Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Shasta Power asks Crawford County to lift moratorium so $400 million solar project can move forward
Loading...
Summary
Representatives of Shasta Power asked the Crawford County Commission to lift the county’s moratorium or grant an exemption so a proposed roughly $400 million solar project can meet looming financing deadlines; residents and landowners offered mixed reactions and commissioners pressed developers on decommissioning bonds, tax treatment and project transferability.
John Copyak and Boris Feldman, representatives of Shasta Power, told the Crawford County Board of Commissioners on March 27 that their proposed large-scale solar project faces near-term financing deadlines and asked the board to lift the county moratorium or grant an exemption so the project can proceed to Planning and Zoning review.
Copyak said the company has put down nonrefundable financing commitments and that, if built, the project “would likely be the largest taxpayer” in the county. Feldman described project financing and said a decommissioning bond will be required. He said the site would sell power into a regional market and that the project could enable utilities to lock in energy prices for roughly 20 years.
The developers provided several figures during the meeting. Feldman said the project’s value is about $400,000,000; he and Copyak also told commissioners the State of Kansas offers a 10-year tax exemption that applies to the project. Rick Elnicki, a nearby landowner, told the board that a proposed 1,000-foot setback he considered “unreasonable” would reduce the taxable investment by about $100,000,000, and he emphasized that landowners would hold responsibility for decommissioning and bonding under the current plan.
Residents and landowners were split. Rebecca Walden called the project “one of the best investments” Crawford County could attract. Judy Prince cited a county Comprehensive Plan survey she said showed strong opposition to wind and less-than-majority support for solar; she also asked for specifics on tax abatement terms and on payments the company has already made to local partners. Randy Jones urged the board to consider acreage limits for renewables, and Diana Elnicki said landowners expect to be able to use land they purchased as they see fit.
Commissioners pressed developers on risk and long-term obligations. Commissioner Bruce Blair and Commissioner Carl Wood asked whether decommissioning funds would be held in cash and whether bond levels would be reassessed over time; both said a cash bond would be preferable to a paper bond. Commissioner Moody asked whether lifting the moratorium for one project would effectively lift it for all similar projects, and developers acknowledged that zoning decisions and conditional use permits remain separate steps and that Planning and Zoning approvals would still be required.
No formal decision was made. Copyak asked the board to respond before April 17 because of financing deadlines; Commissioner Blair said County Counselor Jim Emerson and staff would be present next week to answer outstanding legal and technical questions and indicated April 17 is a reasonable target for a reply.
What happened next: the board took no immediate vote on lifting the moratorium. Next procedural steps noted at the meeting include additional legal review by the county counselor and further work by Planning and Zoning on setbacks and conditions.
Why it matters: the project would be a large private investment in Crawford County and potentially a substantial new local taxpayer. Commissioners must weigh potential economic benefits against residents’ concerns about setbacks, future ownership changes, bond security for decommissioning, and the limits of county authority over long-term tax and sale outcomes.