after isolating for module efficiency and tracking type are not clearly understood. One source of variability could be the large range of packing factors described in the next section. .-. 14 3 iz � � io �, g Capacity Q Weighted � 6 �, Average ? 4 � 2 ` Median c _'� 0 . Total Direct Total �irect Fixed Axis ( < 20 MW ) 1 -Axis ( < 20 MW� Sample Size 52 43 55 41 Cap . Weighted Avg . 7 . 6 S . S 8 . 7 6 . 3 Median 7 . 1 5 . 1 8 . 7 6 . 5 Figure 5. Distribution of small PV land -use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum values , box indicates 75�h (top of box) and 25th ( bottom of box) percentile estimates This report is available at no cost from the 11 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at vwvw. nrel . gov/publications ., 14 _ _ _._._.--- __.__. .,.__ _ _.___.. ^-- 3 12 � 10 � Capacity Q 6 � Weighted � Average N Q _._ � � � 2 Median c ev Q . J Total Direct Total Direct ' Fixed Axis ( > 20 MW ) 1 -Axis ( > 20 MW ) Sampie Size 14 7 16 7 Cap . Weighted Avg . 7 . 5 5 . 8 8. 3 9 .0 Medi � n 8 . 4 7 . 0 8 . 7 7J Figure 6. Distribution of large PV land-use requirements—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum values, box indicates 75th (top of box) and 25th ( bottom of box) percentile estimates 4. 2. 1 Evaluation of PV Packing Factors We evaluated array spacing for various PV tracking technologies . The area between arrays is quantified using the packing factor metric , which is the ratio of array area to actual land area for a system15 (DOE 2012b) . Figure 7 shows the average packing factor for each tracking technology evaluated. An evaluation of system packing factors shows that there is large variability in array spacing . Packing factors range from 13 % (Prescott Airport CPV , Arizona) to 92% (Canton Landfill Solar Project, Massachusetts ) . Fixed-tilt systems have a capacity-weighted average packing factor of 47% , followed by 1 -axis systems with 34% and 2 -axis systems with 25 % . Packing factor estimates from the research literature range from 20% to 67% (Horner and Clark 2013 ) . The large variability in packing factor may contribute to the variability in land- use intensity observed, given an expectation that packing factor directly impacts land-use intensity . We did not attempt to isolate the impacts of packing factor, efficiency, capacity , and other factors on land- use intensity due to limited data availability . The availability of more data elements and larger sample sizes will enable a robust evaluation of these factors on land- use intensity . 15 We display the packing factor ratio as a percentage. A 100% packing factor would represent complete coverage of solar panels with no spacing between arrays. This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) 12 at www. nrel . gov/publications 100% -r— _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _._ 90% + — 80% t---- 70% � _ _ 0 60% � — _ -- - � 50°�0 � _ - -- --- - - - ---- -- Capacity = 40% -- -- ----- __ _ r— Weighted �- _ Average � 30% - -- — _ __ - ---- m a 20% _---- - - __ 10% _ _ _ _ . _ _- - - - - - _ _ _ — Median 0% _ __. _ _ _. Fixed �- 1 -Axis —'�-- 2 -Axis . � . . . . . . . L . _ . .. . . . .. i � Sample Size 39 35 ` 9 ', - ---- - ---__•- - --__ _ _ - -�- __ _ _ _ __._. .�__ _ _ - ---; Cap . Weighted Avg . 47��0 34% 250/ ; -- ---- , : Median 51 % � 36% � 22% � Figure 7 . Capacity-weighted average packing factor for PV projects evaluated—whiskers indicate maximum and minimum values, box indicates 75`" (top of box) and 25t'' ( bottom of box) percentile estimates 4. 2. 2 /mpact of Location and Tracking Configuration on PV Land Use Given the relatively small amount of data, it is difficult to isolate the impact of any single factor on land-use requirements . This section isolates the theoretical impact of tracking arrays by simulating the performance of PV in multiple locations holding all other factors constant. Table 5 summarizes the relative impacts of tracking on land-use intensity, simulated for a variety of locations throughout the United States . Although tracking systems generate more energy than fixed-tilt systems, they also require more land per unit of capacity, as shown in Section 4 . 2 . We assume the capacity-weighted average land-use requirements (as reported in Table 4) for PV systems smaller than 20 MW when evaluating the impact of tracking arrays : 5 . 5 acres/MWac for fixed-tilt systems, 6 . 3 acres/MWac for 1 -axis tracking systems, and 9 . 4 acres/MWac for 2 -axis tracking systems . These results indicate that the expected increase in energy yield from 1 -axis tracking systems ( 12%-22%) is partially countered by increases in land-use requirements per unit of capacity . While the land use per unit of generation generally decreases for 1 -axis tracking systems compared with fixed-tilt systems, this metric generally increases for 2 -axis tracking systems compared with fixed-tilt systems . This is because the spacing required for 2-axis tracking increases more than the relative increase in energy yield. The land-use advantage of 1 -axis tracking is more pronounced in regions with higher direct normal irradiation (DNI) levels . Similarly , the negative land-use impacts of 2-axis tracking are less pronounced in regions with higher DNI levels . Denholm and Margolis (2008) estimated that land use per unit of generation would increase moving from fixed systems to 1 -axis tracking systems and moving from fixed systems to 2-axis tracking systems . This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) 13 at vwvw. nrel . gov/publications Table 5 . Impacts of 1 -Axis Tracking on Land -Use Intensity Compared With Fixed-Axis Mou Estimated energy 1 -axis 2-axis Land -use intensity Direct roduction kWh/kW tracking tracking acres/GWh/ r normal increase in increase in Region . energy energy radiation Fixed � . 2-axis yield yield Fixed � . 2-axis ( kWh/m2/yr) axis relative to relative to axis Fixed Fixed San Francisco, 1 , 883 1 , 551 1 , 828 1 , 951 17 . 9% 25 . 8% 4 . 94 4 . 72 5 .44 CA San Diego , CA 1 , 965 1 ,607 1 , 864 1 , 974 16. 0% 22 . 8% 4 . 77 4 . 65 5 . 39 Alamosa , CO 2 , 530 1 , 813 2 , 200 2 , 606 21 . 3% 43 . 7% 4 . 23 3 . 93 4 . 08 Phoenix, AZ 2 , 519 1 , 733 2 , 113 2 , 419 21 . 9% 39 . 6% 4 . 42 4 . 1 4 .4 Jacksonville , FL 1 , 507 1 , 380 1 ,634 1 , 504 18. 4% 9 . 0% 5 . 56 5 . 29 7 . 07 Newark, NJ 1 , 263 1 , 268 1 , 422 1 , 321 12 . 1 % 4 . 2 % 6 . 03 6 . 08 8 . 06 Seattle , WA 1 , 112 1 , 100 1 , 249 1 , 136 13 . 5% 3 . 3°/a 6 . 97 6 . 92 9 . 37 This report is available at no cost from the 14 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications 4 . 3 CSP Land - Use Results Table 6 and Table 7 summarize total and direct land-use requirements by CSP technology , respectively . Note there are significantly fewer CSP projects in the United States than PV projects, and due to reliance on solar DNI resource, most CSP projects are in the Southwest (Figure 2) . We collected data for 25 CSP projects, with only one linear Fresnel project and one dish Stirling project. It is more important to evaluate CSP in terms of land use per unit of generation because of the effect of storage and solar multiple, which can increase the amount of energy produced per unit of capacity (Turchi et al . 2010) . Direct land-use requirements for CSP trough technology range from 2 . 0 to 4 . 5 acres/GWh/yr, with a generation-weighted average of 2 . 5 acres/GWh/yr. Direct land-use requirements for CSP tower technology range from 2 . 1 to 5 . 3 acres/GWh/yr, with a generation-weighted average of 2 . 8 acres/GWh/yr. We found that system size appears to have little impact on generation- based CSP land-use requirements (see Appendix E) . Table 6 . Total Land -Use Requirements by CSP Technology Total Area Technology Capacity-weighted average Generation-weighted average Projects Capacity area requirements area requirements ( MWac) (acres/MWac) (acres/GWh/yr) All 25 3 , 747 10 3 . 5 Trough 8 1 , 380 9 . 5 3 . 9 Tower 14 2 , 358 10 3 . 2 Dish Stirling 1 2 10 5 . 3 Linear Fresnel 1 8 4 . 7 4 . 0 Table 7. Direct Land-Use Requirements by CSP Technology Direct Area Technology Capacity-weighted average Generation -weighted average Projects Capacity area requirements area requirements ( MWac) (acres/MWac) (acres/GWh/yr) All 18 2 , 218 7 . 7 2 . 7 Trough 7 851 6 . 2 2 . 5 Tower 9 1 , 358 8 . 9 2 . 8 Dish Stirling 1 2 2 . 8 1 . 5 Linear Fresnel 1 8 2 . 0 1 . 7 Data for CSP with multi-hour energy storage were also collected . Eight facilities included thermal storage technology , ranging from 3 to 15 hours of storage . One of the eight CSP facilities with storage is a parabolic trough system, while the remaining seven are tower systems . Little correlation is observed between storage and land-use intensity, both on a capacity and generation basis (see Appendix E) . We would expect to see a trend of decreasing generation- based land use with increasing storage and increasing capacity-based land use with increasing storage based on modeled results as shown in Figure 8 (Turchi et al . 2010) . Given the relatively This report is available at no cost from the 15 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications small amount of data, it is difficult to isolate the impact of any single factor on land- use requirements . Higher sample sizes and additional data elements will enable a more robust evaluation of CSP land use . 25 - , � � Area per Capacity ( acre/ MW/yr ) , Area per Gen . ( acre/GWh/yr) _ __ _ j I � 3 20 � ---- -- - _------ -- � � , � c � � ca a, J � 15 ' � = --- - _ __ - - __ _ _ v � ; �J L �� O � L � � 1 � � _ _ - - -- - - -- _ _ _ - - - ._ _ . - _ _ _ - --- - -- - _ -- - -- i c�0 � ' � � � ; ._ � � I H � 5 � _ _ _ - - _ _ _ -- - -- _ _ _ - __ _ — - - - -- W � I... � _ _ _ , _ _ - - _ _ _ -- _ � 0 5 10 15 ' Thermal Storage ( hours) ; � __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ __ _ - - - - - ---� Figure 8. Modeled data showing relationship between CSP thermal storage and land-use intensity Source : Turchi et al . 2010 This report is available at no cost from the 16 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications 5 Conclusions Table 8 and Table 9 summarize the U . S . utility-scale PV and CSP land-use requirements evaluated in this report . Average total land-use requirements are 3 . 6 acres/GWh/yr for PV and 3 . 5 acres/GWh/yr for CSP . Average direct-area requirements are 3 . 1 acres/GWh/yr for PV and 2 . 7 acres/GWh/yr for CSP . On a capacity basis, the total-area capacity-weighted average for all solar power plants is 8 . 9 acres/MWac, with 22% of plants within 8 and 10 acres/MWac . For direct land-use requirements, the capacity-weighted average is 7 . 