Renewable energy potential on brownfield sites: A case study of Michigan $ Soji Adelaja a,1 , Judy Shaw b,2 , Wayne Beyea a,1 , J.D. Charles McKeown a,n a Land Policy Institute (LPI), Michigan State University, 1405 S. Harrision Road, Ste 305, East Lansing, Michigan 48823 United States b National Center for Neighborhood and Brownfield Redevelopment, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Jersey, United States article info Article history: Received 11 December 2009 Accepted 15 July 2010 Available online 5 August 2010 Keywords: Brownfields Renewable energy Adaptive reuse abstract Federal priorities are increasingly favoring the replacement of conventional sources of energy with renewable energy. With the potential for a federal Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) legislation, many states are seeking to intensify their renewable energy generation. The demand for wind, solar, geothermal and bio-fuels-based energy is likely to be rapidly expressed on the landscape. However, local zoning and NIMBYism constraints slow down the placement of renewable energy projects. One area where land constraints may be lower is brownfields; whose development is currently constrained by diminished housing, commercial, and industrial property demand. Brownfield sites have the potential for rapid renewable energy deployment if state and national interests in this area materialize. This study investigates the application of renewable energy production on brownfield sites using Michigan as a case study. Wind and solar resource maps of Michigan were overlaid with the brownfield locations based on estimates of brownfield land capacity. The total estimated energy potential available on Michigan’s brownfield sites is 4320 megawatts (MW) of plate capacity for wind and 1535for solar, equating to 43% of Michigan’s residential electricity consumption (using 30% capacity factor). Estimated economic impacts include over $15 billion in investments and 17,500 in construction and long-term jobs. & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Background The term brownfield site means ‘‘real property for which the expansion, redevelopment or reuse may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant’’ (U.S. Congress, 1980). Brownfield sites are generally abandoned or under-utilized old industrial and/or commercial facilities, and can be major eyesores and/or health hazards for residents of the communities in which they are located. Brownfield sites are typically contaminated by low concentrations of hazardous waste or pollution, and have the potential to be redeveloped only after clean-up. Typical contaminants found on brownfields include heavy metals, such as lead (paints), arsenic, polychlorinated bi-phenols (PCBs), pesticides, asbestos, and hydrocarbons from fuel leaks. Brownfields are seen not only as compromising the environment and threatening public health and safety, but as contributors to blight and barriers to economic development. The concentration of such sites in urban areas or old industrial towns makes economic development more challenging for urban policy makers. By discouraging productive reuse of potential infill areas, brown- fields also serve to promote urban sprawl and the erosion of urban vitality (Dorsey, 2003). Brownfields are seen by local, state, and federal policy makers as a special problem area warranting policy intervention. The negative externalities 3 associated with these sites led to the development of a number of federal, state, and local policies; and component tools and incentives aimed at encouraging brownfield redevelopment. Examples of incentives currently in place in Michigan include brownfield tax credits (BTCs), tax increment financing (TIFs), brownfield redevelopment grants and loans, and brownfield site assessment services (MDEQ, 2008). The assump- tion behind the creation of these incentives is that there is, at least, some demand for real estate development in areas where brownfields exist. These incentives were designed to influence Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol Energy Policy 0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.021 $ This report is the outcome of a joint project between the Land Policy Institute at Michigan State University and the National Center for Neighborhood and Brownfields Redevelopment at Rutgers University. The project was supported by funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation under the People and Land Program and by the John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor Research Endowment at Michigan State University. n Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 517 432 8800; fax: + 1 517 432 8769. E-mail addresses: adelaja@landpolicy.msu.edu (S. Adelaja), jashaw@rci.rutgers.edu (J. Shaw), beyea@landpolicy.msu.edu (W. Beyea). mckeownc@msu.edu (Charles McKeown). 1 Tel.: + 1 571 432 8800. 2 Tel.: + 732 932 5475. 3 Negative externalities are the negative effects that are not limited to the property owner or user on the community and individuals who live or work near the property. Energy Policy 38 (2010) 7021–7030