Under a proposed state bill, Primergy of California may have found a back door for approval to construct its massive industrial solar facility near Hesperus.
The permit application to construct Hesperus Solar, a 500,000-panel, 155-megawatt solar facility covering an area larger than Lake Nighthorse or 11 times bigger than Bodo Industrial Park, was rejected by La Plata County last fall when developer Primergy failed to pay review costs incurred by the county.
At the time, more than 100 deficiencies had been identified by the county in initial documents submitted by Primergy before content review had even started. Motivated by big money available under the Inflation Recovery Act, Front Range legislators are developing a bill that would fast-track approval of huge solar and wind generating facilities, and usurp county scrutiny of the impacts of such long-term projects.
Counties would still issue construction permits but on terms no more strict than the state bill.
The current scheme for La Plata County review of these projects lives in Chapter 69 of the county land use code. Chapter 69 provides the county a comprehensive, detailed review of the merits and impacts of major energy generating projects, and weighs benefits against negatives in order to protect the interests of county residents.
It requires county commissioners to deny construction permits if applicants fail to adequately address Chapter 69’s requirements.
The state bill, being sponsored by Sen. Chris Hansen (D-Denver), expressly says that counties must bring their regulations into conformity with its dictates and counties cannot impose regulations more strict than the state bill.
The state bill addresses wildlife, setbacks, roads and decommissioning. All with a very light touch.
Contrast this with Chapter 69, which requires an applicant to provide evidence of what is impacted, how extensive the impacts and how the applicant will address the impacts. In addition to the four areas addressed in the state bill, Chapter 69 extensively reviews more than 15 areas of concern, including community patterns, ground and surface water, fire hazards, soils, transportation, need for and benefit of the project, and more.
State legislation is appropriate to create statewide minimums from which counties should be able to expand to ensure its residents – and state resources – are adequatly protected. For instance, currently Colorado Parks and Wildlife, charged with protecting High Priority Habitat for wildlife, may recommend applicants “avoid, mitigate, minimize” their projects in regard to wildlife needing protection. The state bill does not change these options.
Hesperus Solar is proposed to be built in CPW-designated High Priority Habitat. CPW has worked with Primergy to develop “mitigation and minimization” for its High Priority Habitat lands. But it did not even consider recommending Primergy “avoid” the High Priority Habitat area.
The state bill should mandate by statute – removing CPW discretion – that these massive industrial energy facilities not be constructed in any lands designated by CPW as High Priority Habitat. Keep the industrial facilities out of areas where wildlife – elk, deer, bear and all the others – are already struggling to survive.
This mandate would ensure that the state’s most valuable resources, like wildlife, are protected statewide. After establishing these state-interest thresholds of protection, the bill should allow the counties to decide if there are more protections needed in residents’ best interests.
Let your state legislators know the first-draft Solar and Wind Energy Facility legislation should be re-written to mandate avoidance of High Priority Habitat areas. And let counties expand on minimum requirements in the state bill.
Barry Spear is a retired lawyer who has lived in La Plata County more than 45 years. He participates in the ad hoc citizens’ group Stop Hesperus Solar.
