goReeves Central

Who Are the Solar Companies

The utility-scale solar business model has been dependent on government mandates that, in essence, force Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) on the world. ESG promotes tight control of corporate Environmental sustainability (greenness), Social justice (DEI), and Governance practices (not just corporate financial accountability and transparency, but how well the Environmental and Social corporate aspects are governed). ESG first emerged in 2004 as a joint initiative of financial institutions at the invitation of the United Nations (Here’s Your Sign!). Following a number of lawsuits from states and corporations, ESG has become a more voluntary corporate endeavor. However, a key fact to remember is that almost all solar companies adhere strictly to the ESG model as will be shown in this article.

As we have seen recently, EV mandates were an abject failure even before the government mandates were removed. This boondoggle was an attempt to force consumers to purchase EVs by government fiat and automobile companies bought into this decree as though the consumer had no choice. But they did have a choice, and flatly rejected EVs leaving most of them sitting on car lots. This eventually cost automotive companies tens of billions of dollars. Ford’s abandonment of EV production at “Blue Oval City,” which has now been renamed the “Ford Truck Center,” is a good example of betting on a government mandate that is not embraced by the consumer. Now, with governmental financial support from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) being eliminated or phased out as part by the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), and the elimination of the Carbon Rule by the EPA, solar companies must depend on consumer demand and private sources of financing for business success. While Renewable Energy Certificates, and similar concepts like TVA’s Green Invest, will continue to provide additional ESG based revenue to solar companies, government incentives have been all-but eliminated. The utility-scale solar business model is now much more difficult to make financially attractive because the installation of solar infrastructure is extremely expensive.

The Solar Companies

There are three predominant companies that either already have utility-scale solar projects in Fayette County, or plan to develop such projects. These are Silicon Ranch, Invenergy, and Emeren. Each has a different implementation model, but all three are successful companies having completed many such projects.

Silicon Ranch

Silicon Ranch is a Nashville Tennessee company founded in 2011. To understand how and why this company is connected to the Green New Deal, we need to understand who stared Silicon Ranch and who is running that company. The companies founding chairman is none other than Philip Bredesen. Yes the Democrat, Phil Bredesen, who was formerly governor of Tennessee. So, in typical progressive fashion, Bredesen founded a company based on the principle of leveraging taxpayer resources for corporate profit. The current CEO, Reagan Farr, was with Biden at the White House when they announced the Biden the Inflation Reduction Act with it’s Green Initiatives.

Bredesen as also a co-founder of Clearloop, a company that promotes green energy. Let’s take a look at Clearloops mission:

Clearloop is here to accelerate the greening of the grid in partnership with companies of all sizes by investing in American communities where the greatest economic and environmental benefits can be achieved.

So, to state the facts clearly; Silicon Ranch is a progressive company, founded by Democrats, looking to install a sea of glass on invaluable and irreplaceable farmland such as that found in conservative Republican Fayette County! This is a typical progressive, self-sustaining business model. They generate a company, Silicon Ranch, to exploit taxpayer funding to install utility-scale solar, then create another company, Clearloop, to promote the mission of the first.

It is important to note that while other utility-scale solar companies are committed to ESG sustainability, DEI, and governance axioms, there is no record of ESG compliance at Silicon Ranch. Further, Silicon Ranch has recently expanded it’s funding from private sources by a significant amount thus reducing it’s dependence on taxpayer funding. While all of the utility-scale solar companies are ALL-IN on the Green New Deal, Silicon Ranch uses a more Eco-friendly Agrivoltaics model with US manufactured solar panels as well as array mounts, and they do not appear heavily invested in ESG as other solar companies.

Silicon Ranch Model

Silicon Ranch typically buys the land they plan to use for their utility-scale solar infrastructure. This provides them with the advantage of avoiding a large bond for removal of the infrastructure and production end-of-life. Companies who lease land for utility-scale solar must provide a bond to insure there are funds for decommissioning to protect the land owners from whom they leased the land. However, if the solar company purchases the land, they become their own guarantor for decommissioning so no bond is required. See TCA 66-9-207(c).

Their utility-scale solar uses the “Agrivoltaics” model where the array mounts are taller and the arrays track the sun from east to west. These taller mounts along with the thin film solar panels allow more sunlight to reach the ground. In Agrivoltaics, grass or other plants are cultivated under the solar arrays. Silicon Ranch, conveniently, has a traveling flock of sheep they bring in to utility-scale sites for Agrivoltaics photo ops.

First Solar manufactures these thin film panels are CdTe (Cadmium Telluride) panels. Cadmium is a transition metal which is usually produced as a byproduct of smelting zinc. Telluride (Te²) is an anion of Tellurium. Tellurium is usually produced as a byproduct of smelting copper. They use a zinc Oxide conductor layer with a CdSeTe absorber layer, a TnTe (Tin Telluride) back contact layer, and a Molybedum Oxide conductor layer. These panels are manufactured using vapor & sputter deposition and laser etching, which greatly reduces the carbon footprint for producing the panels. The panels are 19.8% efficient which isn’t quite as efficient as the c-Si (crystalline Silicon arrays), but they have much lower degradation over time, improved low light performance, and a long life span. These solar arrays are manufactured in the United States and the carbon footprint for manufacturing the panels is low.

Invenergy

Invenergy is a Chicago Illinois based company founded in 2001. This company was involved in green energy long before the Green NewDeal (GND) was introduced in 2019. The company is involved with projects like the Grain Belt Express which is focused on energy transmission projects, primarily for wind energy. Invenergy also seeks to benefit from the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs) to facilitate new renewable energy projects.

