Effingham County committee tables draft solar and wind ordinance after hours of discussion

Effingham County board committee members and residents spent more than an hour debating a draft ordinance to regulate commercial solar and wind facilities before voting to table the measure for additional review.

The draft ordinance, which staff members said incorporated legal input from outside counsel and examples from other counties, would set application fees, require decommissioning plans and financial assurance, and create inspection and reporting obligations. Committee member Norbert (county board member) told the group he had “incorporated all of those suggestions” received from an advisor and outside stakeholders into the latest draft.

Resident Kathy (surname not specified) told the committee that landowners near her home had been approached in recent days and said developers were urging landowners to sign quickly because “the federal and state fundings were starting to go down in percentages.” She added, “we need a policy for Effingham County to protect Effingham County,” and asked the county to ensure rules and enforcement protect neighbors and landowners.

County staff member Aaron (staff member) summarized the draft’s oversight requirements and the workload it would create for county offices: the ordinance, as written, would require application review, engineering and legal technical review, a public hearing within 60 days, a decision within 30 days after the hearing, follow-up inspections, annual reporting and review of financial assurances and decommissioning plans. Aaron said he would follow up with Ford County and others to clarify differences between their ordinances and the sample the county was using.

Discussion focused on three topics: how to set an application fee (examples ranged from a flat six-figure fee used by one county to per-megawatt charges), how to secure enforceable decommissioning assurances (bonds or other financial guarantees), and which county office would carry out enforcement. Committee member Chris (county board member) and others said costs for staff time, engineering review and legal counsel should be recoverable from applicants; another member suggested Road and Bridge or the county engineer could provide interim enforcement.

Several members said they preferred a flat application fee that covers expected review costs and can be reimbursed if unused. Aaron and others noted Ford County’s ordinance required a large upfront fee with reimbursement of unused funds; a Ford County-style flat fee of roughly $100,000 was discussed as a comparison, and one committee member floated $150,000 as a hypothetical.

Committee member Norbert described security requirements in the draft sample: a graduated requirement that increases over years to ensure the operator holds an amount equal to an independent estimate of decommissioning costs. He said the county could use a security bond to cover removal if a company failed to do so.

After extended discussion and questions about state oversight and which responsibilities would remain with the county, committee member Jeremy (county board member) moved to table the ordinance for further study; Chris seconded the motion. The committee voted in favor; the motion to table carried.

Aaron said he would contact Ford County and other counties for follow-up information and provide updates at a future meeting. The committee did not set a new date for the item.