Millions of square feet of empty warehouse roofs will stand ready to host solar panels if the vision put forth in state Rep. Josh Siegel\u2019s legislation comes to light.<\/p>\n
New warehouse and distribution centers in the state would need to ensure their roofs are capable of supporting solar panels if the Siegel-sponsored bill<\/a> becomes law.<\/p>\n The bill, which advanced out of the House Energy Committee on Tuesday, would also allow local authorities to pass tax incentives to encourage existing warehouses to retrofit their roofs.<\/p>\n The Lehigh Valley has added 44 million square feet of warehouse space in the last decade, Siegel said in committee testimony during an Oct. 6 hearing on the bill.<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s over 1,000 acres of roof space, and under H.B. 1260, 40% of it could be used to generate clean, local power,\u201d Siegel said.<\/p>\n The definition of \u201csolar-ready\u201d in the bill says that a minimum of 40% of a warehouse roof area must be suitable for solar panel installation, meaning it is free of obstructions such as HVAC systems or vents and it has sufficient structural integrity to hold the weight of a mounted solar energy system in addition to wind and snow loads.<\/p>\n Interior construction would also need to leave space for wiring and inverters needed to connect solar arrays.<\/p>\n The modular nature of solar arrays make them easy to install, and developers are ready for this construction, Rob Bair, president of the Pennsylvania Building and Construction Trades Council, said during the Oct. 6 hearing.<\/p>\n \u201cAs long as the warehouse is built with roof structure to carry it, we can deploy it rapidly and it\u2019s low impact,\u201d Bair said.<\/p>\n Finding a solar-ready warehouse can be challenging, but the components are often standard design features that are readily available without a large cost increase, Victoria Moroney, director of market development at solar commercial rooftop developer ForeFront Power, said at the Oct. 6 hearing.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s not that any of these requirements are overly cumbersome or expensive,\u201d Moroney said. \u201cIt\u2019s just that warehouse developers don\u2019t have this in mind when they\u2019re developing their facilities.\u201d<\/p>\n Warehouses don\u2019t consume a large amount of electricity, so a solar array would not need to cover the whole roof to meet the facility\u2019s energy demand, Moroney said.<\/p>\n Adding solar panels can cut energy costs, and a developer could also lease the roof space to generate money from an array, Moroney said, adding that large tech companies are starting to incorporate solar-ready design into their facilities.<\/p>\n \u201cI think these companies would not be making that decision if there was not a positive ROI on that investment,\u201d Moroney said.<\/p>\n Next steps for legislation<\/p>\n Siegel\u2019s bill is similar to legislation that passed in New Jersey in 2021<\/a>, and House Energy Committee Chair Elizabeth Fiedler has said the experience of our neighboring state is one reason to push Pennsylvania\u2019s proposed bill forward.<\/p>\n Trade associations in New Jersey supported that legislation, and developers said solar-ready buildings were easier to lease, Fielder said at the Oct. 6 hearing.<\/p>\n Construction companies reported that solar-ready requirements only added 1% to the total project cost for a 50,000 square foot warehouse, Fiedler reported.<\/p>\n Bair agreed that construction costs should be manageable for developers.<\/p>\n \u201cWe already build for snow loads,\u201d Bair said. \u201cIt\u2019s really not that much more to ramp it up.\u201d<\/p>\n Additional project costs could be \u201ca little more than 1%\u201d for a larger warehouse, Bair said, but a bigger roof also gives a developer more opportunity to rent out the power-generation equipment and increase revenue.<\/p>\n \u201cAt the end of the day, if he could lease that roof space for 30 years, I think he\u2019s going to be more than willing to incorporate it into the design,\u201d Bair said.<\/p>\n The Nov. 18 committee vote fell along party lines, in part due to concerns raised about placing a mandate on private property.<\/p>\n \u201cAs far as mandates go, I think it\u2019s one that carries with it a very minor cost,\u201d Siegel said.<\/p>\n Seigel \u2014 who will step down as representative of the 22nd district next month, after his election as Lehigh County executive \u2014 also emphasized that mandates in service of the public good should be seen as a positive, and that rising electricity costs mean developers and ratepayers alike need a way to use renewable energy to their advantage to insulate themselves from further price rises.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s deeply unjust for us as legislators to think only about the needs of private industry and ignore the consequences of what it means for our constituents,\u201d Siegel said.<\/p>\n