Residents split as Shasta Power seeks moratorium change; concerns include taxes, bond and battery safety

Public comment produced sharply contrasting views. Landowners and some Mulberry officials urged the commission to allow the project, describing generational economic benefits and long-standing property rights. "I've been a resident there of 74 and a half years... I would like to see something good happen to Crawford County," said Rebecca Walden of Mulberry.

Opponents and skeptical residents raised questions about public support levels, the reliability of tax receipts given weather and production variability, and long‑term liability for decommissioning and battery storage. Judy Prince cited a comprehensive‑plan survey showing less than majority support for solar and cautioned that lifting the moratorium for one project could invite many others. She also questioned whether utilities would pass any savings to local customers.

Several landowners (including Rick Elnicki and Diana El Nikki) defended the proposal as a lawful use of private property that could bring sustained local revenue and said they had negotiated neighbor payments. Public comments covered common topics: perceived fairness to neighbors, bond security, battery fire risks, and whether payments in lieu of taxes would actually materialize.