3 acre/MWac, with 40% of power plants within 6 and 8 acres/MWac . Solar land-use estimates from the literature generally fall within these ranges . Within the broad technology categories of PV and CSP, land-use metrics are also impacted by specific technology choices, such as cell efficiency, tracking method, and inclusion of thermal energy storage, and are a function of the solar resource available at each site . Although our results stem from an empirically based effort to estimate solar land use, several caveats are warranted. Some solar-technology categories have relatively small samples sizes, which must be considered when interpreting the robustness of reported results . Over 26 GWac of PV and CSP are under development as of February 2013 (SEIA 2013 ), and the results reported in this study must be understood in light of a rapidly growing installed base . Additionally , various data sources were used when gathering information about solar projects . Although we tried to obtain the highest-quality sources (project applications and regulatory documents, referred to as "official documents" in this report) , we collected official documents for only 20% of all projects evaluated. Other data sources are expected to have higher levels of uncertainty (although how much higher is unclear) , which could contribute to the observed variability in results . With the exception of a few CSP projects, we collected reported capacity of power plants but not annual generation. The generation-based land-use results are expected to have higher levels of uncertainty because annual generation is simulated . Although generation-based results provide a more consistent approach when comparing land-use requirements across technologies, capacity- based results are useful for estimating land area and costs for new projects because power plants are often rated in terms of capacity . Finally , owing to the rapid evolution of solar technologies as well as land- use practices and regulations, the results reported here reflect past performance and not necessarily future trends . We analyze elements that affect the area of solar impact, but we recognize that the duration of use and impact on land quality are also important when considering land use impacts . Future analyses could include evaluating the quality of land impacts, assessing both the initial state of the land impacted and the final states across a variety of factors, including soil quality and overall ecosystem quality . Finally , larger sample sizes and additional data elements would improve the robustness of the conclusions and enable a more thorough investigation of the impacts of additional factors, such as tilt angle, azimuth, PV module technology , CSP solar multiple, and storage technologies . This report is available at no cost from the 1 � National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL ) at www. nrel . gov/publications Table 8 . Summary of Direct Land -Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United , 'v.�nU .�' �'fi r g �" `v� ' " ' c ' " rr � Technology Direct Area � ��„��x � r �- �.��. �._ , � ``� �l f "Y I f{ 17 �� Number of Capacity for Capacity-weighted Capacity-weighted Generation- analyzed weighted average � projects average land use average land use analyzed projects (acres/MWac) ( MWac/km2 ) land use ( MWac) ( acres/GWh/yr) Small PV (> 1 MW, <20 92 374 5 . 9 42 3 . 1 MW) Fixed 43 194 5 . 5 45 3 . 2 1 -axis 41 168 6 . 3 39 2 . 9 2-axis flat panel 4 5 9 . 4 26 4 . 1 2-axis CPV 4 7 6 . 9 36 2 . 3 Large PV 15 1 ,405 7 . 2 34 3 . 1 (>20 MW) Fixed 7 744 _ ; 5 . 8 43 2 . 8 . . . �< -�.-_ _ 1 -axis 7 630 � 9 . 0 �� 28 � 3 . 5 } , _ 2-axis CPV 1 _� 31 , _, 6. 1 41 ; 2 . 0 CSP 18 2 , 218 7 . 7 � 32 2 . 7 Parabolic trough 7 851 �� 6 . 2 40 .;. ; 2 . 5 Tower 9 1 , 358 8 . 9 28 2 . 8 Dish Stirling 1 : ' 2 � 2 . 8 ,, ` 88 - ,i 1 . 5 Linear Fresnel 1 8 ; 2 . 0 124 1 . 7 This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) 1 g at www. nrel . gov/publications Table 9. Summary of Total Land -Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United : .� „�: ;, � . ,.� � . � �, � Technology ��pp'�qq"��xg�}y �""' ,°' �#��R Total Area ' �yp��g t,�•�R�� na`�ky�,p,, ==` � ° {�•�'J�v43 ' .'� . . .. . . . si ":.� �i � �. �riY"a°Si S `�'R'�:� pe Tziww�r.. ' :� Number of Capacity for Capacity-weighted Capacity-weighted Generation- projects analyzed average land use average land use Weighted average analyzed projects (acres/MWac) ( MWac/kmz ) land use ( MWac) ( acres/GWh/yr) Small PV (> 1 MW, <20 115 550 8 . 3 30 4 . 1 MW) Fixed 52 231 7 . 6 32 4 . 4 1 -axis 55 306 8 . 7 29 3 . 8 2-axis flat panel 4 5 13 19 5 . 5 2-axis CPV 4 7 9 . 1 27 3 . 1 Large PV 32 3 , 551 7 . 9 31 3 . 4 (>20 MW) 'I Fixed 14 r 1 , 756 7 . 5 ,p , _ 33 _ � 3 . 7 �i � - -=-�- ; 1 -axis 16 1 , 637 8 . 3 30 3 . 3 ' r 2-axis CPV 2 " �„ 158 8 . 1 , 31 � 2 . 8 CSP 25 3 , 747 10 25 3 . 5 Parabolic trough 8 ° ` 1 , 380 Y` ; 9 . 5 ` 26 � 3 . 9 Tower 14 2 , 358 10 24 3 . 2 Dish Stirling 1 �" � J 2 10 : : '� � 25 , 5 . 3 � . Linear Fresnel 1 8 4 . 7 53 ,�� 4 . 0 � �. . This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) 19 at www. nrel . gov/publications References Canals, L . M . ; Bauer, C. ; Depestele, J . ; Dubreuil , A . ; Freiermuth Knuchel , R. ; Gaillard, G . ; Michelsen, O . ; Muller- Wenk . R. ; Rydgren, B . (2007) . " Key Elements in a Framework for Land Use Impact Assessment in LCA. " The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment ( 12 : 1 ) ; pp . 5- 15 . Denholm, P . ; Hand, M . ; Jackson, M . ; Ong, S . (2009) . "Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States . " NREL/TP-6A2-45834 . Golden, CO : National Renewable Energy Laboratory . Denholm, P . ; Margolis, R. (2008 ) . "Land-Use Requirements and the Per-Capita Solar Footprint for Photovoltaic Generation in the United States . " Energy Policy (36 : 9) ; pp . 3531 -3543 . DOE (U . S . Department of Energy) . (2012a) . SunShot Vision Study. DOE/GO- 102012 - 3037 . Accessed July 2012 : http ://wwwl .eere .energ�gov/solar/pdfs/47927 .pdf. DOE . (2012b) . Solar Energy Glossary . Accessed August 2012 : http ://wwwl . eere. energ,y . gov/solar/sunshot/ lg ossary . html . Drury, E . ; Lopez, A . ; Denholm, P . ; Margolis, R. (2012 ) . " Relative Performance of Tracking versus Fixed Tilt Photovoltaic Systems in the United States . " Golden, CO : National Renewable Energy Laboratory . Fthenakis , V . ; Kim, H . C . (2009) . "Land Use and Electricity Generation : A Life-Cycle Analysis . " Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews ( 13 ) ; pp. 1465- 1474 . Gilman, P . ; Dobos, A . (2012) . System Advisor Model, SAM 2011 . 12. 2 : General Description. NREL/TP-6A20-53437 . Golden, CO : National Renewable Energy Laboratory . Hand, M. M . ; Baldwin, S . ; DeMeo, E . ; Reilly, J . M . ; Mai , T . ; Arent, D . ; Porro, G . ; Meshek, M . ; Sandor, D . (2012) . Renewable Electricity Futures Study. eds. 4 vols . NREL/TP-6A20- 52409 . Golden, CO : National Renewable Energy Laboratory . Horner, R. ; Clark, C . (2013 ) . "Characterizing variability and reducing uncertainty in estimates of solar land use energy intensity . " Renewable and Sustainafile Energy Reviews (23 ) ; pp . 129- 137 . Koellner, T. ; Scholz, R (2008 ) . "Assessment of Land Use Impacts on the Natural Environment. " The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment ( 13 : 1 ) ; pp. 32� 8 . NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory ) . (2012) . System Advisor Model User Documentation. https ://www.nrel . ovg /analvsis/sam/help/html-ph�/. Perez, R. ; Ineichen, P . ; Moore, K. ; Kmiecikm, M . ; Chain, C . ; George, R. ; Vignola, F . (2002) . "A New Operational Satellite-to- Irradiance Model. " Solar Energy (73 : 5 ) ; pp . 307-317 . This report is available at no cost from the 20 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications SEIA (Solar Energy Industries Association) . (2012) . Utility-Scale Solar Projects in the United States: Operating, Urtder Construction, or Under Development (Updated August 1 S, 2012) . Washington, DC : SEIA . SEIA . (2013 ) . Utility-Scale Solar Projects in the United States : Operating, Under Construction, or Under Development (Updated February 11 , 2013) . Washington, DC : SEIA . Turchi, C . ; Mehos , M . ; Ho, C . ; Kolb, G. (2010) . "Current and Future Costs for Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Systems in the US Market. " NREL/CP- 5500-49303 . Golden, CO : National Renewable Energy Laboratory . Wilcox, S . (2007) . National Solar Radiation Database 1991 - 200� Update : User 's Manual. NREL/TP- 581 -41364 . Golden, CO : National Renewable Energy Laboratory . This report is available at no cost from the 21 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications Appendix A . CSP Solar Multiple Ranges For CSP projects, a range of solar multiple values were used to simulate annual generation output. Assumptio ranges are shown in Table A- 1 . Table A-1 . CSP Solar Multiple Ranges and Corresponding Estimated Annual Generation V; Storage Solar Solar multiple Estimated Name State ( hours ) multiple low high 9eneration low GWh/ r Crossroad Solar AZ 10 2 . 2 2 . 8 683 Quartzsite AZ 10 2 . 2 2 . 8 489 Saguaro Power Plant AZ 0 1 . 1 1 .4 2 Solana AZ 6 1 . 9 2 . 4 992 Abengoa Mojave CA 0 1 . 1 1 .4 520 Coalinga CA 0 1 . 1 1 .4 9 Ford Dry Lake ( Genesis) CA 0 1 . 1 1 . 4 480 Hidden Hills 1 CA 0 1 . 1 1 .4 545 Hidden Hills 2 CA 0 1 . 1 1 . 4 545 Ivanpah (all ) CA 0 1 . 1 1 .4 869 Kimberlina CA 0 1 . 1 1 . 4 9 Palmdale Hybrid Plant CA 0 1 . 1 1 .4 107 Rice Solar CA 7 1 . 8 2 . 2 541 Rio Mesa 1 CA 0 1 . 1 1 .4 529 Rio Mesa 2 CA 0 1 . 1 1 . 4 529 Rio Mesa 3 CA 0 1 . 1 1 . 4 529 SEGS (all ) CA 0 1 . 1 1 .4 725 Solar Two CA 3 1 . 3 1 . 7 20 Victorville 2 hybrid CA 0 1 . 1 1 .4 101 Saguache Solar CO 15 2 . 6 3 . 2 1 , 073 Martin Next Generation FL 0 1 . 1 1 .4 71 This report is available at no cost from the 22 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications Storage Solar Solar multiple Estimated Name State ( hours) multiple low high 9eneration low GWh/ r Nevada Solar One NV 0 . 5 1 . 2 1 . 5 1 14 Tonopah (Crescent Dunes) NV 10 2 . 2 2 . 8 525 Crossroad Solar AZ 10 2 . 2 2 . 8 683 Quartzsite AZ 10 2 . 2 2 . 8 489 This report is available at no cost from the 23 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications Appendix B . PV Projects Evaluated Table B-1 . PV Land -Use Data Asterisks represent data calculated from power plants that reported only AC capacity , as describec Total area Direct . Module S� Name State MW - DC �acres) area Tracking efficiency Ai acres Prescott Airport (CPV) AZ 0 . 2 1 . 9 1 . 0 CPV 29% Pima County Wastewater AZ 1 . 1 8 . 4 6 . 4 1 axis 14% Johnson Utilities AZ 1 . 1 10 . 6 7 . 5 1 axis Prescott Airport ( 1 -Axis Phase 1 ) AZ 2 . 8 22 . 6 22 . 3 1 axis Springerville AZ 6 . 5 85 . 2 45 . 3 fixed 11 % Kingman Plant AZ 10 . 