Invenergy appears to be somewhat neutral with regard to political position. However, Michael Polsky, founder and CEO of Invenergy, met on multiple occasions with John Podesta at the White House leading up to the Inflation Reduction Act under the Biden administration. Here is a statement from Michael Polsky from the Invenergy Impact 2022 Newsletter:

As the passage of the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] reflects America’s commitment to decarbonize, we at Invenergy recognize our own role in reducing carbon emissions and supporting our mission of
“Innovators building a sustainable world.” That’s why we’re proud to make a commitment to achieving Net Zero by 2050, across our entire portfolio. To monitor progress toward this goal, a newly formed internal committee will lead annual Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) data collection efforts, inclusive of a greenhouse gas emissions inventory. To underscore the significance of this commitment, our Net Zero and ESG goals have been fully integrated into our overarching company goals as a key guiding principle, and we look forward to sharing our continued progress in the years to come. In 2023 Invenergy implemented an ESG committee to monitor not only progress toward NetZero, but social and governance issues as well. The 2023 site can be viewed here.

Translation – Invenergy is ALL-IN on the Green New Deal and are moving toward full ESG compliance. This means everything Invenergy does is invested in the implementation of the axioms of ESG, even though ESG is now voluntary and the GND is now, for the most part, defunct.

Invenergy Model

Invenergy uses the lease model, where the land is leased from a land owner and they are required to fund a decommissioning bond as per TCA 66-9-207(c).

For utility-scale solar implementations, Invenergy uses ground mount silicon solar arrays. These arrays use crystalline-Silicon (c-SI) solar cell technology. Mono-crystalline silicon solar cells are made using standard semiconductor manufacturing techniques. In essence, the silicon in sand is upgraded to polysilicon metal using a process that includes hydrochloric acid and hydrogen. The polysilicon metal is then melted and doped with boron which creates a positive charge. As the metal cools it forms a monocrystalline structure that is cut into wafers and heated while adding a layer of phosphorous which is negatively charged. With the boron doped silicon being positive (p-type) material and the phosphorous being negative (n-type) material in proximity to one another creates a p-n junction. The negative side contains freely moving electrons and the positive side contains freely moving electron holes. The silicon is then treated with an anti-glare coating and the p-n junction on the silicon wafer is able to convert light into electrons. While there are a number of other methodologies to create semiconductors using various etching and doping techniques with various semiconductor materials, this is the basic method for manufacturing solar cells that are used in traditional silicon based solar arrays.

Invenergy also pushes Battery Energy Storage Systems in conjunction with or as stand-alone systems.

Something worth mentioning is the carbon footprint of c-Si solar panels manufactured in China, which is massive. The remediation of the carbon footprint for Chinese manufactured arrays is measured in years, most often close to a decade.

Emeren

Emeren is a Norwalk Connecticut company founded in 2005. Emeren is very committed to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) which is part and parcel with the Green New Deal. While the party preference is not obvious, their business model centers around the Green New deal. Emeren’s commitment to ESG was clearly stated in their 2023 ESG report. At the time of this report, the CEO was Yumin Liu, formerly of Enron. Since that time, Emeren was taken private in a by-out by Shurya Vitra Ltd. and Mr. Liu stepped down as CEO. Ke Chen is now the CEO of Emeren. Mr. Chen has been on the ESG committee since 2019. Here is the preface from the Emeren 2023 ESG report:

NORWALK, Conn., Dec. 2, 2024 /PRNewswire/ — Emeren Group Ltd (“Emeren” or the “Company”) (www.emeren.com) (NYSE: SOL), a leading global solar project developer, owner, and operator, today announced the release of its 2023 Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Report. The report highlights the company’s achievements in advancing sustainability, fostering inclusivity, and maintaining robust governance, underpinned by a systematic and transparent approach aligned with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards.

The Global Reporting Initiative is a nonprofit organization that sets global ESG standards. Companies that participate report their ESG progress each year to the GRI. The fact that Emeren has an ESG working committee and reports to GRI is a clear indication of how closely tied the company is to the Green New Deal.

Emeren Model

Emeren has a different model than Silicon Ranch and Invenergy. The company develops utility-scale solar projects then sells them to other companies who will manage the facility. Emeren generally purchases land for these utility-scale solar facilities and they use traditional c-Si solar panel arrays on ground mounts. They also push for installation of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) along with the utility-scale-solar. The manufacturing process for the silicon based solar panels is described in detail in the Invenergy Model section above.

Conclusion

All of the companies covered here are closely tied to the Green New Deal and are committed to renewable energy. I should note that there are other solar companies that would like to build projects in Fayette County and all of them have similar ties to the Green New Deal. Many of these companies are heavily invested in ESG, which promotes corporate NetZero goals, DEI goals, and business management practices.

In Part 4, I’ll cover how utility-scale solar impacts grid management, the “Duck Curve” created by utility-scale solar, and I’ll expose the real problem utility-scale solar solves. In addition, I’ll talk about what Fayette County gets out utility-scale solar deals.

The Green New Scam

By now it’s no secret that I’m not all in on utility-scale solar installations. But the reasons are not just technical, they are very much political in nature. The more I dig, the more entangled I find the green initiatives with progressive Democrat policies and direction. The president calls this effort the “Green New Scam” and the more I explore utility-scale solar, the more I’m convinced it’s the most egregious political scam in history. This started decades ago with Democrats and the energy crisis in the 70’s under president Jimmy Carter (need I say more), when the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) was passed. This ACT laid the groundwork for renewable markets, which led to the rise of commercial renewable power generation and the creation Renewable energy Certificates as a means of offsetting power generated with fossil fuels. But since that time, Democrats have elevated the importance of the green economy, creating a Gordian Knot of green energy regulations and policies which are virtually impossible to unravel. At a recent meeting, someone asked in jest, “Where do they get the seeds to plant these solar farms?” My answer was quick and simple, “Democrats!”

