ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA - Department of Commerce

ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Population: 26,948 Population: Rural: 15,528 (58%)
(7) Towns:
Wadesboro 5,813
Peachland 437
Polkton 1,207
Lilesville 536 > In Town: 11,420 (42%)
Morven 511
Ansonville 631
McFarlan 117
(3) Prisons: 2,168 Inmate population + new 500 bed facility under construction – 2,668 population
Tier: 1 (Anson County is one of the Top 20 most economically distressed counties - # 8 of 100 in North Carolina)
Poverty Rate: (County) 25.6% (2010 Census)-State (12.3%)
Unemployment Rate: (County) 12.7% (2010-2011 average 12.5%)
Races in Anson County, North Carolina:
White Non-Hispanic Alone (48.5%)
Black Non-Hispanic Alone (47.9%)
Hispanic or Latino (1.4%)
Asian alone (1.0%)
American Indian and Alaska Native alone (0.6%)
Two or more races (0.6%)
Anson County Governing Body: 7-Member County Commission Board elected by districts
Anson County Water Treatment Plant permitted for 16-MGD
o Sell water to 6 of the 7 Towns in Anson County, (Wadesboro has their own WTP facility), and including 4-MGD
water contract with Union County; 1-MGD water contract with the Town of Marshville in Union County; and, a 1.6-
MGD with Richmond County.
Anson County Wastewater Treatment Plant permitted for 3 ½ -MGD
o Treat wastewater for 5 of the 7 Towns in Anson County (Town of Ansonville has their own WWTP facility); and,
Town of McFarlan has no sewer. Anson also receives and treats up to 200,000 gallons per day from Marshville.
A. Phase I and Phase II Environmental for Vacant Buildings
B. Certified Sites
ENERGY:
I. HOUSING ENERGY NEEDS - HEATING
II. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
III. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AS THEY RELATE TO ENERGY PROJECTS
IV. SOLAR POWER

I. Housing:
Housing Tenure: Total Housing Units 11,489
o Occupied housing Units 9,768
Owner-occupied housing units 6,376
Renter-occupied housing units 3,392
Vacant housing Units 1,721
* Mobile Homes (2,941 of the occupied dwelling units are mobile home units)
Housing Stock: 5,543 housing units or 48% of the housing stock in Anson County is older than 50 years
Built 2005 or later 101 Built 1960 to 1969 1,539
Built 2000 to 2004 216 Built 1950 to 1959 1,528
Built 1990 to 1999 1,382 Built 1940 to 1949 1,029
Built 1980 to 1989 1,367 Built 1939 or earlier 1,447
Built 1970 to 1979 2,880
Heating Assistance: Of the 3 fuel distributors who serve Anson County residences with heating oil, none were willing to
quote a per gallon cost for anything other than for the fuel that they have on hand. One distributor reported that prices are
increasing as much as 6 to 8-cents per day. Average sized fuel tank used for home heating holds around 270 gallons of fuel;
therefore, 270 gallons @ $4.00 per gallon is $1,080.00 X 5 months per year = $$5,400.00 per year in heating costs alone.
Fuel Oil Customers 1,038 households in Anson County who use # 2 Fuel Oil for Heating
150 households in Anson County who use # 1 Fuel Oil (Kerosene)
Wood Heat Customers 375 households utilize wood for heating
No Heat or Other Alternatives 100 households use Kerosene for space units – and we believe that is much higher
than what is estimated.
Solar Heat 0
Heating assistance needs are creating many challenges for the elderly and individuals on fixed incomes in Anson County.
DSS has had a significant increase in requests for heating assistance, as well as Crisis Ministries as more and more
households are unable to meet these rising fuel costs.
o Is it possible for the Energy Department and CDBG to merge heating funding program together in an effort to
replace heating systems in CDBG income eligible households?
“Emergency Needs” dollars are not available but every 3 years with CDBG Scattered Site Housing Programs – and only
10% of Scattered Housing dollars may be used for “Emergency Needs” and approximately 75% of the CDBG Scattered Site
“Emergency Needs” dollars spent in Anson County are used to replace inoperable heating systems.
The County averages receiving around 10-12 calls per year for requests for replacement of heating and cooling systems;
however, as we are currently required to “identify” the households in the Scattered Site Housing Grant Application that will
receive “Emergency Needs” this leaves “no” money available to assist households on an on-going basis.
While Anson County also applies for NCHFA “Urgent Repairs” funding, and have received award of four (4) URP grants in
the past 10 years, the County did not receive funding last year because of shortfalls in the URP program. URP funds;
however, must be spent on extremely low-income (30%) households, leaving households that are just above the 30% and
the 50% very low-income ineligible to receive assistance under this program. Once 75% of the URP funding has been
expended, only then may the County use URP funding on an above 30% income household. This generally only allows
enough money remaining to work on one (1) house. Therefore, households needing heating systems often wait up to 3
years until the next Scattered Site Housing dollars are again available to address their heating needs in their home.

