Linn County supervisors begin to weigh proposed changes to solar ordinance

CEDAR RAPIDS — As the Linn County Board of Supervisors considers changes to county code governing utility-scale solar projects, the elected three-member panel focused Tuesday on ensuring language is strong particularly surrounding the long-term operations of the installation to protect the county now and decades into the future.

In their first public discussion of four review committees’ recommended code changes, supervisors considered the life cycle costs of a utility-scale solar installation among other factors as they determine language to best protect Linn County and its residents as potential future solar projects advance.

Supervisors are balancing the rights of the developer and landowners affected by solar installations, as well as potential environmental impacts and hazards to residents’ safety in policy modifications.

Any changes would not apply to previously approved projects. Last year, the supervisors approved three controversial utility-grade solar installations — one near Coggon and two related ones near Palo.

The 640-acre site near Coggon is developed by Idaho-based Clenera and the Central Iowa Power Cooperative. There also is a total of over 1,000 acres for two projects from NextEra near the decommissioned Duane Arnold Energy Center nuclear plant.

Four review committees earlier this year researched and deliberated recommendations for policy changes in four areas: good neighbor practices, battery energy storage systems, life cycle costs and balancing agriculture and solar.

Supervisor Ben Rogers said drafting a solid decommissioning plan is the most critical aspect of the code changes in the works.

A decommissioning agreement would include financial assurance for renewable energy developers, financially committing them and not the county to removing infrastructure and underground equipment and land restoration, for instance. The county would make a new determination of decommissioning costs at a regular interval, performed at the facility owner’s/operator’s expense by a licensed Iowa engineer OK’d by the county.

“Of the main things that need to go right, this is perhaps maybe at the top, because we're having to extend out what may or may not occur 40 years from now,” Rogers said.

“Then at least despite what changes may occur, having a very secure decommissioning plan that understands the life cycle costs, that takes into consideration concerns that people bring to us, I think this board should focus on maybe more so than some of the other aspects of this.”

The life cycle costs committee also recommended considering the impact of hazardous materials when weighing a decommissioning plan.

Rogers said the ordinance should have somewhat broad language to account for emerging technologies and that solar panels today may be made with different elements in the future.

Committee member Carolyn Petersen, a Cedar Rapids resident, said the committee considered Environmental Protection Agency regulations for materials may change over the life of the solar installation. She said a material may be deemed hazardous or test hazardous in the future, so a panel may cost more to recycle or be disposed of at the end of its life cycle.

Setbacks, battery energy storage among other considerations

The supervisors were interested in further discussing several recommendations, including a recommendation that the Battery Energy Storage System require a separate conditional use permit and not be included in the Renewable Energy Overlay.

The Battery Energy Storage System committee agreed that of wind, solar and battery energy storage, battery energy storage is “the only technology requiring emergency management planning for toxic and explosive gasses and protection of the public.”

Supervisors were also interested in further discussing setback requirements.

The good neighbor practices committee found that current property line setbacks of 50 feet are adequate to mitigate conflict between solar and land in agricultural use, but inadequate to mitigate conflict between solar and residential uses. The group was split, though, on whether the conditional setbacks of 300 feet to occupied dwellings are sufficient.

Additionally, in some of the environmental impact recommendations, Supervisor Kirsten Running-Marquardt wanted further discussion to consider the relationship between Iowa Department of Natural Resources requirements and county needs. She supported the development of a score card considering things such as habitat and wildlife corridors as a prerequisite for utility-scale solar applicants.

Moratorium extension likely

Planning and Development Director Charlie Nichols estimated it would likely take another two to three months for new ordinance language to wind through the approval process.

That means it’s likely the Board of Supervisors will need to extend the moratorium on new solar applications past its current June 30 expiration date.

Nichols said staff will take supervisors’ feedback from Tuesday’s discussion, draft code language, send that to the Planning and Zoning Commission and eventually back to the supervisors. There will still be opportunities for public input on the code in that time, Nichols said, plus additional changes are likely to be made with additional discussion from the commission and the supervisors.

Zumbach said a decision would have to be made on the moratorium at a future meeting, but it seemed clear the ordinance would not be done by June 30. The supervisors are allowed to extend it once more, though the pause may expire earlier if ordinance language is finalized before then.

“From the last meeting we had, it was pretty well unanimous we wanted to finish this process completely so that anything moving forward would have to be set under the new guidelines,” Zumbach said.

Comments: (319) 398-8494; marissa.payne@thegazette.com