The Green New Deal in a Nutshell

In 2019, the Green party came up with an initiative to move the United States to 100% clean energy by 2030. Here is the statement directly from their site:

The Green New Deal will convert the old, gray economy into a new, sustainable economy that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially responsible. It seeks to solve the climate crisis by combining quick action to get to net- zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy by 2030 along with an “Economic Bill of Rights” – the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing and free college education.

So, while green energy was the preface, here’s the kicker; not only would the initiative implement green energy, but single-payer heath care (i.e Obamacare for all), guaranteed living wage for everyone, affordable housing and free higher level indoctrination, I mean education, for all. But the democrats didn’t count on the electorates overwhelming election of a president that was the nemesis of all the things they wanted to do.

• Single-payer healthcare for all: Dead!
• Guaranteed living wage for all: Dead!
• Affordable housing (the Green Party way): Dead!
• Free higher level education: Dead!
• Most importantly, the Green New Deal: Dead!

The president called the Green New Deal the “Green New Scam,” and that’s exactly what it was. To solidify his agenda, he appointed a new EPA Administrator who has literally gutted the renewable energy funding for the Green New Scam and eliminated the carbon rule that would have forced everyone to purchase electric vehicles and use green energy. The president pushed the OBBB which was passed into law and eliminated much of the IRA Green New Deal funding. The president also fired progressive members of the Tennessee Valley Authority and appointed new members to the TVA which were ratified by the U.S. Senate. In effect, the old Green New Deal members were purged and new responsible energy members were appointed to replace them. Needless to say, this has far reaching implications with regard to renewable energy in Fayette County.

So Why Is Utility-Scale Solar Still a Thing?

Now, even green advocates like Gill Gates are starting to back off the aggressive Green New Deal agenda. Gates recently called for a different perspective in the approach to climate change:

A doomsday outlook has led the climate community to focus too much on near-term goals to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause warming, diverting resources from the most effective things that can be done to improve life in a warming world – Bill Gates

For once, Gates is right. However, if even the climate activists are backing off the “sky is falling” green agenda, why is there still such an interest in putting utility-scale solar in rural farming areas like Fayette County. To understand the reason utility-scale solar (USS) companies are still so aggressive, we must look behind the curtain to see who is driving the requirement for USS.

Utility-Scale Solar Companies

In Fayette County, there are two predominate solar companies. The first is Silicon Ranch, which buys land on which they install USS. The second is Invenergy, which leases land on which they install USS and BESS. There is a third company, Emeren, but they have been rather quiet with regard to projects in Fayette County as of late. Emeren recently became a wholly owned subsidiary of Shurya Vitra Ltd. and is under the direction of a new interim CEO, Julia Xu. Emeren’s model is to establish a utility-scale solar facility, then sell it to another entity for profit. For various reasons, these companies have chosen different models, but the end goal is to use up as much farm land in Fayette County as they possible can to generate renewable energy.

Large Enterprises

But it’s not just the solar companies that push this agenda. Large enterprises like Google, Amazon, Meta, and General Motors are looking to expand their renewable portfolio. Because Tennessee is conservative and has not implemented RPS, the cost of power as well as the cost of taking credit for renewable energy is much lower.

Google and Meta aim to be net-zero carbon emissions by 2030 and Amazon seeks to do this by 2040. This means the demand for RECs will only increase without regulatory intervention. Many companies still adhere to all or part of the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) policies that require companies to be net-zero by 2050. ESG is another heinous policy fabricated by Democrats. Large ETF companies like BlackRock tried to force these policies on companies with the threat of dumping their stock to achieve compliance. BlackRock has suffered huge backlash due to this policy and has shifted toward transition investing. In other words they’re advocating for climate-related investing but not openly threatening companies who don’t participate. But, don’t be fooled, they still have huge ESG portfolios with companies that are invested in ESG.

The Tennessee Valley Authority

The largest contributor to the renewable energy effort is the Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA has plans to force the use of green energy on everyone. Hopefully, the new members of the TVA board will curtail this push, but as of this point in time, there are still aggressive goals to move TVA to renewable energy as stated on their website tvasites.com:

TVA has plans to add 10,000 megawatts (MW) of solar by 2035. We’re already part way there, with more than 2,400 MW of in-Valley solar commitments. Companies and Institutions like Facebook, Google, General Motors, Vanderbilt University and Jack Daniel’s have partnered with TVA regarding commitments for nearly $3 billion in solar investments in the Valley.

When you look at this statement, the implication is that deals, such as the 2019 Yum Yum Solar project, are already in the works. If so, can the new TVA board unwind those deals? I certainly hope so, but if there are contracts in place that may be difficult to accomplish. That being the case, we have to assume that a large portion of the utility solar will be implemented. We may also assume, based on the TVA statement of direction, that TVA is all in on renewable power generation which will result in an increase in cost for power. That cost increase will be shifted to the consumer.

Shifting the Cost to Consumers

Real Clear Energy published an in depth analysis of how USS produced power enters the grid and how that cost is offset in the grid. Here is the real story of how utility-scale solar generation works compared to the cost of natural gas generation:

When solar electricity is driven into a local grid, natural gas generation must be reduced to make room for the solar electricity. Reducing natural gas generation will save fuel but it will not save capital cost because the capital cost is sunk and cannot be changed by the grid operator. The fuel cost in a modern combined cycle natural gas plant is approximately $20 per megawatt hour. The cost of the solar electricity is set by contract with the solar developer. Without federal and state subsidies the solar cost would be about $150 per megawatt hour. Because there are subsidies, the utility pays about $40 per megawatt hour, and the remaining $110 per megawatt hour is paid by the taxpayers and electricity consumers that finance the subsidies. The difference between the $40 paid by the utility and the $20 savings from reduced natural gas generation requires an additional subsidy that will be paid in the form of increased electricity rates.

