Correction: An earlier version of this story did not include that the advocacy groups’ modeling included one new natural gas plant. The story has been updated.

Xcel Energy’s latest long-range plan for meeting electricity demand in Minnesota includes six new natural gas peaker plants that critics warn could be obsolete before customers are done paying for them.

Comments filed last month by clean energy advocates and the state attorney general’s office push back on the utility’s plan to build a fleet of small fossil fuel plants as it otherwise ramps up clean energy investments. The facilities would operate sparingly, just a few hours at a time on days when the grid is strained and wind, solar and other clean power can’t keep up with demand.

More economical options exist, though, according to a coalition of clean energy groups that hired experts to model alternatives. The study commissioned by the groups concluded Xcel could save ratepayers as much as $3.5 billion by opting for a single new gas plant, and relying more on existing plants, energy storage, efficiency and demand response, and buying surplus power on the regional power grid.

The clean energy groups include Fresh Energy, which publishes the Energy News Network (Fresh Energy’s leadership and policy staff do not have access to ENN’s editorial process.)

The debate is over the utility’s latest integrated resource plan — the first submitted to state regulators since Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed legislation last year requiring electric utilities to use 100% clean energy by 2040. Xcel Energy supported the legislation and has proposed various scenarios for achieving the target, but disagreements remain among stakeholders about how to get there, particularly when it comes to cost and equity issues.

Different approaches to modeling

Allen Gleckner, executive lead for policy and programs at Fresh Energy, said Xcel’s gas plant proposal is similar to one in its last integrated resource plan that asked regulators to approve two new peaker plants that would provide as much as 800 megawatts of electricity. Xcel eventually agreed to an open, fuel-neutral bidding process allowing clean energy companies to propose alternatives. That process is still underway, with an administrative law judge expected to make recommendations.

The clean energy groups’ consultants used the same software program as Xcel to arrive at a plan to add a new 374 megawatt gas plant, 3,800-4,800 megawatts of wind, 400 megawatts of solar, and 800 to 1,200 megawatts of energy storage resources by 2030. Extending contracts at existing peaker plants could add 970 megawatts, and energy conservation initiatives could reduce use during high demand times. 

Gleckner said Xcel has taken an exceptionally conservative approach by mostly creating scenarios that did not consider electricity being available from neighboring systems or the MISO regional transmission grid. Gleckner said Xcel does not and has never operated as an island, with MISO delivering power to its customers through a shared resource pool.

“Xcel is using a sort of fiction of modeling because the reality is we’re part of a regional grid,” he said. 

The result is a plan to “build a bunch of new resources that we know are either not compatible with our state laws or are going to be costly and likely to retire early,” he said.

Amelia Vohs, climate program director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, praised Xcel for not asking regulators to extend the life of existing fossil plants, unlike its counterparts in other states. Unlike previous long-range plans, Xcel’s latest imagines a future in which large gas and coal power plants are not the backbone of the system. 

What that grid will look like remains challenging, Vohs said. Adding to the challenge is rising power demand from data centers, manufacturing, and the electrification of buildings and transportation. Even so, Vohs believes clean energy is ready for a leading role.

“It’s a much better solution that’s flexible in this time of uncertainty without making this big commitment to gas resources for the next 40 years,” Vohs said.

Patty O’Keefe, senior field strategist for the Minnesota Sierra Club, said proposed combustion turbine peaker plants pose “significant environmental and public health risks” because they potentially emit more carbon and nitrous oxide than larger, more common combined cycle gas plants. They also tend to be built in communities already suffering higher pollution levels.

The Sierra Club would like Xcel to focus more on energy efficiency than electricity generation in its planning. Efficiency reduces demand and makes “the transition to clean energy smoother and more cost-effective,” O’Keefe said.

Managing risk

Meanwhile, the office of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has also weighed in, warning that investments made now may become obsolete “stranded assets,” meaning the plants may become uneconomical or forced to retire before they have delivered projected benefits to customers. 

Xcel has acknowledged the risk of stranded assets generally in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, though not specifically in relation to its proposed gas peaker plants.

Utilities are incentivized to build power generation because investors earn a return on capital investment. The attorney general argues that if plants become obsolete or transition to other forms of energy, such as hydrogen, Xcel ratepayers should not have to pay for retrofits and other investments it might have to make to reduce emissions.

