Representatives from TotalEnergies Renewables presented Sept. 5 on Wichita 1, a utility‑scale solar project the company proposes to build in Wichita County. TotalEnergies said Wichita 1 would include 625 megawatts of photovoltaic (PV) capacity and 150 megawatts (600 megawatt‑hours) of battery storage, use roughly 5,800 acres of leased land for the immediate project footprint and would be designed and built in phases; the company asked the court to create a reinvestment zone encompassing the red‑lined area shown in their maps to allow future abatement negotiations.

"My name is Bernard Jackson, and I have Mike Fry behind me," the presenter said, and the team described a two‑year construction schedule starting in first quarter 2026 with operations targeted for fourth quarter 2027. Mike Fry, the firm’s tax consultant, described first‑year appraised value calculations under Texas valuation practice for PV (cost approach with a ten‑year useful life) and estimated a first‑year taxable value of approximately $830 million; he said that by year 11–13 depreciation could reduce that taxable valuation to roughly $166 million depending on appraisal method.

TotalEnergies outlined expected economic impacts during construction (an estimated 25 to 400 construction jobs depending on peak activity and about 855 man‑years of work overall) and permanent operations positions of roughly 2‑4 full‑time employees for O&M. The company said construction would generate local hiring for clearing, grading, fencing and ongoing maintenance activities, and that they expect local procurement for roads and fencing work. Representatives proposed that the county negotiate a tax‑abatement (pilot) payment structured against an abated taxable value and noted they are in active discussions with local transmission providers about interconnection.

Company staff addressed several community and technical issues raised by commissioners: measures for vegetation and fire risk management (contracted mowing, mechanical removal of mesquite; potential livestock grazing), fence and anti‑tamper design (chain link with options for barbed wire topping in lower‑threat areas), a hydrology review that found no predicted adverse drainage impact to the nearby lake, and a decommissioning bond and state‑required decommissioning plan for end‑of‑life removal. TotalEnergies said the U.S. Department of Defense clearinghouse had been consulted and that the company had received federal clearance for siting relative to military air‑space concerns; the presenter said the DOD clearance letter could be provided to the court.

Speakers also discussed school‑tax implications and incentives: representatives said a Chapter 313 limitation agreement already covers Wichita 1 with Electra (ICD referenced), and they asked the court to establish a reinvestment zone (a county action that enables later abatement negotiations). The company told the court that reinvestment zones last up to five years and do not obligate landowners to sign leases; they said Wichita 1 leases are signed and Wichita 2 parcels north of the immediate project are under negotiation. No abatement terms were proposed at the meeting.

The company answered operational questions about grid integration, fire training for battery incidents (specialized training for volunteer and local fire departments and containment design inside battery containers), fencing and vegetation management, and legal protections including required decommissioning bonds. County members asked for a clear boundary for Wichita 1 and cautioned about school district impacts; the company agreed to provide additional maps and valuation breakdowns and to work with county staff on a proposed reinvestment‑zone ordinance and the public notice process required for court action.

No vote occurred. The court indicated it would place a reinvestment‑zone item on a future agenda for formal action only after staff review and required public notice and publication were completed.