Columbia County P&Z Committee address heated crowd in wind power debate

As coalitions of local government, private organizations, and other volunteers have opposed the 765 kV transmission line slated for development through the region, the Columbia County Board is simultaneously facing questions about solar and wind-powered energy, which boiled over in the September planning and zoning committee meeting.

In the Columbia County Board of Supervisors August meeting, the board unanimously voted on a resolution demanding that the proposed route for the 765 kV BECI line be reassessed, given potential environmental, economic, and historical costs for residents. In the same meeting, supervisor Derek Granquist introduced two resolutions demanding that the county place a halt on any solar or wind-powered energy projects until further notice, and another creating a moratorium on data center development.

Neither of the two resolutions had been reviewed by a board of supervisors committee for recommendation per standard procedure, though Granquist insisted that they could be passed as emergency measures in the same way as the transmission line resolution earlier in the meeting. The route of the transmission line resolution had differed though, being based on a local resolution passed by the Town of West Point, and getting review from Columbia County Corporation Counsel, before amendments in an executive committee meeting held immediately before the full board meeting.

In the case of the solar and wind energy resolution, arguments echoed a similar issue brought in 2023, when a moratorium was proposed for commercial-scale solar generation in the county around the same time that the High Noon Solar project was being proposed in the southern part of the county, around Poynette and Arlington.

A costly dead end

At the time, Planning and Zoning, along with legal staff, advised that such a move would be a costly dead end, with the state’s Public Services Commission overseeing approval and siting of energy projects above 100 MW. As in the 2023 case, the county’s attorney’s advised that the county, by state law, does not have the authority to make such demands, and attempting to pursue such a policy would invite expensive and drawn-out legal and court costs.

Corporation Counsel issued a six-page memo regarding the issue as brought by Granquist in the July 15 county board meeting, as a motion for “Discussion and Possible Action on a Moratorium on Wind, Solar, and Data Center Projects” to be placed on the next month’s agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 16 to 10 with two abstentions.

“The statutes and case law are very clear on this particular issue: Columbia County does not have the authority to adopt a blanket moratorium on solar and/or wind energy facilities or their related permits,” the memo’s summary read. “The passage of a moratorium on wind and solar energy projects will likely lead to court cases and significant costs, both monetary and in staff time, to the County.”

In the Aug. 19 meeting, while Granquist’s wind and solar resolution did not pass in the full board, the board voted to have them sent to a relevant committee for review, with the promise that if not passed in that committee, it would return tot he full board, regardless of recommendations against by that committee or staff.

At the Planning and Zoning Committee’s meeting on Sept. 1, the board room was expectedly filled. Among the 11 residents who made comments during the public input portion of the start of the meeting, many, but not all, of those addressed Granquist’s proposal, and with a range of perspectives among them, including speakers opposing the resolution entirely, those agreeing with the sentiment, but not the method, and a resident who felt that a “pause” did not go far enough.

Limits within the system

Following nearly an hour of input, as the committee began to address the issue as an agenda item, Supervisor Keith Miller, of Fall River, suggested that, like the Federal Aviation Administration, the county could use a “letter of enforcement” to address companies suspected of overlooking local ordinances.

Planning and Zoning Director Kurt Calkins explained that additionally, towns under county zoning don’t have the authority to create zoning ordinances, that they are either with the county’s policies, or they are on their own. In certain towns, the local government can create a licensing ordinance, such as with a tourist rooming houses license or a local noise ordinance, but the county doesn’t enforce those.

Calkins said that they had come to expect that companies will not come to the county about zoning permits to do what they want to do with projects approved under the PSC. As an example, he pointed to the work by American Transmission Company at Highways 16 and 51.

“We had some weird inquiries about people doing the work out there,” said Calkins, “that project was approved by the Public Service Commission and they were informing us that they were going to use that land the way that the Public Service Commission said that they can, which is basically a laydown yard for the grid upgrade.”

When Planning and Zoning staff reached out to ATC about county zoning permitting for a laydown yard, they received a reply from the company’s attorney’s, in a formal letter, citing specific state law that essentially said they did not have to follow local regulations.

“When you ask me, ‘do you have ordinances that apply?’ My answer is that we don’t, because I accept the process,” said Calkins. “The towns that want more engagement and moved ahead with adopting ordinances, I think the issue is that they say, ‘Why hasn’t Alliant come to us?’ And I think Alliant doesn’t come to them, because they know they don’t have to.”

Asked about concerns about land reclamation following decommissioning of a project, Calkins said that it was literally above his “pay grade.” And that the PSC will require some financial assurance for after permitting.

If the project is under 100 MW, and is under the county’s authority, as opposed to the PSC, the county has required decommissioning assurance. If the project is of greater scale, the company will say that “the PSC already dealt with that.”

Committee Chair Jeffrey Leckwee opened the meeting to additional questions on the subject, to which Granquist pointed to a document from the PSC website listing “municipal ordinances applicable to the project,” which included Columbia County ordinances.

Pacific Town Supervisor Andy Ross spoke up, confirming the situation had been as Calkins described it.

“The only thing we were able to do was to get an understanding about the heavy trucks coming onto our road, because Murray Road is on the north end of that property,” said Ross, “so the roads we were able to do something, but the rest, we were advised that we really had no authority to get involved with it—we didn’t like it, but it was what it was.”

Ethics and Energy

Committee member, Tess Carr, of the Town of Lodi, after pointing out that the word “applicable” on the PSC website was not as legally binding has might have been suggested, and shared concerns about issues of ethics and transparency regarding the committee’s work.

She had been sent screenshots of discussion online, including by Granquist, who she quoted. The comment by Granquist appeared responding to a post about hopes of the committee working in the residents’ interest: “‘Some do, but there’s a group, starting with the chair and vice chair, who are beholden to Big Corp Power’… I’m the Vice Chair and Supervisor [Douglas] Richmond is the Chair … ‘They talk real purrty during elections and then do what they want because they think no one is watching and they won’t be held to account. Hold your representatives accountable.’”

“This concerns me greatly, because it isn’t true, and people say untrue things all the time, and that’s not so big of a deal,” said Carr, “except that I think there is actual harm here that it is creating a cloud over the transparency and ethics of the members of the Columbia County Board who are trying to conduct government business in a way that—in good faith—serves the residents of Columbia County.”

Carr went on to read following comments, one suggesting that someone needed to “shed a light” on her and Richmond, and another accusing her of being an Alliant plant on the board, another asking: “What is she getting out of this? … she has a huge beef with Derek and his fight for the people.”

“This undermines the good faith ability of this committee to work to actually try to comply with the law to do what we can within the regulatory framework that we we have to work within, listen to our corp counsel advice, and be productive and serve transparently without this mistaken false cloud of an ethical compromise,” said Carr.

Carr went on to declare her intentions to file a formal ethics complaint against Granquist for falsely suggesting that she was receiving some kind of financial kickbacks from renewable energy developers and Alliant Energy. She went on to invite Granquist to present any evidence for such claims.

“I’m sure if you have any evidence, you’ll present it,” said Leckwee.

“I’ll give you ten seconds,” said Granquist. “There’s a saying I heard growing up: if you shoot a shotgun into a pack of wolves, the one that’s hit will howl.”

“So no evidence,” said Carr.

“I said it,” said Granquist.

After just over an hour of debate and amendment discussions, Leckwee called for a break, at which Carr invited any attendees with questions for her to ask in person while they were all there.

At the end of the meeting, the committee approved an amended version of “Temporary Pause and Coordinated Review of Major Energy Infrastructure,” which will be brought before the full board on Sept. 16.