Emery County hears hours of public comment on utility-scale solar; residents press for ordinances, developers stress jobs and process

Emery County commissioners convened a public hearing to gather community comment on existing and proposed utility-scale solar projects, including questions about tax incentives, wildlife impacts and where the county should allow projects to be sited. Commissioners opened the hearing by setting four-minute time limits for speakers and reiterated that the purpose was to collect public comment, not to adopt policy that evening.

The commission described how solar projects typically come before the county after developers negotiate leases with private landowners and secure interconnection with utilities such as PacifiCorp or Rocky Mountain Power. A commissioner explained that many projects in the county have been placed inside Community Reinvestment Areas (CRAs) that capture new growth taxes; he said 10% of CRA receipts are set aside for affordable housing and that the largest beneficiaries from CRA taxes are the school district, then the county, then the water conservancy district. That same commissioner estimated typical incentive levels in these CRAs at about 40–50%.

Commissioners framed solar revenue as one of several tools to address rising homeowner property taxes after centrally assessed values (coal plants and other large, state-assessed property) declined, which the chair said had reduced centrally assessed taxable value in the county by about $446 million in recent years. Commissioners cautioned the public that revenues from solar projects depreciate over time and suggested prioritizing uses such as debt service rather than recurring operating costs.

Public testimony ran through a broad range of concerns and endorsements. Opponents urged stronger local controls, arguing projects can harm wildlife, create fugitive dust and erosion, reduce future residential land for growth, lower adjacent property values, and present long-term waste and decommissioning liabilities. Tom Lloyd of Farron asked for “scientific based” cumulative environmental studies; several speakers from local conservation and sporting groups urged opposition to the proposed Poison Springs Bench project, saying it lies inside crucial mule deer winter range.

Speakers also alleged enforcement gaps around dust suppression, questioned the recyclability and toxicity of panels and batteries, and expressed safety concerns for children and local emergency-response capacity if a solar array caught fire. Multiple residents who said their homes would be surrounded by proposed arrays described the prospect as a permanent change to their quality of life; one commenter described leases that could leave projects on the landscape for decades.

Other residents and industry representatives urged the commission to move deliberately and to recognize the potential tax and workforce benefits. Lee Bunderson and others argued that utility-scale solar can help offset shrinking tax revenues from coal-plant depreciation and noted solar’s relatively low water use. Scott Bruno, a contractor who worked on the Green River Energy Center, said the project created two years of local construction jobs and trained local workers for future projects. Teresa Foxley of R&Energies described her company’s commitment to remain engaged with the county and said developers welcome clear zoning, setbacks and permitting processes.

A representative from the state Division of Wildlife reported that Poison Springs Bench would encompass more than 4,000 acres and lies within mule deer crucial winter range; the biologist warned that exclusion of that habitat would force deer to migrate elsewhere, with unknown downstream consequences for adjacent private lands and grazing permittees.

Multiple commenters urged the commission to draft an ordinance or put the issue to a countywide vote so residents could decide rules on siting and decommissioning. Several speakers proposed specific measures for future policy, including up‑front bonding to cover decommissioning and land restoration, third‑party independent engineering reviews with site-specific stormwater plans, and restricting utility-scale projects to commercial/industrial zones rather than allowing broad conditional uses.

The hearing produced no formal motions or votes. Commissioners closed the public-comment period after taking testimony from many residents and invited people to speak individually with staff after the meeting. The commission signaled it will continue work toward ordinances and planning/zoning review before making regulatory changes.

What’s next: the commission has not adopted any ordinance during this hearing. Residents asked for greater urgency; some urged a ballot measure to give voters the decision, while others urged the commission to advance a zoning and decommissioning framework that requires bonding, clear setbacks from homes, and stronger enforcement of dust and erosion controls.