Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kane County asks trust lands board for interconnection proof, reclamation and grazing protections for Glen Canyon Solar
Summary
County staff and commissioners unanimously approved a set of recommendations for the Glen Canyon Solar (Clearback/AES) conditional‑use application to the Trust Lands Board, emphasizing the need for an interconnection feasibility letter or affidavit, an upfront reclamation plan rather than a 15‑year deferred plan, compensation for grazing leaseholders and emergency‑response commitments from the local fire district.
Kane County commissioners reviewed and approved recommendations to forward to the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA)/Trust Lands Board concerning the Glen Canyon Solar project near Big Water, which now includes battery storage in the developer’s conditional‑use application.
Shannon McBride presented edits and tracked changes to the county’s recommended package and told commissioners she had added language to require notification to the commission and to include grazing‑related protections. County staff emphasized a key remaining risk for utility‑scale solar: whether the regional power company will permit interconnection. McBride and staff recommended requesting a feasibility letter or an affidavit confirming an interconnection agreement exists so the county will not support a project that may later stall for lack of grid access.
Other county recommendations adopted by the commission include asking for an upfront reclamation plan rather than deferring reclamation until year 15, provisions requiring AES (the developer named in the packet) to compensate a prior grazing leaseholder for lost infrastructure if SITLA requires buyouts, and confirmation that the Big Water Fire District will be the responding agency for battery incidents or other emergency events.
Commissioners said these recommendations reflect lessons from prior stalled projects and aim to protect county interests and neighboring land users. The motion approved by the commission will be transmitted to SITLA; the Trust Lands Board retains final permitting authority.