0 70 . 5 1 axis 14% C Prescott Airport ( 1 -Axis Phase 2 ) AZ 11 . 8 94 . 0 1 axis C Luke Air Force Base AZ 15 . 0 107 . 1 1 axis 19% Hyder Plant AZ 17. 0 152 . 7 1 axis 14% C Paloma Plant AZ 20. 3* 234 . 9 fixed 11 % Cotton Center Plant AZ 21 . 0 169 . 2 1 axis Copper Crossing Solar Ranch AZ 23 . 5` 169 . 1 139 . 1 1 axis 19% Chino Plant AZ 23 . 5" 187 . 9 164 . 4 1 axis 14% C Tucson Solar AZ 25 . 0 233 . 7 1 axis C Avra Valley AZ 30. 5"` 352 .4 1 axis 11 °/a C Mesquite Solar 1 AZ 170 . 0 1 , 020 . 0 Unknown 15% C Agua Caliente AZ 340 . 6* 2 , 818 . 9 fixed 11 % C Sonoran Solar Energy Project AZ 352 .4* 2 , 364 . 3 1 axis Mesquite Solar Total AZ 700 . 0 4 , 698 . 1 Unknown Western Riverside County Regional CA 1 . 0 11 . 2 10. 6 1 axis 20% Wastewater Authorit The North Face PV Plant CA 1 . 0 5 . 9 5 . 9 1 axis This report is available at no cost from the 24 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications Direct Name State MW - DC Total area area Tracking Module S (acres� acres efficiency Ai Inlands Empire Utility Solar Farm CA 1 . 0 12 . 6 8 . 9 1 axis 20% West County Waste Water PV Plant CA 1 . 0 11 . 7 g . g 2 axis 140�0 flat Nichols Farms PV Plant CA 1 . 0 8 . 0 8 � 0 CPV 25% Budweiser PV Plant CA 1 . 1 9 . 4 7 . 2 1 axis 15% Wal-Mart Apple Valley PV Plant CA 1 . 1 10 . 7 7 . 8 1 axis 15% Rancho California PV Plant CA 1 . 1 13 . 6 8 . 9 1 axis 19% Hayward Wastewater PV Plant CA 1 . 2 13 . 2 8 . 6 1 axis 14% Chuckawalla State Prison PV Plant CA 1 . 2 8 . 4 4 . 8 fixed 14% Ironwood State Prison PV Plant CA 1 . 2 14 . 4 9 . 0 1 axis 13% Sacramento Soteil CA 1 . 3 10 . 0 8 . 1 fixed 11 % USMC 29 Palms CA 1 . 3 10. 6 7 . 0 fixed Box Canyon Camp Pendleton CA 1 . 4 9 . 6 5 .6 fixed 14 % Vaca-Dixon Solar Station CA 2 . 6 17 . 8 11 . 5 fixed 14% Newberry Springs PV Plant CA 3 . 0 25. 8 1 axis Sunset Reservoir CA 5 . 0 15 . 3 15 . 3 fixed Aero Jet Solar Project CA 6 . 0 47 . 0 32 . 3 1 axis CALRENEW- 1 CA 6 . 2 60 . 4 46 . 5 fixed 9 % Porterville Solar Plant CA 6 . 8 37 . 6 31 . 4 fixed 14% Palm Springs project 1 CA 8 . 0 42 . 9 1 axis 14% C Dillard Solar Farm CA 12 . 0 94 . 3 70 . 4 1 axis 15% China Lake PV Plant CA 13 . 8 138 . 6 1 axis 20% C Bruceville Solar Farm CA 16. 4 131 . 1 92 . 9 1 axis 15% Kammerer Solar Farm CA 16 . 6 129 . 1 111 . 1 1 axis 15% Antelope Solar Farm CA 20 . 0 234 . 9 Unknown Mojave Solar CA 20 . 0 204 . 4 Unknown This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) 25 at www. nrel . gov/publications Total area Direct , Module S Name State MW - DC �acres) area Tracking efficiency Ai acres Tuusso Energy Antelope Plant CA 20 . 0 211 . 4 Unknown Grundman� lkinson Solar Farm CA 21 . 1 * 163 . 5 117 . 5 Fixed 11 % Adobe Solar CA 23 . 5" 187 . 9 Unknown Orion Solar CA 23 . 5* 311 . 2 Unknown Atwell Island Solar Project CA 23 . 5 188 . 0 Unknown C FSE Blythe CA 25 . 2 223 . 2 161 . 3 Fixed 10% Imperial Valley Solar Company CA 28 . 7 153 . 5 Unknown 15°/a McHenry Solar Farm CA 29 . 4` 180 . 9 1 axis 19% C Del Sur Solar Project CA 38. 0 219 . 6 Unknown C Lucerne Valley Solar CA 40 . 5 495 . 6 495 . 6 Fixed 10% C Chocolate Mountains PV Plant CA 49 . 9 375 . 8 Unknown C Calipatria Solar Farm 2 CA 50. 0 352 .4 Unknown Salton Sea 1 CA 50 . 0 375 . 8 Unknown Avenal SunCity SandDrag Avenal CA 57 . 7 641 . 3 442 . 5 Fixed 9% Park Copper Mountain PV Plant CA 58 . 0 459 . 2 393 . 9 Fixed 10% Midway Solar Farm 1 CA 58 . 7* 352 . 4 325 . 3 Unknown Regulus Solar CA 75 . 0 872 . 7 Unknown Calipatria Solar Farm 1 CA 82 . 2 ' 352 . 4 288 . 9 Unknown Salton Sea 2 CA 100 . 0 730 . 6 Unknown Quinto Plant CA 110 . 0 1 , 191 . 0 1 axis 20% Imperial Solar Energy Center South CA 130 . 0 1 , 111 . 1 1 axis 11 % Imperial Solar Energy Center West CA 150 . 0 1 , 241 . 5 CPV 25% Midway Solar Farm 2 CA 182 . 1 " 1 , 097 . 5 Unknown Calexico Solar Farm 1 CA 234 . 9'` 1 ,468 . 2 Unknown Calexico Solar Farm 2 CA 234 . 9'' 1 , 468 . 2 Unknown This report is available at no cost from the 26 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications Total area Direct Module S Name State MW - DC (acres) area Tracking efficiency Ai acres Mount Signal PV Plant CA 234 . 9" 1 , 644 . 3 Unknown AV Solar Ranch One CA 284 . 0 2 , 593 . 0 2 ,414 . 0 1 axis 11 % California Valley Solar Ranch CA 293 . 6" 2 , 037 . 8 1 axis C Centinela Solar CA 323 . 0" 2 , 427 . 7 Unknown Superstition Solar 1 CA 500 . 0 6 , 562 . 1 Unknown Edwards Air Force Base CA 500 . 0 3 , 736 . 4 Unknown Desert Sunlight CA 646 . 0" 4 , 985 . 9 3 , 529 .4 Fixed 10% Topaz Solar Farm CA 646 . 0" 4 , 110 . 8 Fixed 11 % C Alamosa Water Treatment Facility CO 0 . 6 6 . 5 5 . 6 1 axis 16% PV Plant Rifle Pump Station CO 0 . 6 5 . 3 4 . 3 1 axis 13°/o SunEdison Alamosa PV Plant ( Fixed- CO 0 . 6 7 . 0 3 . 6 Fixed 14% Tilt Arvada Ralston Water Treatment CO 0 . 6 7 . 1 4 . 5 1 axis 16% Plant NREL Mesa Top PV Project CO 0 . 7 5 . 9 3 . 3 1 axis 16% SunEdison Alamosa PV Plant (2 CO 1 . 0 14 . 0 7 3 2 axis 14% Axis flat NREL National Wind Technology CO 1 . 1 11 . 5 7 . 1 1 axis 13% Center Buckley Air Force Base CO 1 . 1 4 . 5 3 . 8 Fixed 14% Denver Federal Center Solar Park CO 1 . 2 7 . 6 6 . 0 Fixed 13% Phase 1 Colorado State University Pueblo CO 1 . 2 5 . 1 4 . 1 Fixed Plant Denver International Airport Phase 2 CO 1 . 6 10 . 6 8 . 3 Fixed Fuel Farm Rifle Waste Water Reclamation CO 1 . 7 14 . 0 9 . 9 1 axis 14% Facilit Colorado State University Ft. Collins CO 2 . 0 17 . 6 15 . 0 1 axis Phase 1 This report is available at no cost from the 2 ,� National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications Total area Direct Module S Name State MW - DC (acres) area Tracking efficiency Ai acres Denver International Airport 1 Pena CO 2 . 0 1 1 . 7 1 1 . 7 1 axis Blvd Ft. Carson PV Plant CO 2 . 0 14 . 7 12 . 6 Fixed 11 % Colorado State University Ft. Collins CO 3 . 3 15 . 4 14 . 0 Fixed Phase 2 Denver International Airport Phase 3 CO 4 . 4 35 . 2 26 . 9 Fixed Air Force Academy CO Springs CO 6 . 0 50. 5 31 . 4 1 axis SunEdison Alamosa PV Plant ( 1 CO 6 . 6 74 . 1 38 . 5 1 axis 14% Axis Greater Sand Hill Solar Plant CO 20 . 0 206 . 6 132 . 6 1 axis 20% San Luis Valley Solar Ranch CO 35. 2 258 . 1 1 axis 20% Cogentrix Alamosa Solar Generating CO 37 . 0 271 . 0 224 . 0 CPV 31 °/a C Pro �ect Kent County Waste Water DE 1 . 2 7 . 0 6 . 6 Fixed C Dover Sun Park DE 11 . 7* 121 . 0 59. 1 1 axis 20% NASA PV FL 1 . 0 6 . 1 2 . 8 Fixed Stanton Energy Center FL 5 . 9 41 . 1 29 . 1 1 axis Rinehart Solar Farm FL 8 . 0 28 . 2 Unknown 16% C Space Coast FL 11 . 7" 52 . 9 35 . 2 Fixed Jacksonville Solar FL 15 . 0 114 .4 83 . 9 Fixed 11 % C DeSoto Plant FL 28 . 0 263 . 2 201 . 6 1 axis 19% Sorrento Eagle Dunes phase 1 FL 40 . 0 164 .4 Fixed 14% C Sorrento Eagle Dunes phase 2 FL 60 . 0 422 . 8 Fixed 16% Babcock Ranch Solar FL 75 . 0 469 . 8 Unknown Liberty County Solar Farm FL 100 . 0 1174 . 5 Unknown Hardee County Solar Farm FL 200 . 0 2 , 349 . 1 Unknown Gadsden Solar Farm FL 400 . 0 4 , 698 . 1 Unknown Blairsville Plant GA 1 . 0 5 . 7 Fixed This report is available at no cost from the 28 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications Total area Direct , Module S Name State MW - DC �acres) area Tracking efficiency Ai acres Kopolei Sustainable Energy Park HI 1 . 2 4 . 7 3 . 2 Fixed 14 °/o Kalaeloa Oahu HI 5 . 0 47 . 0 1 axis 19% C Exelon City Solar IL 10 . 0 48 . 2 37 . 6 1 axis Grand Ridge Solar Plant IL 23 . 0 187 . 9 Unknown 12% C Indianapolis Airport Solar Farm IN 10 . 0 70 . 5 Fixed C Bowling Greens Solar Farm KY 2 . 0 15. 3 10 . 6 1 axis William Stanley Business Park MA 1 . 9 10 . 9 7 . 3 Fixed 14% Berkshire School MA 2 . 0 10 . 8 9 .4 Fixed 15% Northfield Mountain MA 2 . 0 12 . 9 9 . 3 Fixed Indian Orchard Solar MA 2 . 3 14 . 1 Unknown Springfield Plant MA 4 . 2 72 . 8 47 . 0 Unknown Mueller Road Holyoke Plant MA 4 . 5 22 . 3 Fixed 15% Canton Landfill MA 5 . 7 17. 2 12 . 8 Fixed 15% Mount St. Mary's University MD 17 . 4 158 . 6 105 . 7 Fixed 11 % C Progress Energy NC 1 . 2 11 . 3 9 . 1 1 axis 14% Mayberry/Mt. Airy Solar Farm NC 1 . 2 7 . 0 Fixed 14% Neuse River Waste Water NC 1 . 3 11 . 7 Fixed 14% SAS Solar Farm 1 and 2 NC 2 . 2 20 . 0 14 . 1 1 axis 15% Kings Mountain Solar Farm NC 5 . 0 32 . 9 Unknown Murfreesboro NC 6 . 4 36 . 7 30 . 6 1 axis 19% Davidson County Solar NC 17 . 2 221 . 9 129 . 3 1 axis Trenton Solar Farm NJ 1 . 3 6 . 5 5 . 3 Fixed Silver Lake Solar Farm NJ 2 . 1 9 .4 6 . 7 Fixed 14% Mars Solar Garden NJ 2 . 2 14. 4 11 . 9 Fixed 10% NJMC landfill NJ 3 . 0 15 . 3 Fixed Linden Solar Farm NJ 3 . 2 11 . 7 Unknown This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) 29 at www. nrel . gov/publications Total area Direct Module S Name State MW - DC �acres) area Tracking efficiency Ai acres Janssen Pharmaceutical NJ 4 . 1 29 . 4 21 . 9 1 axis Vineland NJ 4 . 1 32 . 9 17 . 6 Fixed Yardville Solar Farm NJ 4 . 4 18 . 4 16 . 6 Fixed 14% Homdel Solar Farm NJ 4 . 8 39 . 9 18 . 8 1 axis Princeton University NJ 5 . 3 31 . 7 1 axis 19°/a Lawrenceville School NJ 6 . 1 35 . 2 1 axis 15% NJ Oak Solar Farm NJ 12 . 5 122 . 5 97 . 5 Fixed 14% Upper Pittsgrove NJ 14 . 4 105 . 7 1 axis Tinton Falls NJ 19 . 9 111 . 6 Unknown C Pilesgrove Project NJ 20 . 0 148 . 9 85 . 3 Fixed 14% Santa Fe Waste Water Plant NM 1 . 1 10 . 4 7 . 9 1 axis 14% City of Madera Waste Water NM 1 . 2 11 . 2 10 . 6 2 axis 14% flat Questa NM 1 . 2* 20 . 0 12 . 6 CPV 25% Albuquerque Solar Center NM 2 . 0 21 . 7 12 . 8 Fixed 11 % Deming Solar Energy Center NM 5 . 0 58 . 7 40 . 0 Fixed 11 % Alamogordo Solar Center NM 5 . 0 58 . 7 Fixed 11 % Hatch Solar Center NM 6 . 5 50 . 1 38 . 9 CPV 29% SunEdison Jal NM 10 . 7 117 . 5 86. 4 1 axis SunEdison Carlsbad NM 10 . 8 100 . 7 90 . 3 1 axis Elephant Butte NM 22 . 0 187 . 9 Fixed C Roadrunner Solar Facility NM 23 . 5'' 246 . 7 198 . 8 1 axis 11 % Cimarron NM 35 . 2* 293 . 6 260 . 7 Fixed 10% Estancia Solar Farm NM 50 . 0 187 . 9 Unknown Guadalupe Solar NM 300 . 0 2 , 936 . 3 Unknown Las Vegas Solar Center NV 5 . 0 58 . 7 Unknown 11 % This report is available at no cost from the 30 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications Total area Direct _ Module S Name State MW - DC (acres ) area Tracking efficiency Ai acres EI Dorado Solar NV 12 . 0 96 . 0 84 . 0 Fixed 11 °/o Nellis Air Force Base NV 18 . 0 186 . 7 148 . 0 1 axis Searchlight Solar Project NV 20 . 0 242 . 3 1 axis Fish Springs NV 20 . 6 211 .4 Fixed 10% C Apex NV 24. 9 187 . 1 Unknown Silver State Solar North NV 65 . 1 775 . 0 Fixed 10% C Boulder City NV 176 . 2" 1 , 303 . 7 1 axis 10% C Silver State Solar South NV 350 . 0 3 ,406 . 1 3484 . 8 1 axis 10% Mojave Green Center NV 720 . 0 6 , 384 . 7 Unknown Brookhaven Lab NY 37 . 0 231 . 3 225 . 5 Fixed 13% C Washington Township Solar Array OH 1 . 1 11 . 5 8 .4 Fixed 9% BNB Napoleon Solar LLC OH 9 . 8 70. 