NVR Logo
Sun power rising near American Canyon
The view of American Canyon from atop the landfill northwest of town. A Vallejo company has proposed building a 50,000-panel solar array on the hilly site. Photo by Kerana Todorov/Register | Buy photos
Firm proposes solar field on old landfill site
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Save and Share Share
A closed landfill in American Canyon could become Napa County’s biggest solar farm.

A Vallejo-based company has proposed constructing 50,000 solar panels on the top of the 100-acre landfill just northwest of the city.
The solar array could produce up to 6.7 megawatts — about six times the amount of power produced at Napa Valley College’s solar facility.

On Thursday, the Napa-Vallejo Waste Management Authority, which owns the landfill, voted 3-0 to negotiate an agreement with Green Tech Power Group, a Mare Island-based firm that would lease the land from the authority and sell power to PG&E.
Larry Asera, the company president, said Thursday’s agreement will boost his company’s chances to obtain federal stimulus funds set aside for green companies under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The stimulus funds will pay up to 30 percent of the project, which Asera said might cost between $30 million and $50 million in total.

The project could provide up to 75 temporary jobs during construction and up to 30 permanent jobs thereafter.
The landfill is already producing energy in the form of methane gas, which is being captured as it seeps out of the former garbage dump.

Green Tech will prepare studies and plans to build the solar facility on the flat area of the landfill without disturbing the methane gas collecting system., Asera said.

Once built, Green Tech’s solar facility would sell electricity to PG&E and supply power to the Napa-Vallejo Authority.

American Canyon Mayor Leon Garcia and Napa City Councilman Peter Mott serve as board members with the Napa-Vallejo Waste Management Authority. Both met with Asera to discuss his plans for the former dump.

“We think it’s a great opportunity,” Mott said Friday.

On Thursday, Mott and Garcia, along with Tom Bartee, a Vallejo city councilman and the authority’s board chairman, voted to give Asera’s company the exclusive right to negotiate a deal.

Asera, who has built solar panels for the past two decades in the United States and in the Philippines, found American Canyon’s landfill, at the edge of the Napa River and with views of San Pablo Bay, impressive. “What a beautiful site,” he said.

Thursday’s agreement does not guarantee that the authority will approve the project. The proposal will also have to receive the green light from the Napa County Planning Commission because the land is in unincorporated Napa County.

Garcia, who supports opening the service road that loops around the foot of the landfill as a recreational trail, worried about the visual impacts on the city, particularly on houses along Wetlands Edge Road.

“That was a big concern,” he said.

But the solar panels will face south — away from the city — and be placed behind landscaping, Garcia said.

The project’s visual impacts “should not be a problem at all,” he said.

Napa-Vallejo Waste Management Authority General Manager Trent Cave said he could not predict how much money the authority would receive from the new venture. “It’s too early to say how much the authority might realize in addition revenue or savings,” he said.

The Napa-Vallejo Waste Management Authority’s main business is the Devlin Road Transfer Station, which collects waste from Napa, American Canyon, Vallejo and unincorporated Napa County.

The authority also receives revenues in methane gas royalties from the landfill site. A private company that extracts methane gas from the American Canyon’s closed landfill to produce power and sell it to PG&E paid $85,000 in gas royalties over the fiscal year that ended June 30.

The authority has tried — but so far failed — to engineer a system to supply American Canyon’s nearby wastewater treatment plant with methane-based electricity, a project Mott called “disappointing.”
12 comment(s)

someguyinnapa wrote on Jul 14, 2009 2:27 AM:

" Bring it! "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 14, 2009 5:04 AM:

" Oh, gosh! Every Republican 'knows' that solar power just won't/can't work!

How could anybody even consider investing money and creating jobs using solar power that falls freely from the sky.

This is just terrible! We should spend the money on a single small load of oil from the Middle East, burn that up and be done with it, right?

Right?

THINK, BABY, THINK!

(Think about how many acres of roofs there are in Napa County and how each and everyone of them could be paying part of the mortgage of the building they sit on.)

~Ruff "

EdWest wrote on Jul 14, 2009 7:02 AM:

" Ruff- The issue is not solar power the issue is the redistribution of wealth to make it attractive and profitable. Solar does not work unless you take tax dollars from across the country and give them to a single private entity. I object to taking taking tax dollars from hardworking Americans across the country and giving it to "others to create jobs"- Investors are always lookingf or a better mouse trap to invest in- Solar is not that, so investors are lacking- except tax payers, we invest in things that other will not invest in.

Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation

Leave my tax dollars alone "

jack27022003 wrote on Jul 14, 2009 8:38 AM:

" Good. Every little bit adds up. "

M.G. wrote on Jul 14, 2009 9:03 AM:

" Ed just lost my vote. "

SuzieSwirled wrote on Jul 14, 2009 9:05 AM:

" Such a project would be an absolute boondoggle.

The current cost to produce greatly electricity exceeds its value - and especially so in such a location as is proposed.

I am all for reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but only with appropriate and cost effective technology.

Money would be much better spent in investing in what are PROVEN methods, such as increasing insulation in existing buildings, reducing automobile use by telecommuting and such, and switching from oil to Compressed Natural Gas in vehicles.

The current administration seems far to willing to jump headlong into implementing inadequately developed technology, and I gravely fear the financial consequences of doing so.

As a country we first need to do what works well, and spend our tax money on doing basic energy research that private industry cannot afford to invest in. Only when a technology if financially viable should it be implemented on a wide scale. "

samaker wrote on Jul 14, 2009 10:00 AM:

" Ed, your completely right about this being a bad deal for taxpayers. This Green Tech Power Group firm expects millions of dollars in taxpayer money so that they can create electricity that is then sold back to the taxpayers at an un-discounted rate by PG&E. I am all for developing green energy sources, but I think Green Tech Power Group should be solely responsible for paying for it.

And also, I have never seen anyone who appears to be a full-time worker near the Napa Valley College solar panels, so how is this project, which supplies only six times as much electricity as the NVC site going to create 30 jobs. Why don't they put in the same panels that are at the college, that do not require a team of full time workers maintaining them. "

post-it wrote on Jul 14, 2009 11:35 AM:

" I agree that solar rebates are a transfer of wealth. Maybe the left should consider means testing on these rebates and apply the rebates in a progressive manner like taxation to be fair to everyone. Those that would benefit most from the advantages of solar energy on their own roofs are least able to afford the initial investment even with the current rebate program. Those with an extra 10-20K to spend on a solar installation need less taxpayer help. This is another example of wealth redistribution that the right rails against, however many of them are willing consumers of such programs.

Additionally, with all the warehouses in the area, why do these installations need to be in greenfield sites? Wouldn't it be cheaper to aquire "solar rights" to the top of the buildings than buying land for this venture? They could pay for the roof space by providing power to the building owner as competition to PG&E, and selling excess generation to the grid. "

o4ahomer wrote on Jul 14, 2009 3:31 PM:

" well said Ed, you GOT MY VOTE. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 14, 2009 8:26 PM:

" Where were all the folks protesting transfer of tax dollars when it was going to HUMMERS?

What a bunch of hypocrites.

~Ruff "

post-it wrote on Jul 14, 2009 10:26 PM:

" Ruff,
Some of us just haven't always commented.

There are plenty business benefits that are nothing but wealth transfers just like the Hummer you speak. Just because it is green doesn't make it any different. There is unequal application of taxes dependent on your status in society.

Why does it matter if the transfer is a prius or a hummer? Just because you can green wash one it is better than the other? The hummer being American made could be considered part of a "jobs" program and then you could labor wash that one.

All of these deductions work against the progressive tax system you espouse. Warren Buffet has said he pays less of his income as a percentage than his secretary. How can that be with our progressive tax system in place? Wouldn't you of all people be for a progressive application of tax deductions based on your income?

When a poor person needs a new fridge, he shops on craigs list. When a richer person needs one, he goes down to the store and gets an energy star model and collects a rebate. The richer person then benefits from the lower operating costs and can tell us how green he is with his new bigger fridge.

Isn't it just as hypocritical to rant against the hummer but rave for the solar panels? "

O/U now wrote on Jul 16, 2009 5:50 AM:

" It cracks me up how people think they are "green" because they buy green cars. Its a joke. we are much greener if we use what we already have insted of waisting resources "building" green cars. Solar does work, I use it, my inlaws are 90% solar in their house. But it does have drawbacks. If this nation goes solar, everyboby must change the way they live. I really don't see that happening even if they had too. Think baby think! This type of program is only there for corporations to "grab" Green fed funds. When it goes belly-up, the CEO's will have got their bonis and split. "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy