Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wind Energy Decommissioning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dickinson County supervisors seek clarity on decommissioning rules after subsurface work at wind sites
Summary
Supervisors and residents pressed planning staff about subsurface concrete and soil testing at two wind-turbine sites and whether that work requires establishment of the county's decommissioning fund; planning staff said the activity did not, under the current ordinance, trigger zoning compliance requirements.
Members of the Dickinson County Board of Supervisors and members of the public pressed planning staff on whether subsurface work at two wind-turbine sites requires the county's decommissioning fund, a financial assurance intended to cover dismantling and site restoration if turbines are abandoned.
A board member read an email from planning staff Megan that summarized the company's work at tower sites 62 and 80. According to the text read into the record, the activities "were consistent with work previously performed" at other tower sites, involved soil testing and placement of a subsurface concrete foundation slab that was backfilled with excavated material, and used about 10 concrete trucks. The email, as read aloud, said the activities "do not require a zoning compliance application or a conditional use permit under the Dickinson County zoning ordinance." Megan also wrote, "Denver Energy Red Rock is not presently out of compliance with the Dickinson County zoning ordinance."
Residents and supervisors voiced concern about when the decommissioning fund must be established. One resident, Kelly Okaboji, urged the board to organize a private sidebar meeting with staff to reduce public alarm and clarify authority: "maybe you as the chair need to pull Barb and Megan and a couple of other people that are concerned in and have a sidebar and have a thorough discussion of it as opposed to having this all out where it makes it look like more turmoil than probably in fact there is," Okaboji said.
Board members repeatedly asked for a clear trigger point: does the ordinance require the decommissioning fund when contractors place subsurface concrete and manholes, or only when a structure is constructed more than one foot above ground? The planning-staff email read to the board noted the ordinance requires a zoning compliance permit when "a structure is constructed more than one foot above ground level," and it said a board-of-adjustment stipulation requires a decommissioning fund to be established "prior to construction of a WCS device" (wind-energy conversion structure). The email also indicated that if pending litigation is resolved and the project is permitted to proceed, staff would ensure compliance with that stipulation.
Supervisors and public commenters pressed for a definitive answer about when funding must be in place and who sets the funding amount. The county's planning staff indicated she had responded to questions by email and was on her way to the meeting to answer follow-up questions; the board agreed to allow staff to provide further clarification and to try to provide a definitive answer at the next meeting rather than continue a non-agenda public discussion.
Why it matters: a decommissioning fund shifts the financial risk of eventual dismantling away from neighbors and landowners and onto the project owner. The debate in Dickinson County centers on whether subsurface-only work performed under private agreements should trigger the same financial assurance requirements as above-ground construction.
The board did not take formal action on zoning or funding at the meeting; members asked staff for clarification and signaled an intent to follow up. The public comment and staff explanation concluded without a vote; Megan was expected to answer additional questions at a future meeting.
