- Email: [email protected]
Land reuse in support of renewable energy development
Land Use Policy 66 (2017) 105–110
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Land reuse in support of renewable energy development
MARK
Jacqueline L. Waite Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Participant, hosted by the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Renewable energy Contaminated lands Land reuse
Renewable Portfolio Standards are U.S. state-level policies that encourage renewable energy development to meet a proportion of electricity demand. These policies, along with state and federal incentives and private sector demand, have motivated interest in renewable energy capacity, which is a function of available land. As global climate change has been driven by the combination of fossil fuel combustion and land cover change, renewable energy development is best achieved through sustainable land use practices. One option is to site renewable energy installations on land that has been contaminated or degraded. This analysis looks at the degree to which renewable energy demand created by state renewable portfolio standards in the United States could be met by contaminated or formerly contaminated sites. Results suggest that land resources are more than sufficient to meet current and possibly future RPS-generated demand in three out of four regions.
1. Introduction
other land re-use and renewable energy development challenges.
The nearly 200 signatories of the Paris Agreement (UNFCC, 2015) have made national policy commitments to limit the use of fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2015) has predicted that by 2020 renewables will count for 26% of global electricity generation. At the time of the Agreement, the United States had been making the transition toward meeting its electricity demands through a higher proportion of clean energy sources. The national goal set by the Obama Administration called for the U.S. to produce 30 percent more of its electricity from clean energy sources (e.g. hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wind and solar), by 2030 (White House, 2016). Concurrent with national policy has been an effort at the state level to integrate more nonfossil fuel energy sources into utilities’ energy portfolios. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have mandatory renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and another six states have non-binding goals (Fig. 1). These state RPS policies, in many cases, were put in place with the expectation that the requirement would stimulate new resource development within a state or region (Wiser and Barbose, 2008). After over a decade of RPS, it is possible to quantify the amount of energy resources developed and the remaining demand generated by these policies (Barbose, 2016). Previous studies have documented opportunities for, and barriers to, using contaminated or degraded lands (hereafter, DLs) for renewable energy in various contexts. This study supports those efforts by comparing a quantifiable land resource energy capacity with an established level of RPS- generated energy demand. The result is a definitive statement about land resources which is discussed relative to
2. Review of literature
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.030 Received 25 November 2016; Received in revised form 6 April 2017; Accepted 9 April 2017 Available online 05 May 2017 0264-8377/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
As Gordon Walker (1995a, 3) explains in his introduction to a special issue of this journal, “energy and land use are closely entwined,” and the expansion of renewables has lead to a new set of challenges. A driving question for renewable energy developers is where to site new installations. According to the analysis by Trainor et al. (2016), “per unit energy, renewable energy generally has a greater direct land use footprint than extractive energy” (p.9). Commonly, renewable energy developers target “greenfields,” (e.g., open spaces, agricultural land or forested land.) Developers consider resource (i.e., sun, wind, biomass) availability; site conditions; energy markets, and grid access which may require investments in new transmission infrastructure. Increasingly, urban and regional planners are weighing the sustainability trade-offs associated with using greenfields for energy development, such as habitat protection, food production and preservation of ecosystem services (Hernandez et al., 2015; Hernandez, 2014; Northrup and Wittemyer, 2013; Sliz-Szkliniarz, 2013; Copeland et al., 2011; Lovich and Ennen, 2011). It is also not uncommon for communities to oppose solar, and often to a greater extent, wind installations which interfere with landscapes to which they feel connected (see Pasqualetti, 2011). For larger cost-effective projects, a sustainable option may be to reuse thousands of underutilized degraded land parcels. The shift toward envisioning DLs as opportunities for productive reuse is well documented (see Spiess and De Sousa, 2016; Adams et al., 2010). This common sense approach tackles two land use quandaries at
Land Use Policy 66 (2017) 105–110
J.L. Waite
Fig. 1. States with RPS Policies in 2016. Source: Reprinted with permission from G. Barbose, Berkeley Lab, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Energy Analysis Department. Original note: Compliance years are designated by the calendar year in which they begin. Mandatory standards or non-binding goals also exist in US territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands).
measured against actual current and future policy-driven (i.e., RPSdriven) demand for renewable energy. Specifically, (1) can siting wind and solar installations on DLs help states meet RPS- generated demand, and (2) where might siting on DLs be most useful?
once: motivating the clean-up, protection and re-use of thousands of acres of contaminated lands, landfills and mine sites; and developing sustainable sources of energy (Adelaja et al., 2010). Earlier studies suggested potential for solar energy production on abandoned buildings (Greenstein and Sungu-Eryilmaz, 2006), landfills (Ferrey, 2007) and brownfields (Adelaja et al., 2010). More recently, Spiess and De Sousa (2016) find that where renewable energy installations are unpopular, they are more palatable when placed on land that has already been sacrificed to contamination. This envisioned potential has been realized to some degree. There has been modest yet steady growth of projects in the United States (EPA, no date). In addition to examples in the Czech Republic (Klusáček et al., 2014), recent international examples include a proposed solar array on a closed landfill in the city of Taipei (Taipei Times, 2016), and a 2.7 MW solar park on a former tar acid disposal site in Neukirchen, Germany (Chen, 2013). Other research more fully documents barriers to renewable energy projects on DLs and provides some evidence for why there are not more of them. Financial risk and liability are barriers for energy developers on contaminated lands according to Spiess and De Sousa’s (2016) inquiry involving 100 energy experts in North America and Europe. This aligns with Neuman and Hopkins’ (2009) recommendation of an insurance product which would cover both energy projects and pollution control liability associated with contaminated sites. Relatedly, Spiess and De Sousa (2016) find that technical and environmental challenges, such as fully understanding the extent and implications of the environmental contamination, are prohibitive to getting projects off the ground. Klusáček et al. (2014), found that despite a lack of government incentives, and technical challenges, a small proportion of solar energy projects in their study area of the Czech Republic were sited on degraded agricultural and industrial land in situations where site ownership was straightforward and uncomplicated. Frantál and Osman (2013) highlight the range of policies and public attitudes toward developing renewable energy on DLs across the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland and Romania. This report builds upon previous attempts to describe the benefits and quantify the potential wind and solar energy capacity of contaminated or degraded lands in the United States (see for example, Milbrandt et al., 2014). In this instance, let the calculation uniquely describe the energy capacity of an existing federal database of lands
