County, Alliant study solar ordinance draft

Months after Alliant Energy made a proposal for building a industrial solar-power facility in Union County, officials with Alliant, the county and some residents reviewed the first draft of the county’s solar ordinance Monday.

“First draft is always open for change and open for discussion,” said Union County Supervisor Ron Riley. “I didn’t really know where the discussion would lead us. We took some ideas from other counties. We did not reinvent the wheel.” Riley said pieces from other counties’ ordinances were revised to meet their interests.

No action was taken Monday by the county.

Alliant is proposing a 400-acre solar-power facility east of Creston and has leases with landowners. Alliant Energy project manager Justin Foss said Alliant has more than enough land needed for the project. As setbacks are determined and eventual environmental studies are reviewed, those items will better define the area for the facility.

“We will be able to whittle down the actual size of the project. The number of acres needed leased right is not representative of what the final project. We try to lease 25% more than actual maximum,” he said about how contingencies may effect the size of the project.

Foss said the goal is to have the facility in operation sometime in 2025.

“There’s a lot of stuff to do between now and then,” Riley said.

Foss said Alliant officials reviewed the first draft. “The overall feeling from our group is this is a fair ordinance,” he said.

Some details need clarification, Foss said.“You’re always going to find something not explicitly said.”

As part of the setbacks, Foss questioned the definition of an occupied structure that is not restricted to people or livestock.

“This could be interpreted as a grain bin that is occasionally visited,” he said. “We understand an inhabited structure setback of 300 feet. But an uninhabited structure or rarely inhabited structures should be treated differently.”

Riley was receptive about the question.

County attorney Shane O’Toole was in an attendance.

“There’s benefits to having all occupied structures,” he said. He considered future use of the same land. Current use may not be the same use of the properties by others in the future. “There is a benefit to future use.”

O’Toole was confident the county’s definition of inhabited is the closest definition supported by the Supreme Court’s use of the phrase.

“Does that include grain bins, a shed where a mower is kept? That is where we are concerned. If it’s a hog facility, I get it, it’s an occupied structure.” Foss said about buildings that typically are supervised daily and consistently used. “For some of these other structures, that is where we were looking for another interpretation.”

Foss said there are incidents where people apply for a building permit on property that would interfere with the plans of a energy project.

Foss questioned the timing stated in the details of decommissioning a project; when the facility is no longer needed. The ordinance states six months, but Foss said at least 12 would be needed to create and execute a decommissioning plan. Foss said there are processes to return the ground to its previous state with natural vegetation and weather conditions may be a factor with timing.

“Six months is not do-able responsibly,” Foss said.

The distance in setback was also questioned by Foss. The ordinance states 300 feet from a occupied structure, but Foss asked about 250.

“We will definitely look at that,” Riley said, referring to farmers who may occasionally spend time in buildings on farms.

Fencing material is stated in the ordinance. Foss said chainlink with barbed wire surrounds Allaint substations for security purposes. Other, less hazardous devices, normally have other fencing material.

“Where is the best place to go,” Foss said about the appropriate fence used.

He said typical agriculture fencing allows wild animals to pass, but theoretically, people can access through the same fence. Foss said some devices used for solar facilities should not have fencing.

“Appropriate fencing, rather than security fencing,” responded Riley about changing the wording.

Roger Vicker suggested the facility be given a 911 address for emergency services.

Foss said it is common for some non-native vegetation that grows quickly for underneath the solar devices, but the plants are not necessarily native to the area. Foss said electric transformers are placed on gravel to prevent spread of any fire. The ordinance states no use of concrete or gravel.

The ordinance states the county prefers any transfer of ownership of the facility be stated.

Foss said Alliant typically has devices buried up to 4 feet in the ground. The ordinance lists depths up to 10 feet for items that must be removed during decommission. Foss said anything deeper than 4 feet can cause problems to the land during attempts to remove the items. He also added Alliant said having items buried no more than 4 feet is easier to remove or maintain.

Continuing with decommissioning, Foss suggested changing the details of cost estimates of decommission plans to five years, rather than three as is stated.

“People change, every three years wouldn’t hurt. That’s the thought process,” Riley said implying the terms for board of supervisors.

Foss questioned the process in the ordinance to return the land used to its previous condition. Foss said Alliant’s experience shows how some landowners are not sure how their land would be used many years after a solar facility is removed. Riley said the intent for the ordinance was to return to the land to an agricultural use.

“I think we are pretty close,” Riley said about the ordinance and Alliant’s suggestions for revisions. Setbacks on property lines is the most important issue.

Riley expects additional discussions to be held before a public hearing about the ordinance is scheduled.