Solar complications for the river

Are solar arrays power plants?

DAVID HULSE
Posted 10/21/16

NARROWSBURG, NY — After a second debate on October 6, the National Park Service (NPS) was asked for a legal position about the authority behind an Upper Delaware Council (UDC) position …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Solar complications for the river

Are solar arrays power plants?

Posted

NARROWSBURG, NY — After a second debate on October 6, the National Park Service (NPS) was asked for a legal position about the authority behind an Upper Delaware Council (UDC) position paper/memorandum querying members about solar power development in the river valley.

Members said the impact of the position paper might require a revision of the river management plan (RMP).

The memorandum went out in September to elected leaders in member towns, stating the UDC staff and NPS position that larger, usually commercial, solar panel arrays are “power plants” according to definitions in the land-use guidelines of the RMP, and that the plan defines power plants as non-conforming uses within river boundary. The towns and townships were asked to reply with their positions within 90 days.

Several UDC members last month argued against the memorandum, saying solar posed no harm to the valley and that the position overruled state-mandated land-use authority delegated to the local governments.

At the council’s recent meeting, Town of Delaware delegate Harold Roeder reported that his investigation found several other national park units that had installed solar arrays for NPS use. These included the Natural Bridge National Monument, the Manassas National Battlefield and the former Alcatraz Prison, which NPS now manages. “It’s rather embarrassing that NPS can [install an array] and a person here can’t,” Roeder said.

Whether those arrays are commercial or just for official park use, Roeder said “there is profit in many forms… if the NPS can, it’s thin ice for [local governments] to oppose it.”

Whether arrays should be positioned near scenic areas in the river corridor and what the findings of planning review will be are the questions. “No one has said that you can’t install an array,” NPS Superintendent Kris Heister said.

“Let’s wait 90 days and see what happens,” Chairman Fred Peckham of Hancock suggested, but he went on to ask what the authority of memorandum was. “Is the position paper part of the plan?” he asked. “If it impacts the river, it has to be in the plan,” he added.

Heister said the paper was similar to one UDC did finding “fracking” gas exploration a non-complying use in the valley. She saw no need to amend the guidelines schedule of accepted uses. “It’s just a memorandum,” she said.

Fremont’s Jim Greier argued that since the gas alternative has been forbidden, NPS is saying “not-in-my-backyard” to solar. “Face facts. We have to do something to promote alternate energy alternatives.”

Berlin Township member Al Henry said while the fracking position had been favored by all UDC members except Hancock, the solar position could be contested.

Peckham, who had opposed the fracking ban, noted that NPS never approved the fracking ban.

Heister said NPS added text to the paper to clarify it. “What happens may or may not be out of conformance. In the worst case, it could mean more project review, but that’s an extreme scenario and it hasn’t happened in 30 years,” she said.

Peckham asked Heister to consult the attorneys and find out if the ban must be in the plan to be binding, and she agreed.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here