5 1 axis 19% C Wyandot Solar OH 12 . 6 97 . 0 78 . 0 Fixed 11 % Turning Point Solar OH 58 . 6* 496 . 4 Unknown Yamhill Solar OR 1 . 2 11 . 0 Fixed 10% Bellevue Solar OR 1 . 7 14 . 0 Fixed 10% Pocono Raceway PA 3 . 0 27 . 2 17 . 9 Fixed C Exelon Conergy PA 3 . 0 19 . 4 12 . 9 Fixed Claysville Solar Project PA 20 . 0 117 . 5 99 . 5 Fixed Shelby Solar Project SC 1 . 0 10 . 6 6 . 5 1 axis 19% West Tennessee Solar Farm TN 5 . 0 29 . 4 26 . 9 Fixed C Blue Wing Solar TX 16 . 1 124 . 2 95 . 7 Fixed C Austin Energy Webberville TX 34 . 3 434 . 3 Unknown 15% Pflugerville Solar TX 60 . 0 704 . 7 Unknown C South Burlington Solar Farm VT 2 . 2 31 . 7 25 . g 2 axis flat This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) 31 at www. nrel . gov/publications Appendix C . CSP Projects Evaluated Table C-1 . Concentrating Solar Power Land -Use Data Note : Additional CSP plant information, such as storage and annual generation, can be found in . Total area Direct Status a. Name State MW - AC (acres� area Technology August 2� acres Maricopa Solar Project AZ 1 . 5 15 4 Stirling Engine Comple Quartzsite AZ 100 1 , 675 Tower ProposE Crossroad Solar AZ 150 2 , 560 Tower ProposE Solana AZ 280 1 , 920 Parabolic trough Construci Sierra SunTower CA 5 50 22 Tower Comple Kimberlina CA 7 . 5 35 15 Linear Fresnel Comple Solar Two CA 10 132 110 Tower Decommiss Coalinga CA 13 86 57 Tower ProposE Victorville 2 hybrid CA 50 265 230 Parabolic trough Propose Palmdale Hybrid Gas/solar CA 57 377 250 Parabolic trough ProposE Plant Rice Solar CA 150 2 , 560 1 ,410 Tower Construci Abengoa Mojave CA 250 1 , 765 Parabolic trough Construct Ford Dry Lake ( Genesis) CA 250 4 , 640 1 , 800 Parabolic trough Construci Hidden Hills 1 CA 250 1 , 640 1 , 560 Tower ProposE Hidden Hills 2 CA 250 1 , 640 1 , 560 Tower Propose Rio Mesa 1 CA 250 1 , 917 Tower Propose Rio Mesa 2 CA 250 1 , 917 Tower ProposE Rio Mesa 3 CA 250 1 , 917 Tower Propose SEGS (all ) CA 354 2 , 057 2 , 057 Parabolic trough Comple Ivanpah All CA 370 3 , 515 3 , 236 Tower Construct Saguache Solar CO 200 3 , 000 2 , 669 Tower Construct Martin Next Generation FL 75 500 400 Parabolic trough Comple This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) 32 at www. nrel . gov/publications Total area Direct Status a: Name State MW - AC (acres) area Technology qugust 2� acres Nevada Solar One NV 64 400 290 Parabolic trough Comple Tonopah (Crescent Dunes ) NV 110 1 , 600 1 , 527 Tower Construci This report is available at no cost from the 33 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications Appendix D . Impact of PV System Size and Module Efficiency on Land - Use Requirements System size appears to have little impact on capacity-based land-use requirements . Figure D- 1 and Figure D-2 show the total-area requirements for small and large PV systems, with respect to project capacity . No significant trends are observed for land use and system size for small or large PV systems. Land use was also evaluated with respect to module efficiency . Figure D-3 shows capacity-based direct land-use requirements for all PV systems with respect to module efficiency, and Figure D- 4 shows the generation-based direct land- use requirements . We expect that land use will decrease with increasing module efficiencies, but no significant trends are observed for land use and module efficiency for small or large PV systems . A linear regression analysis yields a poor correlation coefficient for both the capacity-based area data (0 . 04 ) and the generation- based data (0 . 08) . Isolating for fixed-tilt systems reveals that projects with higher efficiency use less land on a capacity basis (with a correlation coefficient of 0 . 50) . No trends are observed within the pool of 1 -axis tracking systems . Variations in land use that remain after isolating for module efficiency � and tracking type are not clearly understood . I _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ . _ _ - - -- - - --- -- ----- --- -- - _ 18 Small PV . Fixed 16 • 1 Axis 3 14 � � ■ ■ 2 Axis ' , ' . � 12 � � � �. • CPV `u '• � • ' • Q 10 -�, � , ' , • ' I �+ , � ,. � • • , . � $ �� S � aa • � � y , � . ♦ '� -a • t • � �r • ♦ c !► ' � • � 6 �► �► ;� �� . � • � ' � � � . , � 4 ! � � ♦ • , 2 , 0 .__ — _ _ _. . _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ __�_ ; 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Capacity ( MW- DC) Figure D-1 . Total -area requirements for small PV installations as a function of PV plant size This report is available at no cost from the 34 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications - _ - - . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ � � 14 Large PV Fixed i I • 1 Axis � 12 ` ,� ; 3 ' . � ■ cPv � 10 � � �, " • � � � • . . Q s . . � � � � • � • • � 6 � . � c � J � 4 • � � 2 0 _ _ . -- , 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Capacity ( MW- DC) ! Figure D-2 . Total-area requirements for large PV installations as a function of PV plant size 14 Fixed 12 � • 1 Axis .-. 3 • • ■ 2 Axis � 10 • � • • CPV � � � ♦ L . Q 8 , � ♦ `-' � ♦ ♦ � ' II � � y ♦ � � ♦ � j � ♦ � � ♦ � 6 . � • � _ ♦ _ • J � � � �r � ♦ a 4 ._ t 0 ♦ 2 ♦ 0 . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 8% 13% 18% 23 % 28% Module Efficiency Figure D-3 . Capacity-based direct-area land -use requirements for all PV systems as a function of module efficiency This report is available at no cost from the 35 National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications 7 t Fixed 6 • 1 Axis � � � r ■ 2 Axis 35 � �, � . cPv � � . . Q4 � , . . . . � _.. t t � ■ . . ��, �. . s 3 _. t �N '+r � • • ■ � � � �.y Z ♦ � � z ��'` • _ • � � • ._ 0 1 0 � -- — - --- - _ . __ _--- 8% 13% 18% 23% 28% Module Efficiency Figure D-4. Generation-based direct-area land-use requirements for all PV systems as a function of module efficiency This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL ) 36 at www. nrel . gov/publications Appendix E . Impact of CSP System Size and Storage on Land - Use Requirements We evaluated the impact of project capacity on land- use requirements and found that system size appears to have little impact on generation-based CSP land-use requirements . Figure E- 1 and Figure E-2 show the total -area and direct-area requirements for all CSP systems evaluated, with respect to system size . No significant trends are observed for land-use and capacity for CSP systems . ' 12 � Parabolic Trough � 1Q � • Tower � ' s ■ Dish Stirling c37 g , ♦ � '; � � Linear Fresnel L V Q 6 N � � ' � c 4 �► � ♦ : cv J � �' � ♦ ♦ � � ♦ i � � �, • ♦ il 0 - — T _ _ , - -_ . — II 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Capacity ( MW-AC) I Figure E-1 . Total-area requirements for CSP installations as a function of plant size I' This report is available at no cost from the 3 ,� National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) at www. nrel . gov/publications __ _ —, Parabolic 6 Trough .... • • Tower L 5 � � ■ Dish Stirling L � � � 4 5 • Linear Fresnel ' a, • i � v Q � a " 3 °�' ♦ � • � � 2 _ ♦ � � � � � � � , � � v d L � O �. � ._ _ .. .. .. _... . .... . _. , . .. ... . . .. . . . . .. .. ._ . . _ .. . _ ___ . .. . . . _ . . . _. . 0 50 100 150 200 250 3Q0 350 400 Capacity ( MW-AC) Figure E-2. Direct-area requirements for CSP installations as a function of plant size We evaluate the impact of multi -hour energy storage on CSP land-use requirements . Eight facilities included thermal storage technology , ranging from 3 to 15 hours of storage . One of the eight CSP facilities with storage is a parabolic trough system, while the remaining seven are tower systems . Figure E-3 shows the generation-based total-area requirements for all storage- equipped CSP systems evaluated, with respect to storage capacity in hours . Figure E-4 shows the capacity -based total-area requirements. � 6 CSP Storage � > L 35 c� � v Q4 ♦ � V � � y 3 ♦ � a�, � � .� Z � d � �o � 1 Q 0 � 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Storage (hours) Figure E-3. Total generation -based area requirements for CSP installations as a function of storage hours This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) 38 at www. nrel . gov/publications � 3o CSP Storage 3 � 25 a� � u Q 2� � r _ • s � � 15 � � = ♦ � � � 10 � Q � ♦ _ S �o .� � 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Storage (hours) Figure E-4. Total capacity-based area requirements for CSP installations as a function of storage hours This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) 39 at www. nrel . gov/publications Michelle Martin From: M Stowell < stowellm@ossolar.com > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 7:48 AM To: Michelle Martin Subject: Proposed code changes Dear Michelle, I have recently received the proposed code changes for solar facilities in weld county. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the meeting today however I would like to provide the following comment. Solar facility acreage can vary depending upon a variety of factors besides the nameplate capacity of the facility. In addition, solar technology is constantly evolving and such technological changes also affect nameplate capacity to acreage ratios . It would be more instructive to only designate the AC nameplate capacity in MW and not acreage to distinguish between small medium and large solar facilities . Hence Small, 3MW AC and below Medium, 3MW AC to 30 MW AC Large, 30MW AC and above Thank you for considering these modifications . Kind regards, Michael M . H . B . Stowell, Ph. D . CTO and CFO EXHIBIT � i � �' C � ;� c:� y i4' tb � 2 � 7._c:� i 5 — 2 OneSource Solar � Boulder,CO � M : + 1 . 303 . 359 . 8399 The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressees only. It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. Unless you are a named addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee) you may not copy, use, or disclose the information enclosed to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. 