‘Preferred siting’ for solar is back on Selectboard agenda

The Selectboard will hear a presentation from Town Manager (and Director of Planning) Roderick Francis on the topic of preferred siting for solar projects at its meeting on February 23. It is agenda item #7. However, no materials on that item are in the Selectboard packet released on Friday for the meeting.

Preferred site status for solar panel farms sparked outcry at the February 9 Selectboard meeting. Several neighbors near the proposed 8-acre Upper Loveland Road project are asking the Board to rescind the preferred site status given the project. The residents say the project violates the Town Plan. They also say abutting landowners did not get specific notice that the Selectboard was considering the project for preferred site status in August. Personally, I think the residents are raising good points. [Hmm. I wonder if the abutters know about the February 23 meeting?]

Further, in the Selectboard packet for February 23 are a number of letters on the topic of rescinding preferred site status for the Upper Loveland solar project. See pages 1 through 33 of the February 23 packet.

No specific action is planned is planned. However, the Selectboard could conceivably decide to drop any further discussion of the Upper Loveland Road solar project, depending on what it hears on Wednesday.

Questions

I hope the presentation answers the following questions about preferred site status. The definition is set forth in PUC Rule 5.100.

What does preferred site status get the Upper Loveland Road project?

Let’s start by following the money. Why do developers want preferred site status? I have heard, but do not know, that preferred site status gives a project some extra economic benefits. What are those benefits? And more specifically, what are those benefits for the Upper Loveland Road solar project? What are they worth in dollars to the project owners over the life of the project?

Also of note is PUC Rule 5.104. It controls what projects qualify for net-metering under PUC Rule 5.100. It would seem, but I don’t know, that a project the size of Upper Loveland Road needs preferred site status to qualify as a net-metering project under the rule. That is a big deal, if my read is correct.

What standards control preferred site status?

The PUC Rule does not say what factors a town should consider in granting preferred site status. The definition in the PUC rule is below.

However, materials for enhanced energy plans at the TRORC and Department of Public Service websites indicate that a municipality should consider two factors. First, raw energy potential. Is the location in a prime spot to catch the sun?. TRORC maps this data for Norwich here at page 11. See also the map above.

I have never seen energy potential raised as a factor raised at a Norwich Selectboard meeting on preferred siting. Odd. Shouldn’t the Town be channeling development where it is best suited? Zoning does that for all kinds of development.

The second factor are natural features possibly worthy of protection. See partial list below.

Moreover, as far as I know, Norwich has no written standards regarding review of preferred site requests. Under the Town Plan, most of the Town is considered a preferred site. I was at the time of its proposal, and remain, unhappy with that value judgment in the Town Plan. Nevertheless, there may be no need to develop written standards.

There is also a difference of opinion between Mr. Francis and some residents whether the 2020 Town Plan should control. Mr. Francis as Director of Planning, said the Town was without jurisdiction to consider any factor, other than views from public roads under the 2009 Zoning Regulations.

What role for stewardship and property rights?

Stewardship and property rights do not get much mention in discussing preferred site status. I wonder if those factors deserve greater consideration.

Someone pays for the subsidies that comes with preferred site status, most likely GMP ratepayers. Should town officials be selective with respect to grants of such status, in light of the cost?

Moreover, preserving Norwich for future generations is part of the responsibility of today’s officials. The Town Plan says Norwich can meet its renewable energy target for year 2050, by installing solar on less than one percent of the town’s total land area, based on current solar technology. There seems to be room to take other land use values into consideration before giving a site preferred site status.

Finally, let’s not forget someone owns this property. They have rights too. Could they clear cut all 40 acres or bar hikers from using the land?