Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners reopen debate over countywide ban on future large-scale solar projects
Summary
A commissioner read a draft resolution that would prohibit any future utility-scale solar developments in unincorporated Emery County, raising legal questions after the attorney general's office flagged potential Open Meetings Act issues. Commissioners asked county counsel to review the draft before any formal action.
A proposed countywide ban on future large-scale utility solar plants in unincorporated Emery County drew extensive discussion during the Aug. 4 meeting of the Emery County Board of Commissioners.
Commissioner Kevin Jensen read a draft resolution that would amend County zoning ordinance section 11-3-8 to prohibit future utility-scale solar development, arguing the measure was intended to preserve grazing, wildlife habitat and the county's rural character. Jensen read parts of the draft into the record, including its list of "whereas" findings about local precipitation, land use and economic impacts. "Whereas Emery County has experienced a significant increase in application for development of utility solar energy, battery storage and related projects," Jensen read aloud.
Commissioner (S3) raised legal and practical concerns. "My concern with a total ban is not having teeth for the county," the commissioner said, urging that any proposal be shaped to endure future commissions and to include enforceable provisions. County attorney Mike Olson said he would review the draft and the record; Olson told the commission he had "nothing to do with the attorney general's office" review but would examine the ordinance language and advise on next steps.
Earlier correspondence from the Utah attorney general's office was discussed during the item; Jensen said the AG had sent a letter that, in his view, was confusing about whether the county had already approved an ordinance and whether Open Meetings Act rules were implicated. Commissioners declined to vote on the draft at the meeting and sought formal legal guidance before considering any motion. The item was discussed for clarity and counsel review only; no ordinance was passed or adopted at the Aug. 4 meeting.
Next steps: the commission asked county counsel to review the draft resolution and provide guidance on the proper process and the risk of legal vulnerabilities before placing the measure back on a public agenda for possible formal action.