2 Michelle Martin From: Dean Hubbuck < dhubbuck@UnitedPower.com > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 5 :04 PM To: Michelle Martin Cc: Ron D. Asche; Jerry Marizza Subject: RE: ORD2015 -27 Michelle, Thank you for keeping United Power updated to the proposed changes to the Weld County Code in regards to large solar deployment. As you know, United Power would like to continue to develop solar projects that have a financial benefit to our local members with these types of local projects . We acknowledge and agree with most of the issues Weld County is considering when looking at this matter. The only area we would like Weld County to reconsider is the land acreage as associated with the small and medium scaled solar projects . The small scaled solar facility is defined as less than 3 MW and less than 16 acres and the medium scaled solar facility is defined as between 3 MW and 30 MW and less than 80 acres . When you consider the solar footprint for these systems and the additional land to access the project, it comes out to around 10 acres per 1 MW. It would be United Power' s position that the Small Scaled Solar Facility be adjusted to read - less than 3 MW and less than 30 acres . The Medium Scaled Solar should read — between 3 MW and 30 MW and less than 300 acres . Without this adjustment, small scale solar would be bumped up to medium scale strictly due to the land issue and medium scaled system would be bumped up to large scale because of the land issue. Again thank you for allowing United Power to comment on this issue. We will have a representative, Jerry Marizza, at the meeting tomorrow if you need any further clarification. Dean Hubbuck Dean Hubbuck � Manager of Engineering & Rates � United Power Inc. � 500 Cooperative Way, Brighton, CO 80603 � dhubbuck(a�unitedpower. com � office 303 . 637. 1209 � mobile 303 . 810 . 5674 EXH IT N � 1 D � �c f� �-� v � � � �j � �v � � � 2 � �� From : Michelle Martin [mailto :mmartin@co .weld. co .us] Sent : Monday, April 18 , 2016 12 : 39 PM To : Jon Sullivan; Ken Hall ; David White ; Jerry Marizza; Dean Hubbuck; John Marcarelli ; Preston Hartman; Troy Spraker; peter.candelaria@siliconranchcorp . com; Richard Miller; Jonathan Fitzpatrick; Darcy; mgeiger@pvrea. com; jwadsworth@pvrea. com; Ron D . Asche; jbowerfind@pvrea. com; Dave Kisker Subject: ORD2015 -27 Hi Everyone, I would like to invite you to the Planning Commission hearing tomorrow to discuss the new proposed code changes regarding solar facilities . The hearing will begin at 12 : 30 at the Weld County Administration Building 1150 O Street, Greeley, CO 80632 . I have attached a copy of the proposed code changes for your review and welcome any comments . Michelle Martin Planning Manager 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin(a�,co .weld . co . us e PHONE : (970) 353 -6100 x 3540 FAX : (970) 304-6498 `� �� =': � ; � �, � � � .., Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential z i �� SILICON RANCH ! ; . � April 19, 2016 Mr. Tom Parko Planning Director 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 353-6100 RE: In the Matter Regarding Proposed Modifications to the Weld County Code. : Dear Mr. Parko : ' I am writing on behalf of Silicon Ranch Corporation, an active investor and property owner in Weld County, and the Colorado-based companies we employ. Silicon Ranch currently owns over 500 acres of property throughout Weld County and is under contract to acquire an additiona1375 acres. As a landowner and long-term solar project Owner-Operator, Silicon Ranch supports Weld County's local control agenda. Toward that end, we reyuest that these comments be read into the record and taken into consideration as the Planning Department Staff and Commission prepare their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Silicon Ranch understands and supports the interest Weld County has in establishing clear guidelines for solar facilities of different classifications developed on parcels of land having specific zoning designations. There are, however, conditions in the Proposed Modifications which would subject these systems to the 1041 process typically designed to apply to much larger, transmission -oriented projects. The Proposed Modifications to the Weld County Code provided by Weld County Planning Staff on Apri117 include concepts which are in line with Federal and industry-standard designations in classifying systems into small, medium, and large categories and ensure that the bene�ts of these projects are conveyed to the residents of Weld County. Establishing capacity and respective interconnection limits of 30MW and 115kV for Medium Scale systems and smaller ensures that power generated by these facilities serves the members of the local utility distribution service ter•ritory. EXHI IT � � P� H r c � i t6 vt2t7 Z� � S - 2 � + 1 (615] 577-4786 150 Third Avenue South � Suite 2000 � Nashville, TN 37201 �nnn�w.siliconranchcorp.com �' I�-�`i� . SILICON RANCH ' . Silicon Ranch proposes the following minor modifications to clarify and align the Proposed + Modifications to the Code with the interests of Weld County residents and with what we believe to be the spirit of these proposed changes : ! Recommendation 1 - Ensure the language governing solar projects on land currently I zoned Industrial maintains the current Use by Special Review Permitting Process. Recommendation 2 - Adopt the Proposed Modification structure recommended by the Planning Department Staff for property currently zoned Agricultural, but amend the language to accurately align the associated acreage required with industry standards (approximately 10 acres per MV1� for each capacity classification as follows : ' ', • Small Scale Solar Facilities: ' o Capacity less than or equal to 3MW; and o Interconnecting at a Voltage less than 115kV; and o Solar equipment utilizing less than 30 Acres. • Medium Scale Solar Facilities: o Capacity greater than 3MW and less than or equal to 30MW; and o Interconnecting at a Voltage less than 115kV; and o Solar equipment utilizing less than or equal to 300 Acres. • Large Scale Solar Facilities: o Capacity greater than 30MW; and o Interconnecting at a Voltage greater than 115kV; and o Solar equipment utilizing more than 300 Acres. With these minor amendments to the Code Modifications proposed by the Planning Department, Weld County can ensure that solar project development will proceed in accordance within clearly defined parameters and serve the best interests of its landowners and residents. Solar energy projects—when developed responsibly—create enduring, long- term value and deliver a meaningful legacy for Weld County by providing afFordable and reliable energy generation from a local source. We are available at your convenience to discuss the above recommendations for the Proposed Modifications to the Code. Res ectf ly y s, � � Matt ew H . isber President and Chief Executive Officer Silicon Ranch Corporation Cc: Michelle Martin, Planning Manager; Bruce Barker, County Attorney i ; + 1 (615j 577-4786 150 Third Avenue South � Suita 2000 � Nashville, TN 37201 univwi.sN�onrenchccup.00m g��;, L2908 0� 'N0ld�l la0! 'ZS AMH L0£9L m g�a:� �."`° �. Rd!iNd 21tll0S N0ldf1l 1210d- H�NMf N00IlIS � r� @ =� � . N71d 3do"JS0NtlI �D 3�MJIV210 � m � ry � t � s e -� E worou�-va�'A,Mn� S 3 1 V I 'J 0 S S F/ xd � s � ` � o � � � a � ,y , � � 16L3o'9ZZ'o[6 5ZS0HOD 'su9�opuo� �� £00-SI0ZdfiS M31A3i1 lMD3dS 1.8 3Sfl iou �m � N � � � -I � � � d , zreo9uo�o anupuoi3enouul5lLb NOSab3NA � dWdl �� a � a � � `--Z I'�— �� —;� � �` a p . �4 r`'�� Fo ` y �] � p � � y� •. \ (� C 4 l ` { � 6 6 � `• , � �� g8 � � � � � �,9 e =� �� g � w � 'n & � E. 6 G � � � 5 � g g 33 a3 � W � ��1 ^<� aWcc5ceW e � �T7� `a�' . _ � ( � � � x � o � f' � � I � � ° � � � �_, W �n � i ', � I � � I /' �� .salqqal � ' i ' i y � i W � 3 i ' �� g i ' �€ �� a `s � � g0 � I qs � „� _� a : � � , � . �� .� � w -i i , L� ��s r: /�� M z �W t � I 4$.-' ��' LL Q � � _ � � � � +� ' � . . A � - - Z � ,i/l l �� ^ . � � � � ' � --' �� i i �.�� a , . �� __ _ � � i r -� �� . _�_ r � w, , - i O Q 0 � � �+� � � � -r i � i � F- i � s� /'y� � � ' � � '///' � �� 1 \\_\� _ L' " � � I � N �� ' � � �. � � � I LL ? O ' � � / -- ` _�� ` � � ,.. ! �, e T� d � i � � i � �_ \� � � �� + /r/�i�� I I � � i 4 � o � j� '.�' �— -- � � _ � � � . J N 3 0 � i,� ' � 6 , ;,� � /" - =�� _ ''" - �r�� I1 , � ' /� �_ \ � � � ;� - � O U _ O � N � I � � �:� � I � ) ./�J . �'S-�_ _yr-� ' � � \\� i ' ' � .- �� I �_ �� I � � o � I � � � �y� �,//J/, , �//� � -��t,t �� - ,/ _ ��-� — r, _ � i � F Q �� I �.-;�V/ i/ r //] ��\ � �, �� . � J '�( � , y I � � Z (� f- I i i i - � I : i `- � . � �� 9 � � � K � � �' � ' � � � '� `' � 1 -=�' �/ I �� / i r^ u- i � �� ' � � �, � �� i -� �� he � � . vJ O W i � � .a � � . s r l / � �� I �-- � V 3 � II , � ' `` .: / a � �� / �-j // ( � � � � �I I � �.� � _ ' � i� ' �\�� I �F - ��'J ��_I ' I � � W O � f ir �\ � � w �—� :,_ l�L r �` � � T/ ' /��- I � - _ — 3 � i I � r�' _ �1 � -. �- � � / . � ' '� ;��' � , I a —� W � o � � ' t � - ._ � �� ,�.,�. � �� , i��j j. ' f ' �3 i '� i .�� ^� M, ' � � 0 I � = a �� -� , . , ;� �\ t ; �' � / �/� I o � W ° bl � ! - �� --- ,- ; '� �/�� /%% J� I � � � > z � � � � v p . � yJ ,r � _.� � � ' f � �� - - J � � I W � � „ � � �. � � , / � � _ , � � � i �� i n, ��+--��-,- 1� � �`� � ' �' `� ' ' "i � �� I( � � � W J � � ( P. `� � s��,�y- _- -a \ �.. :� � 3//� ��/ .. I I I F- al � � i � � ✓_ / � � � i - . -�'-�' - � � � - / I � p F, al i � 5 -t � i � -�- . i -i I �. �^/ � � Q � ii � " 4 � .. o : � I ' �� _ � �� _� %�l� _ � . I � tx � . � . - � I � OO u ji � j I ' � - 6" , � r3g �ii �� :� //. Y . . j/ �I ¢a 2 � � � i � ' t � l _ _ ' ��tp .� � � f _� ' � � � g� I C� � � i � CYa � \ ♦ ¢z ' P { / � . I pe U � U y� � � { i �� _ �o� � l ° � � _! �` � ti / - I � '" WW • I � � i t � tl� yf6\�� y � `� � _ 4� � y� F � m � irG�', II I �� l ' �-' 1 � \\ I�l , �i Z � Q � .,g' \�� `\`, - _ --� s `` " \ �� t � � _ .�-� 6— � - ;- ^ I �' I I % F Q � �i � � �� ^ i _' . - ., . � . ...� i Y � � A �_. � , � � 3 ` W (U I � ��l '- I � \�`� .J4t` � =\�yp� " � � � n` � � Q� W `I \\� "I/ � . \\ \ � ` � ��I � ' � ` _ �� ' � . I I yWj � �u w Q � � � ° � �� - � �d � . � � � � � � 9y � � . � �'i.� �S Y S�� j 5 � � Z (U1l LL I r� � � - :` 1 ��,- - -` n-y � �s� -� y` . ' � _ _ z 9 � f ~ - W � r� I y� � . .. i � � O � Q 2 II ' ... � � -L 0.rT _— vri � -dw�++ 'o. cn� oNv t � Ma r-r, aa- ar�P yw�? � � °i �' _ , t �l' � y�g � . ii ' � I : " � _ � � � � j• I - � � � � �/1 Z " ' i : r . , . _ .. , _ _. . - _ — i � � � � e d ^ cHa . 3 F � I rniv ___�a�P > � � � n � �oriv __ orA .. _,a�. -4�?_'_ .aw- � �� srm_ � �.-Q�1; �'�'� . : v ,. I o U g - -. r _ - 3 �,J n , _ . . , i � i � . _- _ , . , e W F & � � � � y4 $�t] =n � J ' ` � O gn tl� 3 v9i � w x Z � °� ��3 �^ '" � 3 � � � �4� e� o a � � �� a l 7 � L � � �� m � � O d Q � � � e , a �e � � 's, � e e � � � c � n z � o � � � 4� � � a�� ffi � y e � � 3 W� ₹ � L �� a s � � s €a $ q2 q xS „ b .{� y � � g 8 �� .�, ≥ ': R e ` p l � g � s3 � � 3� 5 y � '�' �St� s ,�,� §S � 3 ,4' g y '19'N' �i $ �v � „ e � �� b [ § C ES� 6 � F ey ! �z 1 �3 � }�y�' ¢ '6¢' W �' z `� � p•� � t � °S1 s 6 i^n Ot o- ��y/�, �g+ 7 Y � �yQ � � y{t�4 G C 6 � -y�yJ £]{`Q epfJ4 rn dy � � [N� � ^ � 3 p( �FC�S �: Z ¢ � � � � uy�u Q � � � <a O � J� V. Y EL� N [ �¢ � Q � �g� u O F � � < �S �NyS �t S F Y � � F �� .. yme YOS � g 6 y p ₹ `o e 35 4�' x `< k e � �vot � E _ - � ko � �' � g Y � � ��g�� ,y3 Q� B � � i � � 3�. � � X e�� t ' � �b 3 � � �� zb 4 � o y � 8 � � � �5 � 4 �� j u� axo�+ 9 z �€ 1ta � �`k 7 �a � o �� i$ �y �� S � u� o'S � � t % � �3 a .