Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer proposes 560‑megawatt Fair Run solar project on reclaimed Peabody land in Sullivan County
Summary
RWE representatives outlined a proposal for a roughly 560‑MW utility‑scale solar project on about 14,000 acres of predominantly reclaimed Peabody mining land, saying it could yield tens of millions in local tax revenue over 40 years and asking the county to review an economic development agreement (EDA).
RWE project developers presented a proposal Tuesday to build a utility‑scale solar project they call Fair Run on predominantly reclaimed Peabody mining land southeast of Sullivan.
Robert Dum, a project developer with the company, said the proposal would place about 500–560 megawatts of solar capacity across roughly 14,000 acres, primarily on previously mined and reclaimed land. "This is just a solar project," Dum said when asked whether the company planned to build a data center. He told commissioners the company has applied to interconnect to the regional transmission system and will not start construction until interconnection terms and upgrade costs are known.
Spencer Blakey, also representing the developer, said about 95% of private parcels the company expects to use are under lease or near finalization. The developers estimated the project could generate about $160 million in local tax revenue over a 40‑year term (about $4 million per year on average), with an estimated $64 million accruing to Sullivan County and approximately $68 million to local school districts, numbers the presenters described as the product of internal economic assessments.
The developers asked the county to consider an economic development agreement (EDA) that would outline tax abatement terms and developer obligations, including provisions on decommissioning, road‑use agreements and commitments on local hiring. Dum said the EDA is under legal review and that the county’s review would precede any final vote; the presenters told commissioners they were aiming for a commission review in mid‑June if the legal form is finalized. "The EDA is probably the best place to put amendments in writing such as utilizing local labor," Dum said, and he added the company would be willing to work with the county on language addressing local hiring and training.
Commissioners and residents raised questions about local labor, public‑safety preparedness and transmission interconnection. County officials asked that the EDA include provisions for local first‑responder training after two recent inverter fires on other projects; Dum said the company would document training commitments in the EDA and can provide on‑site training for local responders. On transmission, the developers said they filed an interconnection application in 2022 and expect to execute a large‑generator interconnection agreement early next year; they emphasized they would not begin major construction until upgrades required by the grid operator are known and affordable.
The developers did not present a finalized construction schedule but said, subject to approvals and interconnection, they target permitting and design work to continue through 2025–2026 with possible construction starts in 2027 and full operation several years later. Commissioners took no vote on the EDA during the meeting but were told a formal proposal could come before them for consideration once negotiations conclude.
Next steps: county attorneys will continue reviewing the draft EDA; commissioners will receive the finalized document for review before any public vote. The presenters encouraged transparency and said they would meet with local stakeholders on labor and emergency‑response planning.
