Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy Local Opposition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge commissioners to block industrial solar and note Evergy rate request during public comment
Summary
Multiple residents used public comment to oppose industrial-scale solar farms and to urge the commission to consider impacts as Evergy seeks rate increases and additional generation; speakers cited local moratoriums, wildlife and aesthetics, and broader rate concerns tied to utility spending and dividends.
Several members of the public used the county's public-comment period to urge commissioners to oppose industrial-scale renewable energy projects and to highlight a proposed Evergy rate increase before the Kansas Corporation Commission.
What speakers said: A resident who identified himself as Dan said he spoke at the Kansas Corporation Commission public hearing and summarized media reporting that Evergy sought a $196 million rate increase and that company executives received large compensation and dividends in 2024. Dan said Evergy estimates a typical residential customer would see about a $13.05 monthly increase (roughly a 10.36% increase) for existing filings and that additional generation projects could add to future hikes.
Other speakers, including John Campbell and another resident who identified themselves as long-time property owners, argued Osage County should reject large-scale wind and solar projects to preserve rural character, wildlife habitat and property values. They cited a 2002 county comprehensive-plan objective favoring preservation of rural character and public input that called industrial renewable facilities "unsightly" and harmful to wildlife, scenic resources and residential development potential.
Why it matters: Speakers tied local land-use concerns to broader utility policy, asserting that Evergy's capital spending and returns to shareholders are passed on to Kansas ratepayers. Commenters asked commissioners to consider county-level measures (including existing moratoria and bans) and to weigh cumulative impacts when the county reviews comprehensive-plan language and land-use decisions.
Commission response and context: Commissioners thanked speakers and said the comments were received. Commissioners noted that county authority over large-scale generation siting is limited by state permitting and utility regulation, but acknowledged the public input will inform future comprehensive-plan revisions and local policy work.
What was not decided: No formal land-use approvals or moratoriums were imposed during the meeting; the remarks were part of the public-comment record and will be considered in ongoing comprehensive-plan discussions.
