Wednesday, February 19, 2025
Energy Transition Outlook Report 2023
HomeRenewablesFrom wasteland to powerhouse: The case for brownfield solar development

From wasteland to powerhouse: The case for brownfield solar development

If I had a dollar for every time I heard an upset community member complain, “Why don’t you put your ugly solar thing on a landfill?”, I would have enough money to invest in brownfield remediation for a solar site.

At its core, a solar developer’s job is about assessing risks and costs while simultaneously juggling the uncertainty. However, we should not assess risks and costs in a silo; they must be contextualized within today’s industry realities. Solar developers’ business reality has changed drastically over the past few years, making brownfield investment more appealing.

While the industry received unprecedented support from the government, not all communities have embraced the “Build Back Better” agenda. In 2024, 378 renewable energy projects across 47 states faced opposition, according to Columbia University. Clean energy’s rapid expansion coincided with the country’s political polarization causing communities to grow skeptical of the industry. NIMBYs are winning local political battles and, given that developers in most states must go through local permitting, community acceptance is now critical for the future of clean energy.

As risks and costs of local permitting on farmland increase, developers should view brownfields as a challenging yet promising opportunity to secure local buy-in. Minnesota, Kentucky, West Virginia, Nevada and Pennsylvania are already siting large-scale solar on abandoned and existing mines instead of  farmland. Increased research, funding and community outreach made 2024 pivotal for brownfield solar development. The industry should harness this momentum to accelerate clean energy buildout.

Mapping the terrain

EDF Renewables

Identifying greenfield sites often begins with a mapping exercise to locate the best tracts of buildable land. Topological features, flood risk and infrastructure availability can be assessed using free nationwide data.

A successful brownfield solar site’s technical characteristics will be similar to those for a greenfield site, with some additional geospatial data needed. To accelerate desktop assessment of brownfields, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) published a mapping tool that identifies mine sites suitable for large-scale solar development. Some top mining states have also built their own site identification tools.

On brownfields, more expensive screening requirements include mineral rights searches, environmental and geotechnical assessments. This is where risks arise. Developers need to invest in costly studies without any guarantee that the site will ultimately be buildable. To mitigate this, developers can partner with communities willing to undertake site evaluations using EPA funding. Developers can provide financial support or internal expertise for grant-writing alongside the research hubs already playing that role. Such early partnerships with local stakeholders are proven to be positioned well enough to secure the EPA awards and will serve as a foundation of trust between developers and communities.

Common grounds: Securing permits and engaging communities

Developers evaluate local, state and federal permitting regimes for both greenfield and brownfield sites.

Federal-level permits for solar development on farmland can be avoided. Brownfields though would often trigger federal permitting due to environmental hazards or public funding, increasing costs and timelines.

A few states have streamlined their solar permitting for brownfields to offset that, but most still treat them the same as greenfields. Further advocacy for streamlining brownfield-specific permitting might find more success among government officials than an overall push for states to have primary authority in all permitting matters.

Locally, solar projects on farmland can be perceived as a threat to the microeconomics of the agricultural business by taking land out of production. To align with the economic profiles of rural communities developers are encouraged to explore dual land use options that carry upfront costs, such as sheep grazing. However, brownfields could avoid these costly commitments given that contaminated sites are rarely in high demand among local businesses. Furthermore, because brownfields do not affect rural aesthetics, they can present a compelling narrative for land redevelopment. Developers can frame their messaging of proposed brownfield solar projects as a solution to the pre-existing contaminated land use problem, rather than as a new form of industrial sprawl. This approach could ease local permitting.

Additionally, to secure their social license to operate, developers can propose community benefit agreements (CBAs). CBAs are already often required for brownfield projects using federal funding. Regional organizations like the Appalachian Regional Commission can help fund brownfield CBAs aimed at workforce training and other benefits. Greenfield site developers, however, will still need to rely solely on their own funds.

Fields of opportunity: Brownfield financing

Large-scale solar development on brownfields was historically cost-prohibitive due to an average 10-15% price markup on construction and permitting expenses, but this is no longer the case. New tax incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act include a 10% adder for energy communities applicable to brownfield sites. This provision levels the cost per megawatt-hour, making brownfield projects more competitive. On top of that, DOE awarded $314 million in grants for developing solar projects on former or active mines.

Additionally, 12 states have financial incentives such as preferential procurement or tax credits. Plus, Local governments may be more willing to negotiate PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes) after developers secure community buy-in for brownfield development.

Significant financial assistance is also available from the EPA. While this funding is not directly accessible to for-profit entities, partnering with a public stakeholder can unlock it to offset upfront costs related to site assessment, remediation or CBAs, such as workforce development. Developers can also assist site owners in cleanup efforts through creative financing solutions, such as mortgage structures that loan funds for the cleanup.

To build, or not to build: That is the question

The low-hanging fruit of greenfielding in communities with friendly permitting regimes has already been picked. So what now? Developers have two options: continue pursuing farmland while doubling down on community engagement efforts in mistrustful communities, or they can explore an alternative — brownfield development. Both approaches require creativity and upfront investment. But within this new industry reality, development on brownfield sites may not seem as risky as it once did.


RELATED ARTICLES
- Advertisment -
Energy Jobline LinkedIn

Most Popular

Recent Comments