lovemorrisct@gmail.com

TOWN HALL MEETING

FRIDAY, MARCH 20TH, 5 PM

This is your chance to ask questions, voice your concerns, and request the solar company mitigate negative effects

TWO MORRIS SOLAR “FARMS”

The following information is meant to inform the citizens of Morris about two major solar/power station proposals being considered for our town, covering over 40 acres in residential neighborhoods. The proposed sites are located in close proximity to each other and the center of Morris. These types of installations have been researched by scientists, environmentalists, and universities – and there are legitimate concerns.

There is no financial incentive for the town other than the initial permit fees. In addition, property values in the vicinity of these installations will be reduced, thus negatively affecting the Morris tax base.

Please note that multiple projects have been struck down in Torrington; the Mayor and town attorneys were involved in supporting the well being of their citizens and environment.

Read on to learn:

  • details about the proposed locations
  • concerns related to the environment, public health, property values, and our “right to peaceful enjoyment”
  • what Morris residents can require of solar companies, in addition to pressuring local government involvement
  • Links to research are provided down below

WHO APPROVES SOLAR FARM APPLICATIONS

Commercial solar installations do not require approval by the town municipality; the CT Siting Council approves or denies these applications. The Siting Council’s responsibilities include:

  • protection of the environment and ecology of the state
  • minimizing damage to scenic, historic, recreational values
  • providing environmental standards for the location, design, construction, operation of public utility facilities
  • ensuring standards as stringent as federal environmental standards
  • assuring the welfare and protection of the people of Connecticut

CT SITING COUNCIL – SITING GUIDES

Greenskies Proposal

The parent company for Greenskies is located in Taiwan. Their proposal, petition 1686, involves installing solar panels, and the associated power station, on approximately 20 acres of land in the center of Morris (Tillson’s farmland). These acres border both West Street and South Street. The Greenskies application has been preliminarily approved by the Siting Council pending worksite approval, and pending Greenskies addressing the concerns of the residents of Morris.

If impacts cannot be diminished, agencies with the proper oversight are legally justified (required?) to deny a project.

Lodestar Proposal

The Lodestar proposal, petition 1695, also involves installing solar panels, and the associated power station, on approximately 20 acres of land near the center of Morris. The acreage borders South Street and the N.Terrell Farm Road neighborhood. Again, commercial solar installations do not require approval by the town municipality; the CT Siting Council approves or denies these applications. The CT Siting Council has not yet voted on the Lodestar application.

CONCERNS

Solar energy is widely celebrated as a clean energy solution. Many solar companies (a significant number have with foreign parent companies) are installing solar projects across the country. As more studies are conducted, a growing number of critics are raising concerns about the environmental (and agricultural impacts) of solar array construction. These concerns include habitat disruption, land use, soil health, water contamination, and the health/quality of life concerns for the community. The waste management of decommissioned panels is regulated by the EPA. The solar panels installed by Greenskies and Lodestar both contain lead from solder. Some solar panels also contain forever chemical (PFAS), cadmium, arsenic, and other heavy metals.

Since these projects can have significant negative impacts in the short term and long term, many feel that they are better located in greyfields (abandoned shopping centers and malls) or brownfields (abandoned industrial sites).

Before final worksite approval, the Connecticut Siting Council and the relevant solar company are required to determine whether the project causes unacceptable environmental or community impacts, particularly involving:

  • drinking water contamination
  • residential proximity
    • health and quality of life concerns
    • devaluation of home values
  • wetlands and watershed impacts
  • endangered species habitat impacts
  • farmland loss

These factors are usually reviewed under environmental standards reflected in federal laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, as well as Connecticut statutes like the Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act.

There are questions regarding whether all of the above has been completed before the Siting Council voted on the Greenskies application.

What Residents Can Request of Solar Companies

MAXIMUM MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS

If either project is granted final worksite approval, Morris residents can request binding conditions of approval. These conditions should be written so they become legally enforceable permit requirements. The project should be denied if environmental impacts cannot be agreed upon.

