Commissioners discuss details, scope of county's proposed solar energy regulations (2024)

Scotts Bluff County’s new regulations for solar energy facilities are nearing completion following a lengthy public hearing on Monday evening. Another hearing will be held at the county board’s next meeting on Oct. 21.

The regulations, drafted by building and zoning director Bill Mabin and attorney Phil Kelly — whose firm now represents the county board on civil matters — were previously discussed in detail at a planning commission meeting last month, where they received a positive recommendation, pending a few changes for clarity.

Many of the same topics were discussed during the Monday hearing, such as disclosure of any foreign ownership or financing during the CUP (conditional use permit) application process, the extent and fiscal responsibility for decommissioning plans and how the public will be notified of any proposed projects so that they can provide feedback and ask questions.

New questions and concerns

Some new discussion was sparked by members of the public and the board, including a requirement introduced by commissioner vice-chair Charlie Knapper to disclose any “land men” or brokers involved in securing leases on land that will host solar energy facilities. The idea received mixed reactions from both the public and members of the board, but was eventually agreed upon by a majority of commissioners.

Some questions were also raised about the setback requirements outlined in the regulations, or how far a proposed facility must be from certain points like public roads or preexisting structures. Casey Debus voiced her concern that the 660-foot setback requirement was not far enough to mitigate noise and inconvenience during construction and negative impacts on sightlines.

Mabin and Kelly said that the 660 -foot setback is much larger than those required by some other municipalities — which were as low as 50 feet — and that increasing that distance would likely cause complications and discourage development.

Mike Norby, who owns land south of Lyman, asked who would be responsible for necessary maintenance, such as the management of prairie dog populations, at solar farms. Kelly responded that the owner of the property would be responsible for handling that issue, as dictated in statute.

One larger topic was not completely ironed out during the two-hour hearing, and will require some revisions to the regulations before they’re presented again later this month. Reginald Preston, whose family leased land to Dunlieh Energy for the Situla Solar Energy Project, pointed out that some of the requirements in the proposed regulations could lead to a catch-22 situation by requiring more detailed information on the CUP application than is available before a CUP is issued.

Preston used the requirement to present “results of consultation regarding potential interference with existing communication facilities within the project area” as an example of something that can’t possibly be attained before the project’s CUP is approved.

“If I’m a communication facility in the project area, I need to have detailed engineering behind what the system design is going to be: physical locations of equipment, substations, transformers, voltages, physical proximities ... And none of that exists before a conditional use permit,” Preston said.

Other requirements were deemed similarly difficult, inefficient or impossible to fulfill so early in the project planning process, which would make the CUP application impossible to complete. Kelly assured the board that some sort of provision can be added to allow issuance of the CUP and guarantee that all required information will be delivered before construction on a facility begins.

“I think we could put together some language that’ll satisfy your concerns and the applicant’s concerns and make that work,” Kelly said.

Perceived over-regulation

There was some disagreement among members of the board on whether all of the included requirements were necessary, specifically those requiring copies of any agreements or contracts with electric companies or power administrations to prove the viability of the project.

“Generally speaking, when we look at building permits and permitting processes, we’re not looking at the viability of the project,” commissioner chairman Mark Harris said. “That’s not the intent of this board normally, and I would still question whether or not that it’s our responsibility to look at the financial viability.”

Commissioner Ken Meyer agreed, reiterating a point he made multiple times during debates on the Situla project: The county doesn’t need to be directly involved in what landowners decide to do with their own property.

“It’s on private property. That’s what we keep forgetting,” Meyer said. “And Mark’s absolutely right. We’ve never done it before. Why are we doing it now?”

Jeff Metz, chairman of the Morrill County board, offered some of his own thoughts on the proposed regulations toward the end of the hearing. Metz, like Meyer, thought that Scotts Bluff County is taking the issue too far and imposing itself on private business. He said nothing of the sort would happen in his county.

“Less government is better. These are county laws that nobody is going to want to participate in. They may come to Morrill County, and I’ll throw out the red carpet,” Metz said. “I don’t want any government coming in and telling me what I can and can’t do, what I can plant, what I can put up, and I don’t believe county government should be involved in telling people what they can and can’t do with their own property.”

The commissioners are expected to discuss a new iteration of the solar energy regulations at another public hearing during its next meeting on Oct. 21. The board may decide to approve the regulations at that time.

The Scotts Bluff County Commissioners meet on the first and third Mondays of every month at 4:30 p.m. on the second floor of the county administrative building.