Pulaski County commissioners hear wide public comment on industrial solar and battery storage

Pulaski County commissioners spent a large portion of their meeting on public comment and discussion about large-scale solar developments and battery energy storage systems, hearing a string of residents who urged caution and asked the county for more information and local control.

The discussion centered on public concerns about how industrial solar and associated battery storage could affect farmland, property values and public safety, and on House Bill 1628, which some speakers described as written to allow multi-jurisdictional projects to proceed without local permits or zoning approval.

Why it matters: county officials and residents said the scale of planned projects could remove tens of thousands of acres from agricultural use, affect where heavy trucks travel and raise questions about fire response and wildlife impacts. Several speakers asked the commissioners for clearer maps, a public communications plan and a mechanism for cross-jurisdictional review if projects cross county lines.

Residents gave extended remarks opposing or supporting the projects. A student, speaking as Silas Messer, said he could not “imagine growing up in a place like that” if panels surround family fields. Resident Dennis Pope urged commissioners to act as neutral arbiters, telling the board that commissioners should “do your best...for both sides.” Theresa Hanson, who said many landowners have signed agreements with solar developers, asked commissioners to allow company representatives to present technical information and to stop calling the developers liars without hearing the facts.

Commissioners discussed next steps but did not adopt new county policy during the meeting. One commissioner said she opposes House Bill 1628 because, as written, “it doesn't give an opportunity for the different jurisdictions to talk amongst each other,” and said she supports keeping local input for projects that cross county lines. The same commissioner said the county has nearly 30,000 acres in leases to date and that commissioners have a duty to protect the whole county when land-use impacts are large.

Speakers and members of the public asked for: - Clear maps showing locations of proposed or leased solar acreage; officials did not present a county map during the meeting and residents said that information is not yet available. - A public communications channel so residents can track construction timelines, heavy equipment routes and safety notices. - More information about decommissioning, recycling of panels and whether battery storage will be part of projects; some speakers said earlier developer presentations suggested there would be no batteries, while later communications indicated batteries might be added.

County staff and a commissioner said the county has contracted with a liaison (identified in the meeting as Jenny Monroe of a firm described as “BS”) to communicate between developers and the commission. Commissioners said they expect the liaison and the contracted firm to provide project updates and public-facing information on the county website as details become available.

The meeting record included repeated calls from residents for patience and for leadership that will try to “bring people back together.” Several speakers urged commissioners to use local planning tools, including zoning, to address cross-property effects. The commission closed the evening with an announced executive session on personnel and adjourned afterward.

Ending: Commissioners did not adopt new permitting rules or impose a moratorium at the meeting; several residents asked the board to consider a pause while the county compiles maps and technical information, and at least one commissioner said she will oppose state-level preemption that removes local input.