After nearly three hours of discussion and debate, some of it fairly passionate and heated, Scotts Bluff County Commissioners voted 3 to 2 Monday night to reject a conditional use permit for a utility-grade solar project.
As proposed, the Situla Solar Energy project by Dunlieh Energy would have placed well over 600,000 solar panels generating up to 400 megawatts of power on about 1,500 acres of land in the Preston Trust, located in the southwest portion of the county.
County Planning and Zoning Director Bill Mabin outlined the details of the permit and several additional conditions that were added it was approved 7-1 by the county Planning Commission, as well as some changes in language suggested by a consultant. Those included submission of a Road Use Agreement, approved power purchase agreement, emergency response and a decommissioning plans prior to issuance of a building permit to start the project. Also part of the amended language was the requirement for a surety bond in an amount sufficient to cover projected decommissioning costs, the value of which would be evaluated every five years.
When the floor was opened for public comment, Kim Bowman of Gering was among those speaking in favor of the project, saying criticism of the process makes it seem like the county is fighting progress. “We put these folks through all kinds of hoops that they’ve agreed to but you keep adding to it. That’s… you can’t play ball like that. To me, it’s a project that’s going to have financial impact for the county with some money when it gets up to speed, and we need money. You keep talking about it going to rack and ruin when it’s over…. the Preston Trust, really that’s their issue. They’re taking the gamble,” Bowman said.
Speaking against the project was Dave Mecklem, who has a homestead nearby and land adjacent to the property that would be leased. Mecklem said he’s already been impacted by the project with increased traffic on nearby county roads, and wondered about additional impact. “I would like to know how my land value, that I’ve worked all my life for, is going to be affected by this project,” said Mecklem. “How many tens of thousands of dollars will I potentially lose because I’m so close to this project?”
Among board members, Commissioner Charlie Knapper was the most vocal in asking questions about the project. When Knapper questioned Dunlieh VP of Business Development Scott Ickes on other projects touted by the company in their presentations, Ickes explained the Situla project was the first one which had made it to the stage of seeking a permit.
Knapper’s questions about the background of the company’s executives and their experience with large corporations such a Tesla and Samsung, financial backing and whether they would be around if project costs skyrocket, and just how involved the county should be in details such as compliance with fire codes drew sharp objections and rebukes by Dunlieh’s legal counsel, attorney Kyle Long. Long argued the question before commissioners was purely one of whether the proposal conformed to the county’s zoning regulations as they currently stand, and arguments about the company and other technical aspects were not what the Board should be considering.
Another point of contention, brought up by Commissioner Russ Reisig, was whether the company had the ability to apply for the conditional use permit under state law, or whether the landowner needed to make the application. Long argued that the submission by Situla Energy was proper, and noted the Preston Trust name had been previously added before approval by the Planning Commission. Reisig, however, expressed doubts that portion of the application process had complied with state statute.
Knapper expressed concerns that despite some outside assistance on the issue, the county’s zoning regulations on renewable energy were decades old and left the county ill-prepared to make a decision. He felt the board really needed more time and expertise, “and (to) come up with the important and necessary regulations and conditions to put on this permit. There’s no way we can do it, it’s completely over our heads. We have to deny this permit to protect the county from what we don’t know.”
Following closure of the public hearing, Commissioner Mark Harris said for him, the decision would be a balancing act. His comments then suggested he was more inclined to table consideration of the CUP to a future board meeting.
“What are the benefits versus what are the detriments for our county? And I’m of the opinion that I don’t think that we’re quite there tonight, as far as having all of these conditional use items written in to what we have,” Harris said.
Just prior to opening the floor for motions to approve, deny or table the permit application, Chair Ken Meyer said it was not the board’s job to try to re-write the county’s current zoning regulations through the conditional use process. “I don’t disagree that we need to look at it (or) do something different for the next project that’s coming up. And yes, this is probably one of the largest ones (projects) in the state of Nebraska. We should probably pat ourselves on the back that we’re allowing it to happen, if it’s allowed to happen, but I don’t know,” said Meyer. “Stay in the lane, think about the two things we need to concern ourselves with as a county board. Does it meet the zoning requirements, which it will once all of these (permit conditions) have been met? The second one, is it detrimental to the adjoining properties?”
Knapper then offered a motion to reject the application, which was seconded by Commissioner Michael Blue. They were joined by Reisig in voting against the approval of the CUP.
Not immediately clear at the end of the evening was whether a new CUP could or would be sought, if a legal challenge could be mounted, or if the company wanting to build the project would seek to do so elsewhere in the Panhandle.
