Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy And Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends denying Comprehensive Plan language that would restrict siting of large energy projects on agricultural land
Summary
After public comment from utilities and renewable‑energy developers, the commission recommended denying a BOCC‑sponsored Comprehensive Plan amendment that would emphasize protecting agricultural land from large‑scale energy projects, citing concerns about property rights, spot rezoning risk, and loss of flexibility to site projects near transmission.
Jerome County planning staff presented a Board‑sponsored amendment to Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan intended to clarify the county’s commitment to protecting agricultural land when siting large‑scale energy projects. The amendment follows an emergency ordinance (2025‑01) that temporarily limited development of renewable energy plants and BESS while the county examines its capacity to support such facilities.
Public commenters offered a range of views. Leon Letson, speaking for Idaho Power, cautioned that projects are not always developer‑driven and that overly broad language could limit private property rights; he recommended using a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. Land‑use attorney Elisabeth Koeckeritz asked for more nuanced agricultural classifications and urged removal of language such as "inherent conflict with" and "irreversible loss," noting that many projects include decommissioning and restoration obligations. Renewable‑sector representatives (Renewable Northwest, NextEra, Copia Power, ENGIE) argued that overly restrictive siting could amount to a de facto ban and would make it harder to develop projects near transmission infrastructure, increasing cost and reliance on out‑of‑state imports.
After discussion, commissioners concluded the proposed language was overly broad, could create uncertainty for property owners and operators, and risked unintended consequences such as spot rezoning. Trish Heath moved to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment; Janet Bolich seconded. The motion passed by a vote of five ayes to zero no. The commission recorded testimony and exhibits used in reaching the recommendation.
The commission recommended further work sessions to refine language and explore whether a CUP framework could address the BOCC’s concerns while preserving property‑owner options.
