Responsible Solar

What is Responsible Solar?

Landowners are often the last to know about proposed solar projects. Developers work months if not years in advance with local government officials to put policies in place that favour the developers. Adjacent farmers are reporting that siting agreements include $2m cash to officials and local Iwi. We have evidence that certain officials have been paid by these aggressive developers $500,000 per project. This is unethical practice and must be stopped. In addition to the way these projects are being launched stealthily, rural residents are disadvantaged with no power to object as the fast track process does not allow public debate.

The most concerning issue is the fact that there is no national planning or oversight of these critical infrastructure projects and we are appealing to the Minister of Energy and the Environment for reform to these policies. Kiwis for Responsible Solar are FOR solar energy BUT advocate for the proper siting of utility-scale solar plants on industrial-zoned land, marginal or contaminated land, along highways, and on commercial and residential rooftops. Utility-scale solar does not belong on agricultural land. Industrial solar farms are not farms, they are power plants. The industrialization of farmland and timberland is not green.

1. Solar Ordinance to protect Rural districts.

As the demand for renewable energy increases, solar developers are aggressively seeking to build more industrial-scale solar power plants on agricultural land, as opposed to using appropriate land already zoned for industrial use. Rural counties are a prime target. More agricultural land is being threatened. To protect your district and its residents, a solar ordinance is an important piece of legislation that clearly outlines the provisions of an acceptable application and the construction of a solar power plant. Districts that do not have a solar ordinance in place are disadvantaged given the complexities of large-scale construction and potential environmental dangers, and small rural counties, in particular, do not have the resources or the expertise to manage and monitor these projects.

2. Promises Made, Promises Kept

Solar companies make a lot of promises: increased revenue, jobs, little to no impact on the environment and property values. A solar ordinance that clearly defines the provisions of a developer’s obligations will protect rural counties that want to preserve the agricultural heritage and character of their community, the environment and its residents. Most solar developers/operators are LLCs. They can walk away from the Solar Plant whenever they want to as shown in thousands of projects in Germany and France. These solar developers and investors are not in the business to generate power; they are in the business of tax credits.

3. 10 Important Provisions of the New Zealand Solar Ordinance:

1. Protection of Agricultural Land, Wetlands and Waterways
A strong solar ordinance will clearly govern the siting of industrial-scale solar power plants. We advocate for the avoidance of agricultural land, wetlands and waterways. Solar developers will place large-scale solar responsibly on industrial-zoned land, or on marginal or contaminated land. Districts should also consider provisions that promote and incentivize rooftop solar. Government should ideally restrict large-scale solar to industrial-zoned land.

2. Industrial solar plants are not allowed to harm businesses important for tourism or education Solar plants are not to be located in rural areas which ruin the outlook of a business designated for important tourism or educational purposes. This harms industry and can ruin the livelihood of neighbouring properties who conduct such activities.

3. Industrial solar plants are not allowed to cause a heat island - mitigations apply if they do
It's crucial to bare in mind the heat effect of industrial solar plants. Many studies show that land surrounding solar plants experience a temperature increase of at least 3-5 degrees. if too many solar plants are built in close proximity, it can lead to substantive changes to the environment. The heat effect is well known and has been documented universally (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35070, https://physicsworld.com/a/solar-panels-can-heat-the-local-urban-environment-systematic-review-reveals/). On Lake Whangape for example, a largescale solar park has been signed off by Fish and Game and then another solar plant is being targeted less than a km away, with another solar park already approved less than 2km away. Kiwi's for Responsible Solar are extremely concerned about the apparent lack of coordination and planning associated to these projects

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26023811/)

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35070

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL081816

https://physicsworld.com/a/solar-panels-can-heat-the-local-urban-environment-systematic-review-reveals/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212095521003047

It is therefore crucial that a solar ordinance is in place that stipulates that no more than 1 solar plant can be built in any given area, particularly if the solar plant is at an industrial scale. A safe distance of 20km is considered best practice. A complaints process with mitigation plans for adjacent land owners must be in place where the farmer and developer are held accountable should there be evidence where the heat island effect can be observed. Additionally, whilst studies show that the electromagnetic field of a solar plant is not in a significantly harmful range, there is research that shows if too many solar plants are located in close proximity to one another, that the electromagnetic field effect can be harmful to humans and animals alike.

