HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE minutes 061316
1
Orange County
Commission for the Environment
Meeting Summary
June 13, 2016
Richard Whitted Meeting Facility, Hillsborough
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRESENT: Lynne Gronback (Acting Chair), May Becker, Peter Cada, Bill Kaiser, Bill Newby,
Jeanette O’Connor, Rebecca Ray, Sheila Thomas-Ambat
ABSENT: Thomas Eisenhart, Loren Hintz, Lydia Wegman, David Welch
STAFF: Tom Davis, Brennan Bouma GUESTS: Bruce Sinclair, Tim Turner
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
I. Call to Order – O’Connor (on behalf of Gronback) called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
II. Ad ditions or Changes to Agenda – O’Connor suggested moving the discussion of the
landfill solar array proposal ahead of the CFE Facebook item to accommodate guests
from the Carrboro Environmental Advisory Board. Cada offered a motion; seconded by
Ray. CFE members approved of rearranging the agenda accordingly.
III. Minutes – O’Connor asked for comments on the May 9 meeting summary. Cada
motioned approval as written; seconded by Newby. Motion approved unanimously.
IV. Potential Solar Array at the Closed County Landfill – The CFE received information
from the Town of Carrboro's Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) about that board’s
interest in collaborating with Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill on investigating
the possibility of installing a solar array at the closed landfill. This project has not yet
been endorsed by the Town of Carrboro. EAB members Bruce Sinclair and Tim Turner
presented information from their preliminary investigations for CFE consideration and
discussion.
The EAB is looking into several ways of promoting solar power development in the area,
and wanted to speak with the CFE specifically about larger ground-mounted solar arrays
(20-40 acres, 4 - 5 MW capacity), ideally near 3-phase power substations. Sinclair said
the EAB has received guidance from Strata Solar
The Orange County landfill is one of few large parcels of land remaining for solar
development that are close to the potential users of that energy. It is also bordered by
large powerlines, and both of the parcels at the landfill that might work for solar
development have good southern exposures, so solar might work well at that location.
Sinclair and Turner said they have spoken with Orange County Solid Waste Director
Gayle Wilson and Solid Waste Planner Blair Pollock about this idea and learned that
there are two possible sites at the landfill. They also learned that Strata Solar considered
the landfill previously but decided not to develop there.
Some of the challenges associated with developing solar on a landfill are that you have
to accommodate for future settling of the land surface and for the active landfill gas
recovery system that is operating on both parcels.
2
Sinclair and Turner said there is a landfill site called Hickory Ridge near Atlanta that has
a flexible TPO plastic cap with flexible solar panels laid down on top. It cost $7 million
($5 million with a $2 million grant). This would be a possible solution as it would not
cause settling and it would flex with the settling the might occur. The efficiency of the
panels is less than for the rigid panels. More exploration is needed to ensure that the
plastic cap would be durable enough to walk/drive on, and to make sure it would not be
susceptible to damage by animals.
There are several ways to pay for and develop solar power systems. Third party sales
are prohibited in NC. The owner of the panels cannot sell the electricity generated. “Use-
all” or “Sell-all” (sell all energy generated to Duke Power) or net metering (use as much
power as you can and then sell the remainder to Duke Power) arrangements are all
possible. The use can be changed in the future based on need if more facilities are
developed out there. The EAB is uncertain whether there are facilities nearby that could
take advantage of this power (Orange County Animal Shelter might be one).
A developer could also lease the land from the County and then operate his or her own
system. This is the most straightforward way to go as all the risk goes to the developer.
Community solar is also possible, where individual investors buy into and own the
system, and lease the land or roof space to install it. This was done on the Carrboro
Farmers Market (~$40-$50,000). This can be done less formally by allowing the panels
to be sponsored by community members, but owned by the property owner. These
options are sometimes desirable for those who want to invest in solar, but whose land or
roof space is shady or otherwise inappropriate for solar development.
Sinclair and Turner said the EAB is interested in taking the appropriate next steps in
exploring the possibilities for landfill solar development with Orange County. Their
presentation is available upon request.
Brennan Bouma offered some of the history of Orange County staff’s exploration into
solar development on the landfill and other sites including the previous interests of
Cypress Creek Renewables, Strata Solar, and UNC. Bouma offered to continue
conversations with the EAB on this issue.
V. CFE Facebook Page – Gronback and O’Connor provided an overview and
demonstration of how Facebook and other social media sites could work in practice to
communicate with the public and other stakeholders about CFE activities, and how these
sites can be used to share information about environmental issues of interest to
residents of Orange County.
CFE members feel social media (not just Facebook) is an important communication tool
to make the work of the Commission more visible, especially to the young residents of
the county. There is also an interest in hearing from county residents since many people
do not have time to attend meetings.
The CFE discussed the need for some internal protocol (or code of conduct) for
structuring and using these media, reflecting the Orange County Social Media Policy. It
was explained that creating and maintaining an official social media presence as an
appointed Orange County commission, implies that statements made on the site are
officially sanctioned. This can be difficult to manage if the site is structured so that
anyone can post comments. The Orange County Social Media Policy guides the creation
of these sites so that they avoid any foreseeable issues.
3
The merits of several possible structures were discussed, including the thought of
“piggybacking” our comments on an existing County social media site such as the one
set up for DEAPR. It was decided that Gronbeck and O’Connor would succinctly
summarize the options that the Social Media Policy allows for a future CFE meeting and
would reach out to David Hunt to learn more about what levels of response are allowed
to comments or emails received through the site. This would allow everyone on the CFE
to make the decision about the best way to move forward including the possibilities of
making on overall media and outreach strategy and/or subcommittee.
VI. Committee Meetings – Gronback suggested no committee meetings and CFE
members agreed.
VII. Updates and Information Items – Information on the following subjects was provided in
the meeting package; selected items were discussed: a) tri-county conservation plan
proposal, b) Hollow Rock Nature Park opening, c) NC regulating renewable energy, d)
state senate eyes mussels for cleaning Jordan, Falls lakes, e) coal ash pond closures
update, f) solar farm field trip, and g) woman tackling her city’s food waste problem.
VIII. Adjournment – Cada motioned to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Ray. Gronback
adjourned the meeting at 9:15 pm.
Summary by Brennan Bouma, AMS Staff