Natrona County commissioners deny Haystack Solar permit after hours-long hearing

The Natrona County Board of County Commissioners voted on Feb. 4, 2025, to deny the permit application (SF‑24‑01EG) for the proposed Haystack Solar Facility, a project the applicant describes as a roughly 2,010‑acre photovoltaic development with battery energy storage. Commissioners said outstanding technical gaps and public‑safety concerns outweighed the applicant’s mitigation offers.

County staff and multiple local agencies told the commission they had lingering concerns about fire response, drainage and reclamation. “The average on‑scene time for a lithium battery fire is four to six hours,” Chief Oliver of the local fire district told the board, noting the need to stage, involve regional hazardous‑materials teams and protect exposures rather than immediately fight a thermal‑runaway battery event.

The commission’s denial followed a six‑hour public hearing that drew dozens of residents, multiple local agencies and technical consultants. The planning staff had found the application largely consistent with Natrona County’s 2022 zoning resolution Section 5.09 (solar and wind energy facilities) and recommended approval with conditions, but several commissioners said required, project‑specific plans were incomplete.

Why the decision matters

The project—described in the application as including utility‑scale photovoltaic arrays, a substation, access roads and a battery facility—would be sited south of U.S. Highway 2026 near Natrona and east of County Road 209. If constructed, it would represent a large, long‑term land use change in rural Natrona County and raise county responsibilities for emergency response, road impacts and long‑term reclamation guarantees.

What staff and agencies said

- County planner Sean Gustafson presented the application and the items required under Section 5.09. He told commissioners the application addressed many checklist items but left design details, final drainage calculations and some site‑plan specifics to the later site‑plan review and the state Industrial Siting (ISA/ISD) process.

- The fire chief (Chief Oliver) said local fire resources would be strained by a significant battery fire and that the standard response would be to stage and wait for manufacturer or regional HAZMAT support: “We’re gonna stage at the gate, wait for a company representative… the average on‑scene time for lithium battery fire is 4 to 6 hours.” He said even if units were on scene when a battery event began, there may be little firefighters could safely do beyond protecting exposures.

- Wyoming Game and Fish (Brandon Werner) reported the site is within important winter range and migration habitat for pronghorn and asked the applicant and county to adopt winter‑range construction timing restrictions and wildlife migration corridors; the applicant agreed to incorporate wildlife‑friendly fencing and corridors in follow‑up design work.

- Natrona County Weed and Pest and the conservation district raised no‑xious‑weed concerns and asked that a codified, county‑approved weed management plan and a clear billing / contact pathway be in place before construction.

What the applicant and consultants said

- Dale Harris, representing Infiniti Global/Infiniti Global’s Haystack Solar project team, presented an overview of the developer’s operations, safety training and proposed community benefits. Harris said the company would provide training for local agencies, work with the county on emergency response plans and offered several voluntary commitments, including to widen and improve Natrona Road near the project access and to replace a derated bridge as a community benefit.

- Jacobs and other consultants described their decommissioning and reclamation approach and a stamped Class‑5 cost estimate for decommissioning; the presenter summarized that estimate at about $14,000,000 and said the Industrial Siting Division would determine any required bond amount. Ryan Winock of Jacobs said the decommissioning estimate would be updated every five years as required.

- Environmental consultants said wetlands and some jurisdictional drainages had been identified on the site, and that mitigation and construction‑phase avoidance would be required and further detailed in the ISA/WDEQ process and the county site plan.

Public comment and local reaction

More than three dozen residents and local stakeholders spoke. Supporters included the property owners offering the site’s surface rights, who said private property rights and the county’s zoning allowed the use. Opponents included nearby residents, outfitters, and public‑safety and environmental speakers who cited wildfire risk, potential contaminated runoff from firefighting water and burned battery smoke, impacts to pronghorn winter range and migration, selenium‑rich soils and the durability and disposal of solar panels and battery systems.

Written comments submitted with the staff report included numerous letters: planning staff reported 21 written comments in opposition and 3 in support as of the hearing date. Several speakers told commissioners they feared property‑value loss, long‑term water and soil contamination risks, and insufficient local capacity to respond to a large battery fire.

Commissioners’ deliberation and vote

Commissioners discussed whether the application, as submitted, met the county’s Section 5.09 standards or whether the remaining technical gaps should block approval. Several commissioners said they were concerned that required, project‑specific plans—particularly a detailed drainage/erosion control plan prepared by a Wyoming‑licensed engineer and a fully specified waste/disposal plan for panels and batteries—were not yet complete. Commissioner Coats moved to deny the application, citing incomplete drainage/erosion and waste/disposal plans and unresolved public‑safety concerns; the motion was seconded and carried. The minutes record that the board denied the SF‑24‑01EG Haystack Solar application; the audio transcript does not record a numeric roll‑call tally of the vote.

What happens next

County counsel confirmed the board may issue a written decision and that the applicant may return with a revised application or pursue state‑level review via the Industrial Siting Division process. Staff noted that an ISA (Industrial Siting) application and WDEQ permitting remain necessary before construction could begin, and that several of the conditions discussed at the hearing—detailed drainage designs, construction‑phase stormwater plans, recorded easements or access agreements, and any required financial assurances—would need to be resolved in future review.

Ending

The Board of County Commissioners closed the public hearing and voted to deny the Haystack Solar permit request, directing staff to prepare formal findings and a written decision. The applicant and its consultants said they would review the commissioners’ stated reasons and consider next steps.