Montezuma County commissioners direct staff to draft solar land‑use blueprint emphasizing decommissioning plans, sureties and industry standards

Montezuma County commissioners on March 17 directed planning staff to produce a draft amendment to the county land use code to regulate large‑scale solar projects, with a focus on decommissioning plans, financial sureties and compliance with recognized industry standards for battery storage.

Commissioners reviewed a packet that included a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report and land‑use language from Mesa and Fremont counties. Several commissioners said they favored using Mesa County’s more specific provisions as a starting point and combining elements from Fremont County. Commissioners discussed adding a requirement that an operator complete decommissioning within 12 months of ceasing operations — language taken from Mesa County’s code — and including financial assurance (surety) to cover removal if an operator goes bankrupt or otherwise fails to complete decommissioning.

Commissioners raised multiple technical and environmental issues that a county blueprint should address before applications are filed: cultural‑resource surveys (ARC‑Site/archaeological review), coordination with Colorado Department of Transportation and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, NRCS mapping to protect irrigated agriculture, floodplain and wetland assessments, wildlife migration and habitat considerations, road‑use bonds for construction impacts and dust control, visual mitigation and setbacks from scenic byways, and agrivoltaics provisions to allow agricultural use beneath panels where appropriate.

Battery energy storage facilities were discussed separately. Commissioners noted Fremont County language that requires battery facilities to meet current National Electrical Code, International Fire Code and National Fire Protection Association standards; the board expressed a desire to include comparable industry‑standard compliance language in any draft ordinance.

Discussion also covered administrative details: planning staff were asked to identify reasonable review fees tied to actual staff time and costs rather than arbitrary amounts; staff said they have begun cost calculations and will produce fee estimates. A five‑year reevaluation cycle for code provisions was suggested to keep rules aligned with evolving industry practice.

Commissioners asked planning director Don (planning staff) and staff to highlight specific provisions from the Mesa and Fremont templates and return with a proposed draft for the planning commission and the board to review. No final changes were adopted at the workshop; commissioners agreed to begin drafting a blueprint based on the discussed elements and to consult the NREL report and NRCS maps as part of that work.

The board’s direction aims to make applications more complete at the time of submission by specifying required decommissioning and mitigation materials, reducing vagueness in the high‑impact permit process and setting expectations about bonding, monitoring and reclamation.