3. Methods The sample for this calculation was drawn from a set of nearly 81,000 sites initially screened by U.S. EPA’s RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative in partnership with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Criteria for this initial pre-screen included: site size (based on reported acreage); distance to transmission lines and roads, and resource-specific criteria such as wind speed and maximum direct normal irradiance, which is a measurement of sunlight (US EPA, 2015). Table 1 describes the pre-screening criteria in more detail. Sites listed as having only “off-grid” potential were not included in this study. The database of pre-screened sites is comprised of lands associated with federal clean-up programs (e.g., Superfund sites, RCRA corrective action sites, Brownfield grantees, and sites that were identified through EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program). In addition, eleven states supplied some data on DLs registered with state abandoned mine inventories and/or clean-up programs (see Appendix). The data were further cleaned by removing duplicate records. Sites listed on both state and federal inventories were systematically removed based on site ID number. The total number of sites included in the analysis for solar PV and wind are n = 20,065 and n = 5,382, respectively. Many sites (n = 2,843) screened positively for both wind and solar PV and have been captured in both calculations, although the expectation is that only one technology would be developed on each site. The analysis involved calculating renewable energy (wind and solar PV) capacity of DLs based on land area. Wind and solar PV capacity per site was calculated based on NREL estimates of land-use impacts of renewable technologies. For solar PV, the author used the average total land use figure of 7.9 acres per MW (see Ong et al., 2013, v). This figure represents the estimated area required to generate 1 MW of electricity based on the average production of all solar technologies and efficiencies at the time of the study. This is called a “total” land use figure because it captures the amount of land needed for the solar technology (e.g. solar panels) plus buffer zones and access roads. Thus for 106
Land Use Policy 66 (2017) 105–110
J.L. Waite
Table 1 Solar and wind energy pre-screening criteria. Source: Modified from Data Documentation for Mapping and Screening Criteria for Renewable Energy Generation Potential on EPA and State Tracked Sites, RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative (EPA 2015, 5). The table shows the criteria used to pre-screen the 2015 set of contaminated lands, landfills and mine sites for solar PV and wind based on the technologies available at the time. Only sites that met the criteria for utility and large scale are included in this analysis. Project Size Category
Renewable Energy Resource Availability
Acreage (acres)
Distance to Transmission (miles)
Distance to Graded Roads (miles)
Solar PV Utility scale Large scale Off-grid
Direct Normal Irradiance (kWh/m2/day) ≥5.0 ≥3.5 ≥2.5
≥40 ≥2 –
≤10 ≤1 –
≤10 ≤1 –
Wind Utility scale Large scale 1–2 Turbines Off-grid
Wind speed (m/s) 5.5 m/s at 80 m 5.5 m/s at 80 m 5.5 m/s at 80 m 5.5 m/s at 50 m
≥100 ≥40 ≥2 ≥0.25
≤10 ≤10 ≤1 –
≤10 ≤10 ≤1 –
calculating the total solar PV capacity per state:
H=
∑ n
Table 2 Residual RPS demand vs. potential capacity of CLs by region (GW). Source: The residual demand and under development supply figures were calculated by G. Barbose at Berkeley Lab (2016) and provided upon request.
A 7.9
Policy-driven Demand
where H is the total solar capacity by state for all sites n in GW, and A is the acreage value per site. For wind, we used the average total area requirement of 82.25 acres per MW (Denholm et al., 2009, 10). This figure represents an estimate of total area needed to generate 1 MW of electricity for all turbine types and configurations (i.e., placement patterns). A similar equation was used for calculating wind capacity (W) values for each state:
W=
∑ n
A 82.25
State values were then aggregated by region and compared to the regional demand figures. After calculating state capacity for solar and wind, a conservative assumption was applied that only 10 percent of the capacity per state will be developed into renewable energy projects due to potential barriers. The total and 10 percent capacity for wind and solar PV were then calculated on a regional basis for direct comparison with regional demand. RPS demand projections were calculated for each state based on a state's current set of percentage targets, accounting for exemptions and other state-specific provisions (see Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2016). This demand was aggregated to the regional scale as several states are allowed to meet their RPS obligations with energy generated in neighboring states. See the Appendix for information about how states are grouped regionally.
Potential Supply
Region
2020 Residual Demand
2030 Additional Residual Demand
Under Development
10% Solar Capacity
10% Wind Capacity
Mid-Atlantic Midwest New England West
12 0 4 13
8 2 2 24
5 7 1 15
28 37 7 327
2 4 1 14
state legislatures wish to increase RPS in the future. It is helpful to think about the sheer quantity of degraded lands available for reuse, and yet there are obvious limitations to the crude capacity analysis presented here. Several factors constrain or enable the land to be reused for renewable energy. As mentioned, the sites in this national database have only been pre-screened for renewable energy resource potential. More advanced on-site feasibility studies examine the layout of the land including slope, aspect and shading and measure the resource in more detail. For example, a project engineer may study wind speed and patterns at a site over the course of a year. Renewable energy developers will investigate many other feasibility considerations, such as the economic benefit of producing energy, and most relevant to DLs, site history, clean-up status and the ability to assign and apportion potential environmental liability. Whether a project is initiated by a municipal government, a private site owner, or an energy developer, community support for the project is paramount. There are additional practical concerns such as site control (i.e., will the developer buy or lease the land), installation design, financing and interconnection potential. Project developers must ensure that the grid can handle new energy at or near the site and/or may be required to upgrade existing infrastructure. The uneven energy regulatory terrain also factors into the motivation for developing sites. Restructured energy market states have policies that facilitate independent renewable energy production. One of these is the ability of generators and customers to directly enter into power purchase agreements that allow such installations to directly compete for retail sales. Sites that pre-screen for renewable energy potential are at varying stages of assessment and/or clean-up. The question still remains whether reuse can encourage clean-up of sites. While developers or communities may begin planning for a renewable installation on a DL before undergoing the assessment and/or clean-up process, available research suggests that renewable energy developers prefer to wait until after a site has been remediated or cleared for reuse to initiate or become involved in a project (IEc, 2016). In other words, indications are
4. Results and discussion The analysis shows an enormous potential for meeting and exceeding state RPS demand by siting solar and wind on DLs, especially with solar PV, alone. If just 10 percent of the estimated DL capacity associated with sites currently tracked by US EPA comes online, it could approach, meet or exceed the residual or remaining unfulfilled RPS demand in all regions. Table 2 shows the potential supply of electricity on the right side as compared to the residual demand figures provided by Barbose (2016) on the left side. A complete list of the full estimated capacity per state can be found in the Appendix. The residual demand values represent the total amount of additional capacity, beyond what is installed today, needed to meet RPS requirements in 2020 and 2030. Every RPS state has requirements in 2030 even if the percentage targets ceased growing in earlier years. Projects with capacity listed as “under development” are understood to be potential contributors, but are not counted toward meeting state RPS at this stage. The capacity generated from DLs could be especially useful for states in the West, which already have a high residual demand. It also means that Midwest states have room to grow should 107
Land Use Policy 66 (2017) 105–110
J.L. Waite
benefits of reuse still require the support of empirical evidence. For example, is there a significant, quantifiable greenhouse gas benefit to reusing DLs versus nearby greenfields for wind and solar production, as there seems to be with biofuel production (Gopalakrishnan et al., 2009)? Other potential outcomes such as habitat and agricultural land preservation, job creation and economic development are worth exploring. The sites included in this analysis represent the overlap between renewable energy resource potential and places associated with industrial activities and mining. Could deliberate, location-specific energy production power new economic activity in the Rust Belt or in Appalachia?
