Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Project Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press Wasco County on Deschutes Solar mitigation fund and selection rules
Summary
BrightNight's proposed $2.1 million Community Investment Fund to offset agricultural impacts of the Deschutes Solar project drew several Pine Grove and Maupin area residents to the June 17 hearing, who urged stronger local representation and questioned the agricultural impact survey methodology; county staff sought targeted public input on committee composition and selection criteria.
Wasco County Community Development Managing Director Kelly Howsley‑Glover asked the Board and the public for focused feedback on BrightNight’s proposed Memorandum of Understanding and Community Investment Fund, a mitigation mechanism tied to BrightNight's Energy Facility Siting Council application for the Deschutes Solar and Battery facility.
Howsley‑Glover explained the fund is intended to offset estimated agricultural impacts and indirect economic losses resulting from a Goal 3 (agricultural lands) exception required for the project. BrightNight’s consultant used landowner surveys and IMPLAN economic modeling to estimate $148,060 in annual agricultural economic output lost and $89,134 in indirect spending losses; the developer’s proposal would place roughly $2.1 million into a multi‑decade mitigation fund.
Several nearby residents spoke during the public comment period. Connie Lee thanked staff for outreach and urged separate mitigation streams for fire, agriculture and public services rather than a single pooled instrument. Ailey Aschoff asked that the selection committee include more neighboring agricultural operators not affiliated with project leases. Michelle Van Eynd asked which entities were negotiating with the developer and whether the selection committee would be final deciders or only advisory. Howsley‑Glover clarified county staff is evaluating the developer’s draft proposal and is not negotiating on the county’s behalf; if the county elects to sign an MOU, it would return to the Board for public consideration. She asked residents to submit written feedback on proposed committee structure and selection criteria.
Chair Hege closed the public comment session after attendees urged stronger local representation; Howsley‑Glover said she will compile public feedback for staff revisions to the proposed MOU and Community Investment Fund.
