Mesa County Solar Moratorium

Context

In early 2024, Mesa County imposed a 6 month moratorium on utility scale solar generation facilities. While this moratorium is reasonable given the complete lack of guidance in the Land Development Code (LDC), it's imperative the County Commissioners resolve the matter expediently and introduce reasonable provisions for solar development in the county. Unfortunately, misinformation and NIMBY-ism is fairly common, so I created the following content for use personally. I also shared this content with the Citizens Climate Lobby and Western Colorado Alliance for distribution to and use by their members.

Letter to Commissioners

As a resident of Mesa County and a climate conscious citizen, I am writing with the following requests and suggestions as related to future solar development in Mesa County. I hope the Commission expeditiously drives to a resolution which enables solar energy projects to proceed within reason, enabling the economic benefits to the local community and climate benefits to the world.

Preferred Resolution:

• Changes to the Mesa County Land Development Code (LDC), including the addition of solar energy production projects to Sections 6 and 12

• No extension of the existing moratorium, enabling local residents and businesses to capture the benefits of solar energy in the near term.

  • There is currently momentum behind advancing solar projects throughout the United States. This momentum is driven by consumer demand for renewable electricity, federal incentives, and local initiatives, among others. 

  • Localities which adopt favorable but reasonable policies will capture a larger market share of projects and the associated benefits, while late movers may be entirely passed over as projects are sited elsewhere.

Local Benefits:

• County residents and businesses stand to benefit the local economy by reducing electricity costs. Per the DOE, new solar projects have achieved electricity costs at less than $0.06/kWh and dropping.

  • In particular, projects supporting underserved communities, local schools, and municipal buildings help empower these communities and improve equitability.

  • Note: Not all solar projects are developed to support local communities; some are developed through Power Purchase Agreements in which third parties receive the cost savings and environmental attributes. These projects still provide second order benefits to the local community.

• Solar power production projects further benefit the local economy by creating jobs.

  • Note: The operation of solar power production facilities require limited upkeep, so the job creation is largely temporary. However, if Mesa County becomes an early adopter, ongoing projects could sustain a sizable workforce.

• Including solar power development in the LDC respects the rights of residents by giving landowners the ability to develop or sell their land as they see fit (within the bounds of the LDC)

• Solar power developments are much lower in visual, community noise, and environmental impact than many other uses currently allowed in the LDC

Tenet to Consider:

• All conversions related to solar project moratoriums and changes to the Land Development Code should be fact based.

  • There is considerable misinformation around solar projects, leading to some hesitation from a small but vocal minority of county residents. Subject matter experts should be consulted to validate statements and allay concerns.

  • Additionally, the provisions required in the Use Specific Standards and Section 12 to ensure reasonable guidelines are included for development will require subject matter experts, potentially including input from project developers.

FAQs

How much does solar energy cost?

Solar energy is as much as 50% cheaper than fossil derived electricity over the lifetime of an energy production facility, with solar prices continuing to decrease and fossil fuels increasing.

Solar energy is typically discussed either in terms of price per watt or price per kilowatt hour. Price per watt indicates the capital costs associated with a certain power generation. It is useful for determining how much the installation of a solar farm will cost, but does not provide a meaningful means to compare solar energy prices to fossil sources for most consumers. 

Price per kilowatt hour is the energy cost, amortizing the capital costs of the project across the assumed lifetime energy production of the project (typically 25 years). The U.S. Department of Energy celebrated achieving $0.06/kW back in 2017, with a recent study from the National Renewable Energy Lab showing an even lower cost of $0.04/kW in 2021. The figure below from NREL showcases the decreasing cost of solar energy.

This is compared to current Xcel residential energy rates of $0.07-$0.08/kW (before additional fees), and fossil energy prices have historically been increasing as shown by the 5 year trend of Colorado Electric Utility Retail Price.

The below figure is from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), which corroborates the data from Xcel and NREL and shows that solar and onshore wind have both achieved prices below the range of fossil derived electricity.

If solar is the cheapest form of energy, why don’t energy companies switch entirely to solar?

Two major barriers to 100% adoption of solar are capital costs and energy storage. Traditional fossil based electricity production has a blend of upfront capital costs (i.e., building a natural gas power plant) and ongoing operating costs (i.e., continuously purchasing natural gas). Solar on the other hand effectively only has upfront capital costs, introducing cash flow and financing challenges. Once the solar farm is built, the ongoing operating costs are much lower for the 25+ year life of the farm, resulting in a price reduction over the life of the solar farm.

The second barrier is energy storage, although to date this is only an issue in localities with high renewable adoption. As more of the grid adopts solar and other forms of renewable energy, time of use becomes a relevant consideration. Solar energy is only produced during daylight hours, necessitating alternatives at night. These alternatives could be a “base load” energy production; a source of power that is either continuously operating or that can be quickly ramped up and down. Traditionally, this would be coal or natural gas, although sustainable alternatives include geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear. An alternative to a “base load” solution would be an energy storage solution. This could take many forms, with batteries being the traditional solution, but other methods are in development. These include production of hydrogen, which can then be converted back to electricity using fuel cells, and kinetic energy storage, such as pumping water upstream into a reservoir to produce electricity at a later date are alternative options.

These barriers are in addition to permitting, regulatory, zoning, and other challenges with unlocking affordable renewable energy for everyone.

How can Mesa County avoid vandalism, particularly damage from firearm discharge?

Vandalism can be a challenge for any facility, and solar farms do not introduce any new considerations not faced by other buildings and facilities. Mesa County sheriff's office along with local municipality police departments enforce laws and apprehend violators.

Firearm discharge in Mesa County is only allowed on private property and certain federally managed lands as long as the projectile does not leave the property and the property is not in a designated "No Shooting Zone" per Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Resolution 87-18. Violators of this as it relates to any property, including solar projects, should be dealt with by the sheriff’s office and police departments.

Do solar farms introduce a fire hazard?

Like anything that produces or conducts electricity, solar panels can introduce a small risk of electrical fire. While the U.S. does not have a comprehensive tracking system for fires started by solar farms, a recent German study shows the risk of serious damage to be 0.006% of Germany’s more than 2 million solar projects. The risk of fire is lower than the risk due to oil and gas spills associated with fossil derived energy. It is also noteworthy that the majority of fires at solar farms are not attributed to the panels but to traditional ancillary electrical equipment present at any energy production facility or transformer station.

Mitigating the risk and outcomes can be accommodated through thoughtful code development. This includes developers completing a fire risk assessment, implementing reasonable setbacks, and adhering to maintenance requirements, as most fires are due to damaged equiptment.

Do solar panels leach chemicals or otherwise pose a risk to land and soil?

No, solar panels do not leach chemicals nor do they have noteworthy risks to land. In fact, per the DOE, there are numerous co-benefits to pairing solar farms with agriculture, including potential water reductions, lengthened growing seasons through providing shade, and nutrient recharge of degraded land. These co-benefits are particularly beneficial to Mesa County given the hot climate and concerns on water availability.

95% of solar panels are silicon based. Silicon is the second most abundant element in the Earth’s crust and is non-toxic. These panels typically have aluminum frames and mounting hardware, which is corrosion resistant and does not exhibit appreciable leaching.

There are specialized solar panels, including thin film panels, which rely on cadmium telluride or copper indium gallium diselenide. These panels are not typically used for utility scale applications, and the risk of leaching from these is also low during normal operations thanks to their sealed nature. While there is effectively zero risk of leaching chemicals, additional requirements, such as maintenance and end of life recycling, could be imposed on projects utilizing non-silicon based panels to ensure no chemicals are leached.