that clean up and reuse in this case represent discrete processes with unrealized opportunity for overlap and coordination. When a DL is deemed ready for reuse there is often still a need for acquiring state and local land use and environmental permits, and the project may require a less traditional, non-intrusive installation design. The reuse of landfills can be relatively straightforward if the site has been properly capped and closed long enough for waste to settle (for solar considerations, see USEPA and NREL, 2013). Project developers interested in Superfund sites and other sites with contaminants known to pose risks to human health and the environment must learn to navigate the landscape of federal and state legal liability (see USEPA, 2014). Despite these challenges, the number of projects continues to grow, which may suggest that projects are becoming more economically feasible, possibly as a result of lower technology costs and/or more projects taking advantage of federal and state tax credits. Successes may also be breeding more success, especially in states and among renewable energy companies with DL project portfolios. US EPA adds 10–15 new domestic projects to its tracking matrix every six months (see USEPA, 2016). Much can still be said about the drivers and implications of RPS policies. For example, some of the most ambitious policies are in smaller jurisdictions with relatively high population density (e.g. Hawaii, the District of Columbia, and Massachusetts). Arguably, available land did not present a limitation for developing ambitious RPS, but once in place, are states more likely to think about ways to direct development toward contaminated or marginal lands? Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey, (as well as Vermont) do already encourage development of renewables on brownfields and landfills (see for example, NJ Solar Act). It is not clear whether other RPS states will follow suit. The state actions, particularly in Massachusetts and New Jersey, seem to be having an impact; renewable energy projects on DLs in these five states represent 47 percent of the EPA project tracking list (USEPA, 2016, 2). Another factor that can impact renewable energy development on DLs is the overall energy demand in a state, of which a fraction may be renewable energy demand. Some states do not currently face increased demand for electricity, possibly because of population decline and/or a decline in industrial electricity consumers. However, the voluntary renewable energy market is growing as more consumers (residential and organizational) demand clean energy (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2016). DLs may attract the attention of environmentally-conscious company shareholders concerned about sustainability. As Spiess and De Sousa (2016) point out, some of the suggested
5. Conclusion The environmentalist mantra, “reduce-reuse-recycle” applies to land. Even land that has been sacrificed to contamination may be reused under the right conditions and design specifications to protect human health and the environment. One option for degraded and contaminated lands is to host renewable energy installations that might otherwise be sited on greenfields. Several states in the US have begun to drive renewable energy development through policies which create mandatory renewable energy portfolio standards. This report compares the potential solar and wind energy capacity of DLs to meet established RPS policy-generated demand. Potential energy supply from wind and solar PV was calculated from the current US EPA inventory of contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites that have been pre-screened for renewable energy potential. A fraction (10 percent) of that potential capacity is represented here. While practical barriers exist to reusing DLs, there can be no doubt that there is enough acreage to ensure all regions meet current RPS, and that some regions, such as the West and Midwest, could sustain higher demand Acknowledgments The author thanks the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and helpful comments. This project was supported in part by an appointment to the Research Participation Program at the Office of Communications, Partnerships and Analysis of the Office of Land and Emergency Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA.
Appendix Renewable energy potential capacity by state
State^
Energy Market Regionᶧ
Potential Solar Sites
Total Capacity Solar PV (GW)
Alaska Alabama Arkansas Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana
West Southeast Southeast West West West New England Mid-Atlantic Mid-Atlantic
– 137 104 1825 2156 134 225 114 15
– 25.54 27.39 547.62 1199.43 69.00 1.47 2.18 0.12
1 6 28 11 257 34 28 8 –
0.00 0.01 0.83 43.07 37.46 4.14 0.06 0.12 –
Southeast Southeast Hawaii West Mid-Atlantic Mid-Atlantic
332 249 235 85 1838 285
170.19 72.36 38.05 520.66 31.54 22.01
34 6 84 24 401 103
13.77 0.22 3.51 7.29 3.11 1.25
108
Potential Wind Sites
Total Capacity Wind (GW)
Land Use Policy 66 (2017) 105–110
J.L. Waite
Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Mississippi Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Wisconsin West Virginia Wyoming
Midwest Midwest Mid-Atlantic Southeast New England Mid-Atlantic New England Midwest Midwest Midwest Southeast West Midwest West New England Mid-Atlantic West New England Mid-Atlantic Midwest Mid-Atlantic Midwest West Mid-Atlantic New England Southeast Midwest Mid-Atlantic Texas West New England Mid-Atlantic West Midwest Mid-Atlantic West
191 237 142 195 88 141 781 635 318 264 99 76 102 105 55 2125 82 1176 209 22 267 193 705 644 55 148 33 113 986 87 88 944 59 361 582 23
3.48 26.56 33.66 35.15 2.40 11.03 8.68 53.77 110.45 88.94 1.79 58.35 15.32 29.12 0.99 39.67 409.85 59.10 42.59 5.22 5.24 24.00 38.56 17.75 0.48 108.08 1.06 26.80 89.26 117.08 0.39 39.38 274.04 43.36 4.97 1.99
44 93 25 20 40 19 137 217 80 124 2 25 55 11 12 550 27 310 6 14 144 110 62 1466 14 9 17 22 477 16 2 87 9 84 11 16
0.34 2.62 1.45 0.14 0.27 0.22 0.73 5.39 10.63 8.59 0.02 0.93 1.56 10.12 0.08 3.07 14.50 4.47 2.01 0.51 1.24 2.47 13.49 3.89 0.04 0.39 0.04 0.41 8.06 10.40 0.03 1.34 0.27 4.22 0.01 0.20
^Bolded states contributed some data to US EPA’s inventory of sites. ᶧSource of Regional Delineation: Lawrence Berkeley Lab RPS Residual Requirements (2016).
Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112 (44), 13579–13584. Hernandez, R.R., 2014. Environmental impacts of utility scale solar energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 766–779. IEA, 2015. Renewable Energy Medium-Term Market Report: Market Analysis and Forcasts to 2020. International Energy Agency, Paris Retrieved from. https://www. iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/MTRMR2015.pdf. IEc, 2016. Evaluation of the RE-Powering Initiative. Industrial Economics, Incorporated, Cambridge, MA Retrieved from. https://www.epa.gov/re-powering/re-poweringevaluation-fact-sheet-and-report. Klusáček, P., Havliček, M., Dvořák, P., Kunc, J., Martinát, S., Tonev, P., 2014. From wasted land to megawatts: how to convert brownfields into solar power plants (the case of the Czech Republic). Acta Univ. Agric. Silveculturae Mendaliane Brun. 62 (3), 517–528. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2016. RPS Demand Projections February 2016. Berkeley, CA. Lovich, J., Ennen, J., 2011. Wildlife conservation and solar energy development in the Desert Southwest, United States. Bioscience 61 (12), 982–992. Milbrandt, A.R., Heimiller, D.M., Perry, A.D., Field, C.B., 2014. Renewable energy potential on marginal lands in the United States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (4), 473–481. Neuman, S., Hopkins, C.D., 2009. Renewable energy projects on contaminated property: managing the risks. Environ. Claims J. 21 (4), 269–312. Northrup, J., Wittemyer, G., 2013. Characterizing the impacts of emerging energy development on wildlife, with an eye toward mitigation. Ecol. Lett. 16 (1), 112–125. O'Shaughnessy, E., Liu, C., Heeter, J., 2016. Status and Trends in the U.S. Voluntary Green Power Market (2015 Data). National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. Ong, S., Campbell, C., Denholm, P., Margolis, R., Heath, G., 2013. Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO Retrieved from. www.nrel.gov/publications. Pasqualetti, M.J., 2011. Opposing wind energy landscapes: a search for common cause. Annal. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 101 (4), 907–917. Sliz-Szkliniarz, B., 2013. Assessment of the renewable energy-mix and land use trade-off
References Adams, D., De Sousa, C., Tiesdell, S., 2010. Brownfield development: a comparison of North American and British approaches. Urban Stud. 47 (1), 75–104. Adelaja, S., Shaw, J., Beyea, W., McKeown, J.C., 2010. Renewable energy potential on brownfield sites: a case study of Michigan. Energy Policy 38, 7021–7030. Barbose, G., 2016. Renewable Portfolio Standards: Overview of Status and Key Trends. Hosted by Clean Energy States Alliance. Chen, J., 2013. K & W Natural Energy Completes 2.7. February 9, 2013. Retrieved August 15, 2016, from. http://www.pv-tech.org/news/kw_natural_energy_completes_2. 7mw_pv_project_on_former_tar_acid_disposal_si. Copeland, H., Pocewiscz, A., Kiesecker, J.M., 2011. Geography of energy development in Western North America: potential impacts on terrestrial ecosystems. In: DE, D. (Ed.), Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation in Western North America. Island Press, Washington, DC (pp. 7–22). Denholm, P., Hand, M., Jackson, M., Ong, S., 2009. Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. Ferrey, S., 2007. Converting brownfield environmental negatives into energy positives. Boston Coll. Environ. Aff. Law Rev. 34, 417. Frantál, B., Osman, R., 2013. Renewable energy developments on brownfields: some evidence on diverging policies, practices and public attitudes from the USA. In: Annual Meeting of the American Association of Geographers. April 8–13, 2013. Los Angeles, CA. Gopalakrishnan, G., Negri, M.C., Wang, M., Wu, M., Snyder, S.W., Lafreniere, L., 2009. Biofuels, land and water: a systems approach to sustainability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (15), 6094–6100. Greenstein, R., Sungu-Eryilmaz, Y., 2006. Recycling urban vacant land inch by inch, row by row: neighbors reclaim neighborhoods. Commun. Bank. (Spr.) 18–20. Hernandez, R.R., Hoffacker, M.K., Murphy-Mariscal, M.L., Wu, G.C., Allen, M.F., 2015. Solar energy development impacts on land cover change and protected areas. Proc.
109
Land Use Policy 66 (2017) 105–110
J.L. Waite
USEPA and NREL, 2013. Best Practices for Siting Solar Photovoltaics on Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. US Environmental Protection Agency and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Washington, DC Retrieved from. https://www.epa.gov/repowering/re-powering-your-community#solar. USEPA, 2014. Liability Reference Guide for Siting Renewable Energy on Contaminated. Properties US Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC. Retrieved April 5, 2017, from. https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/liability-reference-guide-sitingrenewable-energy-contaminated-property. USEPA, 2016. RE-Powering Tracking Matrix (October 2016). Retrieved from. https:// www.epa.gov/re-powering/re-powering-tracking-matrix. Walker, G., 1995. Energy land use and renewables. Land Use Policy 12 (1), 3–6. White House, 2016. White House The Record—Climate. Retrieved August 31, 2016 from. https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change. Wiser, R., Barbose, G., 2008. Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States: A Status Report with Data Through 2007. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
at aregional level: a case study for the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodship. Land Use Policy 35, 257–270. Solar Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 1999, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 48:3 (West 2013). Spiess, T., De Sousa, C., 2016. Barriers to renewable energy development on brownfields. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 18 (4), 507–534. Taipei Times, 2016. Taipei to Turn Former Landfill into Solar Plant. July 31, 2016. Retrieved August 2016, from. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/ 2016/07/31/2003652170. Trainor, A.M., McDonald, R.I., Fargione, J., 2016. Energy sprawl is the largest driver of land use change in United States. PLoS One 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0162269. UNFCC (adopted Dec. 12, 2015). Paris Agreement. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. USEPA, 2015. Data Documentation for Mapping and Screening Criteria for Renewable Energy Generation Potential on EPA and State Tracked Sites. RE-Powering America's Land Initiative Retrieved from. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201504/documents/repowering_mapper_datadocumentation.pdf.