We would like to request the possibility of either: not having to pre-identify homes in the Scattered Site application for
“Emergency Needs” in order that the most “severe” needs be met on an on-going basis throughout the year; or that there
possibly be some category of funding made available on an “ongoing basis” to meet “severe” needs such as the
“replacement of heating systems”. (Catalyst Grant)
Heating Systems – Changes in the SEER (efficiency rating) of units and efficiency and cost in order to meet Department
of Energy standards:
Heating systems are rated by SEER (Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio). The SEER is the efficiency rating of a heating unit
when it is in the cooling mode, which is weighed in BTU (British thermal unit) or the output of the cooling unit, during a
typical cooling-season. To figure the heat loss and heat gain in a home - this is divided by the total electric energy input in
watt-hours during the same period. The higher the unit's SEER rating - the more energy efficient the unit is.
Since January 1, 2006, in conjunction with the Department of Energy requirements, the County has installed 13 to 14 SEER
HVAC units in homes, which was to represent a 30% increase in air conditioning or heat pump energy efficiency. The
installation of the HVAC unit also requires installation of duct work; thermostats; and, more often than not, electrical
upgrades on the home. The SEER upgrades set by the Department of Energy are in an effort to reduce the cost in electric
bills in order to handle the heating system. The price of metal continues to impact the cost of this equipment.
Many homes that we work with, have little to no wall, attic, or floor insulation; some homes have no shade outside the home;
many have old windows and doors; etc., which all affect the heating and cooling ability of a unit in the home.
The new technology to save 30% on energy consumption is continually driving the SEER size up as well as the cost of the
unit. The technology to save 30% on energy consumption will be the standard as mandated by the Department of Energy.
But, in order to achieve that energy savings, this will impact the size of the SEER, and the up front cost of installation. This is
already impacting the costs of installing a new heating system in our homes. The first changes we have seen have been
with the new technology in compressors. New technology compressors run quiet and provide excellent efficiency and are
much more durable. The second changes that are affecting costs are in the effort to increase the equipment's efficiency is to
increase the size of the evaporator and condenser coils in the system. The new compressors and larger coils are adding to
the increase in the cost of the equipment.
In an attempt to meet these new energy standards “ENERGY STAR STANDARDS”, we are currently required to use 15 to
15.99 SEER units, and/or 16 SEER units, which is going to nearly double the cost associated with replacing an HVAC
system in homes. The higher the SEER, the more metal that is going to be needed in manufacturing HVAC units. Electrical
cost are also increasing and while the County used an average of $900 in the past to upgrade electrical systems in homes,
that cost is now averaging $1,200.00 per home.
The average cost associated with the installation of a 13-14 SEER HVAC system, depending on the size of the unit has
generally required a 2 ½ to 3-ton unit for most homes. The cost has been around $4,500.00, which has included electrical
upgrades. With a 15 to 15.99 SEER unit, the County can expect the cost to be around $6,000.00 for installation of new
heating systems, plus around $1,500.00 for the electrical upgrades.
NCHFA has already increased their URP maximum to $6,000.00; however, we are looking at new heating systems possibly
costing up to $7,500.00 to $8,000.00.

