Public hearing on Rosedale solar farm draws extended questions; board tables decision
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Commonwealth Energy Partners presented the Rosedale Solar Farm — a proposed, shared‑solar eligible distribution project of up to 5 MW within a 440‑acre study area — at a Nov. 3 public hearing; the board tabled final action and requested additional maps, site visits and documentation.
Commonwealth Energy Partners (CEP) and landowner Stewart Land and Cattle Company presented details of the proposed Rosedale Solar Farm during a public hearing at the Russell County Board of Supervisors meeting on Nov. 3.
CEP said the project is a distribution‑scale, shared‑solar eligible facility downsized from an initial 12 megawatt design to up to 5 megawatts in order to participate in Appalachian Power’s shared solar program. Richard Wright, CEP cofounder, and Thomas Williams, project manager, said the study area covers 440 acres and that the likely solar array (panel area) would occupy roughly 50 acres, with the final layout to be determined after site‑specific studies.
CEP identified the following commitments and technical points:
- Interconnection to an Appalachian Power distribution line on site; no project substation expected for a distribution‑scale project; construction targeted for 2027. - Minimum setbacks: 75 feet from property lines plus a committed 25‑foot vegetative buffer around the project fence; developers stated some residences would be well over 1,000 feet from panel areas because of existing topography and vegetation. - Decommissioning: CEP said it would remove all equipment and post a decommissioning bond, updated on a five‑year basis; CEP committed to disposing of decommissioned panels “outside of the county.” - Economics: CEP projected roughly $1.2 million in county revenue over the life of the project (conservative revenue‑sharing estimate) and committed certain payments (e.g., $20,000 per MW involuntary payment, $50,000 cost reimbursement, $25,000 earmark for volunteer fire departments) modeled on previously approved agreements in the county.
Board members and residents pressed CEP on several points during extended questioning:
- Visibility and topography: Nearby residents, including Allen Mitchell and Roberta Mitchell, said their homes would have direct sightlines to the proposed development. CEP responded the likely panel area sits higher in elevation and cited existing bluffs and vegetation as natural screening; developers agreed to provide topographic maps and a more precise exhibit map of the initial development envelope. - Footprint and flexibility: Residents asked how the 440‑acre study area would be narrowed to the final panel array. CEP told the board it expects to use about 50 panel acres but needs flexibility within the 440‑acre study boundary pending field studies (geotech, environmental, cultural resource diligence). - Disposal and recycling: CEP said panels are primarily aluminum and glass and that recycling facilities exist regionally; the company committed to disposing of decommissioned panels outside Russell County and to post a decommissioning bond prior to site plan approval. - Timing and obligations: CEP confirmed the site agreement does not obligate them to develop the project; payments to the county (for example, the $100,000 and the $25,000 fire department contribution) are expected at final site plan approval and before construction.
Multiple supervisors said they wanted to inspect the site, meet with nearby residents and review a more precise development envelope (exhibit C). After discussion Supervisor Rebecca Dye moved to table final approval to allow staff and supervisors to obtain additional information and visit the property; the motion passed.
No final county approvals or site‑agreement signatures occurred at the meeting. The board asked county staff and CEP to provide topographic maps, a precise exhibit C map showing candidate panel areas, documentation of the landowner’s corporate authorization, and details on recycling/disposition facilities for panels.
Public documents: CEP referenced an interconnection study with Appalachian Power and a proposed site agreement modeled after a previously approved New Leaf agreement in the county. The county will place the project back on a future agenda after staff and supervisors complete site visits and additional review.