4. Protection of Historic artefacts and wildlife
Given the number of historic sites in north Waikato and around the country, we advocate for the avoidance of historic sites. In addition, water birds are adversely impacted by solar plants – especially near waterways. Australasian Bitterns, North Island fernbird, Long-tail bats and spotless crake all mistake solar panels for water and dive into them, dying in their thousands. It is therefore important that local government blocks solar plants being built on or near all lakes and wetlands.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1364837,

https://natsci.source.colostate.edu/death-by-solar-2-million-doe-grant-supports-scientists-studying-bird-deaths-at-solar-facilities/

5. Size
A strong solar ordinance will clearly define the acceptable size of a solar power plant allowed in the district: Total acreage of the project, number of acres of panels, total acres allowed in the area, as well as observing a safe distance of at least 20km between projects.

6. Setbacks and Buffers
Landowners directly impacted by a proposed solar power plant are the most vocal opponents to any application. Developers claim that solar power plants do not negatively impact property values. If that were true, impacted landowners would not oppose these projects. In order to protect adjacent landowners and protect the rural character of the community, the ordinance must include clearly defined setbacks and landscape buffers. The current project being launched by Annie's Way Solar Farm Ltd on land owned by the Saxton family is set back a mere 50m from the shores of Lake Whangape, so all Glen Murray residents on the shores of the lake will look across and down on the solar plant. This is unacceptable practice and mitigation must apply.

7.Decommission Provisions to Protect the County and Taxpayers
The purpose of the Decommissioning Plan is to specify what has to happen when the Facility is no longer operating. The solar developer will try to ignore and/or downplay the decommissioning issue. In reality, this is a very important issue for New Zealand and currently there are no plans in place for effective decommissioning across the country. The solar developer will try to claim that the net salvage value of the Solar Complex will exceed the cost of decommissioning. Solar developers usually sell their interest in their Solar Plant after 2 – 3 years of operation. This means that they will be long-gone by the time that decommissioning comes around. In fact, ownership of these solar complexes turns over many times during the life of a system. A plan beyond the landowner MUST be in existence or mitigation applies.

8. Usage of Agrivoltaics
It's New Zealand's preference have dual land usage for solar plants, whereby solar energy is integrated into a livestock farm. Whilst this is better than the practices of developers who advocate stripping all the topsoil before installing solar panels (and topsoil takes at least 500 years to regenerate), uncontrolled storm water runoff and erosion are well-documented byproducts of industrial-scale solar construction. This massive increase in watershed sedimentation impacts all downstream rivers and waterways. Water contamination doesn’t stop with the end of construction. Removal of all trees and deep-rooted plants, along with inadequate stormwater controls lead to runoff, erosion and water contamination issues. SO despite agrivoltaics presenting a 'greener' option than stripping topsoil, agrivoltaics is not fully green if the solar plant is being located anywhere near waterways, lakes or wetlands like Lake Whangape. Mitigation plans for adjacent land owners must be in place where the farmer and developer are held accountable should the need arise.

9. Evidence of bribes, payouts or unfair practices leads to an immediate cancellation of the project
The government should protect the integrity of all critical infrastructure projects. If there is evidence of Solar developers engaging in payouts, bribes or unfair practices to help a project along, which unfairly advantages the solar developer, the government should intervene to cancel the project. Integrity is fundamental in the establishment and running of critical infrastructure projects.

10. Only landowners in compliance with the resource management act may qualify for their project being on the fast track process We have evidence of farmers violating their own RMA and despite the Solar developer being the one applying for consent, the landowner involved should not have qualified for the FastTrack process if they are in violation of their own RMA as that is unethical. Public debate to unearth risks that singular projects don’t elucidate is also crucial for critical infrastructure projects and part of a responsible solar ordinance.

Here are examples of solar installations which are truly innovative and green. We want to encourage those approving applications, to consider these types of installations as true alternatives to converting rural land into largescale industrial plants:-