110
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Land reuse in support of renewable energy development
MARK
Jacqueline L. Waite Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Participant, hosted by the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Renewable energy Contaminated lands Land reuse
Renewable Portfolio Standards are U.S. state-level policies that encourage renewable energy development to meet a proportion of electricity demand. These policies, along with state and federal incentives and private sector demand, have motivated interest in renewable energy capacity, which is a function of available land. As global climate change has been driven by the combination of fossil fuel combustion and land cover change, renewable energy development is best achieved through sustainable land use practices. One option is to site renewable energy installations on land that has been contaminated or degraded. This analysis looks at the degree to which renewable energy demand created by state renewable portfolio standards in the United States could be met by contaminated or formerly contaminated sites. Results suggest that land resources are more than sufficient to meet current and possibly future RPS-generated demand in three out of four regions.
1. Introduction
other land re-use and renewable energy development challenges.
The nearly 200 signatories of the Paris Agreement (UNFCC, 2015) have made national policy commitments to limit the use of fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2015) has predicted that by 2020 renewables will count for 26% of global electricity generation. At the time of the Agreement, the United States had been making the transition toward meeting its electricity demands through a higher proportion of clean energy sources. The national goal set by the Obama Administration called for the U.S. to produce 30 percent more of its electricity from clean energy sources (e.g. hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wind and solar), by 2030 (White House, 2016). Concurrent with national policy has been an effort at the state level to integrate more nonfossil fuel energy sources into utilities’ energy portfolios. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have mandatory renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and another six states have non-binding goals (Fig. 1). These state RPS policies, in many cases, were put in place with the expectation that the requirement would stimulate new resource development within a state or region (Wiser and Barbose, 2008). After over a decade of RPS, it is possible to quantify the amount of energy resources developed and the remaining demand generated by these policies (Barbose, 2016). Previous studies have documented opportunities for, and barriers to, using contaminated or degraded lands (hereafter, DLs) for renewable energy in various contexts. This study supports those efforts by comparing a quantifiable land resource energy capacity with an established level of RPS- generated energy demand. The result is a definitive statement about land resources which is discussed relative to
2. Review of literature
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.030 Received 25 November 2016; Received in revised form 6 April 2017; Accepted 9 April 2017 Available online 05 May 2017 0264-8377/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
As Gordon Walker (1995a, 3) explains in his introduction to a special issue of this journal, “energy and land use are closely entwined,” and the expansion of renewables has lead to a new set of challenges. A driving question for renewable energy developers is where to site new installations. According to the analysis by Trainor et al. (2016), “per unit energy, renewable energy generally has a greater direct land use footprint than extractive energy” (p.9). Commonly, renewable energy developers target “greenfields,” (e.g., open spaces, agricultural land or forested land.) Developers consider resource (i.e., sun, wind, biomass) availability; site conditions; energy markets, and grid access which may require investments in new transmission infrastructure. Increasingly, urban and regional planners are weighing the sustainability trade-offs associated with using greenfields for energy development, such as habitat protection, food production and preservation of ecosystem services (Hernandez et al., 2015; Hernandez, 2014; Northrup and Wittemyer, 2013; Sliz-Szkliniarz, 2013; Copeland et al., 2011; Lovich and Ennen, 2011). It is also not uncommon for communities to oppose solar, and often to a greater extent, wind installations which interfere with landscapes to which they feel connected (see Pasqualetti, 2011). For larger cost-effective projects, a sustainable option may be to reuse thousands of underutilized degraded land parcels. The shift toward envisioning DLs as opportunities for productive reuse is well documented (see Spiess and De Sousa, 2016; Adams et al., 2010). This common sense approach tackles two land use quandaries at
Land Use Policy 66 (2017) 105–110
J.L. Waite
Fig. 1. States with RPS Policies in 2016. Source: Reprinted with permission from G. Barbose, Berkeley Lab, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Energy Analysis Department. Original note: Compliance years are designated by the calendar year in which they begin. Mandatory standards or non-binding goals also exist in US territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands).
measured against actual current and future policy-driven (i.e., RPSdriven) demand for renewable energy. Specifically, (1) can siting wind and solar installations on DLs help states meet RPS- generated demand, and (2) where might siting on DLs be most useful?
once: motivating the clean-up, protection and re-use of thousands of acres of contaminated lands, landfills and mine sites; and developing sustainable sources of energy (Adelaja et al., 2010). Earlier studies suggested potential for solar energy production on abandoned buildings (Greenstein and Sungu-Eryilmaz, 2006), landfills (Ferrey, 2007) and brownfields (Adelaja et al., 2010). More recently, Spiess and De Sousa (2016) find that where renewable energy installations are unpopular, they are more palatable when placed on land that has already been sacrificed to contamination. This envisioned potential has been realized to some degree. There has been modest yet steady growth of projects in the United States (EPA, no date). In addition to examples in the Czech Republic (Klusáček et al., 2014), recent international examples include a proposed solar array on a closed landfill in the city of Taipei (Taipei Times, 2016), and a 2.7 MW solar park on a former tar acid disposal site in Neukirchen, Germany (Chen, 2013). Other research more fully documents barriers to renewable energy projects on DLs and provides some evidence for why there are not more of them. Financial risk and liability are barriers for energy developers on contaminated lands according to Spiess and De Sousa’s (2016) inquiry involving 100 energy experts in North America and Europe. This aligns with Neuman and Hopkins’ (2009) recommendation of an insurance product which would cover both energy projects and pollution control liability associated with contaminated sites. Relatedly, Spiess and De Sousa (2016) find that technical and environmental challenges, such as fully understanding the extent and implications of the environmental contamination, are prohibitive to getting projects off the ground. Klusáček et al. (2014), found that despite a lack of government incentives, and technical challenges, a small proportion of solar energy projects in their study area of the Czech Republic were sited on degraded agricultural and industrial land in situations where site ownership was straightforward and uncomplicated. Frantál and Osman (2013) highlight the range of policies and public attitudes toward developing renewable energy on DLs across the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland and Romania. This report builds upon previous attempts to describe the benefits and quantify the potential wind and solar energy capacity of contaminated or degraded lands in the United States (see for example, Milbrandt et al., 2014). In this instance, let the calculation uniquely describe the energy capacity of an existing federal database of lands
