Commissioners allow solar developer to advance contract talks but ask floodplain and contamination answers
Loading...
Summary
A proposed 25‑year solar lease on county property near the Greenville wastewater plant was discussed; commissioners asked the developer to return with a contract addressing floodplain, soils and contamination mitigation before final approval.
Representatives for a local solar project called Project Sunshine 2 were given permission June 10 to advance a lease agreement with Hunt County, provided the developer returns with more detailed contract language addressing floodplain risks, soils analysis and contamination mitigation.
Jimmy Dickey, representing GEUS, and Jason Baker of SunGrid outlined a proposed 25‑year lease for a solar array sited on the Mary Puddendale property next to the Greenville wastewater plant. Dickey said the location would lower Greenville Utilities System’s peak demand and could reduce electric costs passed on to customers through ERCOT charges.
“...it cuts cost for every customer we have,” Dickey said when commissioners asked about the public benefit. The developer said the lease would be 25 years, with options to buy equipment at year seven or ten, and that the lease assignment would be limited to the developer partner (Juice/SunGrid).
Commissioners and staff raised questions about the site’s floodplain status and the potential downstream risk if panels were damaged during a storm. Jason Baker responded that components that handle electrical transfer would be raised above the floodplain and that operations and maintenance provisions in the developer’s agreement would require the company to repair weather‑related damage.
“There would be any contaminants going downstream if there was a flooding event,” Baker said, addressing the commissioners’ contamination concern.
County staff and a registered professional land surveyor advising the court said the specific parcel sits mostly on the extreme edge of the mapped floodplain and that large debris or tree damage at that precise spot was unlikely. Commissioners asked the developer to perform soils testing and include explicit contamination‑mitigation language in any lease or contract before the court took a formal vote.
The developer said the earliest construction window would be fall, pending soils and permitting work. Commissioners asked the developer to confirm whether part of the array would fall inside Greenville city limits and to obtain any needed city approvals.
The court did not take a binding vote on a lease at the meeting; instead the commissioners agreed to let the developer proceed to prepare a contract and technical studies and to return with answers on floodplain, contamination and soils. Staff said visibility from public roads would be minimal because the site is at the wastewater plant access road and largely not visible from higher‑traffic corridors.
The court recorded no formal objections to moving forward with contract negotiations but flagged the environmental and technical questions for completion before final approval.
