Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate language and scope of Resolution 2015 on renewable energy; concerns raised about land-use effects and nuclear power
Summary
Montezuma County commissioners discussed Resolution 2015 on Jan. 6 and debated its language and potential interaction with land-use permitting, including whether the statement should address nuclear energy.
Montezuma County commissioners spent an extended portion of their Jan. 6 workshop discussing Resolution 2015, a statement that staff described as "committed to encouraging and promoting the growth of all forms of renewable energy development within Montezuma County."
One commissioner said the resolution "sort of narrows our options," and specifically noted the draft did not include nuclear energy. The commissioner said, "one of the things that was particularly, to me, left out was nuclear energy, which to me is a clean energy." He recommended removing text that would exclude nuclear power.
Commissioner Jerome raised a separate concern about the relationship between the resolution and the county's land-use review process. He warned that the resolution as written could be interpreted to allow renewable facilities on agricultural land in a way that would bypass or undercut the county's special-use permitting process. "If you have that resolution and you're letting them put that on the ag land," he said, "to me, that bypasses your special use permit."
County legal staff responded that the resolution is a policy statement and does not by itself change the land use code or remove permitting requirements. A county attorney told the board, "I don't think this binds the board from my perspective" and explained options available to the board, including rescinding the resolution, amending it, or passing a different one.
Commissioners noted the topic of nuclear power could prompt broader public debate; one commissioner said, "when you say the word nuclear, it's worse than a 4 letter word," and acknowledged that including it would open "a whole another conversation." Several commissioners said the resolution, as a statement, did not remove their responsibility to follow land-use procedures. The board indicated it will revisit the language and that "when we make a decision tomorrow, either way, doesn't matter" — indicating the item would be considered again at the next meeting.
