Committee warned state bills would sharply limit local control over solar, battery projects
Loading...
Summary
County staff told the Kankakee County Planning, Zoning & Agriculture Committee that three state bills under consideration would cap local permitting fees, narrow road-use agreement remedies and expand where battery energy storage systems can be sited, reducing counties' zoning authority and local revenue.
Kankakee County planning staff told the Planning, Zoning & Agriculture Committee on Oct. 21 that three state bills under review would sharply curtail local authority over siting and permitting of renewable-energy projects and battery energy storage systems.
The bills were identified in the meeting transcript as “HB 41 20,” “HB 4116” and “Senate Bill 25.” Dela, building-department staff, said the measures would cap permitting fees at $5,000 per megawatt and limit any single-project permit fee to $75,000, “which is quite a dramatic reduction in what we are receiving now.”
Why it matters: committee members were warned that the changes could reduce local revenue from large solar projects, restrict the scope of road-use agreements to actual road damage, and require counties to allow battery energy storage systems (BESS) in many zoning districts where they are now excluded.
Key provisions described to the committee included a $5,000-per-megawatt fee cap (with a $75,000 cap per project), tighter language limiting road-use agreements to funds covering damage that returns roads “to the condition they were in when they found them,” and rules that would allow standalone battery storage in nonindustrial zones — including residential parcels of 20 acres or more, the staff presentation said. Dela told the committee these bills “take away pretty much our zoning power” in the same way prior legislation affected renewables.
The staff presentation also focused on BESS safety and permitting timelines. Committee members were told the bills would require compliance with NFPA 855 (identified in the meeting as the relevant standard), but that NFPA 855 is a national standard rather than an International Building Code provision. The draft language would require jurisdictions to issue building permits within 60 days of application; Dela said, “If we fail to do that, it is automatically issued and they can start their work.” The committee was told that many reviews county staff conduct could not reliably be completed in 60 days.
On setbacks and safety, the presentation said the closest point of a battery pack to a residence could be only 150 feet under the proposed language, and 50 feet from property lines. The bills would require developers to provide training to local fire and emergency services, but committee members noted the text does not specify payment for that training.
Dela summarized decommissioning and bonding provisions described in the bills: the decommissioning bond would begin with a smaller fraction of the full amount (10% in the first five years and 25% after 10 years, as presented), a schedule committee members said may not cover full future costs.
Committee members and staff also discussed enforcement of road damage claims. Under the proposed language, road-use agreements could be more limited than current local practice because they would only allow funds to repair damage to return a road to its prior condition and would not clearly require upfront payments in all cases.
Several members said counties that tried to retain tougher local controls have faced legal challenges. Dela told the committee that some other counties “have denied them. And there has been court cases, and the counties have lost the court cases because they can't deny them.”
Committee members asked operational questions: Miss Foster asked whether the battery enclosures would be specially built containers; Dela said they are “specially built” and include fire-suppression systems, but added “there's always a potential.” Members also pressed on noise from battery cooling fans and on coordination with local fire districts.
No formal action on the bills was taken at the meeting. Committee members said they had directed lobbyists and staff to oppose the fee caps and other provisions: Dela said they had “let our lobbyists and Joyce and Haas know that we are very opposed to this.”
Ending: Committee members were advised that the bills were discussed during a veto session and could return in the spring. Staff urged vigilance and said the county is preparing formal comments and outreach to legislators.
