Sedgwick County denies permit for one of two proposed solar farms outside Wichita

The Sedgwick County Commission denied an application for a massive solar farm and battery storage facility just outside Wichita on Wednesday.

The decision came after a nearly seven-hour commission hearing on the Galena Solar Project, the first of two proposed solar farms applying for conditional use permits Wednesday to develop near Clearwater.

Wednesday’s marathon hearings came amid a six-month moratorium on conditional use permits for solar farms put in place in June and a one-year moratorium on battery energy storage systems issued by the Sedgwick County Commission in March. The developers filed their applications before the moratoriums took effect.

Sedgwick County Commission Chairman Jeff Blubaugh moved to deny the permit for several reasons, including that “the character of the neighborhood is not consistent with proposed uses, the zoning uses and nearby properties are not consistent with the proposed use and, lastly, there is significant neighborhood opposition to this application.”

The denial won 4-1, with Commissioner Ryan Baty the lone vote in support of keeping the project moving forward.

“In defense of our farmers and property rights for our landowners, I will be voting no,” Baty said. “Those farmers are hurting, and they have economic opportunity on their land, and I am not going to tell them no. I’m not looking our farmers in the face and telling them that the only thing they can do on their land is farm. I’m not doing it.”

The Galena project’s permit would have come with more than 40 conditions to regulate its development, construction, operation and decommissioning — from setbacks from waterways, to weed control, to limits on capacity and acreage, to an expedited timeline, along with a financial assurance that the developer would cover the cost of decommissioning the solar farm and restoring the site to its original condition.

Wednesday’s denial raises doubts about approval of a separate application for a Branch Line Solar Project nearby. The commission began considering it after denying the first project Wednesday.

The two projects sought to convert a combined nearly 3,000 acres of farmland near Wichita to solar farms and battery energy storage systems that tie into the Evergy transmission grid. Cropland would be converted to solar panel arrays capable of capturing sunlight and converting it to usable energy that’s fed into the power grid.

It’s not clear how the solar farms would affect local property tax revenues, county officials said.

Both projects would be eligible for the state’s 10-year property tax exemptions for renewable-energy-generating properties after completion, although the change in land type from agricultural to commercial could result in additional property taxes collected in the area. Any commercial or industrial machinery and equipment build or installed on site would be exempt from property taxes under a law signed by former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in 2006.

Brent Shelton, chief financial officer for Sedgwick County, said the county could come to some agreement with the developer at a later date on payment in lieu of taxes through issuance of industrial revenue bonds.

Galena Solar Project by Mission Clean Energy

Mission Clean Energy, the developer for the Galena project, is backed by two primary investors: Wafra, owned by the Public Institution of Social Security of Kuwait, and Orsted, majority-owned by the Danish government.

The Galena Solar Project — a 260-megawatt solar energy project on approximately 1,490 acres west from Ridge to 119th and south of 47th to 71st zoned rural residential, single-family residential and limited commercial — received preliminary approval in June from the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.

It would be bigger than the largest existing solar farm in the state located near Medicine Lodge but smaller than planned developments in Finney, Coffey and Johnson counties.

Sixty members of the public spoke on the Galena permit application, including nearby residents opposing the project and local union electricians who are backing it.

Concerns included potential negative impacts on nearby property values, energy rates, drainage, dust during construction, soil and groundwater contamination, fire protection and changing the character of the property from “living in the country” to a more industrial feel.

“We’re not opposed to solar,” Stan Evans, who lives in nearby Clearwater, said. “But we are opposed to these solar farms taking out (3,000) acres of productive farmland. There seem to be better places to put it.”

Proponents said the development would provide hundreds of temporary construction jobs, future renewable energy and the potential for increased revenue for landowners who now farm the area.

“We need to diversify our energy portfolio if we are going to meet the demands of an ever-changing technological world and build an energy infrastructure that is ready for what’s going to come next,” Jordan Nolan, president of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 271, said. “It’s an investment in the people who live here; this project will create opportunities for people to learn a real trade, build a career and make a good living.”

Branch Line Solar Project by TED Renewables

The Sedgwick County Commission was also scheduled to decide Wednesday on the future of another solar farm project near Clearwater.

Ted Renewables, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyr Energy developing the Branch Line project, is the North American clean energy division of Japanese conglomerate Itochu Corporation.

The Branch Line Solar Project — a 130-megawatt solar energy project on 1,359.6 acres west of Maize Road to 151st and south of 71st to 87th — received preliminary approval from the MAPC on June 25.

The Clearwater City Council voted to oppose the project in June. In July, Ted Renewables offered Clearwater $3.5 million to be used to fund fire protection for the nearby small town after the County Commission terminated the county’s mutual and automatic fire aid agreements with Clearwater and four other small towns surrounding Wichita. Clearwater heard the proposal but did not approve the agreement, given that the county had not yet approved the permit.