Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local utilities, developers urge measured solar ordinance changes as Houston County prepares public hearing
Summary
Representatives from MiEnergy Electric Cooperative and 1 Energy Renewables urged the county to allow commercial solar with acreage caps, spacing rules and provisions for dual use (pollinators, grazing). Commissioners and staff said a draft ordinance will be prepared for planning commission review.
Representatives of a local cooperative and a renewable developer told Houston County commissioners they support a solar ordinance approach that permits commercial solar while protecting farmland and preserving options for dual land use.
"MiEnergy appreciates Houston County's approach to structuring decisions about commercial solar energy projects," said Kent Whitcomb, who identified himself as with MyEnergy Electric Cooperative. Whitcomb urged measures such as a 40‑acre cap on commercial systems, spacing requirements between commercial systems and a cap on total commercial acreage in the county. He said commercial solar could help utilities meet Minnesota's 2040 carbon‑free goals, generate local tax revenue, and support grid resiliency.
Beth Esher, who identified herself as with 1 Energy Renewables and said her firm has worked with MyEnergy on projects in Fillmore and Winona counties, described project sizes generally "in the 10 to 40 acre size range" and said some projects have used dual use techniques such as pollinator prairies and sheep grazing. "The landowners we work with continue to farm around the projects and sign leases with us with the hope that these projects will return to farm use at the end of the project's life," Esher said.
Commissioners and staff discussed next steps for the county's solar ordinance. A staff speaker said a draft proposal would be available for board review next week and then forwarded to the planning commission for a public hearing and discussion. Board members emphasized the need for a comprehensive ordinance and cautioned against rushing decisions. "I'm not gonna make a hasty decision... I wanna make a proper decision for the people that I represent," one commissioner said during discussion.
The exchanges occurred during the meeting's public comment period and were primarily informational; no formal ordinance vote was taken. Staff urged the planning commission and board to use a draft ordinance as the basis for discussion and to collect community input at upcoming hearings.
