Dan Carter uses a forklift to move apples in the cold storage facility at Carlson Orchards. The facility allows the orchard to store its own apples and import them from other orchards so that they can press up to 60,000 gallons of cider a day. (Photo by Lisa Aciukewicz)

On 140 acres Carlson Orchards produces 60,000 bushels of apples, 5,000 baskets of peaches and nectarines, and more than 500,000 gallons of apple cider annually. Just as its trees are asleep in winter, so are the apples. Growing, harvesting, and then putting the apples “to sleep” in controlled atmosphere rooms and keeping them in a state of suspended animation consumes a lot of energy—currently about 400,000 kilowatts per year. The current cost of electricity to run the orchard is well over $80,000 a year.

Frank Carlson, who runs the orchard with his brothers Bruce and Robert, has received grants from several federal, state and agricultural resources totaling approximately $850,000, which will be applied toward the installation of 1,050 solar photovoltaic panels at a cost of $1.1 million. The panels will be provided by Evergreen Solar of Massachusetts, and their energy output (about 300,000 kilowatts a year), combined with other energy-efficiency measures, is expected to cover three quarters of the orchard’s annual electric bill. Lighthouse Electrical Construction, a Massachusetts contractor, has been retained to do the work.

Samantha Gates, a professional “green” project manager hired by Carlson, spent eight months looking for grant money that might be available for this project and fulfilling the arduous grant application process required by each grantor. She was successful in obtaining several large grants for the solar system, and a few smaller grants to conduct energy audits on the whole farm. Following is a sample of the grants received:

• $565,000 from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center.
• $287,000 from the Natural Resources Conservation Service —a U.S. Department of Agriculture renewable energy initiative to improve agricultural energy conservation and efficiency.
• $30,000 from the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources’ Agricultural Environmental Enhancement Program (AEEP).
• Several smaller grants to address improvements to industrial refrigeration and related electrical controls.

In a press release issued earlier this year, State Representative Jennifer Benson (D-Lunenburg) said of the AEEP grant, “I am thrilled that Carlson Orchards received this grant. They are leading the way in sustainable farming and I am pleased that the state can support their efforts.”

“We are pleased to help farmers make their agricultural practices more sustainable,” added Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles. “These awards are another example of the Patrick Administration’s efforts to conserve natural resources throughout the Commonwealth.”

The farmwide energy audit was a requirement of the larger grants for the solar system, and it identified inefficiencies in energy consumption that could be corrected with updated equipment and improvements to electrical controls. For example, as a result of the lighting audit, Carlson said he has already replaced all lights on the whole farm with the new T-12 energy-efficient bulbs.

A motor energy audit was conducted on all 120 motors on the farm. National Grid covered more than half the cost, and the rest was part of the renewable energy program grant. That audit revealed four 30-year-old compressors consuming far more energy than more modern equipment, so funds could be obtained to buy one new compressor out of the four that had to be replaced. The new equipment requires much less horsepower and also pulses on as needed, rather than running all the time, so that translated to a big reduction in the industrial refrigeration footprint.

Carlson said the audits were a real eye opener. “We’re even painting large outbuildings white to reflect more heat units from the galvanized walls, and we’re putting more perimeter insulation outside, 1.5 feet into ground around the cold storage, because they found that cold was leaking into ground.”

A visit to one of the controlled atmosphere rooms revealed apple-filled crates stacked to the ceiling with mature apples. They are wetted down regularly, and the 30-degree air is scrubbed of all ethylene to prevent the apples from ripening. There are various methods of scrubbing the air. In one room, there were two “ethelyne scrubbers” humming away, a new technology Carlson is trying. Another method Carlson uses is to purge the room with liquid nitrogen to force the oxygen level in the room down to 3.5 percent. This keeps the apples “asleep” from January to March.

Carlson wanted to put the solar site “out back” on flat land, out of view, but that land has a conservation restriction (CR) on it. Carlson owns the land, but the Harvard Conservation Trust (HCT) has administrative control over its use. The CR states that utilities cannot be on the land, but Gates and Carlson argued that the restriction calls for agricultural use, and the panels were solely for that purpose. Also, on that level site “the panels could be nestled in among the crops, which goes with the concept of having a solar orchard,” said Gates. “We worked hard to sell them on the vision, but in the end we were not approved.” On that level site, she added, the system would have cost much less to install because it could “basically just sit on the ground without a permanent structural support.”