In its filings to state regulators, Xcel said it is concerned about having enough firm dispatchable power to meet rising demand quickly during certain times of the day. By 2030, the company will have ended its use of coal for energy generation after closing four coal-burning facilities this decade. The proposal suggests Xcel may need to add even more peaker plants between 2030 and 2040.

Xcel spokesperson Kevin Coss said the company will be “adding a significant amount of wind and solar power to our energy mix” and complementing that generation “with always-available generation — power we can supply any time it’s needed — to reinforce the reliability of the grid.”

Coss said Xcel identifies generation sources in a technology-neutral way so it can decide not to use natural gas combustion plants in the future. The current integrated resource plan calls for fewer firm dispatchable resources than the 2019 version, he said.

The conservative modeling “avoids overreliance on the energy market, which could expose our customers to excessive risk,” Coss said.

Residents, businesses and organizations have until Oct. 4 to send comments on the integrated resource plan to the Public Utilities Commission. The commission is expected to make a decision on the plan in February 2025. 

Minnesota advocates say their alternative to Xcel’s plan for new gas plants could save customers up to $3.5 billion is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Minnesota clean energy and economic development officials say a Canadian solar manufacturer’s planned expansion in the state shows the impact of federal climate incentives for domestic production. 

Pete Wyckoff, assistant commissioner of federal and state initiatives for the Minnesota Department of Commerce, said Heliene’s announcement that it plans to onshore solar cell manufacturing in partnership with an Indian supplier shows the Inflation Reduction Act “is doing what it is designed to do, which is to provide incentives to encourage every step in the solar manufacturing process to occur domestically.” 

In late July, Heliene said it had reached a joint venture agreement with Premier Energies, India’s second-largest solar cell manufacturing company, to build a solar cell manufacturing facility somewhere in the Twin Cities. Heliene also has a plant in northern Minnesota, where it assembles solar panel modules using imported cells from Premier Energies.

Several U.S. factories assemble solar panel modules — think of the rectangular boxes you’d see installed on a rooftop. Almost all of these domestic manufacturers, though, depend on imported solar cells — the half-foot square slices of silicon that actually do the work of converting sunlight to electricity.  

The Inflation Reduction Act prompted a flurry of announcements related to domestic solar cell production, but its viability here remains unclear, Renewable Energy World recently reported. Multiple companies have already retracted plans for U.S. solar cell factories, citing market challenges.

Meeting installer demands

Heliene CEO Martin Pochtaruk said its planned solar cell plant is meant to meet clients’ demand for modules with higher levels of domestic content, which allow project developers to claim more lucrative incentives. After solar owners receive a standard 30% tax credit for projects, they can add another 10% by using modules with equipment made in the United States.

“Strong solar cell manufacturing offers solar developers a higher percentage of U.S.-made domestic content components for their projects, reduces reliance on imports, and releases stress on our supply chain,” Pochtaruk said.

He said working with Premier on establishing an American beachhead that could employ more than 200 workers makes sense because the Inflation Reduction Act rewards solar panels made primarily with parts made in the U.S. solar cells.

Solar developers must use panels with a domestic content of 40% or more for the bonus, and the threshold will increase to 55% in 2026. 

In August, Heliene agreed to a multi-year contract with NorSun to supply low-carbon wafers — one of the building blocks of solar cells — for all the company’s solar panels starting in 2026. 

Heliene has also announced a partnership with UGE, a community and commercial solar and battery storage developer, to provide panels that meet the requirements of the Domestic Content Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Bonus. 

Heliene said in a press release that it would manage construction, finances, supply chain logistics, regulatory oversight, and human resources. Premier will provide cell technology engineering, manufacturing expertise, supply-side agreements, and raw material vendor relationships.  

Pochtaruk said Heliene’s commitment to buy material from Premier Energies and NorSun was instrumental in their ability to finance the new factories. He asked both to try to open in 2026 when the content bonus requires more American-made content.

Jeremy Kalin, a Minneapolis attorney who works with several solar developers, said his clients are seeking panel suppliers with enough content to take the additional 10% tax credit. Manufacturers must provide a guarantee that the panels reach the threshold of having at least 55% of the panels’ components American-made. 

“Once they meet that requirement, they will see a flood of business,” Kalin said.  

Could Minnesota be a solar manufacturing center?