While Real Clear Energy is using a generic example and the average price of renewable energy is actually more than $40 per megawatt, this is how the process works in general. So, without subsidies, grants, low interest loans, and tax credits, utility-scale solar power would not be cost effective. The taxpayers are, in essence, paying for solar power twice. But perhaps it’s not really twice, but three or four times. There are infrastructure subsidies, power generation subsidies, grants, and low (no) cost loans, all are ultimately paid for by the taxpayers. Does anyone remember Solyndra under Obama? That failed boondoggle cost taxpayers more than 450 million dollars.

With TVAs goal of moving to renewable energy, it should be noted that utility-scale solar only produces for a few hours in the middle of the day. Transmission line capacity must be managed by reducing and ramping up power generated using fossil fuels as the USS power generation increases and decreases. This creates a scenario where fossil fuel power generation becomes less profitable because its utilization is reduced during peak hours where prices for power are the highest. USS power production also drives the cost of power higher during peak hours because the lower cost power from fossil fuels is reduced.

Subsidized Trickery at Taxpayer Expense

With solar installations, not only do the solar companies receive federal and state subsidies, grants, investment tax credits, production tax credits, and low-interest loans (like Solyndra, which went bankrupt at the taxpayers’ expense), they also receive rebates, and performance-based payments, all of which help reduce installation costs. But that’s not all; manufacturers who produce products like mounts, fasteners, solar panels, and other equipment domestically also receive some or all of these incentives. The bottom line is that solar companies are able to install these facilities at a fraction of the actual cost. Once these incentives dry up across the board, the cost of utility-scale solar will increase dramatically, particularly for Agrivoltaics, which use special mounting systems that track the sun. But perhaps the most heinous of these subsidies is Renewable Energy Certificates(RECs). The gift that keeps on giving!

Renewable Energy Certificates

Renewable energy would collapse almost overnight if the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) hadn’t allowed states to create energy markets with things like Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and Clean Energy Standards (CES) which force renewable energy to be installed in those states. 30 states and the District of Columbia have some form of these energy markets with Renewable Portfolio Standards. Many have implemented goals that would force transition to renewable energy by certain percentages within certain time-frames and some will require 100% renewable energy by 2050 or sooner. In the states that have RPS or CES, there are markets for what is called Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). In these markets, companies compete to buy credit for the any renewable energy that comes online. Currently, the average price for an REC in these markets is $35-$40 per REC or more.

In general an REC represents 1 MW of certified green energy. These RECs can be purchased to offset the use of energy created with fossil fuels. Another way to think of it as taking credit for the production of renewable energy with the purchase of RECs. As I mentioned in Part 1, once power enters the grid, it becomes amorphous with no defined path to any source of renewable energy. When a company, like Google, wants to offset their fossil fuel power use with renewable energy, they purchase RECs for that purpose.

Renewable Energy Certificates, in Tennessee?

Fortunately, Tennessee has not implemented draconian policies like Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) or Clean Energy Standards(CES). Since the state doesn’t have Renewable Portfolio Standards, there is not much of a market for RECs, per se. But there is still the ability to buy into renewable energy with TVAs Green Invest. At the moment TVA offers a voluntary Green Invest program which allows businesses and power companies to purchase renewable energy credit in blocks of 200 KW for $3.25 per block, with a minimum purchase of 2 MW. So, a 2 megawatt block of Green Invest (2 RECs), would cost $32.50.

Now let’s apply to our 1 MW utility-scale solar example from Part 1. If 1 MW of utility-scale solar produces 2,146 MW per year that equates to 10,730 (2,146 ÷ .2) 200KW blocks. At $3.25 per 200KW block, the result would be $34,872 per year. In Part 1, we showed a formula for calculating the yearly production for 1MW of utility-scale solar at an average price for Agrivoltaics solar power. Let’s review that discussion:

Agrivoltaics costs roughly $1.20 per watt, so 1 MW would cost $1,200,000 to install. That 1 MW installation will produce about 2,146 MW hours per year. Power companies pay roughly $52 per MWh, so a 1 MW utility-scale solar installation will generate $111,592 per year (2,146 x 52). Return on Investment (ROI) is calculated using this formula: (income ÷ investment) x 100. So (111,592 ÷ 1,200,000) x 100 = 9.3. That means the ROI for 1 MW of utility-scale solar is 9.3%. Normally, with equipment purchases, the expected ROI is 15-25%, and anything less than 10% is considered a poor ROI. So a typical good equipment investment with break even in 4-7 years. Utility-scale solar takes more than 10 years to break even on the investment.

Now let’s add in the Green Invest value for the RECs and calculate the ROI again (111,592 + 34,872): ((income + RECs) ÷ investment) x 100. So (146,464 ÷ 1,200,000) x 100 = 12.2. This puts the 1 MW of utility-scale solar closer to the expected ROI range of 15-25%. These RECs are produced every year truly making them the gift that keeps on giving. Before OBBB, the subsidies and incentives equated to about 30% of the cost of utility-scale solar, further improving the ROI.

Power Purchase Agreements

The previous example is for illustrative purposes because in truth, it doesn’t exactly work that way in Tennessee for companies like Google, Meta, and Amazon. In Tennessee, companies who plan to consume large amounts of power use what is called a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). A PPA is a long term, all inclusive, agreement to purchase power and the credit for the renewable aspects of that power (RECs). PPAs also include such things as direct investments as well as other undisclosed financial provisions. And that is the problem, PPAs are proprietary in nature, so they aren’t disclosed to the public. Consequently, how much do companies like Google, Amazon, and Meta pay per megawatt for renewable energy in a PPA? Who knows? But if it weren’t profitable, the solar companies simply couldn’t do business in Tennessee. That being the case, it is plausible to consider the ROI example we used earlier to be within reason for solar company’s to achieve a viable return on investment.

