Other sites better suited for solar energy generation facility in Western Cranston

Posted

The basic premise that a solar generation facility does not impact the land and local area is simply not true. The primary impact of the RES proposal for the Hope Road property is the loss of some 78 acres of valuable and productive farmland in western Cranston. This land is currently being farmed by a well-known and longtime Cranston farmer. This tract of land is also surrounded by several hundred acres of protected agricultural lands stewarded by the Audubon Society, RIDEM, the city of Cranston and the West Bay Land Trust, and sits in the middle of the Cranston Historic Farm Loop.

The assumption that a solar energy generation facility is entirely passive is untrue. Solar photovoltaic cells and coatings contain several highly toxic chemicals, including gallium arsenide and cadmium telluride, which would be arrayed on top of lands adjacent to food-producing farmlands and nearby to Hope Highlands Elementary School and recreation facilities. The solar panels are impermeable and would change the flow of water flow on the farmland, thereby affecting groundwater replenishment.

This tract of land contributes property and business taxes, provides employment and healthy locally-produced food and serves as a premier example of the highest and best use of unsullied farmland. Revenue streams are kept within the city and state and the property serves as a robust habitat and open space for indigenous flora and fauna.

This particular property sits just beneath existing power lines, which makes it a low-hanging fruit situation for the UK-owned RES energy developer. There are other locations in western Cranston that are not as agriculturally productive, are not desirable conservation properties, and where land re-use and diversion for such an energy facility is much more suitable than atop this prime food-producing farmland.

Since this is a thermal power generation facility, it will use water for cooling and a project of this magnitude will require a significant draw on local public resources. Infrastructure build and construction to support the facility (roads/sewers/water) will be supported by taxpayers with no direct benefit to them as power produced by large-scale solar facilities are sold to existing, regulated utility companies and sold back to consumers at market rates.

This being said, we are not in any way opposed to siting a solar generation facility in the city of Cranston, but the property under consideration is not an ideal or preferred location for residents and farmers. There are already areas in the City reserved for alternative energy generation facilities, which are allowed under Zoning Classifications of M-1, M-2 (Industrial), S-1 (Open Space) and EI (Governmental/Institutional) uses.

While there is an approved (2009) 30-unit subdivision for the property, it is not the only possible use for this prime agricultural land that is now zoned A-80 Residential. Its highest and best use remains farming. We cannot lose another parcel to an industrial development, when such a project can be better sited.

 (Lynne Harrington is president of The West Bay Land Trust.)

Comments

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