Carlson had stipulated to HCT that if he were to someday cease farming on the restricted site, he would dismantle the solar system. He said that today there are in existence many Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) sites that allow renewable energy projects to exist on APR land. However, even though the system was specifically for agricultural purposes, the Trust decided to not allow the system to be placed on the restricted site. Carlson surmises that “they were adhering strictly to the wording of the restriction—no buildings and no utilities.” Carlson said he would have appealed the decision if he had more time, but that some of the grants have deadlines for using the money and they have to start building.

When asked for the reason Carlson’s request to use his restricted land for alternative energy for his farm was denied, Marylynn Gentry, executive director of HCT, replied by e-mail, saying, “The Harvard Conservation Trust devoted extensive time trying to figure out a way to allow Mr. Carlson’s solar panel installation.” She explained that when Carlson purchased the property in 2005, the restriction was already in place. In the list of “Prohibited Acts and Uses” is the construction of utilities. “Furthermore, the restriction prohibits the placing of gravel or other materials on the site, which is necessary for the installation,” said Gentry.

Despite the explicit wording of the restrictions, Gentry contacted Irene Del Bono, director of the Conservation Restriction Program at the Massachusetts Division of Conservation Services “to inquire if we could amend the restriction to allow Mr. Carlson’s project.”

In her e-mail to the Press, Gentry said, “The Trust has tremendous respect for Mr. Carlson, his operation and for his contribution to the community and we bent over backward to try and figure out a solution that would work, including approaching the state to see if we could amend the CR to allow this use.”

Carlson also contacted Ms. Del Bono, who replied by letter to Carlson and HCT. In her reply, she spelled out several aspects of this particular CR that “leaves little wiggle room,” especially because of “the mention of the viewshed and how often it was identified by governmental entities, as well as its environmental assets.”

Pointing out that there is other (unrestricted) land available, she stated, “There is no critical necessity … that might justify an amendment that does not further the interests of the CR.” She also stated, “Particularly with federal scrutiny of CR holders, the fact that a tax deduction was taken for this, and the study identifying this area was paid for with federal funds, this could present more problems for the land trust than just the perception that they violated a donor’s intent and provided private benefit.”

As for the state allowing renewable energy projects to exist on APR land, as Carlson stated, Del Bono states in a separate letter to HCT that “We have allowed wind turbines, … etc. on agricultural land to support the agriculture, but have not ever amended a CR to allow it. The standard we use is “provided it is not feasible to put it on the unrestricted area” – feasibility being more than just a difference in cost.”

Cost is a significant factor in Carlson’s desire to locate the system on level land. Because of the sloping terrain on the unrestricted land Carlson owns, the system has to be staggered, and an architect had to be hired to work with the electrical contractor to design a terraced racking system for the panels that will be supported by I-beams, which in turn will be supported by concrete pilings. “We’re up to a couple of hundred concrete pilings already,” said Gates of the proposed design.

“Carlson Orchards has a big industrial refrigeration footprint because they store fruit after it’s harvested. On average we’ve measured out at over 400,000 KW per year. The array is supposed to throw up to 300,000 KW a year; that will bring down the footprint quite a bit from that,” Gates said. To put that in perspective, she said, the average home runs about 1,000 KW a month, so the farm is using energy equivalent to 33 homes a year, and this system will reduce that to the level of about 10 homes. “Taking that much off the grid means less coal burned, which leads to less greenhouse gas emissions,” she added.

Using a greenhouse gas equivalency calculator (available on the US EPA website) Gates has calculated some interesting statistics on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are equivalent to those produced by the current energy consumption on Carlson Orchards. For example, the farm produces the equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions from 38 passenger vehicles, or 21,570 gallons of gas consumed. That’s more than 2.6 tanker trucks-worth of gasoline. Another example is the emissions from about 8,000 propane cylinders used for home barbeques. It is the amount of carbon sequestered annually by over 40 acres of pine or fir forests.

“It’s been a learning process for all of us” said Gates. “You can only take care of your own patch of dirt, but we all can do our part to keep our side of the street clean.” Once the construction of the system is under way, Gates envisions having “solar tours” of the farm that would be open to the public.

Despite the setback of not receiving some grants that were anticipated, and the challenge and extra expense of building on a less-than-ideal spot, Carlson is proud of his effort to reduce his farm’s greenhouse emissions. “Reducing the carbon footprint is good for everyone in the country,” he said.