Yakima County extends solar moratorium six months as planners craft agrivoltaics rules

The Board of Yakima County Commissioners on July 15 voted to extend by six months a moratorium on “moderate to large scale solar facilities” in unincorporated Yakima County while the Planning Commission and county staff complete a proposed agrivoltaic ordinance.

The extension gives planning staff time to receive and incorporate state comments and for the Planning Commission to hold a hearing and issue recommendations to the Board. Tommy Carroll, Yakima County planning official, told the Board that the Planning Commission has “made a recommendation on the proposed solar ordinance that has been sent off for state comment for our 60 day comment period,” and that the commission’s goal is to hold a hearing in August and forward findings to the Board in late August or September.

The moratorium extension matters because much of Yakima County is designated agricultural under the Growth Management Act, Carroll said, and the county must balance protection of farmland with growing demand for renewable-energy development near transmission lines. “We live in a county that is primarily, economically driven by agriculture,” Carroll said. He added the ordinance also aims to create pathways for smaller-scale solar (for example on structures or in non-productive portions of farms) and for farm uses such as cow shades.

Public commenters at the hearing largely supported moving from a moratorium to a local agrivoltaic ordinance that would allow solar development compatible with farming. Dr. Sarah Kate, who identified herself as a family physician and a clean-energy advocate, said a solar array installed at her church reduced electricity bills and “income from solar farms can provide a reliable income stream for our farmers and our county as a whole now and into the future.” Colleen Anderson, who identified herself as a leader of 350 Yakima Climate Action, urged the county to adopt an agrivoltaic ordinance, calling it “a forward thinking solution that meets our growing energy needs” and saying it “conserves water and helps reduce the impacts of climate change while also protecting our rural lands.” Lindy Lincoln, a Yakima resident and former ranch-hand, said farmers and ranchers “should have the right to use their own property for crop cover protection and or shade for their livestock” and that agrivoltaics could provide needed income to keep farms viable. Danny Padilla, a 21-year-old Yakima resident, said removing the moratorium would “allow our farmers to integrate agrivoltaics, increase their income stability, and give choice to community members.”

Not all commenters supported expanding solar uses on farmland. Javier Gutierrez, speaking during public comment, said he does not support large-scale solar because it “requires too much acreage” and suggested fuel cell generators may be a more efficient, lower-footprint option.

Tommy Carroll highlighted procedural constraints the county must follow: any changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations are subject to review by the Washington State Department of Commerce, which circulates drafts to state agencies and interested parties during a 60-day review. Carroll also noted that, depending on how the ordinance is adopted, there is a 60-day appeal period for legislative zoning actions after adoption before the county could accept new applications for projects that had been routed elsewhere.

After public comment and discussion, the Board moved and seconded a motion that staff bring a resolution forward to extend the moratorium an additional six months; the motion passed. Commissioners thanked members of the public and planning staff for their participation and indicated they expect the Planning Commission hearing in August and Board consideration thereafter.

Details and next steps: staff will return a resolution to a future Board agenda to formally extend the moratorium; the Planning Commission will hold its hearing after the county receives state comments as part of the 60-day review; and the Board expects to consider findings and recommendations in late August or September. If the Board adopts a zoning ordinance, a 60-day appeal period would follow before the county could begin taking certain new applications locally rather than through the State Energy Siting process (referred to in the meeting as “FSEC”).

The Board’s extension is procedural—it preserves the county’s current restriction on moderate- and large-scale solar until the ordinance process concludes. No ordinance has been adopted by the Board as of July 15.