� G � .-�. o "J � 5ea e��e 9 " 3 o S�+ u $ Y �4"F m � t ^ tl � �� ul � � u " c § � � �g � [ a u; E . e F � '" ¢ o e W v - 4 ryryry � L or � 'oo F ' o . o � � y � � �+ u € o in C ``� �A >! v P o1 E e �d .. � GX � mn � �i a ism S @� p.'� b �� T X�r" � `�' � ' �i . F � s �+�WL�'� •. � y � e � e ''"£' a - � ;{ . uoe � 2�5 ¢3 �� f�'"� ` � c's : `° oY 'o n� '� 8 a� � $ 3 ae � 5 a a n.4� �n i u u � € m`x_ � 'S '^ � 4 ' urm8 4 `�W' � 3 i fr"'.i �� k m � r� '�" 3� csB � yR v� a.N � a� cr y � y� � � � �Y�d S.i � s � � : E � o1'u ^' � w �i >�u'o � s „ ' � ! � � � �� ¥ O y� �� s S e � B cu so '6 v1 � " z �°.� � m �ia��a e � ` s �ey �t �y � , eyy � WY � ' � ' � a �� eW � s e� � � = � az _ _- . 9 � Y � T li Ow a � T� � ryNN � �� tf. � � " nY � �. � Ba�.�. "�' $ � ag �� S . 3a � 62�� 5 ` 6 ' k. wm a� � e � 9 W : �q � � a �� ya �c y � tl � = S ��g ��"j � 7 .. � � � e y p� � � M O 3 u �Z �f W u Y m i � m � � � � � � � 3 �� a � �M � ✓J �6 i � e�y � }3� �Q �'� � �� g yy` � m a gy p3 .. � � $ y � � yo 79 ] . � " a � '� 'S � Ilig � 3 Ny Y� tl0 G M�� q Y� GO �W '+ C C W� ON 3 OPI C � � �C S y8 y � OO m0M S ��$� � < 'o' o 'r'z i N � d x 3 �' 5 xr.9 ��' � �� `< 3 3 �'�' Mu �e � tl tl �' "b W n `Y ^'� N k� m �'.�' � �8 C' 3 `I " � � � � � �C9 ' � � ��S � � ` � 3 �'� "a�{ ��1 � �G� e S� 5'" n2fi�} � ��, Y� � � N � 'k � � � '"�ms �g �4 � °� � � � � N � d �mk� � h � k je ₹ ytl o �g �Y� �'o- ra� a� � •Tep � a; €a� � wHi � g g`F u� � 3e3 � � �`d � �h � �` za Q� �Z � Bg9 S � S � � � N � g� � ,�J, tyuZ�d p C + � M y� � � Y� �� U� �� +�� l "< e3 � $ � 3a�J � �ga go . . � q . . � ✓/�se �s s. � g[ t � [ i5psa `3 �6N [� 5 � 6 pJ a e °y V Lz3' (" 3 ww J�8 1E �u' �u'x u3 J6 .i` p �j e�}�" u w L { � Y �� S�y 'ZIV� EF �� Z 6 ��'( N6 { JO� Y N N0 N{ � C S U�I� �e¢ NS � uLA U � OJ O Y 6111I ��rs- � fl �VS i11I �33 Y\L JO I�� 0 0{ � IV /� V YI m n d p y do�o �e� C£ ❑ � n ri i YS\ Y�Y�I��V�Y�il�I(�yY MIYMWINp�I/��q�y�r� W M�� 1{�Y�ply EXHIBIT Che I Hoffman � From : Michelle Martin � �j�� Sent: Thursday , May 19 , 2016 8 : 14 AM To : Esther Gesick ; Cheryl Hoffman Subject : FW: Support for ORD2015-27 revised Attachments : PVREA supports ORD2015-27 revised . pdf Hi Esther and Cheryl , Please add the attached letter to the proposed code changes for solar. Thank you . Michelle Martin I� Planning Manager , 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 mmartin@co .weld . co . us < mailto : mmartin@co . weld . co . us> PHONE : (970 ) 400-3571 FAX : ( 970 ) 304-6498 Confidentiality Notice : This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure . If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e- mail and destroy the communication . Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited . From : David White [ mailto : dwhite@PVREA. com ] Sent : Thursday, May 19, 2016 8 : 06 AM To : Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@co .weld . co . us> Cc : Michelle Martin < mmartin@co . weld . co . us> Subject : Support for ORD2015-27 revised Good morning Tom , Attached is a letter of support for the revised ordinance regarding solar facilities in Weld County . Please add our letter of I support to the record . i Thank you, David White Member Relations Manager Poudre Valley REA Office : 970 . 282 . 6412 Cell : 970 . 581 .0938 Confidentiality Notice : This e- mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient ( s ) and may contain confidential and privileged information . Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited . If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message . z Poudre ' Valley • Powering Your Future May 19, 2016 Mr . Tom Parko Planning Director 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 RE : Support for Ordinance 2015 -27 Revised Dear Mr . Parko, Thank you to your staff and the Planning Commission for their efforts on the revision of the proposed ordinance to define the process for establishing solar facilities in Weld County. Poudre Valley REA ( PVREA ) appreciates the opportunity to provide input and express concerns during the process . PVREA is in support of the revised ordinance, as amended by the Planning Commission on May 3, 2016 . We believe the definitions and the specific terms of siting and construction of solar facilities in Weld County is in line with the needs of the members we serve . The revised proposal will provide PVREA viable options to manage our local resource generation mix according our needs . We are thankful the Board of County Commissioners allowed an additional review of the proposal and the engagement of the community and industry on this important matter . It is the mission of PVREA to provide safe, reliable, and affordable energy to our members in Weld County and this revision to the proposal will allow us to continue on that path . Sincerely, C � j,✓ Jeffrey C. Wadsworth Chief Executive Officer CC : PVREA Board of Directors Michelle Martin , Planning Manager Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association • 7649 REA Parkway • Fort Collins • Colorado • 80528 • 800-432-1012 P . O . Box 272550 , Fort Collins , CO 80527-2550 • www. pvrea . com • pvrea@pvrea. com Your 'Couchstonc I �:ncrgy"� Cooperativc �a'( �-- � � i ` \1� , v v . . - . . . .. . � , : . • . - . . . , � � � , i � , . • l. . � � � � . • • _ � ' ' ' • � - • - � � , . � , � . � �It - .. �. , � .�.. .�. . � � . p .. . 1 ' " � s . � � . � • • • � . . • • � � I . � xir ' � . ' ° '. . • r •. r , . , , ... .. 0] 1 . - • _. . • . ` •_"'.�• � �/• . . 3[: .: . . �� : .. -- rt. -i Y+�_:c . �� ♦ � . . v� �.v�a ��. . : � � . . . .. . . Y • � . .�_ fjY . �.. " . . . , • � - rr-�... .. _, .. _„._ e . llllill 'n � • � { , � ♦ ,� �i...,.-� -.-P � J/ � � ! `' � 'e � T� � Y � . � 4'. �� _ � .^� , , , r r� , , � ..• �� t ' • • , ��, , _ � . . . . � � �n � ,�w, • � _ * ' . � �-. , . . , . . � 1 , . .� , � , i • . � , . j , � , . ; ; � r , ' �, � -c �� . . ' ' " � `-. w I y i . �� . .. :.-.: . � � i � + ' � i ' . . .: , . I . �(+ . . 4� . j � � �.. . � � + � ! I a •. � '�. • • a � 8 t � � I� � � � � � _I I l� • � ' � � i � I + • � " � ' _ � • .� . _ —.�3 � � �_. � 1 _ . _ . � ., � • I J . . ' � � � . � � ■ _ OI ... ° i �: � f i � F'�.:7�. ' � . r . � I11 � �. . , ' i'+ .. ` Vl p . � ` � _ M � � � E�. �, �'� , � � . � • .. �— �� — } ! ' " �' d . � � � � . � � �.�-�� . ��. � � �� ■ -� 1 r — ' ; . �� . , __ � . � � ; r ��.-- - - _ , � � . l � � � Illll � l � ��l � - � : o � . . � . ; . , m_u . i �t i " ^ - • ' � .. �. " . __'— . .._ � r. ;.,asu E� � � ." : ' � �. � -��'1 "_ ' _' , � F � � . : � ...�. � s .. .� f ' � �� 0 � 1 ' , i � �.. " . . � � i . , ; ' : Ii < . y �' • �� ' ' '� � � � p } I . . . . . . . . . . , . -. '� � �y o��4.f i� iw -a � .: . # '. � . ` :' _s '__�..._ . ' . " ' _ � �.� r+ � �q . . . ---__— � . j � �rrewc.. _ . � � � � � Ilix ---- i ` 1 � . . .,.. . .,. .. __ � 'J . �W��. ... Y " .' __- • . • .. - i � Z � ._.�. � . .� ��- � �:eu�• -. . . . - � , ' ' + , � . �-"'.`W�...� � � • ' � . . . � � 1'N� �V�Y.Y� �w ry . ._..-...�-.�.-.w-. � �v�. f . n.::.ixma+wwaxeawmtinw..w+re ..r . .,a. a .vm'.•'-. ..•w,�w.vmT^-� '. .. ... . `-'+ry ..:.. im ^ � '1 '" y.u..muua .. . . ._..__. - . -.. vrry _ '..'r � \ � O ` __ . . . . .. -_J' - �� _ '- _ / � f . . �..... .�..r,— . . . .. .. � - -�a . _ _ J U � � ryn!-,��_ � —_-Px — _ --. —.—. y � � " � x_-. .. . .. .._ � �� . . J .. . .. ._ O Z r L�� .. . . ' _ ____ '. � _ .. i � J i ',r�, �� . � ' . � � 'l "1� W � � � � Ri . . �� , • � � • I , s i � � � ��. . ' l'�� • . � . ' � ' L ' .� � ' • �� • .:. i � � � � � g � _ � ` • . . ..� '.;R, •• O � f •, 1 • • � • �� 1 � i � • � � � � , � � • , • • l . .. _ _ __ .__.. �. F � , .� . -r_`�� , ,- � - - ---- i � . . , . ' . . • , "t . } � �.,w, t ,.� , -..�.. � w , 'I � �. ,.,. � .,,r � +� . � . . - . . � � ' . � :. � . '� � .- . ' � �'. i �^'�' . ;.. . � . I I��d1 �, ,. •`" �� . . _ � ,} • '� yc�i� , � -. � .. �,�:I ' . ` �� 4,� � :..., . � T ' . . �:. !. . .�,. L� v _•:�,.si . . � . Y - e . ,5��. T . ' ' �.'"�y"' � �{ ' . � , I I ° ' v . � �� • I a • . •� � r i .. • • • : � ' .�. ' < � � � � � � � , �. .. , . t I a e • � .... dg,:) �S' . ' . : .... . � _ 4 I � i } �Jk � 1 A iA � . � { t� � t2i � • � � tl n � 4 fi. o- ' � - . . � u � I ♦ 1 � • _ _ .. . y � II � �� j ' • f * • • 4� `m �� • � � - � s '� :. j � .. . � _ • � a � , � �• S � • � t � ' • • . $ ,�y4""3 . � . . . r � �r — ., k'p �r r.x: � • h _ = ' ' � � • • 3 I � a � � Q.L • � t = . . _ 'h� ' ' --- . ; . r.. s . ' - � • . �-k � 'Y : �; t , i � ! . . - � � � ; . , . ... - ., , . . . . , a. , 4 y' . � �� ; � • � a . ..# ' m / � i eF�w � � M � W ' 4o�'.`d e .. � � � t - , .,. a ,. � � i _ �q!G �W � �" � .w ' '{/� . . +. _ _. . . i � k r � ' ' � �. - . `.„ 1 y._ �.`�y� J w r f f L i • • . • _/r � d . . . �i C. Yf4�_ dl � �([ ' �'1 n ip Y . � g4. u �Gk}°..�A4 ew�_ P • �. i � 1{: . a ff Y T. m�. �fim%��i � y � � �' n� r �` . ' . i �. 3 � I a � . � � � I�. � . . � � ra �n 1 . ♦ I $ v e x. , n� _ �'_ n t p � '1�. ^ , "+§p " ` !� *+i �� i s G � � � �� •� t � • g; .. nx e " v. �u. � ' .r . � � l� _ � � I � .� .E � @1 ggv a u e . v a � � � 1 . A �,X .Y 4 en Yi. � e . ' . r y �, ': �� iQ� � � • r " � rF �.. .9'G,- d� .e;bk a% r. mar.` .� . M ' � T . I %a Yiy; pqg}d�}jyµ�� c • . :� .- �- It"�; �: p •N �ti5 tMi'.` �Ke-pyy a . 1'� . . �:�: }d J . A ..� 1 '7 _ � �„ , n� � a< , � i � +—+ I -i� - � + � � "`; � �� a . . '�� r.� � �+ --� � �`„ � . . #�+�,;. ♦ . - ; � � � � �!, . , ,. . , u� 3 . a�r . � � a � . . . � �� . � ' � � • — . . e . . � � . : � . . �f . f� - 1 y,` . . .. _ . _ . ,. • s � � �. X 4 1' . ff �."a • �, � � � . .. � . � ' , � A _ . } . , . ;'�$� _. _ , . ' 1 � A5 d"B• 1Y»—T+.L-A- t - - � '. � � " . 1 t 4 � .. . .� e t . � � . V • ' ti ; ' � " F r y <.� Y � e�° • v � ' d _. � � . . . � ``�� _ . � ' - _ 1 . } m � J 4 `y �y � ' � • [ _ _ 8 x S ^ , � � i rtv � . . J . Y#g".+� Y I � fl � +9H : � L • � . . .^^TMwti+�r. � sr — i� - , ti �� . ' a� F � � �� • 4 � _ � � � � � � 5 � r � A r � � � i s e . �� " ' � � � � � . ..i ' . . �ws ! . �. ■ ( r � � � 4i v � � ,., � � . ._ E � � .� } � � . sN ��. . �� • .e . .� ._ " ,� s � � , . � , .� _ . . H � I ) t � � � � 1 r w � � , � � � R� � � �' �� .�� _ J j,_ � y .X i � y1 � � W�'�I� �r + i �.. . � _ n � a :+� "" w� � ' � ' ( + + � � '1 � � , i.��y � ; ., . � � � ` f Yf � � �� Z � � . . � " Y� 1 I . �� ` g � ✓ L . � ir µ . � M._ . . . . :�r•^7A...,__,.:. �. . _�.. . �:.,, _ zR _ .,m, � . . OC .. � . _._. _.� , , •:, � � . � �' .. � i�. G ' ,wn � U �' u . . _ . . ��Q�`•9 '� -_ r. . . ' } � � ll� ti • . I1 � �$ /1 Z l � 1 - �., . ' M* • • � -�, - ._,�.,..:.�.. _ . I.J � i _ _ _ . _ . _ _-'___ . ".'_' . J �, . � • � . ' i$ asn � . _. �1 � • W � • _ a � � � g —� . c ; , �T" fT J � I � � ' '� �� + a � � � . � 1 � � '� . � • _ • � =., � � , � , � I ; • . . � � �I 4� ' 1 N • • s' I . �_ ' � 1 ' • � � I � ' _ _ . . � �i � .