Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves 1 MW Novel Energy solar project; discussion centers on decommissioning responsibility
Summary
The Wabasha County Board approved a conditional-use permit for a 1-megawatt commercial solar array on a 315.83-acre parcel, requiring a $250,000-per-megawatt decommissioning bond and a developer's agreement; commissioners pressed for clarity that landowners remain ultimately responsible if a developer ceases operations.
Wabasha County commissioners approved a conditional-use permit for a 1-megawatt AC commercial solar energy system on Parcel R11.00163.00 in Mount Pleasant Township, but the item prompted extended public comment and commissioner questioning about who is responsible for decommissioning if a developer dissolves or leaves.
Why it matters: The permit allows a large-scale solar installation on agricultural land and requires security to ensure decommissioning and site restoration when a project ends. County conditions require compliance with the Wabasha County Solar Energy Systems Ordinance and a developer’s agreement; the board added language during the meeting to reference the landowner’s role in that agreement.
Planning staff summarized the application filed Jan. 21, 2025: Novel Energy Solutions requested a CUP to construct and operate a 1-megawatt commercial solar system on roughly 315.83 acres in the A1 district. The Planning Commission recommended approval with nine conditions, including that the applicant post an irrevocable letter of credit or bond in the amount of $250,000 per megawatt to cover decommissioning costs, and that an approved utility permit be obtained for a county road crossing before construction.
Ralph Kaylor of Novel Energy Solutions told the board the company is a community-solar developer and that the project would allow local residents to access solar savings without upfront investment.
David Pearson, the landowner represented in the application, and Commissioner Springer exchanged an extended discussion about long-term responsibility for site cleanup. Springer said that while he supported renewable energy projects in principle, he wanted the landowner’s name explicitly included in the resolution so there would be no “confusion” later if a developer disappeared and the bond or other funds did not fully cover decommissioning costs. Springer emphasized that the county should not expect taxpayers to pay for restoration if the developer is gone and the posted security proves insufficient.
County staff and the board explained that the developer’s agreement and the required bond are intended to ensure funds will be available for decommissioning and that the property and parcel number already appear in development paperwork. Staff said the underlying obligation to remediate would run with the landowner if the developer fails to perform. The board agreed to modify the condition language to state that the applicant and the property owner shall enter into the developer’s agreement, ensuring an identifiable landowner is named in the final paperwork.
Other conditions listed by staff included compliance with the county solar ordinance, the county’s right to inspect the site for compliance, dust mitigation during construction, contact information for operations and maintenance, and the requirement for a utility permit from the highway department for any county road crossing.
A motion to approve the CUP was made and seconded; the board approved the project by voice vote. Commissioners noted the $250,000-per-megawatt security and the developer’s agreement are intended to reduce the county’s risk and that the landowner will be required to sign the developer’s agreement before the project proceeds.