3. Methods The sample for this calculation was drawn from a set of nearly 81,000 sites initially screened by U.S. EPA’s RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative in partnership with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Criteria for this initial pre-screen included: site size (based on reported acreage); distance to transmission lines and roads, and resource-specific criteria such as wind speed and maximum direct normal irradiance, which is a measurement of sunlight (US EPA, 2015). Table 1 describes the pre-screening criteria in more detail. Sites listed as having only “off-grid” potential were not included in this study. The database of pre-screened sites is comprised of lands associated with federal clean-up programs (e.g., Superfund sites, RCRA corrective action sites, Brownfield grantees, and sites that were identified through EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program). In addition, eleven states supplied some data on DLs registered with state abandoned mine inventories and/or clean-up programs (see Appendix). The data were further cleaned by removing duplicate records. Sites listed on both state and federal inventories were systematically removed based on site ID number. The total number of sites included in the analysis for solar PV and wind are n = 20,065 and n = 5,382, respectively. Many sites (n = 2,843) screened positively for both wind and solar PV and have been captured in both calculations, although the expectation is that only one technology would be developed on each site. The analysis involved calculating renewable energy (wind and solar PV) capacity of DLs based on land area. Wind and solar PV capacity per site was calculated based on NREL estimates of land-use impacts of renewable technologies. For solar PV, the author used the average total land use figure of 7.9 acres per MW (see Ong et al., 2013, v). This figure represents the estimated area required to generate 1 MW of electricity based on the average production of all solar technologies and efficiencies at the time of the study. This is called a “total” land use figure because it captures the amount of land needed for the solar technology (e.g. solar panels) plus buffer zones and access roads. Thus for 106
Land Use Policy 66 (2017) 105–110
J.L. Waite
Table 1 Solar and wind energy pre-screening criteria. Source: Modified from Data Documentation for Mapping and Screening Criteria for Renewable Energy Generation Potential on EPA and State Tracked Sites, RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative (EPA 2015, 5). The table shows the criteria used to pre-screen the 2015 set of contaminated lands, landfills and mine sites for solar PV and wind based on the technologies available at the time. Only sites that met the criteria for utility and large scale are included in this analysis. Project Size Category
Renewable Energy Resource Availability
Acreage (acres)
Distance to Transmission (miles)
Distance to Graded Roads (miles)
Solar PV Utility scale Large scale Off-grid
Direct Normal Irradiance (kWh/m2/day) ≥5.0 ≥3.5 ≥2.5
≥40 ≥2 –
≤10 ≤1 –
≤10 ≤1 –
Wind Utility scale Large scale 1–2 Turbines Off-grid
Wind speed (m/s) 5.5 m/s at 80 m 5.5 m/s at 80 m 5.5 m/s at 80 m 5.5 m/s at 50 m
≥100 ≥40 ≥2 ≥0.25
≤10 ≤10 ≤1 –
≤10 ≤10 ≤1 –
calculating the total solar PV capacity per state:
H=
∑ n
Table 2 Residual RPS demand vs. potential capacity of CLs by region (GW). Source: The residual demand and under development supply figures were calculated by G. Barbose at Berkeley Lab (2016) and provided upon request.
A 7.9
Policy-driven Demand
where H is the total solar capacity by state for all sites n in GW, and A is the acreage value per site. For wind, we used the average total area requirement of 82.25 acres per MW (Denholm et al., 2009, 10). This figure represents an estimate of total area needed to generate 1 MW of electricity for all turbine types and configurations (i.e., placement patterns). A similar equation was used for calculating wind capacity (W) values for each state:
W=
∑ n
A 82.25
State values were then aggregated by region and compared to the regional demand figures. After calculating state capacity for solar and wind, a conservative assumption was applied that only 10 percent of the capacity per state will be developed into renewable energy projects due to potential barriers. The total and 10 percent capacity for wind and solar PV were then calculated on a regional basis for direct comparison with regional demand. RPS demand projections were calculated for each state based on a state's current set of percentage targets, accounting for exemptions and other state-specific provisions (see Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2016). This demand was aggregated to the regional scale as several states are allowed to meet their RPS obligations with energy generated in neighboring states. See the Appendix for information about how states are grouped regionally.
Potential Supply
Region
2020 Residual Demand
2030 Additional Residual Demand
Under Development
10% Solar Capacity
10% Wind Capacity
Mid-Atlantic Midwest New England West
12 0 4 13
8 2 2 24
5 7 1 15
28 37 7 327
2 4 1 14
state legislatures wish to increase RPS in the future. It is helpful to think about the sheer quantity of degraded lands available for reuse, and yet there are obvious limitations to the crude capacity analysis presented here. Several factors constrain or enable the land to be reused for renewable energy. As mentioned, the sites in this national database have only been pre-screened for renewable energy resource potential. More advanced on-site feasibility studies examine the layout of the land including slope, aspect and shading and measure the resource in more detail. For example, a project engineer may study wind speed and patterns at a site over the course of a year. Renewable energy developers will investigate many other feasibility considerations, such as the economic benefit of producing energy, and most relevant to DLs, site history, clean-up status and the ability to assign and apportion potential environmental liability. Whether a project is initiated by a municipal government, a private site owner, or an energy developer, community support for the project is paramount. There are additional practical concerns such as site control (i.e., will the developer buy or lease the land), installation design, financing and interconnection potential. Project developers must ensure that the grid can handle new energy at or near the site and/or may be required to upgrade existing infrastructure. The uneven energy regulatory terrain also factors into the motivation for developing sites. Restructured energy market states have policies that facilitate independent renewable energy production. One of these is the ability of generators and customers to directly enter into power purchase agreements that allow such installations to directly compete for retail sales. Sites that pre-screen for renewable energy potential are at varying stages of assessment and/or clean-up. The question still remains whether reuse can encourage clean-up of sites. While developers or communities may begin planning for a renewable installation on a DL before undergoing the assessment and/or clean-up process, available research suggests that renewable energy developers prefer to wait until after a site has been remediated or cleared for reuse to initiate or become involved in a project (IEc, 2016). In other words, indications are
4. Results and discussion The analysis shows an enormous potential for meeting and exceeding state RPS demand by siting solar and wind on DLs, especially with solar PV, alone. If just 10 percent of the estimated DL capacity associated with sites currently tracked by US EPA comes online, it could approach, meet or exceed the residual or remaining unfulfilled RPS demand in all regions. Table 2 shows the potential supply of electricity on the right side as compared to the residual demand figures provided by Barbose (2016) on the left side. A complete list of the full estimated capacity per state can be found in the Appendix. The residual demand values represent the total amount of additional capacity, beyond what is installed today, needed to meet RPS requirements in 2020 and 2030. Every RPS state has requirements in 2030 even if the percentage targets ceased growing in earlier years. Projects with capacity listed as “under development” are understood to be potential contributors, but are not counted toward meeting state RPS at this stage. The capacity generated from DLs could be especially useful for states in the West, which already have a high residual demand. It also means that Midwest states have room to grow should 107
Land Use Policy 66 (2017) 105–110
J.L. Waite
benefits of reuse still require the support of empirical evidence. For example, is there a significant, quantifiable greenhouse gas benefit to reusing DLs versus nearby greenfields for wind and solar production, as there seems to be with biofuel production (Gopalakrishnan et al., 2009)? Other potential outcomes such as habitat and agricultural land preservation, job creation and economic development are worth exploring. The sites included in this analysis represent the overlap between renewable energy resource potential and places associated with industrial activities and mining. Could deliberate, location-specific energy production power new economic activity in the Rust Belt or in Appalachia?