Minnesota Solar Energy Industries Association business development and communications director Abbi Morgan said the company’s presence “is huge and something we’re excited about because Minnesota is often overlooked when it comes to clean energy.”

So far, though, Heliene’s Minnesota operations have yet to attract other solar manufacturers. Morgan said one of the association’s members, a German firm, opened a factory in Arizona. At least among the association’s more than 170 members, plenty have expressed interest in buying panels from Heliene.

“There are a lot of members who ask about Heliene, but we’ve heard they have a long waiting list even though they expanded their factory in Mountain Iron,” Morgan said.

After securing a $3.5 million state loan package in 2018, Heliene began manufacturing and assembling panels in a once-shuttered solar module plant in Mountain Iron. The former plant, Silicon Energy, failed despite state investments of millions of dollars.

The plant is in a business park created to attract green energy companies across the street from a taconite mine. Two years ago, the company spent $21 million to triple the production space through an addition to the plant. Heliene spent $9.5 million to pay for the expansion and received most of the rest through state loans and a county grant.

Now, the company has shifted attention to adding capacity in central Minnesota, where it will begin developing two solar module manufacturing lines in an existing 227,000-square-foot warehouse in Rogers, a burgeoning exurb northwest of Minneapolis.

Before preparing the warehouse for solar production, Heliene is waiting to hear whether the project will receive money from the Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF) and Job Creation Fund (JCF). State officials were expected to make an announcement in September.

Rogers Community Development Director Brett Angell said Heliene will fit into the city’s growing reputation as a hub for sustainable enterprises. The company plans to employ at least 180 people and spend $16 million on building improvements and equipment.

“Additionally, (Heliene) would continue to add to the growing segment of sustainable manufacturers within the community as the city currently is home to multiple plastic recycling companies,” Angell said.

Heliene has not selected a site for the solar cell manufacturing plant or provided details on how much investment and employment it will create. Pochtaruk said the building will be significantly larger than the solar module plant.

Federal incentives spur solar panel company to try onshoring its supply chain in Minnesota is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Xcel Energy is proposing a new approach to powering the grid in Minnesota.

The utility recently told state regulators it wants to build a network of solar-powered energy storage hubs, located strategically on its grid and linked with technology so they can be operated in concert with each other.

The result would be what’s known as a “virtual power plant.” By simultaneously discharging the batteries, for example, the collection of distributed resources can function similar to a conventional power plant.

It’s a solution some clean energy advocates have long pushed for as an alternative to larger, centrally located projects that are more reliant on long-distance transmission and create fewer local economic benefits. Xcel’s new embrace of the concept likely reflects the evolving economics of clean energy and the urgency to replace generation from retiring coal-fired power plants.

“I welcome our now-agreement about the importance of distributed energy resources in their future procurement plans,” said John Farrell, director of the Energy Democracy Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

Virtual power plants 101

Virtual power plants use sophisticated software and technology to aggregate energy from batteries, smart thermostats, electric vehicles, storage and other connected devices. The clean energy nonprofit RMI predicts virtual power plants nationally could reduce peak loads by 60 gigawatts and cut annual energy expenditures by $17 billion by 2030.   

Several utilities, as well as solar and storage companies, have developed virtual power plant programs around the country. Perhaps the best-known is National Grid’s ConnectedSolutions program in New England, which includes residential batteries, electric vehicle batteries, and thermostats.  

In May, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed legislation requiring Xcel Energy to create a virtual power plant plan in that state by next February. 

Xcel is pitching the Minnesota project on its own as part of its latest long-range resource plan. In a recent Public Utilities Commission filing, Xcel proposes combining 440 megawatts of solar power with 400 megawatts of battery storage at dispersed locations. Designed to be flexible, the program might add backup generation and energy efficiency measures in the future. 

A virtual power plant, Xcel said, would save ratepayers money, improve reliability, accelerate clean energy development, and reduce energy disparities by playing assets in underserved communities. The “new approach equips us to confidently meet incoming load growth, deliver unique customer and community value, and support economic development,” the company said in its filing.

Kevin Coss, a spokesperson for the company, said the proposal “is part of a larger plan to better serve the grid and our customers while meeting anticipated growth in energy demand. The program would grow our distributed energy resources as a complement to our existing plans for additional utility-scale renewable and firm dispatchable generation to advance the clean energy transition.”

Advocates reaction

Clean energy advocates say the approach could reduce Xcel’s need to build more infrastructure at a time when electricity demand continues to grow and its fleet of aging fossil fuel plants reach closure dates.

A recent study in Illinois suggested that pairing solar with storage could be the most economical and environmentally beneficial way to maintain grid reliability as the state transitions to 100% clean energy.

“Utilities always treated distributed energy resources as something that happened to them and that they had to figure out how to accommodate because they were being told to,” said Will Kenworthy, Vote Solar’s Midwest regulatory director. 

The company’s interest in more distributed resources could lead to a more flexible grid, one that helps mitigate substations congestion and allows it to store energy from wind farms for use during high-demand periods, Kenworthy said.

One area of disagreement between the utility and some clean energy advocates is who should own the facilities. Unlike in Colorado, Xcel is proposing to own the Minnesota solar and storage hubs itself, collecting money to build them — plus a rate of return — from ratepayers. 

That’s not the best deal for customers, and it prevents local communities and developers from being able to share the financial benefits of distributed energy, said Farrell, of the Energy Democracy Initiative. If Xcel owns the virtual power plant, the cost could be higher than they would be with an open, competitive process.

Farrell pointed to the recent opposition to an Xcel electric vehicle charging plan in which it sought to own all of the chargers. Convenience stores and gas stations argued Xcel had an unfair market advantage as the incumbent utility and would own too much of the state’s charging network. Xcel withdrew the proposal in 2023 after regulators reduced the charging network’s size.

As Xcel’s plan evolves, Farrell wants Xcel to allow businesses, homeowners, and aggregators to also participate by selling their battery capacity or demand response into the program.

The Minnesota Solar Energy Industries Association, which promotes battery storage, also takes a dim view of Xcel owning a virtual power plant.

“This is an area where competition would likely provide better service, lower cost and more choice to ratepayers,” said regulatory and policy affairs director Curtis Zaun. “Monopolies are not particularly good at providing the best service at a reasonable rate because that is inconsistent with their investors’ interests.”

Getting the details right

Virtual power plants are different than demand response, such as thermostat savings programs, in that they add value to the grid “without any change needed to the homeowner’s behavior,” said Amy Heart, senior vice president for policy at Sunrun, a home solar and storage company that participates in virtual power plants in the Northeast and in Texas, California, and Puerto Rico. 

Heart said the “devil is in the details” when creating a robust demand response program. A program in Arizona failed, she said, because of the underperformance of the single company it selected to aggregate resources.

Sunrun developed a virtual power plant in four New England states, enrolling more than 5,000 solar and storage customers to share their capacity on the grid. In the summer of 2022, Sunrun’s virtual power plant shared more than 1.8 gigawatt hours of electricity.

Typically, Sunrun customers agree under contract to share a portion of their battery backup 30 to 60 times annually for three hours or less for each event. The process is automated, with Sunrun’s software connecting to customer batteries and sending utilities power during high-demand times or predictable peak loads. Customers receive payment for the electricity provided.  

Heart said the best systems are open to individual customers and aggregators using different battery storage brands. Giving a virtual power plant “room to grow, breathe, and adapt will be important,” she added.

The Xcel virtual power plant proposal is part of the multi-year Upper Midwest Integrated Resource Plan, which regulators have been reviewing and will likely approve, with many changes, later this year.

In Minnesota, Xcel Energy looks to mimic power plant with solar and storage networks is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Construction is underway in St. Paul, Minnesota, on a major affordable housing development that will combine solar, geothermal and all-electric appliances to create one of the region’s largest net-zero communities.

Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity broke ground in June on a four-block, 147-unit project on the site of a former golf course that’s being redeveloped by the city and its port authority, which made the decision to forgo gas hookups. 

Affordable housing and Habitat for Humanity builds in particular have become a front line in the fight over the future of gas. The organization has faced criticism in other communities for accepting fossil fuel industry money and partnering with utilities on “net-zero” homes that include gas appliances. It’s also built several all-electric projects using advanced sustainable construction methods and materials.

The scale of the Twin Cities project is what makes it exciting, according to St. Paul’s chief resilience officer Russ Stark. 

“We’ve had plenty of motivated folks build their own all-electric homes, but they’re one-offs,” he said. “There haven’t been many, if any, at scale.”