Part 2 Wrap-Up

It is important to note that neither the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) nor the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) addressed the issue of RECs. While the IRA, Executive Orders (EOs) and the EPA expanded grants, loans, rebates, tax credits and more for the Green New Deal, the OBBB, EOs, and the EPA unwound them just as fast. But, no one has considered unwinding RECs which adds the most value to renewable energy production. RECs are, in essence, a way for progressive companies like Google to buy their way to renewable compliance then thumb their nose at conservative counties, like Fayette County, where the renewable power is actually generated. So, truly, the seeds of the solar farm really do come from Democrats. We’ll see much more about that in Part 3, where we delve into the solar companies themselves.

Part 2 TVA Amendment

At this time the TVA websites have not been changed, however, the new TVA board has decided to take the following actions:

• Closing Coal-fired power plants by 2028 has been dropped
• Announced plans to build natural gas power plants
• Renewable energy requirements have been dropped
• Strategic commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion abandoned

In a recent Knox News article director Wade White made the following statement:

Over the past several years, the TVA board has faced pressure to make decisions based on stringent environmental regulations that were targeted to reduce the economic viability of important generation resources, like coal.

As mentioned in the section “Shifting Cost to the Customers,” as utility-scale solar ramps up production, other production technologies must be decreased. It seems that TVA now recognizes this and has taken action to address the cost of power for TVA customers.

This article is Part 1 of a series on utility-scale solar installations. This is a 4 part series that covers much of the story behind utility-scale solar, the political impetus behind renewable energy, the impact on land owners, and the benefit to the county.

• Part 1 – Introduces utility-scale solar, discusses who benefits from these solar installations, and addresses property owner rights.
• Part 2 – Discusses the Green New Deal, subsides, and Renewable Energy Certificates
• Part 3 – Will discuss two solar companies and their politics
• Part 4 – Will conclude the series by covering what Fayette County gets out of utility-scale solar

What is Utility-Scale Solar

Utility-scale solar is what most people refer to as a solar farm. However, this term “solar farm” is not only inaccurate, it’s deceptive. There is nothing agricultural about a utility-scale solar installation. As a matter of fact, these solar installations are destructive to agriculture, wildlife habitats, and natural drainage. They also have an impact on nearby property values and they destroy of the rural ambiance of the area in which they’re located. Some companies implement what they call Agrivotaics, where they install thin film panels on taller mounts and plant grass beneath the solar arrays. They even have traveling flocks of sheep they use to create the perception of being agrarian friendly. But, for the most part, they oversell on their value and under deliver on their results.

Recently, I began research on how utility-scale solar facilities can be regulated to reduce the impact on rural communities. There are many aspects of impact, from property devaluation to loss of wildlife habitats to contamination of water sources. As I delved into how these impacts on the rural living can be mitigated with zoning regulations, it became obvious there were other considerations that aren’t quite as apparent. The touted benefit of solar is its ability to generate clean energy while producing no CO2 or micro-scale particulates. The real problem is the fact that utility-scale solar facilities only generate electricity at the rating of the facility for a few hours in the middle of the day when plenty of bright sunshine is available directly overhead. Does that mean utility-scale solar a disingenuous model?

The solar model is disingenuous in that implies general power generation (i.e. a 100MW facility), but the actual result is sporadic generation with a wink and a nod. The expectation is that people know it only generates for a few hours in the middle of the day. But, is that the only deception in utility-scale solar. As I researched further, I found insidious undertones that are not technological, but political in nature. More importantly, they’re contrary to the conservative values in Fayette County. In general it takes roughly 10 acres of land to install 1 MegaWatt (MW) of utility-scale solar power. That being the case, to install a 100 MW facility would take about 1,000 acres of land. In the case of Fayette County, that would be prime agricultural land (farmland) and utility-scale solar infrastructure is only taxed at 12.5%, which we’ll cover in detail later. The reason is the Tennessee legislature decided to only apply infrastructure taxes for 3 peak hours of production. So, for a 100MW facility, the assumption is it will only produces 100 MW for about 3 hours per day. That’s a pitiful production story and begs the question, “Why would anyone do this?”

The payback model for agrivoltaics is rather interesting so let’s look at the numbers. Agrivoltaics costs roughly $1.20 per watt, so 1 MW would cost $1,200,000 to install. That 1 MW installation will produce about 2,146 MW hours per year. Power companies pay roughly $52 per MWh, so a 1 MW utility-scale solar installation will generate $111,592 per year (2,146 x 52). Return on Investment (ROI) is calculated using this formula: (income ÷ investment) x 100. So (111,592 ÷ 1,200,000) x 100 = 9.3. That means the ROI for 1 MW of utility-scale solar is 9.3%. Normally, with equipment purchases, the expected ROI is 15-25%, and anything less than 10% is considered poor ROI. So a typical good equipment investment with break even in 4-7 years. Utility-scale solar takes more than 10 years to break even on the investment.

So, with poor ROI, how do solar companies make the investment work? Well, as mentioned, they receive subsidies, rebates, tax credits, production credits, and most importantly, they sell Renewable Energy Certificates. It should also be noted that in Tennessee, power generated by utility-scale solar installations is exempt from the 7% sales tax. All of this will be covered in a subsequent article, but let’s suffice to say that RECs are a huge boondoggle for utility-scale solar. We’ll see that RECs bring the ROI back into the good to excellent range for utility-scale solar.

