Developer outlines solar-plus-storage proposal for 16th-section land; offers lease or purchase options, board asks staff for information packet
Loading...
Summary
A developer proposed a solar and compressed-air energy storage project sited on 16th-section land over a nearby salt dome, saying a lease could yield roughly $600,000 per section and full ownership could produce greater revenue. Board members requested staff prepare a detailed information packet and next steps.
A developer proposed a large solar-plus-compressed-air energy-storage project on 16th-section land in Marion County and asked the board to consider either a long-term lease or eventual ownership of a generating asset.
Jonathan (identified as the developer) and colleagues described a technical approach that pairs utility-scale solar sites with belowground compressed-air storage in an existing salt dome formation. The presentation said compressed air stored in caverns can be used to run a turbine generator and that combining solar with storage would create a dispatchable resource. "If you can cut out the compressed compression of the air process with solar that's storing in a cavern... you can produce energy with 50% of the fuel cost," the developer said.
The developer presented two monetization paths to the board: (1) a land lease the presenter estimated at about $600,000 per 16th‑section (presenter described that number as a rough starting point and said it was "the 1 section" lease example) and (2) a build‑own‑operate‑transfer model where district ownership of the facility could produce materially larger annual revenue (the presenter cited an illustrative $2,000,000-per-year figure for an ownership scenario). The presenter also described an estimated $300 million total project cost and said tax credits could cover roughly half the cost; he called both figures preliminary.
Panel members addressed technical, timeline and permitting questions. The developer described a multi-site approach linked to a central dome and said interconnection for generation is the longest lead item, with an interconnection process that could take about two years. Construction time for the solar portion was characterized as short (months), but the presenter said an overall timeline would depend on interconnection and permitting steps.
Board members asked for follow-up work. The board asked district staff (named staff contacts were referenced in the meeting) to assemble a packet explaining steps the district would need to take on sixteenth-section land, classification and permitting changes, and financial analyses. The presenter said he would work with district staff on next steps and suggested a draft lease or business case would be the board’s next review item.
No board vote or contract commitment was taken at the meeting. Board members asked the developer and staff to return with a detailed information packet and recommended due diligence before any lease or sale decision.