Stark added that the project, known as The Heights, was made possible by the federal Inflation Reduction Act. 

“I think it’s fair to say that those pieces couldn’t have all come together without either a much bigger public investment or the Inflation Reduction Act, which ended up being that big public investment,” he said.

A vision emerges

Port Authority President and CEO Todd Hurley said his organization bought the property in 2019 from the Steamfitters Pipefitters Local 455, which maintained it as a golf course until 2017. When no private buyers expressed interest in the property, the Port Authority bought it for $10 million.

Hurley said the Port Authority saw potential for light industrial development and had the experience necessary to deal with mercury pollution from a fungicide the golf course staff sprayed to kill weeds.

“We are a land developer, a brownfield land developer, and one of our missions is to add jobs and tax base around the creation of light industrial jobs,” Hurley said.

The Port Authority worked with the city’s planning department on a master plan that included housing, and it solicited developers to build a mix of market-rate, affordable and low-income units. The housing parcels were eventually sold for $20 million to a private developer, Sherman Associates, which partnered with Habitat and JO Companies, a Black-owned affordable and multi-family housing developer.

“Early on, we identified a very high goal of (becoming) a net zero community,” Hurley said. “Everything we have been working on has been steering towards getting to net zero.”

Twin Cities Habitat President and former St. Paul mayor Chris Coleman said the project met his organization’s strategic plan, which calls for building bigger developments instead of its traditional practice of infilling smaller lots with single-family homes and duplexes. The project will be the largest the organization has ever built in the Twin Cities.

Coleman said the Heights offered an opportunity to fill a need in one of St. Paul’s most diverse and economically challenged neighborhoods and “be part of the biggest investment in the East Side in over 100 years.”

The requirement for all-electric homes merged with Habitat’s goal of constructing more efficient and sustainable homes to drive down utility costs for homeowners, he said. Habitat built solar-ready homes and sees the solar shingles on its homes in The Heights as a potential avenue to producing onsite clean energy.

Zeroing in on net zero

Mike Robertson, a Habitat program manager working on the project, said the organization worked with teams from the Minneapolis-based Center for Energy and Environment on energy modeling.

“The Heights is the first time that we’ve dived into doing an all-electric at scale,” Roberston said. “We have confidence that these houses will perform how they were modeled.”

Habitat plans to build the development to meet the Zero Energy Ready Home Program standards developed by the U.S. Department of Energy. Habitat will use Xcel Energy’s utility rebate and efficiency programs to achieve the highest efficiency and go above and beyond Habitat’s typical home standards.

The improved construction only adds a few thousand dollars to the overall costs and unlocks federal government incentives to help pay for upgrades, he said.

The nonprofit will receive free or reduced-cost products from Andersen Windows & Doors and other manufacturers. GAF Energy LLC, a solar roofing company, will donate solar shingles for over 40 homes and roofing materials. On-site solar will help bring down energy bills for homeowners, he said.

Chad Dipman, Habitat land development director, said the solar shingles should cover between half and 60% of the electricity the homes need. Habitat plans to use Xcel Energy incentive programs to help pay for additional solar shingles needed beyond those donated. 

Habitat will install electric resistance heating technology into air handlers to serve as backup heat for extremely cold days. Dipman said that the air source heat pumps will also provide air conditioning, a feature not available in most Habitat properties in Minnesota.  

Phil Anderson, new homes manager at the Center for Energy and Environment, has worked with Habitat on the project. He said the key to reducing the cost of heating and cooling electric homes is a well-insulated, tight envelope and high-performance windows. Habitat will build on its experience with constructing tight homes over the past decade, he said.

“Overall, the houses that we’ve been part of over the last almost ten years have been very tight homes,” Anderson said. “There’s just not a lot of air escaping.”

Habitat’s national office selected The Heights as this year’s Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project, named after the former president and his wife, two of Habitat’s most famous supporters. The work project begins September 29^th and will receive as visitors Garth Brooks and Trisha Yearwood, who now host the Carters’ program.

Robertson said thousands of volunteers from around the country and the world will help put up the homes. The Heights project “raises a lot of awareness for Habitat and specifically for this development and the decarbonization efforts that we’re putting into it,” he said.

The Heights’s two other housing developers continue raising capital for their projects and hope to break ground by next summer. Habitat believes the project will meet its 2030 completion deadline.

