Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wasco County flags major gaps in 1,000 MW Deschutes solar and battery-storage application; neighbors raise fire and access concerns
Summary
County planning staff told the BOCC the preliminary application for a ~1,000 MW solar and battery energy storage facility lacks required setback mapping, consistent water-use data and evidence of locational dependency; nearby residents testified about fire risk, evacuation, property values and lack of developer notice.
Wasco County planning staff adopted and authorized submission of formal completeness and substantive comments on a preliminary application for a large-scale solar plus battery energy storage system (BESS) proposed southwest of Maupin. Staff told the board the application covers roughly 14,000 acres with an approximate 1,000 MW generation goal and identified multiple deficiencies that, in staff's view, prevent a finding of completeness under county standards.
Senior Planner Sean Bailey and Planning Director Daniel Dougherty cited missing or incomplete materials: setback analyses that do not meet the county's 100-to-200-foot setback expectations for adjacent grazing or crop lands (applicant proposed 50-foot setbacks), incomplete mapping of irrigation ditches and fish-bearing streams, and lack of clear diagrams for the BESS component and its setbacks. Dougherty also raised water-use inconsistencies, noting lifetime water estimates in the application ranged from 20 million to 54 million gallons and that the applicant had referenced an informal email as a "service commitment" for Columbia River water that county staff said does not constitute a formal commitment.
Staff recommended that the county submit detailed completeness comments to the Oregon Department of Energy by the March 6 deadline to preserve standing in future proceedings. The Board adopted staff's recommended comments and asked staff to forward them to the Department.
Several nearby property owners testified in person, describing the proposed facility as overwhelming to surrounding small holdings and raising safety and livability concerns. Connie Lee said living next to 8-foot chain-link perimeter fences would feel like "living in a prison yard," questioned developer notice and lease accuracy, and urged the county to protect 49 non-participating properties. Ailee Aschoff, a livestock rancher, warned perimeter fencing and limited setbacks would impede wildfire response and daily ranching operations. Other residents raised questions about fire suppression for large battery installations and about water sourcing and long-term impacts to wells and agricultural water supplies.
Planning staff and the Board emphasized that county comments are advisory to the state siting process but are necessary to preserve the county's ability to raise substantive land-use and public-safety concerns during later hearings.
