Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cache Valley residents urge county to oppose 22‑acre SolarStar project near popular trail
Summary
Neighbors presented a petition of about 400 signatures and urged the commissioners to oppose a proposed 22‑acre community solar project (Docket 9805, Solar Star Allegheny South LLC), citing visual impacts along the Great Allegheny Passage, property‑value and tourism concerns, glare risks and limited local permitting authority because the project seeks a PSC CPCN.
Several Cache Valley residents told the commissioners they object to a proposed 22‑acre community solar installation by Solar Star Allegheny South LLC (PSC Docket 9805) that would sit near the Great Allegheny Passage and a highly photographed horseshoe curve.
Susan Mallozzi (speaker 19) said the project would place roughly 10,000 panels on hills 80–100 feet above nearby homes and that the panels would be visible from the trail and the Western Maryland Scenic Railroad. "These 10,000 solar arrays that will tower high above our homes...we are gonna lose that beautiful scenic and serene view that makes living in this spot so very appealing," Mallozzi said as she explained the neighborhood petition of about 400 signatures urging the Public Service Commission to reject the CPCN application.
Mallozzi and other speakers raised concerns about the adequacy of screening, the project’s long‑term decommissioning plan (cleanup timing 30 years after installation in the applicant’s documents), possible impacts on wildlife and tourism, and the limited local review available because the project is proceeding through the PSC CPCN process for large generation projects. She urged county officials to participate in the PSC process and to join the public meeting scheduled for May 28.
Attorney Beeman confirmed the county had previously communicated its strong opposition in an earlier PSC filing and said the county is monitoring the docket. Residents asked the commission to consider local zoning or moratorium options; counsel noted that PSC jurisdiction and CPCN eligibility limit local permitting authority for projects of this size.
Why it matters: the project lies close to an important recreational and tourism corridor; opponents say that visual and visitor‑economy impacts outweigh the limited local tax benefit. Commissioners did not take formal action at the meeting but residents said they expect county participation at upcoming PSC proceedings.
