Morrow County weighs new Oregon solar‑siting rules amid farmland and wildlife concerns

Morrow County planning staff, state DLCD staff, renewable‑energy developers and agricultural representatives met in a work session to review new Oregon administrative rules that create two lower‑conflict pathways for large‑scale solar siting: a conditional‑use pathway under Division 44 and a programmatic Goal 5 “significant solar resource area” process.

The meeting focused on three practical questions: which pathway the county should adopt, how the rules will affect farmland classified as high‑value under the Columbia Valley American Viticultural Area (AVA), and whether the county can move quickly enough to let developers capture federal tax incentives. County staff recommended the Board of Commissioners “opt in” to the new Division 44 pathway while keeping the existing Section 38 standards available and consider a Goal 5 program only after technical mapping and public outreach.

Why it matters: the rules let some projects avoid the Goal 3 exception process if they qualify as lower‑conflict sites, but they also introduce new screening tests and mitigation requirements—agricultural mitigation and a mandatory community‑benefits element—that will affect where projects can be sited and how much mitigation developers must provide. Developers told the board that timing is urgent because federal tax credits that make large projects financially viable require construction to begin by about July 4, 2026.

Two new pathways, one shared objective

Presenters described two distinct DLCD approaches created through the recent rulemaking and a Rules Advisory Committee process. Elaine Aldridge, a land‑use attorney who participated in the advisory committee, summarized the outcome: “The result of that rack and rulemaking is what you’re we’re presenting here today,” and said the new rules aim to “encourage development in areas where there was the least amount of conflict possible.”

- Division 44: A conditional‑use permit (CUP) pathway that allows an applicant to seek local approval if a site passes a screening test (slope, solar capacity and proximity—generally within 10 miles—of a 69 kV or larger transmission line), avoids mapped “important resource areas,” or demonstrates impacts can be mitigated. Projects that qualify under 44 may avoid some Goal 3 exception requirements but face new mitigation and community‑benefit obligations.

- Goal 5 program (Division 23 / programmatic approach): A county‑led inventory and plan amendment (a PAPA — post‑acknowledgement plan amendment) that maps significant solar resource areas and sets a permitting framework that can allow larger projects and different mitigation options. That path requires countywide mapping, technical analysis and a prescribed public‑engagement process and therefore takes substantially longer.

Screening tests, “no‑go” areas and mapping limits

County and state staff walked commissioners through the screening factors: topographic slope (generally under 15 percent), adequate solar resource, and proximity to transmission. John Jennings, DLCD’s community services specialist and a lead staffer for the statewide effort, said utilities often will not share exact transmission shapefiles for security reasons, which complicates county mapping.

Both pathways disqualify or require careful mitigation for a list of sensitive resources that the rulemaking called out as important to protect: category‑1 ODFW habitat, priority wildlife connectivity areas, high‑use migration corridors, archaeological and cultural resources, urban reserves and high‑value farmlands (including areas inside the Columbia Valley AVA unless an owner can demonstrate loss of irrigation rights). ODFW staff said priority connectivity areas often align with stream corridors or canyon features that are not likely to be developed, but they recommended on‑the‑ground, site‑level review when project applications arise.

Columbia Valley AVA and high‑value farmland

Multiple speakers said the Columbia Valley AVA overlay has the practical effect of elevating many acres in northern Morrow County to “high‑value farmland” status for siting purposes, even where soil classes are otherwise low. Dugan of Pinegate Renewables said the AVA designation had pushed large portions of his Sunstone project into higher review (and, in his case, toward state siting council jurisdiction). Commissioners and agricultural representatives asked whether the AVA‑based elevation of parcels to high value should be addressed legislatively; presenters said a targeted short‑session legislative fix could be possible.

Mitigation and community benefits

Both pathways require agricultural mitigation when projects affect productive farmland. DLCD rule text incorporates an ag‑mitigation methodology developed during the advisory process; presenters described it as a formula that considers project size, soil class and the expected duration of generation (for example, the length of a power‑purchase agreement). John Jennings and others said the intent was to provide an objective method so counties and applicants could calculate mitigation consistently.

Division 44 introduces a new community‑benefits requirement. Presenters described a “safe‑harbor” option—an objective payment formula developers can choose that guarantees compliance—and a more discretionary route that lets counties and applicants negotiate community benefits ranging from direct local payments to microgrids, emergency power or workforce housing support. Under a Goal 5 program counties have somewhat broader flexibility to craft mitigation and community‑benefits packages.

Trade‑offs and the county’s recommended next steps

County staff urged keeping Section 38 available while adopting Division 44 so the county would have both sets of standards to apply case‑by‑case and avoid losing tools for smaller projects. Creating a Goal 5 program—comprehensive mapping, robust public outreach and ordinance amendments—was presented as an option that could produce greater local control but would require at least a year of technical work if the county undertakes it without outside data and developer cooperation.

Developers said they need clarity and speed because federal tax incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act and recent legislation create a narrow window: several developers warned that projects need to be under construction by roughly July 4, 2026, to qualify for the most valuable credits. Matt Hutchinson of Emanate Energy summarized the industry urgency: developers and buyers are trying to secure contracts and start construction within the next 9–12 months to capture the tax benefits.

Discussion points raised by commissioners and stakeholders

- Many attendees urged the county to pursue a short‑session legislative fix to the high‑value farmland definition that expands the types of soils or areas that can be considered lower‑value for siting purposes. - ODFW and developers recommended a pragmatic, site‑level approach for mapped connectivity and habitat features: walking proposed project footprints and refining impacts rather than treating mapped corridors as absolute “no‑go” zones. - Agricultural representatives and a local grain cooperative raised long‑term concerns about cumulative conversion of dry‑land wheat acreage and welcomed mitigation funds that would be spent on local agricultural infrastructure.

What the county will decide next

Staff asked the board for direction on whether to adopt Division 44 or to opt out and keep only Section 38. The staff recommendation was to “opt in” (retain existing Section 38 standards while adopting Section 44) and to await further mapping or an individual Goal 5 application before starting a countywide Goal 5 PAPA. Staff also said they would explore whether a short‑session legislative change to the high‑value farmland definition is feasible and report back.

Ending note

County planning staff and DLCD said they will provide more detailed maps of eligible and excluded areas and follow up with commissioners about a possible short‑session legislative request. Commissioners and developers emphasized the competing timelines: the county’s policy choices will affect whether local permitting can meaningfully assist developers who must act quickly to meet federal tax credit deadlines.