A St. Paul, Minnesota Habitat for Humanity project will offer affordable housing without fossil fuels is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The small southeastern Minnesota city of La Crescent receives just a handful of permit applications each year to install solar panels on homes.

Despite the small volume, it’s still important to city sustainability coordinator Jason Ludwigson that it’s a smooth process for homeowners and installers.

That’s why the city of 5,000 recently became one of the first in the state to start using a software program designed to streamline local solar permitting.

Solar Automated Permitting Plus, or SolarAPP+, was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in collaboration with the solar industry, code organizations, local governments, and the building safety community. Since its release in 2018, SolarAPP+ has been used by more than 160 cities and counties to automate much of the permitting process for smaller solar installations.

In La Crescent, an application that might have taken a few days for a city employee to review can now be approved online in minutes for projects that meet criteria. That “will save (time) for both the contractor and the city,” Ludwigson said. “It makes it faster for our building and zoning department.”  

Minnesota lawmakers want to encourage more communities to join La Crescent in adopting the software. This year, the Legislature budgeted $2 million for the Commerce Department to deliver programs and training to local agencies, contractors, inspectors and others involved in solar permitting.

The state’s solar industry association supports use of the software, in part for its potential to standardize a process that can right now vary significantly from city to city. Making it easier to permit installations could save companies time, potentially lowering costs and helping to expand rooftop solar in the state, which will need many megawatts more clean energy to reach its climate goals.

Getting permits for solar projects in Minnesota can take days or weeks and cost as much as $1,000. Typically, solar installers in the state apply electronically or in person for separate building, local electrical and utility interconnection permits. After receiving approvals for all three applications — and any other that are required — they start building projects that, once completed, are reviewed onsite by building and electrical inspectors.

Installers using the software receive automated approvals if they accurately complete forms for their building and electrical permits and, if required, fire and structural permits. Any errors are flagged and sent back to the installer for corrections. The app integrates with existing permitting software programs used by government agencies, according to NREL.

California cities have been the biggest adopters so far, but the app is beginning to catch on in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa. By the end of 2023, the NREL reported that the free software had been used nationally on 32,800 projects, saving 33,000 hours of permitting staff time. Installers pay a $25 administrative fee and the community’s permitting fee.

State Rep. Patty Acomb, who chairs the Climate and Energy Finance and Policy committee, said she and other lawmakers want to provide state grants so cities can learn how to use the software and eventually create a consistent permitting process across the state. “The intention is to make (permitting) easy and predictable,” she said.

Lissa Pawlisch, director of the Energy Development Section at the state Department of Commerce, said the department is developing a program to reach out to communities interested in SolarAPP+ and assist them in incorporating it into existing permitting software. She also believes the app could play a role in helping move installations through the new federally funded Solar for All program that will serve low income households. 

Great Plains Institute’s Brian Ross said that Solar for All requires a consistent approach to permitting, and that one way to achieve that is with the SolarApp+ software. The app would give a “jurisdictional consistency” to applications from low income solar customers and “to make sure there are not barriers in the way.” 

Despite its promise the app will not work in every situation. It only incorporates local versions of electrical permits and not the state permit, which many communities use. “If the local government relies on the state permitting process (for instance, Minneapolis), then I don’t think there is any advantage to using SolarAPP because the state electric permitting process is already effectively an ‘automatic issue,'” he said.

Donna Pickard of TruNorth Solar has spent decades filing solar permits with dozens of municipalities. She said installers need building, electrical and interconnection permits and approvals before projects begin, often taking over a month.

Pickard wonders if SolarAPP+ will interest Minnesota communities because many already have established permitting systems to manage solar projects. However, having dealt with many different permitting structures, Pickard said she “likes the idea of standardization because it would make things easier.”

Another challenge is that the software can’t evaluate permits for projects on flat or metal roofs in the Midwest. Jeff Cook, solar analysis subprogram manager at the NREL Strategic Energy Analysis Center in Colorado, said the software covers about 80% of eligible solar installations but the number declines in the Midwest due to “high snow load and metal roof penetration.”

Pawlisch said outreach and grants for SolarApp+ would likely start next year. The start date is also unclear for Solar for All as she continues to meet with federal and state officials to work out the details.

Software aims to help local governments standardize, streamline solar permitting  is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.