Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Solar Battery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Emery County delays approval of Hunter solar battery-storage letter pending contract details
Summary
The Emery County commissioners voted to seek contract evidence and temporarily table approval of a revised conditional use permit letter for the Hunter solar project after concerns that language identifying the project as within a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) could obligate the county to incentives and uncertainty over whether 80 MW battery storage was part of the original agreement.
Emery County commissioners on July 15 voted to seek additional contract documentation before finalizing a revised conditional use permit (CUP) letter for the Hunter solar project, citing concerns that a sentence in the letter implying the project is in a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) might commit the county to incentives.
Commissioners raised the issue during discussion of language changes requested by the project ttorneys after a change in ownership. "There's only, like, one sentence... I'm wondering if this locks them into the CRA," an unidentified speaker said, asking whether the county would be bound to incentives reported elsewhere as 40 to 50 percent. The commissioners directed staff to email the project representatives and ask whether the storage and CRA language are contractually supported and to provide the contract language showing storage was included.
Officials also questioned whether the battery storage had been added after the original CUP. "It's about 80 megawatts," an unidentified speaker said when describing the battery storage scale under discussion. Commissioners said they would table further action pending receipt of the underlying agreement; if staff confirms storage was included in the contract, the commission authorized staff to approve the updated letter without returning to the full board.
The motion to seek more information and to permit approval if contract evidence shows the storage was included passed on a voice roll-call of commissioners present.
The county did not adopt or amend any incentives or CRA designation during the meeting; commissioners limited action to requesting contract documentation and clarifying whether the battery storage was part of prior approvals. The commission asked staff to report back with the contract citation and whether the parcel and project actually lie inside a CRA before any county commitment to incentives.
