Edgar County discusses tightening solar ordinance, battery-storage rules and fees

Edgar County officials and outside counsel reviewed proposed updates to the county’s solar-energy ordinance during a study session, focusing on how battery storage will be regulated, application and building‑permit fees, decommissioning assurances and emergency‑response requirements.

The discussion centered on whether the county should adopt a list of so‑called LaSalle‑Sinclair factors for reviewing projects, how to treat battery storage that is part of a solar project versus standalone battery projects, and timing for a public hearing and approvals. County counsel and a consultant presented a draft ordinance and asked the board for direction on several items, including a suggested cap on a building‑permit fee and whether to leave the LaSalle‑Sinclair factors in the draft for public debate.

Why it matters: The state enacted a wind/solar siting statute in 2023 that sets minimum “guardrails” for counties. Because battery systems that are part of a solar project are treated under that state scheme, Edgar County cannot adopt rules that are more restrictive than the state allows for those combined projects. That legal boundary shapes what conditions the county can impose, how fees are structured and how decommissioning guarantees are handled.

County retained attorney Andrew “Andy” (from Pile Royster) explained the state framework and recommended a handful of technical updates to Edgar County’s current ordinance. He told the board that battery storage tied to a solar project must be regulated under the 2023 state statute and that “you could not be more restrictive than what the state allows you to do if that battery storage is part of a solar project.” Andy said…