Huerfano County officials and the county planning commission, sitting jointly as a permit review panel, heard a public hearing on Delta Solar Energy’s application for a 10-41 permit (LU 25007) to build a utility-scale solar farm and battery energy storage facility on privately owned land north-northeast of Walsenburg.

The applicant’s representative, Dale Harris, told the panel the project would be sited on “a little over a thousand acres,” interconnect to a 230 kV Tri-State transmission line and would be “a 150 megawatts AC, approximately 195 megawatts DC with about a 75 megawatt size battery storage facility.” He estimated the project’s capital cost at about $259 million and said the company’s estimate of lifetime county tax revenue is roughly $20,500,000. Harris said construction would likely begin in 2028 if interconnection and offtake are secured, with a commercial operation date in 2029, and that peak construction employment would be about “200 to 250 jobs” while long‑term operations would be “around 2 to 5” positions.

County staff lawyer Skye summarized the county’s review role and criteria for a 10-41 permit, noting the code requires the board to determine whether “all relevant environmental impacts have been considered and mitigated,” whether the proposal “demonstrates sufficient benefit to Huerfano County,” and whether sufficient information has been provided. Skye recommended a set of conditions, including a noxious‑weed management plan reviewed with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), wildlife‑friendly fencing and migration corridors, buffers around wetlands and nesting sites, erosion and stormwater controls, a road‑use agreement for construction, submission of federal and state permit applications (for example Army Corps/404 work), a six‑month preconstruction outreach plan to maximize local housing of workers, fire‑safety conditions for battery storage, and annual county inspections for revegetation and weed management.

Hundreds of pages of application materials and environmental studies were referenced; Harris said the project team has spent more than two years doing environmental studies and has worked “closely with CPW” on wildlife protections and site design, and that a wetland delineation was done and avoidance measures proposed. Harris said the interconnection application was submitted and that Tri‑State had assigned a queue position and that the applicant expects Tri‑State study results in September 2026.

Public testimony raised recurring concerns about: dust and road damage on County Roads 103 and 120 during construction, water sourcing for dust control, the adequacy of notification to nearby property owners, visual impacts and glare, the scope of wetland and canal avoidance, emergency response and fire department readiness for battery incidents, decommissioning and repowering at the project’s projected 40‑year life, and potential impacts on property values. One nearby resident asked whether the company would compensate adjacent homeowners if values fall; Harris said the company had discussed land purchase with adjacent owners and would consider direct acquisition, but did not promise a compensation program.

Speakers from the public pressed for more detail before the county decided. Joshua Taylor, a local landowner, asked the panel to delay action until more of the required studies and agency approvals were in hand, saying he thought several items the applicant described would be done after approval rather than before it. Resident Ryan Geese asked about decommissioning and plans for future repowering, and others asked for details on gates, fencing, the height and spacing of panels (Harris said the system uses single‑axis trackers and identified a current panel count of 276,642 under the present design), and the length and timing of construction. Several speakers asked that more landowners in the project’s simulated view shed be notified directly; one resident said she and her partner had not received mailed notice despite living less than a mile from the site.

Huerfano County staff told the panel that, because the project exceeds 50 MW, it is an “area and activity of state interest” under the county code and thus subject to 10-41 review; Skye said staff had put forward 11 recommended conditions intended to mitigate dust, erosion, noxious weeds, wildlife impacts, wetlands disturbance, road and traffic impacts, and to require coordination on federal and state permits. Skye also recommended that the county have the right to inspect revegetation and weed control annually and require prompt correction of problems.

After several hours of testimony and questions from both the public and the panel, members of the public asked the board to reconvene the hearing on a later date with broader notification to landowners in the project’s view shed. The board voted to continue the hearing; the permit review panel set a continuation for November 13, 2025, so staff can provide additional outreach and the panel can review follow‑up materials and agency responses before making a decision.

The hearing record includes the applicant’s submissions showing the application was preliminarily complete May 12, 2025, and that a final application was submitted September 5, 2025; the applicant said Tri‑State interconnection study results are expected in September 2026 and that final land purchase would be executed only after project milestones (interconnection and offtake) are sufficiently certain. Harris said decommissioning planning is standard practice and that the company typically provides decommissioning bonds or similar financial assurances where required.

The panel did not take a final approval or denial on LU 25007 at the hearing; instead, it continued the public hearing to November 13, 2025, to allow for additional notice and follow-up with agencies and the fire district. County staff will compile outstanding permit‑level materials and recommended conditions for consideration at the continued hearing.