Montezuma County commissioners discuss solar moratorium, consider size limits, bonding and agrivoltaics

Commissioners at the Montezuma County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in Cortez spent a substantial portion of the agenda discussing a county moratorium on solar and alternate‑energy projects and potential policy responses.

Why it matters: Commissioners said they want rules that address community concerns about large photovoltaic arrays's visual impacts, ownership and long‑term site maintenance, while permitting smaller or dual‑use (agrivoltaic) installations in appropriate locations. The discussion examined how county regulation interacts with state assessment and permitting, decommissioning costs and possible ways to limit utility‑scale projects.

Key points from the discussion

- Moratorium purpose and timing: Commissioners reviewed the existing moratorium on solar and other alternate energy projects and said they are using the pause to study model code language and examples from other counties, including Mesa County. Participants discussed October as the month when the moratorium ends (date referenced in the meeting variously as Oct. 8 or Oct. 30).

- Ownership transfer and surety: Commissioners discussed requiring approval or conditions if a project site is sold, to avoid abandonment or failed lease arrangements that could leave decommissioning liabilities. One commissioner proposed requiring surety or a bonding mechanism and periodic reevaluation of the bond (for example, every five years) to ensure decommissioning funds remain adequate.

- Size thresholds and local control: Commissioners explored setting a county definition of "utility scale" that differs from industry or state definitions. Discussion referenced an apparent operational threshold near 2 megawatts (as described in the meeting) and an industry rule of thumb of roughly 8–10 acres per megawatt. Staff said the county can adopt local thresholds for when projects trigger different review or mitigation requirements.

- Agrivoltaics and dual use: Commissioners discussed agrivoltaics (co‑location of solar and agricultural uses) as a distinct category that may warrant different rules, including panel height limits, spacing to allow grazing or crop production, and different permitting standards for dual‑use installations versus large ground‑mounted arrays.

- Decommissioning, recycling and landfill concerns: Commissioners noted panels and inverters have different expected lifespans (panels often cited around 20 years; inverters may fail sooner). They discussed options for ensuring responsible end‑of‑life handling, including bonds, removal requirements, and coordination with state recycling or waste programs; participants noted availability of some recycling outlets now but acknowledged uncertainty in 10–20 years.

- Tax revenue and local benefits: Commissioners raised that a large share of the assessed value for utility‑scale projects is handled at the state level, with limited county share; they discussed whether county policy could be structured to capture more local benefit or require mitigation agreements with neighbors.

Site‑specific considerations and public input: Commissioners emphasized that site characteristics (distance to residences, migration corridors, existing tree screening, and road access) would remain critical in application review. Several commissioners said small, out‑of‑sight installations or co‑located agrivoltaic projects would be less problematic than large arrays near residences. Participants also noted that where existing tree screening or remote locations exist, large projects can be less visible and thus more acceptable.

Next steps: Commissioners asked staff to continue research and draft specific code language options, including (but not limited to) definitions for utility scale, acreage or megawatt thresholds, bonding/decommissioning requirements with periodic reassessment, and agrivoltaic rules (panel height, spacing and dual‑use standards). The moratorium end date in October was discussed as a timeline for returning a draft to the commission for further consideration.

Ending: The commission did not take a final policy vote; instead members directed staff to compile model code language, examples and cost estimates for bonding and decommissioning so the commission can consider concrete draft language before the moratorium expires.