II. Economic Development Project:
“GrowGreen Power is made up of visionaries and entrepreneurs with a unified mission: provide fresh, local produce and
clean energy to the population.”
GrowGreen Power integrates greenhouse growing systems and renewable energy; combined solar thermal and biomass
plants providing electricity and produce. The integration of systems provides full use of all waste heat from the power plant
to heat and cool the greenhouse, one of the first in the world to make this claim. GrowGreen Power centers provide
communities with fresh food and renewable energy by combining a hydroponic greenhouse with a solar thermal / biomass
power plant. Each project infuses areas with more than 300 permanent new jobs, while also boosting local economies in the
areas of manufacturing, transportation, wholesale, retail and food service.
The hydroponic greenhouse is a completely controlled growing environment capable of producing up to 30 times more high
quality, safe produce than traditional farming. Initially, GrowGreen Power centers will produce tomatoes on the vine. U.S.
annual per capita use of tomatoes and tomato products has increased nearly 30 percent over the past 20 years according to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS).
The GrowGreen Power center’s solar thermal and biomass power plant produces approximately 45 MW of clean, renewable
energy, most of which will be sold to the local power grid. The remaining energy will be used to power the greenhouse and
power plant, making the GrowGreen center fully sustainable. The electricity produced will provide local power companies
the option to purchase Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), allowing them to meet State mandates requiring more and more
energy come from renewable sources.
Additionally, the plant’s CO2 emissions are scrubbed to food grade quality and used to feed the greenhouse crops.
GrowGreen Power centers are fully sustainable and operate twenty-four hours a day. The advanced integration technology
allows controlled growing environments to operate within a wide variety of climate zones.
GrowGreen Power systems represent an innovative new way to integrate existing technologies to provide communities with
fresh produce and renewable energy.
This company has the ability to “feed” and “heat” the world.

300 to 400 new jobs will be created in Anson County as a result of this project. GrowGreen Power will need 850,000 gallons
of water per day as well as public sewer. Two (2) 25-acre greenhouses will be constructed on site, along with a bio-mass
power plant. The site for the power plant must be constructed in close proximity to a power sub-station. As most power substations
are located outside of a Town, water and sewer availability are not always easily accessible.
The location of the proposed site for GrowGreen, which is located outside the Town of Wadesboro will require a 1-million
gallon water tank or storage tank system, estimated to cost around $ 3-million. GrowGreen will also need public sewer,
estimated cost around $500,000.00.
III. Infrastructure Needs:
FY 2009 Income
Limit Area
Median
Income
Anson County $44,100
FY 2011
Income Limit
Area
Anson
County
Median
Income
$38,600
FY 2009 Income
Limit Category
Very Low (50%)
Income Limits
Extremely Low (30%)
Income Limits
Low (80%) Income
Limits
FY 2011 Income
Limit Category
Very Low (50%)
Income Limits
Extremely Low
(30%) Income
Limits
Low (80%) Income
Limits
Anson County, North Carolina
1
Person
2
Person
3
Person
4
Person
5
Person
6
Person
7
Person
8
Person
$17,450 $19,950 $22,450 $24,950 $26,950 $28,950 $30,950 $32,950
$10,450 $11,950 $13,450 $14,950 $16,150 $17,350 $18,550 $19,750
$27,950 $31,900 $35,900 $39,900 $43,100 $46,300 $49,500 $52,650
Anson County, North Carolina
1
Person
2
Person
3
Person
4
Person
5
Person
6
Person
7
Person
8
Person
$17,350 $19,800 $22,300 $24,750 $26,750 $28,750 $30,700 $32,700
$10,400 $11,900 $13,400 $14,850 $16,050 $17,250 $18,450 $19,650
$27,750 $31,700 $35,650 $39,600 $42,800 $45,950 $49,150 $52,300
2009 Median Household Income for Anson County was $ 44,100.00 Tax Credits - $ 549.00 Income per week
2011 Median Household Income for Anson County is $ 38,600.00 Tax Credits - $ 595.00 Income per week (2011)
$ 5,500.00 less Median H/H Income since 2009
$ 46.00 a week increase in salary from 2009 until 2011.
GrowGreen – 100 power plant jobs - $65,000.00 to $100,000.00 per year jobs + benefits SIC & NAICS
GrowGreen – 300 greenhouse hobs - $10.00 per hour jobs + benefits

