Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Grid topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kossuth County supervisors defer Alliant Energy joint‑development agreement after permit denial
Summary
After the Board of Adjustment denied a permit for a proposed battery energy storage site, Kossuth County supervisors deferred action on a joint development agreement with Alliant Energy based on county legal advice; counsel recommended appeal or reapplication before the board signs any agreement.
Kossuth County supervisors deferred consideration of a proposed joint development agreement (JDA) with Alliant Energy and other partners after the county attorney advised that signing while the Board of Adjustment had denied the project's permit would create a legal conflict. The board voted to defer the matter pending either a successful appeal or a material change that would justify reapplying for the permit.
The discussion opened with Supervisor (unidentified in transcript) noting "we have an attorney's opinion that it wouldn't be wise in our situation legally to sign that" while the Board of Adjustment had already denied the permit, and offering to provide the written opinion to the project team. Project representatives told the board they had used JDAs in other communities and argued the battery would support the grid — including so‑called "black start" capabilities that help restore power after outages. One project speaker said the batteries "are becoming incredibly important" to the wider power system.
Todd Holmes, identified in the transcript as county legal counsel, told supervisors the Board of Adjustment's denial was a quasi‑judicial, final order that is appealable under the county code (transcript cites "chapter 3 35"). Holmes advised deferral as the lowest‑risk option for the board and said the supervisors could reconsider a JDA only after the permit status changed through appeal or through a materially altered project that could be reexamined.
Board members and the project team discussed alternatives including a joint meeting with the Board of Adjustment to clarify expectations, or pursuing an ordinance to authorize the use if the board chose that path. The supervisors moved and seconded a motion "to defer based on legal opinion;" the board called for the vote and the motion carried.
Next steps identified in the meeting record: the project proponents may pursue appeal options or reapply with material changes, and the supervisors said they would consider the JDA only after any permit approval or other change in legal status.
