|
Logan County Board
Solar and wind: A controversial combination
[September 22, 2025]
On Tuesday, September 16th, the
Logan County Board met for their regular monthly board meeting. This
meeting started at 6:00 p.m. and was held in the second-floor
courtroom of the Logan County Courthouse. Apart from Gil Turner, all
members of the board were in attendance. This included Chairman JR
Glenn, Vince Chairman Dale Nelson, Lance Conahan, Michael DeRoss,
Kevin Knauer, Joseph Kuhlman, Keenan Leesman, Bob Sanders, Kathy
Schmidt, Jim Wessbecher, and Hannah Fitzpatrick.
Many items were discussed at this meeting, but the most
controversial was the siting permit for Sugar Creek Solar. For a
rundown of all the other items discussed and voted on at this
meeting, please read LDN’s
other article on this meeting.
Once Zoning and Economic Development committee Chairman DeRoss was
addressed, he brought forward what would become the most heavily
discussed motion of the evening. Leesman was the first one to speak
on the motion, bringing forward many issues regarding safety that he
felt were not addressed in REV Renewables' proposal, REV being the
company that is attempting to get the siting permit.
Leesman started by stating that he was disappointed in the data REV
brought forward as examples for market impact of solar panels. He
critiqued the data, stating that some of the properties used as
examples were four, six, or even ten years old. He also brought up
the fact that, except for two examples, none of the other properties
were located within Logan County. He did not feel that the general
cost of living increases from year-to-year was considered when these
examples were put together.
Leesman then asked if this was the first project where solar panels
were “wrapped around” wind turbines. It should be noted that the
distance between the base of the turbines and the proposed solar
panels would be 500 feet.
Leesman then brought up his safety concerns, stating that he would
want Logan County first responders to understand what they were
walking into should they have to respond to something like a fire
near or inside of the solar farm. He then listed several other
safety concern items that he did not see in the REV’s plans.
The representatives of the project then spoke, stating that they
were not sure if there were other combination solar/wind projects
that have been set up. They were aware of a few that were being
worked on, but none that were operational as of the time of the
meeting.
DeRoss then asked about the possibility of having the panels shut
down remotely, which the representatives confirmed is a possibility.
They also shared that shutting down the panels in case of an
emergency, such as a fire, would not rely solely on one person doing
so. Leesman then brought up the use of the words “authorized
personnel” in REV’s plans and stated that he wanted a clearer
understanding of exactly who this was referring to.
Schmidt then chimed in, asking if they were supposed to pass this
application without any of the questions being answered. She
specifically mentioned the old market data as something that was not
answered.
Glenn then spoke for a while,
trying to provide clarification for all the questions and issues
being mentioned. He stated that he had been pulling up the state
statute on wind and solar projects while the other discussions had
been going on. He then continued by saying that the state came in
years ago and limited what the counties could do regarding wind and
solar projects. The way that Logan County’s ordinance is written
now, Glenn said, it only lays out the rules for acquiring a siting
permit. Once the requirements are met, the person trying to get the
permit is entitled to one. It is hard to “change the rules of the
game mid-game,” Glenn said. Glenn then reminded the board that they
have had good experiences with previous developers being responsive
to the county’s concerns before approving an energy project. He also
said that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) have found that REV has
met all the county’s criteria, hence why the motion is before the
county board. Putting any more restrictions on this permit would be
“dangerous” and “treacherous.” He believed, however, that the
concerns presented were reasonable enough that both parties would
likely want them answered.
[to top of second column] |
Knauer and Nelson
then asked for clarification on if REV would have someone to
disconnect the panels from the substation after turning the
panels off. The representatives stated that the substation they
would be connected to would belong to REV, so that would not be
an issue.
The discussion then turned to making an emergency response plan
(ERP) a condition to approve the siting permit. The
representatives stated that they believed all the concerns
mentioned were very reasonable and that they would be willing to
provide an ERP that would address those concerns. They could not
promise, however, that they could address the fire suppression
system, something they would have to investigate before making
any promises.
Schmidt then stated that she would like to see a risk assessment
report on combining wind and solar projects since Logan County
seems to be one of the first counties this is happening in.
DeRoss stated that he felt the board
should confer with the ZBA before making any changes. He said they
“should follow the pipeline through them.” Glenn mentioned that they
could approve the project with the condition that the ERP be sent
through the ZBA. State’s Attorney Brad Hauge then added his two
cents, stating “it’s in our hands now.” He continued by saying he
did not think it was the best idea to send any ERP to the ZBA. If it
is something the county board wanted to add, they should do so on
their own since the permit has already been approved and this ERP is
not a requirement via the county’s ordinance.
Schmidt asked for clarification, asking Hauge if he meant that
nothing goes back through the ZBA. She stated that past energy
projects have gone back through the ZBA and wanted to know why this
one could not. Zoning and Economic Development Officer Al Green
clarified that, while some parts of an application have been sent
back, they have never sent back an entire application before.
Schmidt then made a motion to send the application back to the ZBA.
This motion was never seconded.
Glenn chimed in again, stating that the motion could be approved by
the board on the condition that REV would bring an ERP back later to
be approved by the board as well. REV met the conditions for
receiving a siting permit, according to the ZBA. Glenn then said
that he would entertain a motion to pass the siting permit with the
condition of adding the ERP.
Schmidt asked another question, specifically wanting to know if the
ERP would address all the concerns that Leesman and others brought
up about safety. Glenn confirmed that it would. Wessbecher then
brought up the fact that many of the wind turbines in the county do
not turn off during bad weather, even though they agreed to do so
before their siting permits were approved and issued. Glenn stated
that they would need to put strong enough “teeth” into the plan to
enforce it, something they had not done with wind turbines
previously.
DeRoss then made the motion to approve the siting permit with the
condition of adding an ERP that the county board would vote on
later. The amendment was voted on first, with it passing 7-4.
Fitzpatrick, Nelson, Schmidt, and Conahan all voted no. The full
motion was then voted on, with that passing by the smallest possible
margin of 6-5. Kuhlman joined the four aforementioned board members
in voting no for this vote.
With that discussion having been had and the vote being taken,
DeRoss moved on to his next action item.
[Matt Boutcher]
 |