Who Really Benefits from Solar?

To understand who benefits, and why companies are invested in utility-scale solar, we must evaluate the reason utility-scale solar emerged as a “preferred” renewable energy technology in Tennessee. In order to understand why this has become a pervasive issue, particularly in counties that contain large amounts of farmland, we need to look at the political foundation underlying the solar initiative. This initiative was born out of a number of Democrat efforts to gain control over every aspect of our lives, and climate change was deemed a primary driver for gaining that control. The Green New Deal (GND), or Green New Scam as the president calls it, was heavily promoted to be codified in law by Democrats. What emerged was the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which implemented a portion of the GND, and other GND polices were implemented using Executive Orders. Still, other policies, such as the “Carbon Rule,” were implemented under the auspices of the EPA. With the IRA, hundreds of billions of dollars were designated for green energy projects. New grants, rebates, and subsidies were created, and new programs were built to force the country to move toward green energy. The results under these new mandates created an environment where renewable energy companies flourished.

But when the new president was elected, the Green New Deal hit insurmountable headwinds, and so did the IRA. Immediately, the new administration began unraveling the grants, rebates, subsidies, and tax credits. But the new administration could not stop Renewable Energy Certificates because of law codified in 1978 under Jimmy Carter, so they are still in play and are a key source of revenue for renewable energy companies. We must also understand that the government handouts for green energy weren’t just for the renewable energy companies. These benefits trickle down to every company that is in the loop of green energy production. Everything right down to the nuts and bolts used to implement green infrastructure is subsidized in some manner to offset the cost of implementing green energy, and all of this is at the expense of the taxpayers.

So, these solar companies offer land owners with lease or purchase options that are far better than the current value of the land. With these exorbitant offers, it’s difficult for land owners to see anything but great benefit and are completely unaware of the downside of utility-scale solar. This creates a conundrum for property owners, particularly those whose property is adjacent to the location where a utility-scale solar facility will be installed.

The Conundrum of Property Owner Rights?

I’ve heard a number people opine the issue of property owner rights. That is the rights of property owners to do as they see fit with their land and this is a valid argument, to a point. If a property owner wants to put up a new barn, plow a new field, or plant a different type of crop, that is one thing. But when a property owner does something that changes the landscape for 25 or 30 years, and those changes affect the value of other property owners land, that’s a completely different issue. Farmers have a historically difficult time making a consistent profit with traditional farming, so leasing or selling land to solar companies as a source income is attractive to them.

But if installing utility-scale solar on their land devalues surrounding properties, this is a critical issue that must be considered carefully. The important question to ask is this, “Should a conservative land owner sell their or lease their land to uber-progressive solar companies, who all all-in on the GND, for profit?” Let me ask the question this way, “Would a Christian sell their soul to the devil for profit?” Does a land owner have the right to arbitrarily make a profit to the detriment of the other land owners living around their property? According to Tennessee Law, they do have that right. This is where zoning regulations come into play, particularly for utility-scale solar installations.

Because the majority of residents in Fayette County are Bible believing Christians, I will raise a Bible passage to reference this issue. “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or empty pride, but in humility consider others more important than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.” Philippians 4:3-4

In other words; “How can a Christian justify doing direct harm to other Christian people for profit?”

Jesus told a parable of such a person filled with greed in Luke 12:16-20. A greedy young man had asked Jesus to demand that his brother give him his inheritance. Jesus rebuked the young man, then told a story; “The ground of a certain rich man produced an abundance. So he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, since I have nowhere to store my crops?’ Then he said, ‘This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and will build bigger ones, and there I will store up all my grain and my goods. Then I will say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take it easy. Eat, drink, and be merry!”’ But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be required of you. Then who will own what you have accumulated?’”

The Bible also tells us, “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?” Mark 8:36

If we have reached a point in Fayette County where profit is more important than our communities, God help us? When any of us do something that could or will affect others, we should demonstrate concern for them and make an honest effort to insure they are not harmed by what we plan to do. Since there seems to be a penchant for this kind of self interest, it is necessary to develop zoning regulations that insure the interests of all land owners are taken into consideration.

I’ll conclude this part of the series with this:

Jesus said, “In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you.” Matthew 7:12

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Failure, ignorance, envy & misery are all words Sir Winston Churchill used to describe a society which buys into Socialism as a means of creating an equal playing field for everyone.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.” A quarter century later, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher expressed the end result Socialism brings to a society. She pointed out socialism is about what “other people” have and, very wisely noted what they have is a finite resource. These great figures of history knew something was inherently wrong with a society which desires to “have” at the expense of others.

Thomas Jefferson made this observation more than two hundred years ago,

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Benjamin Franklin articulated the same idea in this way,

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

What others have isn’t ours. It’s not “The Common Wealth.” Working hard to obtain more than others is not stealing from them, it’s simply expending effort they are not willing to expend to achieve a goal. Our Declaration of Independence declares, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” While all men (humanity) are created equal, not all use their unalienable rights in equal pursuit of happiness in their Life using the Liberty they’ve been granted. Our unalienable right of Liberty gives us the freedom to pursue or not to pursue happiness. However, true happiness requires pursuit toward a goal that gives us fulfillment and ultimately happiness.

To gain a clear understanding of how a society has descended from this endowment of unalienable rights into socialist tendencies, let’s go through each of the points Winston Churchill made in his insightful observation.

Philosophy of Failure

Failure is something no one wants to experience but everyone is destined to encounter and, more importantly, is something every person must overcome to be successful. Rarely is success achieved without unsuccessful efforts along the way. The term “failure is not an option” is very real, personal and motivating for those who have learned to overcome failure.