� t I � . I � E � � �.- Y_ . . . :. _ _ -� . . . . . . , �� . � : . . . , . � ° � � . . • � • � ,. ��. ` �� . � �� .: . � � . � ' .., - -..I.y-�.-.qg.. [ . . . '_\ - . � • — � , � s.J ' I i I_l f �d: '- i � - '� � � _ � . . - . • . . . - :. ,-'] , � r . / .�. ' i � • � . , . — L •—, - • �. _,. f �.[�'n` � . � ��' . 1 ..I._n� .�-_f_ r � • �- •« . :.�' I�.�:_i� . . _. . . � • � _ °�d :`: • � { I � ' �_� 4 ..�� V � 1 � . �� ' 1 . ! ` ��_� ` . • } � ' N �: • � � 7h � � • • • • . I ' . . . '-.-' _ . � �.-� ��'-4 � I . , � I � � . � . % • �_.�. � i i ' �� ' � - . . , a � • _ , � �—t - __,�,� �.. � , � � L . � i � , .. �� • . 1� - � . , i , _ , �-- • , ' — ' . a . � � ,— � — •: y . �. . . . . .. . . �. . � � # � � `�r/*�+3k�i�.. • � . _ • . . # � : � � � • � � � � �� - � � • � �� . i �' � � II � . �� ♦ J M1 � � � — � � - � � ` � : -� . - � . � • � , . , . � . �k � i � '• � . , ; , - � , , , _3. ' t . `° ' : � � � � te� iv ��K . . . • ♦ A .a . . _ _ � . ]�j i ' �� _ j '.r, . .�wt � � +�y . . .�a 1- -si,r -.K„ .a ., r_ 'Fv„ .. �� . 7 � q(� � • � • � i � �� ' �.._e;:h . , �-. � ' . � t� � . �' • 1 r . I � - �— � j � i , .� , �. . � , � . � '' . .� � I��: � ' �.' �. � Y ; . _ E _� . �� j ' _ I � f 4 i� � in r � � - .1�- .�4 �, — - :. - - - � � .. - . � � ' , •: � �� - .� _ 4 . �i- � . . . . - �� , � . ;. e ..' � r � I • f ' .' I' ` . � ' �_,. _ _ i . m''t'i' � i � i - I �� j � � t � � . �" 1 f ' �_ ` , � • II � i • �I � -,� � + 1 = � Y � � � � � Y, .{� . , <- - � ._ _ S j —v . w . .' i. �y � �h � � �� ..� • � ! . ' � 7 J ! . i_ � � �• . � .. ; : � .,r.+.....1 � ''� ' N � I� i �( � . • � { E � . , � � T. . ... . . . . 1 • ' ♦ � � � . • �¢♦ I ��y, �� • � I ° w � i �T j '�i . � E' � � � � { I � _ . - - 1 - �� i�. � ' �. t' '��. '` �, • . +J ; � � ! . �- . . �:..._.� � _��? � � � I � � ` - — � . � - � � i � ..�., :. _. . ! .:x,,..._ ._�� : a.— ♦ � ' . -+. � �v . TAnr .rvW' '� � _,�_.. � .� _ � J . � � � -- �J -� - ,M � _ . , _, __ _ w� 5 ,$ � lj � � . _ _.� r _ � � � . � : . _ . _ ; .� • I , . _ } ,� � �+ t ; � � � , � - � � � � tC J —� - — .�—w.-- B _ - - _ w � � _ � _— � ~ - _ y _ _ �� _ J_ `"" � . � . .� -« .,� � � ' �M �. ��1— ' '_ a ZZ -- _ . • � � - �J - � � . : r Q ' _ �� . _ .. . . --- _"' .� - L . t _. ....,.. ._ _ _' . _ ' lk' U . '_ "— __ - _ . _ . . _: , ---. _—_ . _ . ._.�„ — . _ . . Q Z . . �� , . , __— -- - - - - — - . . � u , W z , • - �-- � � V _ - . . • ' � ��!�� C�„1�d� ra• ► � ■� � + � � � � , . � .. � '� • . . ; , � • .. , . . . . , .� 1 ' : • • - : , • . � s ' � ' . � � . . . � . � F . . . . � . i_ ' . . ' �• �� 1 �� ' � � . � � 1 �� I � v = � . ' ��' � . . - - � �� • � • � � - \ {�2 1 %yJM1�� . i�sl� . . . . . .... . p .. � � � A(�� _ . � �Y. T ' J. • Ii �'f ��' ' • � I � � � . • � - . . � `� � j � • . , . . c , . . . . . � , , o€��b i , ' � .. . � . .. r' �• • • , -t . , m • • ' . r, f . . . �,. � g . • � � � M'� s 4 . a,... � � � ' � ' qvgy 9F� ^-. � • � _ _ _ _ _ . — . . � • PI Yyy>� �� {/ � 4 . 1. � .. . .�.A 1' ♦ � • � �� u6 � FI x .. � . • p� � � — F � " aY M j � • � j x ^ _ �� . , • � i �� e g � • '^- �n-a _r'^ ' • • T, �' . a� �i � •� , . � ` l / � � MI .. " .'.��+F I � � �� 'y � • ) 1 � � �, . . � �� • � �♦ } � ' . � � J� ' n I 1 ` , '5�� " �rn ^' . .. P . J . LI M �. .� ��' � r � � .\ .. _ � . . _ . �� •_. ♦ . .. { � t �I � .. • � . . • T I� ` I � K' r ,�s�'�. . . � . y � , ". , � � . . ', � �: ., .:r�tly,�.. � � � + � �� . ! e . �, •• � � . ' � l � � - � L .-� . { � I - '5 -r : � _�.. � . * � .�T �t .��N....� � .. �y . ._ � �b� .. .._ .. . .. . . . . . .. � I �M � � � � Y ! ry� p .. � . � � i � K # , . � � �� nn: Y � . �. . . " � �, .� �� _ c' � �` � l%1 <�; . '4, v� , , � ,* , s . ' } f -�' - � � � �, �, �. � , � � � _ - � V P �¢�y{. � {�� s9. � � n { � t ♦ 4hJ ' ) f . u" ' � 1 . . ^ e. X . 1 "� n Iu.v.lf. ul •'�. _ d / V'1 � ' � I F —_T I � — r.,.':W! _ �'—� • � � s . " � T T— " I � � �. I I � �V� 1 � r� ¢ •� •. r _- l� � � 1 1 � � N1 � '�y e � � a i � � 1 �- ��t{ ' �vy� .�+�mm........vx 1 I 1 � { )w � � f i" F M A . w+� � � ... ` � � Y"i' ..F� �1y�p .W ��,,,: wY UrA . .na.eu++C O . I � A+' �yµ �� ' � ' • �� r .� +l�`�� '� t `� i'N�k L � •�.�. y � � .� � . � � � � 1 Y� � , � i , Y :i ♦ � � � ysti� �� e � " ':: . ry 4� � � . w � -��. J"' � . � w , • �. r ; � i � `'y � a '-,. �, . " ' ' . _ � .� I ; • � t , .' .. .. . _. - , . � . f + ., �� ^' �, � t x : �i "," - i '� -. . .. . , • .. �, a - � � :� , w 1 / / ` x *:. .w , � I � lJ � - - � - � :+ r - ;�� • �.� ' � � , , . ; �� i f , � . _ : � � _ ,. f` � � . - ' „- � i • " Y . + � /� \ : � _�— ' a'� J �� I t � .� \Ll � 'y, �� . /� . . .. � ' „—�� . [:a��' � . �" ' �{. �' � I y` . %/ ��/ /� 4� � a`. r� . . �'. ♦ —_ u . � .. � i F �. .. r � " ! . �� ' � � . � , r � 1 � _ 1 : �� r� � �' - '� �. t�..� � ' � I � ' t .f � 9 :� � . I' I�If . � ' �I 1 . � ,? ! .. .� r � � ~ � � r � � � :.. � ��- ' �- ' � . � .� .Y � ! r �.< ~ 1 Y � . I y��r� . .. �svt�v�!�M.�� YK� 1 i 'lh g 1�4 ' . Z � " ' n-�.. -'"' ,. ,°: ' � ". . � k�. T a__ � _� a*.. . . . � ,., _. -. — a, s ; -��t..�.�'"^. "'�-�' — , . . � � - —. - . . . _ � . .,. , , ' -_ " � � . .�� . �� _ - ,.-. ::,. : _ . _ I:§��Y � . _ � • — _ , .,..� _ _., , -. O l _�_.- "_ ' 7 �1 _ _ a _. .... �_.,._ ... —' � � � 1 !w-•_:.. .. ₹ � . .,., ._ __ � . -< ' .�;', „ ' �. , UI_ - � ! . .. . ' � � -' ^ ? � . . . . _�-� �' x Q Z .� � . . � . . . , . . � . .. '.. �� "% �Jp � � fl � ".o . � mvY__.. _]na-'.x --m 'a-V�_.�:..� ..� , .. ..� . �. _ .. . ir��.� n � { . . � 1 � , � � f� " �'" F1iS � • ti "�i u . hy W � �A • � � � . � . � :; , ' � , � - � � . � � '� . - � . � i _ . � - y .. . . _ . �. ..., "'r' R - ,.,. 4 , � F ..� � � �� . � S ��'. � • � "ti � ... � �� --. � � .. r. � :;� � �� , � . . � � ' z � � � �c � o o n ' [0 - ,._:" .. �„ '� � R . }i�� W � Y OJ � f W C � � U t . -. �'L } -d �`y � 0 N t0 �,,°~ , �, a = c� �, � � � � �''`� �-' v , X � � g�i . J I j,,,,,� Z w C � 7� 1N ��dQ � � � � o � �"sa Ja �3�y�Q , � � v �? J �,"�,� „, ��'" � ;�r bAi9jgJ��1�NS 8��N� a, o L z J , . w s . � � ' ' �: SZ �a �. Oo F— '� .., :�.: L � E `o �` � Z fJ (V E o � �w W 'Q S81j v � � °' � � � b�a�e `�`� � a � m O a ��I�� S/J, �Bp QA'19 9t1f 3��It/f � E � o � � o � � � g " � Z � � ° � Q r, � g v a � a Q W �7 .. s ��...f ^. ♦ • � � r z 'f! ir ` . .�! ♦1w � � r �'y'. OU `U � Z L __ _ _ _ �r _ y W � � v_, O _ . . , . . ! . . . . . � Ge —� � � _ /y� Y r yy � N F' Mr . .. �. � � C� � a� v V? �Cr �•. Q 4 v = v � T! .^ � �W k� '�.-1 ':� v V N � . N � . . . �a� � . . � � .. . .. � � � � � � R � T . .. �. �� . � ,� � � � . . . .. . . i�) � .. ;^ � m o � h V � � �(. ". . �r '� . yy � �a U �'"�y, . ' �Y( . l N N y '3G i I .. . _-L W , �. � • �, � � � i.t'�`� ` � �J � . . �/� N � 9�V�rw f1P `. � . `f '� :. . i . " Y/ t � ' � bt � � r, «a 4a : , i.`�. d ,� i , _ � ~ ` � : � � , �� t � � 1J r cJ J W a'r ,:; s3,�vs��::� � 'a+ .� . _ . .. :. ., (.� `� _ _.., � � �'} r .. : �°„ v/ ✓ . . . . . . . iry 2�y ` 4 � ' . . ' �' ' t „ti p Y v LL Pt� •�.' " N �F��- � f�� `l,�T�;. . �.: . . i . �: - . . .�� _ � "� ',.. O� � LL ._ '�,�. , . . �.: o � - „ � Q W, : � ,�U , N M U ��J � � � Q�J G� W �f�n a s� . � � :' ; � � � � .: �o q � . � ,. , , � � �� `�b �" .�. £� r � � ��IE, ��^� . <a �p u ,., ��iJ � ` ,. . V+ � � � • !�� Q U S t� ' � Js,�`` ��, �A�1�jn ��p � . 9s, J/� cV � a SaJ� br rjBl@ ( ry � 2 `�'�`J y , , v' o ` _. fVOllt/12lO-�N � S! J 9qg • .., . , S[ ��,u ,,. � , b?!.L �pt`•'1£� ° �,. e.r . , a � 8 � �. � ��aU�i� �b�°NC7��.Sz �l.b � , ' °�� r 1N3W121b'd '3C1 � � ,.�r�. � -� Sb �.t 9P�i S�v �1�'v':L ��i3i �+#i ._ " . - : „�, ,..�. .. �3z, �, a . - ' o�.�. .Atina..,�Ls.mr.��.�.�.�r. . . ' .. ' n_( : 3 n� y.,�-��.� +w. -. m��Pxra . � �� Y In � " , eia 4Q�� . y .. . ., � . .. .:, � I .:.:. -' . . .rw.r . _ �b y . . ... ! . _ e . � .,�a'�]��V�s'�1T. � r5 f0 � . .' y. . ��,:� .��. �tr.:.9S` SZ"� 1�blwStl�l�'N ! ' �5, , , ., ,:- .. , .. a ��`'^' , P A$" A4 fy � . . . .J �� , . �a� y '.. .. .'.��., - - . _ _ . ,:�1i►�' _� o ' fe . . . . �I � � _ �'�'.YY] . . �1�wa �'+�1 �n� ie 4 rre . 0 � .+�+m�ui� „ � � TE 251RAMP S � ` ` INTERS �A ' � v° �� - _: 02i 3 J dl N � 2! � SZ 31�t/1 2!31 I M v �, � � , ,.. . � .�-. : : . . � � � V � � � � . .p,y�z.�h . . • . • . . � .. ' x �. , .� . �� '� .�, S�: � �� ; ,� � � � � � � 5 �7 � 6 GlSlCaicutatedAcres - � �� 12lf1 �prW 3NId � �' " DSYR �AL` ESTATE� LCC - � � 3 +a ' . . M . lll � � , -,. . . . �..e � � XhIIBIT PLANNING STAFF ' S � �'� + � ^7`� PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS "' �=� � TO THE WELD COUNTY CODE (WCC) CHAPTERS TO BE MODIFIED : Chapter 21 , Chapter 23 , Article I (Definitions) and Article III (Zone District) SECTION(S) PROPOSED TO BE MODIFIED : Sections : 23 - 1 -90, 23 -3 -40 . LL, 23 -3 -40 . MM, 23 -3 -310 .B . 15 , 23 -3 -310 .D . 11 , 23 -3 -320 . D. 18 , 23 -3 -330 . D . 20, 23 -4-430, and 21 -3 -20 RATIONALE FOR MODIFICATION: This code change would allow Small Scale Solar Facilities in the I- 1 , I-2, and I-3 (Industrial) Zone Districts as a Use by Right and in the A (Agricultural) Zone District as a Use by Special Review. Medium Scale Solar Facilities in all three Industrial Zone Districts and the A (Agricultural) Zone District would require a Use by Special Review. Large Scale Solar Facilities would be allowed in all zones if approved under the 1041 process. PROPOSED MODIFICATION : Sec . 23 - 1 -90 . Definition : Small Scale Solar Facility: A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy, other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines under 115 kV, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and will have a rated capacity of three (3 ) megawatts or less and all equipment will be located on 16 acres or less . This designation shall not include roof and/or ground mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site . Medium Scale Solar Facility: A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy, other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines under 115 kV, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and will either have a rated capacity greater than three (3 ) megawatts and less than thirty (30) megawatts and all equipment is located on 80 acres or less . This designation shall not include roof and/or ground mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site . 1 � Page � _ Large Scale Solar Facility: A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy, other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and will either have a rated capacity greater than thirty (30) megawatts or all equipment is locate on more than 80 acres . This designation shall not include roof and/or ground mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site . Large Scale Solar Facilities are permitted in all zones through permits issued pursuant to the procedures found in Chapter 21 of this Code . Section 21 -3 -20 Large Scale Solar Facility.