that clean up and reuse in this case represent discrete processes with unrealized opportunity for overlap and coordination. When a DL is deemed ready for reuse there is often still a need for acquiring state and local land use and environmental permits, and the project may require a less traditional, non-intrusive installation design. The reuse of landfills can be relatively straightforward if the site has been properly capped and closed long enough for waste to settle (for solar considerations, see USEPA and NREL, 2013). Project developers interested in Superfund sites and other sites with contaminants known to pose risks to human health and the environment must learn to navigate the landscape of federal and state legal liability (see USEPA, 2014). Despite these challenges, the number of projects continues to grow, which may suggest that projects are becoming more economically feasible, possibly as a result of lower technology costs and/or more projects taking advantage of federal and state tax credits. Successes may also be breeding more success, especially in states and among renewable energy companies with DL project portfolios. US EPA adds 10–15 new domestic projects to its tracking matrix every six months (see USEPA, 2016). Much can still be said about the drivers and implications of RPS policies. For example, some of the most ambitious policies are in smaller jurisdictions with relatively high population density (e.g. Hawaii, the District of Columbia, and Massachusetts). Arguably, available land did not present a limitation for developing ambitious RPS, but once in place, are states more likely to think about ways to direct development toward contaminated or marginal lands? Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey, (as well as Vermont) do already encourage development of renewables on brownfields and landfills (see for example, NJ Solar Act). It is not clear whether other RPS states will follow suit. The state actions, particularly in Massachusetts and New Jersey, seem to be having an impact; renewable energy projects on DLs in these five states represent 47 percent of the EPA project tracking list (USEPA, 2016, 2). Another factor that can impact renewable energy development on DLs is the overall energy demand in a state, of which a fraction may be renewable energy demand. Some states do not currently face increased demand for electricity, possibly because of population decline and/or a decline in industrial electricity consumers. However, the voluntary renewable energy market is growing as more consumers (residential and organizational) demand clean energy (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2016). DLs may attract the attention of environmentally-conscious company shareholders concerned about sustainability. As Spiess and De Sousa (2016) point out, some of the suggested
5. Conclusion The environmentalist mantra, “reduce-reuse-recycle” applies to land. Even land that has been sacrificed to contamination may be reused under the right conditions and design specifications to protect human health and the environment. One option for degraded and contaminated lands is to host renewable energy installations that might otherwise be sited on greenfields. Several states in the US have begun to drive renewable energy development through policies which create mandatory renewable energy portfolio standards. This report compares the potential solar and wind energy capacity of DLs to meet established RPS policy-generated demand. Potential energy supply from wind and solar PV was calculated from the current US EPA inventory of contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites that have been pre-screened for renewable energy potential. A fraction (10 percent) of that potential capacity is represented here. While practical barriers exist to reusing DLs, there can be no doubt that there is enough acreage to ensure all regions meet current RPS, and that some regions, such as the West and Midwest, could sustain higher demand Acknowledgments The author thanks the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and helpful comments. This project was supported in part by an appointment to the Research Participation Program at the Office of Communications, Partnerships and Analysis of the Office of Land and Emergency Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA.
Appendix Renewable energy potential capacity by state
State^
Energy Market Regionᶧ
Potential Solar Sites
Total Capacity Solar PV (GW)
Alaska Alabama Arkansas Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana
West Southeast Southeast West West West New England Mid-Atlantic Mid-Atlantic
– 137 104 1825 2156 134 225 114 15
– 25.54 27.39 547.62 1199.43 69.00 1.47 2.18 0.12
1 6 28 11 257 34 28 8 –
0.00 0.01 0.83 43.07 37.46 4.14 0.06 0.12 –
Southeast Southeast Hawaii West Mid-Atlantic Mid-Atlantic
332 249 235 85 1838 285
170.19 72.36 38.05 520.66 31.54 22.01
34 6 84 24 401 103
13.77 0.22 3.51 7.29 3.11 1.25
108
Potential Wind Sites
Total Capacity Wind (GW)
Land Use Policy 66 (2017) 105–110
J.L. Waite
Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Mississippi Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Wisconsin West Virginia Wyoming
Midwest Midwest Mid-Atlantic Southeast New England Mid-Atlantic New England Midwest Midwest Midwest Southeast West Midwest West New England Mid-Atlantic West New England Mid-Atlantic Midwest Mid-Atlantic Midwest West Mid-Atlantic New England Southeast Midwest Mid-Atlantic Texas West New England Mid-Atlantic West Midwest Mid-Atlantic West
191 237 142 195 88 141 781 635 318 264 99 76 102 105 55 2125 82 1176 209 22 267 193 705 644 55 148 33 113 986 87 88 944 59 361 582 23
3.48 26.56 33.66 35.15 2.40 11.03 8.68 53.77 110.45 88.94 1.79 58.35 15.32 29.12 0.99 39.67 409.85 59.10 42.59 5.22 5.24 24.00 38.56 17.75 0.48 108.08 1.06 26.80 89.26 117.08 0.39 39.38 274.04 43.36 4.97 1.99
44 93 25 20 40 19 137 217 80 124 2 25 55 11 12 550 27 310 6 14 144 110 62 1466 14 9 17 22 477 16 2 87 9 84 11 16
0.34 2.62 1.45 0.14 0.27 0.22 0.73 5.39 10.63 8.59 0.02 0.93 1.56 10.12 0.08 3.07 14.50 4.47 2.01 0.51 1.24 2.47 13.49 3.89 0.04 0.39 0.04 0.41 8.06 10.40 0.03 1.34 0.27 4.22 0.01 0.20
^Bolded states contributed some data to US EPA’s inventory of sites. ᶧSource of Regional Delineation: Lawrence Berkeley Lab RPS Residual Requirements (2016).
Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112 (44), 13579–13584. Hernandez, R.R., 2014. Environmental impacts of utility scale solar energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 766–779. IEA, 2015. Renewable Energy Medium-Term Market Report: Market Analysis and Forcasts to 2020. International Energy Agency, Paris Retrieved from. https://www. iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/MTRMR2015.pdf. IEc, 2016. Evaluation of the RE-Powering Initiative. Industrial Economics, Incorporated, Cambridge, MA Retrieved from. https://www.epa.gov/re-powering/re-poweringevaluation-fact-sheet-and-report. Klusáček, P., Havliček, M., Dvořák, P., Kunc, J., Martinát, S., Tonev, P., 2014. From wasted land to megawatts: how to convert brownfields into solar power plants (the case of the Czech Republic). Acta Univ. Agric. Silveculturae Mendaliane Brun. 62 (3), 517–528. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2016. RPS Demand Projections February 2016. Berkeley, CA. Lovich, J., Ennen, J., 2011. Wildlife conservation and solar energy development in the Desert Southwest, United States. Bioscience 61 (12), 982–992. Milbrandt, A.R., Heimiller, D.M., Perry, A.D., Field, C.B., 2014. Renewable energy potential on marginal lands in the United States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (4), 473–481. Neuman, S., Hopkins, C.D., 2009. Renewable energy projects on contaminated property: managing the risks. Environ. Claims J. 21 (4), 269–312. Northrup, J., Wittemyer, G., 2013. Characterizing the impacts of emerging energy development on wildlife, with an eye toward mitigation. Ecol. Lett. 16 (1), 112–125. O'Shaughnessy, E., Liu, C., Heeter, J., 2016. Status and Trends in the U.S. Voluntary Green Power Market (2015 Data). National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. Ong, S., Campbell, C., Denholm, P., Margolis, R., Heath, G., 2013. Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO Retrieved from. www.nrel.gov/publications. Pasqualetti, M.J., 2011. Opposing wind energy landscapes: a search for common cause. Annal. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 101 (4), 907–917. Sliz-Szkliniarz, B., 2013. Assessment of the renewable energy-mix and land use trade-off
References Adams, D., De Sousa, C., Tiesdell, S., 2010. Brownfield development: a comparison of North American and British approaches. Urban Stud. 47 (1), 75–104. Adelaja, S., Shaw, J., Beyea, W., McKeown, J.C., 2010. Renewable energy potential on brownfield sites: a case study of Michigan. Energy Policy 38, 7021–7030. Barbose, G., 2016. Renewable Portfolio Standards: Overview of Status and Key Trends. Hosted by Clean Energy States Alliance. Chen, J., 2013. K & W Natural Energy Completes 2.7. February 9, 2013. Retrieved August 15, 2016, from. http://www.pv-tech.org/news/kw_natural_energy_completes_2. 7mw_pv_project_on_former_tar_acid_disposal_si. Copeland, H., Pocewiscz, A., Kiesecker, J.M., 2011. Geography of energy development in Western North America: potential impacts on terrestrial ecosystems. In: DE, D. (Ed.), Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation in Western North America. Island Press, Washington, DC (pp. 7–22). Denholm, P., Hand, M., Jackson, M., Ong, S., 2009. Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. Ferrey, S., 2007. Converting brownfield environmental negatives into energy positives. Boston Coll. Environ. Aff. Law Rev. 34, 417. Frantál, B., Osman, R., 2013. Renewable energy developments on brownfields: some evidence on diverging policies, practices and public attitudes from the USA. In: Annual Meeting of the American Association of Geographers. April 8–13, 2013. Los Angeles, CA. Gopalakrishnan, G., Negri, M.C., Wang, M., Wu, M., Snyder, S.W., Lafreniere, L., 2009. Biofuels, land and water: a systems approach to sustainability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (15), 6094–6100. Greenstein, R., Sungu-Eryilmaz, Y., 2006. Recycling urban vacant land inch by inch, row by row: neighbors reclaim neighborhoods. Commun. Bank. (Spr.) 18–20. Hernandez, R.R., Hoffacker, M.K., Murphy-Mariscal, M.L., Wu, G.C., Allen, M.F., 2015. Solar energy development impacts on land cover change and protected areas. Proc.
109
Land Use Policy 66 (2017) 105–110
J.L. Waite
USEPA and NREL, 2013. Best Practices for Siting Solar Photovoltaics on Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. US Environmental Protection Agency and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Washington, DC Retrieved from. https://www.epa.gov/repowering/re-powering-your-community#solar. USEPA, 2014. Liability Reference Guide for Siting Renewable Energy on Contaminated. Properties US Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC. Retrieved April 5, 2017, from. https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/liability-reference-guide-sitingrenewable-energy-contaminated-property. USEPA, 2016. RE-Powering Tracking Matrix (October 2016). Retrieved from. https:// www.epa.gov/re-powering/re-powering-tracking-matrix. Walker, G., 1995. Energy land use and renewables. Land Use Policy 12 (1), 3–6. White House, 2016. White House The Record—Climate. Retrieved August 31, 2016 from. https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change. Wiser, R., Barbose, G., 2008. Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States: A Status Report with Data Through 2007. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
at aregional level: a case study for the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodship. Land Use Policy 35, 257–270. Solar Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 1999, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 48:3 (West 2013). Spiess, T., De Sousa, C., 2016. Barriers to renewable energy development on brownfields. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 18 (4), 507–534. Taipei Times, 2016. Taipei to Turn Former Landfill into Solar Plant. July 31, 2016. Retrieved August 2016, from. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/ 2016/07/31/2003652170. Trainor, A.M., McDonald, R.I., Fargione, J., 2016. Energy sprawl is the largest driver of land use change in United States. PLoS One 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0162269. UNFCC (adopted Dec. 12, 2015). Paris Agreement. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. USEPA, 2015. Data Documentation for Mapping and Screening Criteria for Renewable Energy Generation Potential on EPA and State Tracked Sites. RE-Powering America's Land Initiative Retrieved from. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201504/documents/repowering_mapper_datadocumentation.pdf.
110