Solar setback: Planning Commission opposes approval of two projects - Final decision up to PC Commissioners
Samantha Goff
Grant Tribune Sentinel
Two separate but related solar farm proposals have ignited intense debate in Perkins County, as residents and officials weigh the promise of renewable energy development against concerns over property values, land use, and community impact.
During a pair of contentious public discussions at the Perkins County Zoning and Planning Commission meeting Monday night, representatives from Midwest Electric and Lightsource bp faced pointed questions and skepticism from dozens of residents and local leaders.
Both companies are seeking approval for solar projects east of Grant, part of a broader push to expand renewable energy capacity in the region.
Midwest Electric Project
Jayson Bishop, representing Midwest Electric, presented an amended application to the Perkins County Planning Commission after the utility moved its proposed solar array a half mile east to address concerns from neighboring homeowners.
The new site, still on the same property just outside of Grainton, would place panels farther from nearby residences and partially obscure them from view.
“We offered to move it a half mile east to try to get a little further away,” Bishop said. “It at least partially obscures it from their property. If the approval is granted, we would withdraw the original application.”
Midwest Electric’s solar farm is one of four planned sites in the region, two in Keith County and two in Perkins County, with each carrying an estimated $4 million price tag.
The $16.9 million total cost would be funded in part by a USDA loan, with about half covered through federal loan forgiveness and tax credits.
“The reason we chose those four sites and the size that we did, was because that allows all the power to be used by Midwest Electric,” adding “that’s one way we can try to keep rates as low as we can for our members, and locks in some cost of power going forward,” Bishop said.
Bishop explained the array would stabilize electricity rates and save members millions over the next 25 years, though they cautioned that residents should not expect significant drops in their monthly bills.
Some attendees expressed doubts about whether the benefits would outweigh the costs, raising issues such as potential declines in property values, environmental impacts, and whether the project would primarily serve the utility’s interests.
“There’s a lot of things you hear about solar,” one resident said. “Is it really all that good, and what is it going to be? What does this do to our property value?”
Bishop said cleanup bonds would ensure the land’s restoration if the project is decommissioned, and the panels come with a 25-year performance guarantee.
Lightsource BP Project
In a separate but equally heated request, representatives from Lightsource BP defended their $350 million proposal for a utility-scale solar farm that could cover up to 1,130 acres. The project is expected to generate $39 million in tax revenue over 35 to 40 years, with $21 million earmarked for local schools.
The company pledged to maintain a 500-foot setback from neighboring properties, use sheep grazing for vegetation control, and plant specialized seed mixes to improve soil quality.
However, residents raised concerns about the project’s location, visual impact, and potential glare.
Lightsource bp representatives acknowledged their process had been accelerated because of a newly imposed county moratorium on solar projects, which prompted them to move quickly before it took effect.
“We admit this hasn’t been our standard approach,” a project manager said. “The moratorium forced us to accelerate our process and we didn’t have time to meet with every neighbor as we normally would.”
Some residents criticized the limited outreach and late notifications to affected landowners. “It almost seems like this is just being rammed down our throat,” one attendee said.
Lightsource bp officials said they would relocate the project further south, away from the highway and residences, and confirmed the electricity would enter the local grid, potentially being purchased by regional utilities such as Tri-State, but there was no way to say for sure where the power will go.
Since the Lightsource bp solar panels are not reflective and built to absorb light, representatives explained that the glare concerns should not be an issue with their panels.
They also committed to a decommissioning plan and financial bond to ensure the land is restored at the end of the project’s life.
Lightsource representatives said they are committed to continue these conversations and hopes to move forward in good standings with the community.
Planning Commission Decisions
After lengthy discussions, the Perkins County Planning Commission voted against recommending approval for both the Midwest Electric and BP projects, citing unresolved concerns about proximity to residences, property values, location, and community notification.
The final decision now rests with the county commissioners.
The next Commissioner Meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 18 at 8:30 a.m. at the Perkins County Courthouse. Members of the Perkins County Planning Commission are: Tom Tines, Randy Gengenbach Gavin McClintock, Dawnya Dreiling, Nate Dodson, Greg Robertson, Jim Lampmann, Tim McQueen, and Shannon Malmkar. Jim Lampmann was absent from Mondays meeting.
A Broader Debate
The proposals come as Perkins County reconsiders its zoning regulations and weighs the long-term implications of renewable energy development.
The ongoing debate mirrors disputes in other rural communities across the Midwest, where solar projects promise economic benefits but spark push-back over land use, transparency, and the changing character of agricultural landscapes.