Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Palisade residents urge Mesa County to investigate unpermitted work, financial risk in local clean‑energy projects
Summary
Two Palisade residents told the Mesa County Board on March 31 that alleged unpermitted construction and industry insolvencies raise public‑safety and taxpayer risks, and they asked the board to review permitting compliance, enforcement and project financial solvency.
At the March 31 Mesa County Board of Commissioners meeting, Nina Hutchins of Palisade told the board she and neighbors are confronting what she described as unpermitted construction involving Xcel Energy and James Sterling and urged the county to investigate whether permitting rules have been applied equally.
"If our rules do not apply equally to all entities, they do not apply at all," Hutchins said, and requested "a full review of permitting compliances and enforcement in this matter." She also cited what she called unresolved assault allegations and threats tied to the dispute and said the situation has become a public‑safety issue, not merely a regulatory one.
Lori Welch, also a Palisade resident, reinforced the call for county oversight and emphasized financial and environmental risks she associates with some private clean‑energy projects. Welch cited national industry turbulence, naming companies she said have entered insolvency proceedings and saying "when companies fail, projects stall, maintenance disappears, and local communities are left holding the risk." She warned that panel recycling and disposal are underdeveloped and asked how Mesa County would address long‑term disposal burdens.
Welch asked the board to ensure that privately developed projects "stand on their own, not on the backs of Mesa County residents," and urged stronger accountability and proper zoning to protect water and other community resources. Both speakers named Pivot Energy and, broadly, recent solar‑industry company failures as reasons the county should monitor project solvency and protections for residents.
County officials did not take formal action during public comment. Chair invited additional public comment, then moved the meeting on to the consent agenda.