If the Connecticut Siting Council grants final worksite/plan approval, strict enforceable conditions should be imposed including the following (each point is expanded upon below):

  1. large residential setbacks
  2. layered vegetative buffer zones
  3. stormwater and watershed protection
  4. monitoring
  5. well protections
  6. wildlife surveys and habitat protection requirements; environmental monitoring
  7. fire and hazardous material safety plan
  8. agricultural land/ farmland safeguards
  9. traffic and infrastructure protections
  10. property value protection fund
  11. decommissioning financial guarantees

This approach aligns with how the Connecticut Siting Council typically evaluates contested energy siting cases

1. Large Residential Setbacks

  • Minimum 300-500 foot setback from residential dwellings
  • These large area setbacks reduce:
    • Visual Impact
    • Glare Exposure
    • Noise from Inverters
    • Safety Risks from Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
  • Supporting Research:
    • Potential exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from inverters and power infrastructure. (World Health Organization, Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, 2007)
    • Tsoutsos et al., “Environmental Impacts from Solar Energy Technologies,” Energy Policy

2. Layered Vegetative Buffer Zones

  • Three rows of evergreen trees (12–15 ft height minimum)
  • Minimum 50–100 ft vegetative buffer
  • Advantages to the community and wildlife:
    • restricts visual incursion
    • lessons or suppresses sound
    • encourages and restores wildlife habitat
  • Supporting Research:
    • Hernandez et al., Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2014)

3. Stormwater and Watershed Protection

This is imperative as these solar plants are located near reservoirs or aquifers

Measures that need to be implemented:

4. Monitoring

To be conducted by an appointed Independent environmental body

The Morris Community should request:

  • third-party environmental monitor paid by the developer
  • yearly environmental impact reports
  • community access to the monitoring data

5. Well Protections

Required Protections for private wells:

6. Wildlife Habitat Protection Requirements

Prior to Worksite Approval the Following Must Be Conducted:

7. Fire and Hazardous Material Safety Plan

  • This is needed because the solar framework has electrical systems and hazardous materials
  • Damage, failure, or combustion of solar panels could release hazardous materials (e.g., lead, cadmium, PFAS) into air, soil and groundwater
    • Electrical storms (lightening) can set panels on fire
  • Mitigation:
    • A fire suppression plan approved by the area/responding fire departments
    • hazardous material containment response protocols
    • plan for emergency response coordination
  • Supporting Research:

8. Agricultural Land/ Farmland Safeguards

Possible alleviation requirements/steps:

9. Traffic and Infrastructure Protections

Guidance from the Federal Highway Administration

During Construction:

  • traffic management plan
  • road damage compensation
  • restricted truck routes
  • dirt/dust/debris control and suppression will be necessary as the soil will be disturbed.
    Utilizing water and standing barriers. If the dirt/dust/debris is not kept under strict control near
    residential land and homes, equipment will be damaged.

10. Property Value Protection Fund

Past practice from other location require developers to establish community compensation
funds. Possible relief:

11. Decommissioning and Financial Assurance

Recommendations by the U.S. Department of Energy solar siting guidelines

The solar companies should provide:

  • decommissioning bond or escrow account
  • funding for the removal of panels and infrastructure
  • land restoration plan.

Additional Sources:

Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy

Solar Energy Development Environmental Considerations

National Research Council, Environmental Impacts of Solar Energy Technologies, National
Academies Press, 2010

U.S. Department of Energy, Utility-Scale Solar Energy Environmental Impact Studies

Tsoutsos, Frantzeskaki & Gekas, “Environmental Impacts from the Solar Energy Technologies, ”Energy Policy, 2005
Connecticut Siting Council Petition Process Guidelines

“How Do Solar Farms Affect Property Values,” Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Participation Guide

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Framework