Commission debates county solar rules: rooftop by‑right, ground arrays, batteries and decommissioning

Montezuma County planning commissioners held an extended policy discussion on draft land‑use code language for solar facilities, including rooftop systems, ground‑mounted arrays, energy storage and decommissioning requirements. The discussion did not produce a final decision but directed planning staff to format a consolidated draft and to return with targeted research and short timelines for commissioner review.

Commissioners and staff debated several specific points: whether rooftop systems used only to net a single household’s load should remain a use‑by‑right; whether ground‑mounted systems should be conditional beyond a specified acreage; whether an acre (208 ft × 208 ft) is an appropriate threshold for a by‑right ground‑mounted system; whether permitting should be proportional to a property’s electrical load (one suggestion was a cap of “twice the property load” before a conditional permit would be required); and whether batteries and energy storage present fire‑risk and decommissioning challenges that require separate conditions and larger sureties.

Commissioner comments included a preference to require permitting for ground‑mounted systems above modest sizes and to treat rooftop systems used primarily for onsite net‑metering differently. Planning staff and the commission noted practical enforcement concerns: measuring “property load” can vary widely (residential versus agricultural/commercial energy use) and the county would need workable, enforceable criteria. Commissioners requested that staff investigate state tax or statutory distinctions (participants referenced recent state agrivoltaics legislation and tax treatment) and determine whether a 1‑acre threshold aligns with state practice. Staff was also asked to add a recommended provision addressing transfer of ownership for large installations — requiring notice to county commissioners or a BOCC review process, and to build decommissioning and surety requirements (and periodic surety re‑evaluation) into the draft.

Planning Director Jane Duncan and other staff agreed to format the draft text into the county code structure and to circulate a consolidated final draft to commissioners by the following Tuesday for review (with a view toward placing it on the BOCC workshop agenda the week after). Staff will research the state law/tax implications and return with suggested acreage thresholds, enforcement language, and recommended bond/decommissioning examples. Commissioners emphasized that any code language should state explicitly whether rooftop installations used only for a property’s own net usage will remain by‑right and that larger ground‑mounted or utility‑scale systems will require conditional review. No formal vote was taken; next steps are a staff‑formatted draft and legal review prior to public hearing and BOCC consideration.