Amid controversy, state legislators debate solar farm regulations

Bill under consideration would remove tax incentives for some solar projects

PROVIDENCE – The recent rush to develop solar array farms on forested lands around the state gained the attention of the House Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources on Thursday as it began to hear a bill proposed by Rep. Jeremiah T. O’Grady that would remove state incentives for such projects on land contig- uous to forests of 250 acres or more.

The bill, H8141, seeks to reduce the interest in using forested lands or green areas for such projects instead of the more costly options of installing solar arrays on “disturbed” property such as former landfills and gravel pits or even developed areas like building roofs or above parking lots.

The legislation comes as several communities like North Smithfield, Exeter and North Kingstown are reviewing proposals for solar farm development on large tracks of undeveloped land.

O’Grady told his fellow members on the Environment and Natural Resources Committee that the bill, also co-sponsored by House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, is the result of the panel’s review of another bill related to solar development, H7793, which sets a process for local communities to site such developments.

“I was struck by testimony that we heard from a large number of citizens who had been adversely affected by the siting of renewable energy facilities on forest land in the towns that they lived. And I was struck by how affected they were and how concerned that they were,” O’Grady said.

The representative said he had also been struck by what “seemed to me to be an ironic situation that we were in the name of green energy, in the name of reducing a carbon footprint, that we were allowing and in fact providing state funded incentives to encourage the location of renewable energy facilities on forested tracks of land,” he said. “It seemed to me to be an incredibly short-sighted state policy to do that,” the representative said.

O’Grady said he spoke to representatives of Grow Smart, a Rhode Island organization promoting sustainable economic growth and livability through quality of place, and looked for ways to address the inconsistency in the state’s green energy incentive program.

“And the way we decided to address it was the bill that is before you tonight. H-8141,” O’Grady said. “And what this does, it simply says that in the case a renewable energy facility that is proposed for a forested site – and we define forested site, it’s any portion of, or a contiguous tract of land bearing a dense growth of trees 250 acres or larger – what we say is that we will not provide state incentives for the siting of a renewable energy facility on such a tract,” O’Grady said.

“This has been characterized by some as prohibiting the location of a renewable energy facility on such a tract, it does no such thing,” he explained. If an owner of a parcel of 250 acres of dense growth forest wanted to “cut down every single tree and replace it with a solar panels, go for it, but the state will not subsidize such a plan and that is what this bill says,” O’Grady said.

O’Grady said the bill specifically refers to the renewable energy development fund that is controlled by Progress RI, and did not initially also target the program that allows National Grid to purchase renewable energy but that could be discussed as a potential addition, he noted.

“We are looking for a balance here between a desire to reduce our carbon footprint by spurring renewable energy as opposed to fossil fuel energy, but balancing that against our need to protect natural resources like forest land that actually have a scrubbing effect when it comes to carbon,” O’Grady said.

“So I think that this bill provides a balance between those two. Is it perfect, it’s not and there are probably plenty of suggested amendments that would make it better and hopefully we will hear some suggestions toward that end tonight,” the Representative said.

O’Grady pointed to the large scale solar farm proposals currently surfacing around the state as the reason to do something to protect forested lands since those tend to be cheaper to develop than already disturbed or developed lands.

“Right now we have a subsidy that is blind to either already disturbed land, whether they be closed landfills, or rooftops, or brown fields or parking lots what or whatever the case might be. Our subsidy is blind whether it is that type of development or a cheaper development out on a greenfield,” he said. “If you are going to subsidize the cheaper development, then you are driving these types of projects to undisturbed land and it’s just the way that it goes,” he said.

In opposition to O’Grady’s bill, James Dickerson of the Northeast Clean Energy Council, a regional clean energy company industry organization representing solar developers, wind developers, and other green energy resources, said renewables sit in the center “of a really critical triangle of public policy priorities here for Rhode Island.’’

On one corner, he said “we have transforming our energy sector. We know we are already underway in the midst of transforming our power sector, we know we have ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and we know increasing the acceleration of renewables is going to be critical to meeting those both 2020, 2030, and mid century GHG emission reduction targets.”

In the third corner of the triangle, he said “is economic development. We know that renewables are bring jobs, they are bringing millions of dollars of investment to Rhode Island and we know that they are bringing local tax revenues to municipalities.

“We are extremely sensitive and by no means dismissive of the urgent need to address the issues that come up when have to site large scale renewable resources,” he said. “But in our view we think that it is not a false choice between accelerating renewables and protecting Rhode Island’s critical nature resources. We think we can do both,” Dickerson said.

Scott Wolf, executive director of Grow Smart, said his organization does support the state’s “ambitious renewable energy goal and we believe that reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is critical to enhancing the quality of our environment and to mitigate the effects of climate change.

“But how do you achieve this goal, how you achieve this goal is at least as important as reaching the goal itself,” he added.

“And I think that there has been such a focus in many quarters on reaching the goal that the collateral and environmental damage involved in not reaching it prudently has been diminished,” Wolf said.

“And so continuing to clear cut thousands of trees in pursuit of this particular renewable energy production goal is unacceptable and it is unnecessary. We can and we must do better,” he said.

Wolf said renewal energy policy should not be a win/ lose for the environment.

“We win on renewable energy and lose on protecting our forests.” We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time,” he said.

The bill before the committee would allow the state to lead by example, he said.