In fact, most successful people don’t see unsuccessful efforts as failure. Thomas Edison, when working on the light bulb, was asked in an interview by a young reporter if he felt like a failure and if he thought he should give up. Edison’s reply is telling, “Young man, why would I feel like a failure? And why would I ever give up? I now know definitively over 9,000 ways that an electric light bulb will not work. Success is almost in my grasp.” After finding about 10,000 ways a light bulb would not work, Edison successfully created the carbon filament light bulb. Edison clearly didn’t associate unsuccessful attempts with failure but as means by which he could not achieve his goal.

For many the greatest failure of all is the “fear of failure”. What if it doesn’t work? What if I can’t do it? What will people think of me if I fail? Fear of failure paralyzes and thus immobilizes many which engenders a defeatist attitude whose ultimate result is the blame of others for what they do not have the drive to achieve. Many times, this blame is focused on amorphous entities like the wealthy, social injustice, “the system” and now “white privilege.”

Today a popular political deception is that of “privilege.” Wealth privilege, white privilege, male privilege, sexual privilege and many other “privileges” foster the perception that lack of achievement is someone else’s fault. All of these political positions feed on the fear of failure as a means of gaining control over those who are afraid to step out and take risks. Success is hard work and maintaining success is even harder. For the lazy person, which the Bible calls a sluggard, everything is just too hard. Here are three Proverbs that describe the condition:

“The sluggard buries his hand in the dish, But will not even bring it back to his mouth.” Proverbs 19:24

“The sluggard does not plow after the autumn, So he begs during the harvest and has nothing.” Proverbs 20:4

“The desire of the sluggard puts him to death, For his hands refuse to work;” Proverbs 21:25

Politicians who desire control feed on the fainéant by promoting failure as victimization. They create an illusion of victimization to divide society along social, ethnic, racial, political, religious and economic boundaries. These Demagogues promote all of the bogus “privileges” and “isms” to sow discord in order to create a victim driven society which must rely on the them to mead out economic justice. In doing so those who work hard to become successful become demoralized and less productive leading to a condition where no one has anything. The most concerning thing about this socialistic posturing is the ultimate reality that everyone ends up under control of the Demagogues.

Imagine if George Washington Carver, born a slave, had succumbed to discrimination in a time where extreme racism, absolute segregation and “White Privilege” were not only morally and culturally acceptable but in vogue. Had he given in to the real racial oppression of that age we wouldn’t have boiled or dry roasted peanuts, peanut oil, crop rotation or many other things we now take for granted. This extraordinary man had to apply at six different high schools, yes high schools, because of his race. For George Washington Carver “Failure” was not an option.

It’s easy to do nothing, be nothing and place the blame on others but George Washington Carver was determined NOT to be nothing! His vision, determination, drive to succeed along with hard work, led to accomplishments that revolutionized agriculture and virtually eliminated hunger in this country. Proverbs 29:18 says, ” Where there is no vision, the people perish;” (NKJV). When the vision is victimization, it creates a completely dependent society that has no sense of self-sufficiency, ultimately leading to socioeconomic demise.

Much of today’s society has been victimized by the belief success is because of “privilege” rather than a result of vision, determination, drive to succeed and hard work. This victimization mentality is a “Philosophy of Failure”.

Creed of Ignorance

The ultimate form of ignorance is a sense of entitlement. Young people who’ve grown up in the “helicopter parent” society have been conditioned to believe their success is the responsibility of someone else and that success is deserved rather than earned. In addition, the reality of personal responsibility and personal accountability is completely foreign to many young people today.

This became real for us many years ago when our children were in college. We realized we were going broke paying for traffic tickets for some of our children so we sat down and told them we weren’t paying for any more tickets. Several months later we received a call from the local jail. The conversation went something like this,

“Dad, they arrested me for traffic tickets. It’s six hundred dollars?” they opined, hoping I would pay the fine to get them out.

I responded, “What did I tell you?”

“That you weren’t going to pay for any more traffic tickets.”

“Did you believe me when I told you that?”

“Uh, I dunno. But Dad, I’m in jail!” came the deflated response.

My reply was likely more deflating, “Well, I hope you’re a model prisoner.”

They were a model prisoner for three days instead of six because they were so helpful. But more importantly they haven’t received another traffic ticket in more than 15 years. This is a great example of how personal accountability must be a real experience for someone to embrace personal responsibility.

Lack of personal responsibility and the reality of personal accountability leads to an attitude of self-gratification without boundaries. What others have become something one should have, all other considerations and consequences aside.

A sense of entitlement without accountability is a “Creed of Ignorance”.

Gospel of Envy

Perhaps the most subtle and dangerous of the points is the “Gospel of Envy”. Envy is the underlying condition that causes one to want what others have. The word gospel is defined as “something regarded as true and implicitly believed²” and envy is defined as “a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another’s advantages, success, possessions, etc.²”

Today’s culture is focused on the unfounded notion we just don’t have enough and deserve more. Is it any wonder that every advertisement on radio, television, cable and now social media evangelizes the gospel of envy by encouraging us to desire something we don’t currently possess! “You deserve” a new car, a new house, a bigger television and practically anything else you can imagine. They have no shame and even promote these “you deserve” views with our children. Toys, games, dolls, monster trucks. Our culture is bombarded with discontenting advertisements that promote the gospel of envy.

A decade or so ago, we had the pleasure of taking care of two of our grandchildren for a period of time and decided to go to Toys R Us to pick up a few children’s things. On the way in my grandson noticed someone buying a remote-control monster truck. I could tell right away he wanted one of those trucks so the next conversation was inevitable.

He asked, “PawPaw, can I have one of those?”

