Agency: Section 248 requires reclamation plans for solar sites; permanent impacts handled via mitigation
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Agency staff told the committee Section 248 proceedings treat underlying agricultural soils as retaining their classification after decommissioning and recommended permit conditions (pre/post bulk density testing, reclamation plans); permanent features such as substations may require off‑site mitigation to VHCB. Committee members asked about decommissioning bonds and technical specifics.
Ari Rockman Miller told the committee that Section 248 (the separate permitting framework for certain generation projects) is distinct from Act 250 but that the agency reviews solar projects for impacts to agricultural soils. ‘‘In the section 2 48 context, at least, at least in theory, the law says that the underlying soils, if they're agricultural land, maintain that classification, in the future once the site is decommissioned,’’ he said, and described the agency’s recommended permit conditions to protect soils and enable reclamation.
Miller said permit conditions often require bulk density testing, pre‑ and post‑disturbance, and reclamation plans intended to ‘‘put back how you found it’’ when a solar project is decommissioned, while acknowledging uncertainties about future recovery and that some project components (for example, substations or concrete foundations) represent permanent impacts that cannot be fully reclaimed and therefore may be mitigated off‑site through VHCB funds.
Committee members asked technical follow‑ups—whether panels are mounted on concrete pads or posts, what a typical decommissioning entails, and whether bonding for decommissioning is required. Miller said the agency’s review addresses reclamation and permanent impacts and that the agency does not typically require bonding and he was not sure whether another entity requires bonds; he offered to follow up with technical details.
Members also raised fragmentation concerns: Miller said the agency accounts for indirect impacts such as fragmentation that isolates less than one acre or creates narrow strips (understood as less than 100‑foot widths) when calculating mitigation. Several members noted that long‑duration solar use (20–30 years) can effectively remove land from farming for a generation and asked whether lease‑style or short‑term easements could be used as mitigation strategies; Miller said VHCB and land‑trust approaches are sometimes used but emphasized the legal and practical complexities.
The committee did not adopt any new policy or vote; members requested technical follow‑up on decommissioning practices and whether bonding or other financial guarantees are commonly used in other permitting processes.