Planning commission continues hearing on Sundance Solar project after hours of testimony on batteries, wildlife, taxes and fire safety

The Elbert County Planning Commission held an extended public hearing April 15 on a proposed utility-scale solar and battery project known as Sundance Solar, hearing technical presentations, agency referrals and nearly two hours of public comment before continuing the matter to a follow-up session April 16 at 6 p.m.

Planning manager Jennifer Jones opened the staff presentation for both a major 10-41 permit (10:41-2024-1310) and a Special Use Review (SUR20240028). “Good evening, planning commission. I'm Jennifer Jones, the planning manager presenting the Sundance solar projects to you tonight,” Jones said. She described the project as a proposal to develop up to 74.9 megawatts (MW) of solar generation and roughly 50 MW of battery energy storage (BESS) on a privately leased tract at the southeast corner of Kiowa Bennett Road and County Road 154. The overall landholding spans about 1,100 acres; the proposed solar footprint is roughly 600 acres.

Cypress Creek Renewables' senior project developer Zach Bartholomew represented the applicant and provided technical detail, economics and community engagement information. Bartholomew described a development timeline with construction expected to begin in the third quarter of 2025 and commercial operation targeted for the fourth quarter of 2026. He told the commission that the project team had engaged with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), the Division of Water Resources, Kiowa and Elizabeth fire districts, CORE Electric Cooperative and multiple county departments.

The application package includes a long list of technical studies and mitigation commitments: a wetland and water body delineation (the applicant reported a preliminary Army Corps review that found no jurisdictional waters), habitat and wildlife surveys, a vegetation management plan, drainage and stormwater documentation, geotechnical reports, an updated Phase I environmental site assessment, a decommissioning plan with an initial bond estimate, and a traffic analysis. Several referral agencies and departments returned comments; staff summarized these and recommended approval with conditions for both the 10-41 permit and the SUR. Recommended conditions include execution of a final road-use or development agreement, recordation of required instruments, and the posting of a financial security for decommissioning (Article 17 10-41 requirement). The SUR fee schedule also requires payment of 2% of total construction cost within six months of board approval or before on-site work.

Key technical and design commitments described by the applicant and staff:

- Capacity and footprint: up to 74.9 MW of solar and 50 MW of battery storage; approximately 603 acres of the leased 1,119 acres under firm site control would be used for the project footprint. - Arrays and structures: single-axis tracking panels with a maximum tilted height in the peak position of about 12–15 feet depending on equipment; an on-site substation and parts/operations building were pictured on site plans. - Fencing and setbacks: an 8-foot agricultural mesh security fence (no barbed wire) around the project, a roughly 1,000-foot setback from Kiowa Bennett Road and a 200-foot setback from County Road 154. - Wildlife mitigation: Cypress Creek said it adopted CPW recommendations including sliding gates for animal egress, installation of a wildlife corridor and rounded fencing corners to reduce entrapment risk, and installation of game cameras. - Battery and safety: the applicant described containerized battery units (container-based BESS), a manufacturer-supplied emergency response plan and compliance with the NFPA 855 battery storage code. Applicant materials and the Kiowa Fire chief’s checklist for solar projects were referenced as staff exhibits. Cypress Creek committed to annual first-responder trainings and said the battery design includes individual container cooling and fire suppression systems; they said the site’s battery units are not the same design as the large, building-style systems implicated in some high-profile fires. - Decommissioning: the applicant submitted an estimate and committed to posting a decommissioning bond that staff cited as approximately $2.7 million for the solar arrays and roughly $715,000 for battery removal; the bond amount would be updated every five years per county requirements. The applicant stated it is solely responsible for removal and restoration.

Economic and fiscal information presented by the applicant included a third-party tax analysis showing an estimated $9.8 million in cumulative county revenues over 40 years if the site is developed as proposed. The applicant provided a breakdown of that estimate and said approximately 37% of the county revenue would accrue to the local school district, about 15% to the Kiowa Fire District, 15% to road and bridge, and smaller shares to other taxing entities. Applicant and contractor representatives also described local economic benefits during construction and operations: McCarthy, the applicant’s engineering, procurement and construction contractor, said it expects 150–250 construction jobs and up to four permanent operations jobs.

Public comment was lengthy and divided. Supporters included Mark Jergermeier, chief operating officer of CORE Electric Cooperative, who said CORE will be the offtaker under a power purchase agreement and described the project’s role in CORE’s plan to increase renewable generation to meet statutory and system needs. “Core Electric Cooperative will be the offtaker of the energy for this project. We will not own and operate the project; we will be buying the energy it produces, which will then be turned over to the members of CORE Electric Cooperative,” Jergermeier said.

Opposition came from multiple residents and local activists, including members of the Elbert County Environmental Alliance. Common concerns raised included potential devaluation of neighboring property, fire risk associated with large-scale lithium-ion battery installations, effects on wildlife and migratory birds, potential surface-water impacts and whether the county’s first responders have sufficient equipment and response time to handle a serious BESS incident. Several speakers referenced research or incidents elsewhere in the U.S. (including the Moss Landing, Calif., incident) to press for more safeguards, spacing, or different battery technology. Other residents questioned the tax- and job-benefit calculations and requested independent validation of the fiscal estimates.

Planning commissioners and staff pressed the applicant on a range of technical items during their Q&A. Commissioners asked for: - verification and correction of parcel numbers and recorded lease/memorandum documents (some packet exhibits had an incorrect parcel number that the applicant later said had been corrected), - details on the decommissioning bond mechanism (how it will be set and accessed if the developer dissolves), - documentation of drainage, grading and sediment-control measures during construction, and confirmation that stormwater controls avoid impacts to Kiowa Creek, - detailed emergency-response and evacuation procedures tied to county and mutual-aid resources, and ongoing training commitments for volunteer fire departments, - clarification on panel and battery manufacturers and procurement sources and whether changing tariffs or supply-chain shifts could affect the project economics.

Staff and the applicant answered some but not all of those questions during the session. Staff noted additional materials were provided to commission members at the hearing (updated lease documents, additional public comments and clarifying exhibits).

After extended discussion and public testimony the commission voted to continue the hearing to a date-certain session on April 16 at 6 p.m. to allow commissioners, staff and the public more time to review corrected documents and follow up on the outstanding technical and fiscal questions.

The matter remains undecided. If the planning commission ultimately recommends approval, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the 10-41 permit and SUR, with any conditions recommended by staff and the commission.