He was very disappointed when I answered, “No, I don’t think so.”

“Ok,” he responded in a sad little voice.

Down deep I really wanted him to have the truck so I said, “I tell you what, I’ll give you jobs around the house this summer so you can earn enough money to buy that monster truck.”

He lit up, “Ok, PawPaw.”

Well, we worked hard to give them plenty of little odd jobs, pick up a little pail of pine cones, sweep the porch, whatever we could think of that wasn’t too difficult and didn’t take a lot of time. By the end of the summer, he had earned fifty dollars.

I asked, “Well, you wanna go buy that monster truck now that you’ve earned enough?”

All smiles he answered, “Yes!”

We got to Toys R Us and went into where the monster truck was and he looked at it just beaming. He ran his little hand across the box and got his money out of his pocket. He looked at the wad of money in his little hand, then at the truck. The next thing he said took me completely by surprise.

“Pawpaw, do I have to buy the truck?” he asked. His little voice quivering.

Tears welled up in my eyes, “No sir, you do not!”

He put the money back in his pocket and with a broad grin asked, “Can I sweep the porch today?”

The personal satisfaction of earning the money became more important to him than having the monster truck. The antithesis of envy is the understanding of goals and means to achieve them.

The really sad fact is that politicians do exactly the opposite. Politicians evangelize this gospel of envy by promoting things such as a living wage, free college, universal healthcare, reparations and social equality as being human rights, which are deserved, as opposed to rewards that are earned. This political prevarication leads to anger, discontent, divisiveness, and hatred, which sooner or later results in anarchy.

When examined more closely this political dishonesty is nothing more than an appeal to selfishness and greed in order to gain support. The desire to acquire from someone else has roots deep in the human heart. The last of the Ten Commandments says, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.” Exodus 20:17 (ESV). In other words, the tendency to desire what others have is innate but God commanded not to give in to such desire. To be clear, politicians and the media encourage envy and covetousness which is contrary to God’s Word.

Desire isn’t envy when one builds a plan to accomplish goals and works hard to achieve that desire. Desire only becomes envy when accompanied by a sense of deprivation that leads to animosity toward others. Desire promoted as deprivation is a “Gospel of Envy”.

Equal Sharing of Misery

Socialists always opine previous failed attempts at socialism as being a result of improper implementation. In every new generation of socialists there is the belief their freshly hatched yet inane methods will succeed where others failed. But, in fact, every socialist implementation depends on hard working people working harder to subsidize benefits for many who have no desire to work for themselves at all. Further, the greed, ignorance and envy of the socialist leaders compel them to feel entitled to what others have. Soon those at the top consume more than those the socialist hegemony is supposed to benefit and their greed causes them to become corrupt.

Thomas Jefferson put it this way, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

Margaret Thatcher made the same keen observation but in a slightly more practical way, “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

The true meaning of misery isn’t only when hard working people have to support profligates but when the society runs out of hard working people to support the profligates. At some point those who work hard to get ahead will no longer feel it’s worth the effort because one’s hard work will ultimately reward someone else so they join the ranks of the profligates. As more people move from work to dependence the socialist society will exhaust its resources and implode resulting in misery for everyone.

Let’s look at Venezuela, for example. A little more than a decade ago Venezuela was the richest country in South America. However, prosperity began to swirl the porcelain with a Communist dictator and has degenerated to the degree Venezuelans are now in such poverty they must dig through dumpsters for food.

Why, because socialism is the legacy of poverty. What do I mean? In 2007 a Venezuelan 100 bolivar bill would buy 28 US dollars and 288 eggs. Today that same 100 bolivar bill will buy a dime and 20% of one egg. Why? Because it was more lucrative to take money from the government than to manage chickens so the country simply ran out of eggs. Socialism’s legacy is always the same, poverty, pain and misery.

Average citizens digging through dumpsters for food because a single egg costs 500 bolivar is a superb example of the “Equal Sharing of Misery”.

Finally

What does all of this mean? Let’s look again at a key statement from the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The declaration of Independence stated that all men (all humanity) are created equal but notice the “unalienable Rights”. “Life” is a right to our own existence. “Liberty” is a right by which we have the freedom to establish our own destiny. But I want to focus on the last of these rights, the “pursuit of Happiness”. We have the right to “pursue happiness” not the right to “have happiness”. The founders’ understood happiness is a resulting condition as opposed to a conditioning result. We have the right to live, the freedom to excel and the ability to work hard to be happy.

Those who’ve been taught to pursue happiness through hard work and accomplishment of an end goal will achieve a feeling of happiness and contentment. My grandson worked diligently to earn enough to be in a position to make the decision as to what would make him happy. That pursuit took all summer long, which is an eternity to a five-year-old, but in the end, he was not simply happy but delighted. He had the freedom to decide what would make him happy due to his sense of self-worth built through accomplishment. The opposite is true of those who’ve been conditioned to believe something is deserved. This entitlement mentality isn’t just unrealistic, it’s naïve, and the result of such naivety is unhappiness and discontentment.

The truth of personal accountability must result in taking personal responsibility. The youth who learned to assert personal responsibility through personal accountability now runs an Amazon Fulfillment Center. Not because they somehow mystically deserved the position but because they set goals and held themselves accountable to achieve those goals.

A clear understanding of truth and consequences is what tempers the soul’s response to what one doesn’t have. Vision, hard work, determination, personal responsibility and drive to succeed in order to accomplish a goal are the things which satisfy the soul resulting in happiness, contentment and security.

No amount of socialist equalization will ever provide happiness, contentment or security but only poverty, pain and misery.

I’ll finish with two verses:

“Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have…” Hebrews 13:5

“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Timothy 5:8

¹ – Feature photo 

² – Dictionary.com