IV. Solar Power
Courtesy of the Solar Energy Industries Association, below are the Top 10 list for cumulative installed solar capacity in the
United States as of 2010.
California: 47 percent with 971 megawatts; 2. New Jersey: 14 percent with 293 MW; 3. Colorado: 5 percent with 108
MW; 4. Arizona: 5 percent with 101 MW; 5. Nevada: 5 percent with 97 MW; 6. Florida: 4 percent with 73 MW; 7. New
York: 3 percent with 54 MW; 8. Pennsylvania: 3 percent with 54 MW; 9. New Mexico: 2 percent with 45 MW; and 10.
North Carolina: 2 percent with 42 MW.
New York is politically and financially stepping out in front in an attempt to become the “major” solar state. Quoted below is a
news article from March 2011:
It’s time for New York to take the next step as the “progressive capital of the nation” (to quote Governor Andrew Cuomo in
his Jan 2011 Inauguration) and show that we have the conviction to meet the Governor’s calling by taking action to support
our very own homegrown solar industry. Yesterday an important bill designed to dramatically increase solar energy
investment in New York State was introduced in the New York State Assembly. The bill, titled the New York State Solar
Industry Development and Jobs Act (shorthand the “NY Solar Jobs Bill”) of 2011, is a top priority for the NRDC along with a
broad coalition of clean energy, labor, investment and environmental community in New York State.
In the fall of 2011, ICMA (International Capital Market Association) conducted a solar survey of local governments. This
survey, which was sent to 10,423 city- and county-type local governments with populations over 2,500, aimed to gather
information on what local governments are doing related to the adoption of solar energy, particularly solar photovoltaic
(PV). The survey had a response rate of 24.1% (2,507 local governments), and the data provide an overview of the solar
landscape as it pertains to local governments across the country – the challenges they are facing, the solar initiatives
underway, and areas where local governments can still take steps to help facilitate the increased adoption of solar PV in
their communities.
Nearly a third of local governments report facing challenges to solar energy development, and of those, nearly two thirds
(64.0%) cite the high cost of solar as a challenge to solar energy development. The next most frequently reported
challenges are aesthetic impact concerns (28.7%), lack of interest in or awareness about solar energy development
(27.1%), and lack of enabling legislation to incentivize solar installations (26.5%).
Despite these challenges, nearly half of local governments responding to the survey (47.6%) report having installed a solar
system on local-government-owned facility or land (84.8% of these systems are solar PV, and 24.5% are solar water
heating). For these systems, 60.8% of local governments report owning them outright, while 33.3% report buying the power,
and 11.4% say they lease the roof space or land on which the system is located. Close to one-third (30.6%) of local
governments report that they have installed one or more solar PV demonstration projects, intended as a public showcase
and educational opportunity, with the most common location for demonstration projects being on government facilities
(70.8%).
Local governments are also addressing solar through planning. Zoning ordinances were the most commonly reported to
address solar (43.1%), followed by comprehensive plans (34.8%), and green building codes (27.6%). Over half (54%) of
local governments responding to the question also say that they have discussed solar energy in the visioning process.
When it comes to financing incentives for solar, 17.2% of local governments report that financial incentives for installing
solar PV are available either through the local government or the municipal utility. Of these, the most common are rebates,
which 60.7% of those offering incentives report offering for residential installations and 63.4% report offering for commercial
installations, followed by direct loans/low-interest loans (23.0% and 20.8% for residential and commercial respectively).

Local governments offering direct incentives for solar PV installations are most likely to fund them through either state and
federal grants or a publicly-owned utility budget (25.7% for both).
Permitting saw lower levels of local governments offering incentives. Only 12.9% of local governments report offering
mechanism for expediting permitting, such as expedited review for standard installations, expedited review for qualified
contractors, or expedited review for customers willing to pay an extra fee) for solar PV installations.
As the survey data shows, there are many areas where local governments can make changes to help facilitate the adoption
of solar energy technologies on the local level. Some of these are relatively easy changes. For example, fewer than a third
of local governments (29.1%) make information about permitting processes and associated fees for solar PV installations
available online and only 20.5% report that information about the local utility’s interconnection process for PV online. And
some are more challenging, like creating expedited permitting processes, updating zoning codes, and finding financing
incentives that help address the high costs of solar.
Geography
Response rates were highest from local governments in the West (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) at 32.6%. The next highest response rate for
was North-Central (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South
Dakota, and Wisconsin) at 25.9%. The lowest response rate was from the Northeast (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine,
New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont) at 18.2%. The response rate for the
South (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia) was 22.4%.
Form of Government
The highest response rates came from jurisdictions with council-manager (30.7%) and council-administrator (28.6%) forms
of government, followed by jurisdictions with Representative town meetings (23.4%). Response rates were above 20% for all
forms of government except town meeting (17.7%) and county commission (17.3%).