• A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy, other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and will either have a rated capacity greater than thirty (30) megawatts or all equipment is located on more than 80 acres . This designation shall not include roof and/or ground mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site . POWER PLANT : Any electrical generating facility with an energy generation capacity of fifty (50) megawatts or more, and any facilities appurtenant thereto, or any expansion, extension or enlargement thereof increasing the existing design capacity by fifty (50) megawatts ; or a large scale solar facility. Section 23 - 1 -90 POWER PLANT: Any electrical generating facility with an energy generation capacity less than e�fifty (50) megawatts e�-r�e�e;and any facilities appurtenant thereto, or any expansion, extension or enlargement thereof increasing the existing design capacity but still less than � fifty (50) megawatts ^��. A (Agricultural) Zone District, Section 23 -3 -40 . LL Small Scale Solar Facility A (Agricultural) Zone District, Section 23 -3 -40 . MM Medium Scale Solar Facility I- 1 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23 -3 -310 . B . 15 Small Scale Solar Facility 2 � Page __ _ __ . _ _ � � w I- 1 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23 -3 -310 . D . 11 Medium Scale Solar Facility I-2 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23 -3 -320 . D . 18 Medium Scale Solar Facility I-3 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23 -3 -330 . D . 20 Medium Scale Solar Facility Division 15 Section 23-4- 1030. -Solar Facility A. The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following criteria in making their determination in approving or denying a Special Review Permit for a Solar Facility in addition to those criteria enumerated in Chapter 23 , Article II, Division 4 and its impact on prime agricultural land which is defined as soils with agricultural capability classifications of I, II and III as indicated on maps completed by the U . S . D .A. Natural Resource Service . B . A Decommissioning Plan. Adequate financial assurance to cover the decommissioning of the facility may be required as a condition of approval of the Decommissioning Plan. C. Landscaping is extremely important for enhancing the quality of development in the area. Trees, shrubs and other plantings add greatly to the aesthetic appeal while reducing glare. As no single landscaping plan can be prescribed for all developments due to differing land features, topography and soils, these guidelines encourage flexible and creative landscape designs . Landscaping/screening shall include, at a minimum, decorative fencing, berming, and/or vegetation such that the facility is aesthetically pleasing as viewed from adjacent properties and rights-of-way. D . All reasonable alternatives to the proposed location have been adequately assessed, and the proposed action is consistent with the best interests of the people of the County and represents a balanced use of resources in the affected area. E . The nature and location or expansion of the facility will not unreasonably interfere with any irrigation systems on or adjacent to the solar facility . F . No outdoor storage of any materials and equipment including but not limited to solar panels and support structures not in operation will be allowed. G. No equipment associated with the solar facility shall be located nearer than thirty (30) feet to the boundary of ADJACENT properties, irrigation ditches and/or right-of-ways . 3 � Page ro � The Board of County Commissioners may set a greater distance than mentioned above when, in its opinion, it is justified. H . A Property Maintenance Plan is required for the facility . The Property Maintenance Plan shall address dust, weeds and erosion. The property shall be maintained in such a manner as to control dust, weeds and drainage that could cause erosion. 4 � Page .�r�lY-�'„ �� -.�� . . . . . . _..— - . _. . .. . . _ . . . . . . . . - .. - . ._ . . - . . . -- ..e-n �e?t"-�T�Y-+"a�-�_�-�- -: ' - -'+'+J`-tiT �.� .�� . - f y� EXHIBIT �o� -a,d i � �� PLANNING COMMISSION - ,- .� i`• 5 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS V TO THE WELD COUNTY CODE (WCC) CHAPTERS TO BE MODIFIED : Chapter 21 , Chapter 23 , Article I (Definitions) and Article III (Zone District) SECTION(S) PROPOSED TO BE MODIFIED : Sections : 23 - 1 -90, 23 -3 -40 . LL, 23 -3 -40 . MM, 23 -3 -310 . B . 15 , 23 -3 -310 .D . 11 , 23 -3 -320 . D . 18 , 23 -3 -330 . D . 20, 23 -4-430, and 21 -3 -20 RATIONALE FOR MODIFICATION : This code change would allow Small Scale Solar Facilities in the I- 1 , I-2, and I-3 (Industrial) Zone Districts as a Use by Right and in the A (Agricultural) Zone District as a Use by Right. Medium Scale Solar Facilities in all three Industrial Zone Districts and the A (Agricultural) Zone District would require a Use by Special Review. Large Scale Solar Facilities would be allowed in all zones if approved under the 1041 process. PROPOSED MODIFICATION : Sec . 23 - 1 -90 . Definition : Small Scale Solar Faciliry: A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy, other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines under 115 kV, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and all equipment will be located on 20 acres or less. This designation shall not include roof andlor ground mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site . Medium Scale Solar Facility: A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy, other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines under 115 kV, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and all equipment is located on 320 acres or less . This designation shall not include roof and/or ground mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site . Large Scale Solar Faciliry: A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy, other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and all equipment is locate on more than 320 acres . This designation shall 1 � Page i - - ,, not include roof and/or ground mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site . Large Scale Solar Facilities are permitted in all zones through permits issued pursuant to the procedures found in Chapter 21 of this Code . Section 21 -3 -20 Large Scale Solar Faciliry: A facility which is used for the production of electrical energy from energy collected by the sun including solar energy collectors, power generation facilities, facilities for storing and transforming energy, other appurtenant facilities and any transmission lines, which is developed for the purpose of supplying or distributing electrical energy to users, a customer or customers and all equipment is located on more than 320 acres. This designation shall not include roof and/or ground mounted solar systems located on permitted principal and accessory buildings and designed to supply power to the principle use(s) on site . POWER PLANT : Any electrical generating facility with an energy generation capacity of fifty (50) megawatts or more, and any facilities appurtenant thereto, or any expansion, extension or enlargement thereof increasing the existing design capacity by fifty (50) megawatts ; or a large scale solar facility . Section 23 - 1 -90 POWER PLANT: Any electrical generating facility with an energy generation capacity less than e�fifty (50) megawatts e�-�e�e; and any facilities appurtenant thereto, or any expansion, extension or enlargement thereof increasing the existing design capacity but still less than -by fifty (50) megawatts e��e . A (Agricultural) Zone District, Section 23 -3 -20 . CC Small Scale Solar Facility A (Agricultural) Zone District, Section 23 -3 -40 .MM Medium Scale Solar Facility I- 1 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23 -3 -310 . B . 15 Small Scale Solar Facility I- 1 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23 -3 -310 . D . 11 Medium Scale Solar Facility I-2 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23 -3 -320 .D . 18 Medium Scale Solar Facility I-3 (Industrial) Zone District, Section 23 -3 -330 . D . 20 Medium Scale Solar Facility 2 � Page �. �� K�� . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. G..�T�i� . - . . . . _._. . . - _ �MVr!��.�� . ��rt��'�w / j` • �' Division 15 Section 23-4- 1030. -Solar Facility A. The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following criteria in making their determination in approving or denying a Special Review Permit for a Solar Facility in addition to those criteria enumerated in Chapter 23 , Article II, Division 4 and its impact on prime agricultural land which is defined as soils with agricultural capability classifications of I, II and III as indicated on maps completed by the U. S .D .A. Natural Resource Service . B . A Decommissioning Plan. Adequate financial assurance to cover the decommissioning of the facility may be required as a condition of approval of the Decommissioning Plan. C . Landscaping is extremely important for enhancing the quality of development in the area. Trees, shrubs and other plantings add greatly to the aesthetic appeal while reducing glare. As no single landscaping plan can be prescribed for all developments due to differing land features, topography and soils, these guidelines encourage flexible and creative landscape designs. Landscaping/screening shall include, at a minimum, decorative fencing, berming, and/or vegetation such that the facility is aesthetically pleasing as viewed from adjacent properties and rights-of-way . D . All reasonable alternatives to the proposed location have been adequately assessed, and the proposed action is consistent with the best interests of the people of the County and represents a balanced use of resources in the affected area. E. The nature and location or expansion of the facility will not unreasonably interfere with any irrigation systems on or adjacent to the solar facility . � F . No outdoor storage of any materials and equipment, including but not limited to solar panels and support structures which are not in use, will be allowed. G . No equipment associated with the solar facility shall be located nearer than thirty (30) feet to the boundary of ADJACENT properties, irrigation ditches and/or right-of-ways . The Board of County Commissioners may set a greater distance than mentioned above when, . . . . . . . . in its opinion, it is � usti ied. H. A Property Maintenance Plan is required for the facility. The Property Maintenance Plan shall address dust, weeds and erosion. The property shall be maintained in such a manner as to control dust, weeds and drainage that could cause erosion. 3 � Page Hello