The Sedgwick County Commission will vote Wednesday on a new set of regulations governing large-scale solar farms.
The rules are slightly more stringent than a set previously adopted by the commission in 2019. They would only apply to commercial scale solar farms in Wichita and Sedgwick County – not rooftop solar found on some homes and businesses.
The commission put a temporary ban on new commercial solar projects last September, and it’s set to end March 20th.
The moratorium was meant to allow the commission to revisit its rules for commercial solar farms because the energy source is becoming more ubiquitous: a 103-megawatt farm was recently proposed between Colwich and Maize. Chicago-based Invenergy is leasing about 750 acres of land for the project, called the Chisholm Trail Solar Energy Center.
Community opposition to the project has grown, with residents citing complaints about the farms constraining small cities’ growth and fear about groundwater contamination.
Proponents champion the environmental need to use renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, as well as solar farms’ economic benefits – jobs and property taxes. Kansas statute grants a 10-year property tax abatement to renewable energy sources, so many companies offer a payment in lieu of taxes instead.
If the commission wants to change the proposed regulations instead of approving them, it has the option on Wednesday of voting to extend the temporary ban until late June.
Here’s what to know about the proposed regulations.
What are the new commercial solar regulations, and how are they different from the former ones?
The 2019 regulations required submission of a conditional use application and about 20 additional pieces of information, including an environmental assessment and a plan for retiring the solar farm. It also set height limits and minimum setback of panels from the road.
The new regulations add to these rules. Among other additions, they require:
- Groundwater testing at the site of the solar farm before, during and after its installation.
- The applicant to provide safety data sheets on the construction materials included in the solar farm, which the county will review to recommend what groundwater chemicals should be tested for.
- Height limits for the panels of 25 feet, down from the previous limit of 35 feet.
- The applicant to provide financial assurance that they can pay for the plan to retire and deconstruct the solar farm, using something like a surety bond or cash held in escrow.
How did the regulations get to this point?
The county underwent significant public outreach and planning since last October to update the rules on solar regulations. In November, the county opened an online survey and held an open house for community members to give feedback on solar rules.
A subcommittee within the Sedgwick County-Wichita Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC), which oversees zoning and land use issues, also spent multiple meetings gathering community feedback and rewriting the rules. In February, the subcommittee sent the rewritten regulations to the entire MAPC, which approved the new rules by a 13-1 vote.
What don’t the new regulations do?
The county and planning commission got feedback from the public asking for:
- A limit to the size of the farms.
- A buffer zone that would prohibit commercial solar around small cities like Maize and Colwich to account for their future growth.
The proposed regulations do neither of these. That’s because the MAPC subcommittee felt size limits for solar farms could be imposed on a case-by-case basis. The subcommittee also felt the existing planning process gives small cities enough opportunity to provide feedback on potential solar farms, said Justin Constantino, a principle planner with the city-county planning department, at a February MAPC meeting.
Commissioner David Dennis represents the district that includes Colwich. At a staff meeting in February, he said he doesn’t think solar should be built in cities’ “areas of influence,” land the county has designated around small cities as space for urban growth.
“I support solar,” Dennis said. “... We have to protect the cities also. And those cities have growth areas that they’re concerned about.”
Farmers seeking to rent out their land to solar developers have argued against this provision, saying that they don’t get to vote for the elected officials running small cities. Jim Linnebur is leasing his farm to the Chisholm Trail solar project in west Sedgwick County.
“I hope and pray you have the common sense not to put a ban on solar farms in areas of influence or to limit the size of the solar farm, and respect our property rights,” said Linnebur at a February planning commission meeting.
Who’s in support of these regulations?
Those in support of the proposed regulations include the company wanting to build a solar farm, some environmental advocates and farmers hoping to lease out their property. They say the regulations are robust while still protecting private property rights.
Linnebur said he’s comfortable with the new regulations as they are currently proposed.
“We agreed with that stuff,” he said. “But we all know that the county commissioners can change it after they’ve gone through the work of researching it and everything. We would like for the county commissioners just to approve it the way the other two boards approved it.”
Invenergy said in a statement to KMUW that the company also supports the revised regulations.
Kent Rowe is a chairperson of the Kansas Sierra Club’s energy committee. He said he supports the proposed regulations because they aren’t overly burdensome to prevent solar developers from building in Sedgwick County.
Rowe said he hopes to see solar and other renewable energies replace fossil fuels.
“This is a major power plant. This is a power generating station,” Rowe said. “The only difference is, it does not use coal from Wyoming, shipped via rail. It does not use fuels from as far away as Alberta, Canada, pipelines, and so forth. It does not use rail cars full of crude oil rolling through cities and towns.”
Who isn’t?
Some neighbors of the proposed solar farm and several small cities in west Sedgwick County have registered their dissatisfaction with the proposed regulations. Many want limits on solar farms in cities' areas of influence.
The city of Colwich passed a resolution opposing the Chisholm Trail solar farm, while Maize wrote a letter asking the county to prohibit utility scale solar projects in cities’ areas of influence.
Nick Gregory is Maize’s city manager, and he said the city has seen significant housing and industrial development over the past decade.
“We feel strongly that we’ve got incredible momentum happening as a community, and we’ll continue to see growth,” Gregory said. “But with a 750- to 1,500-acre (solar) development between us and Colwich, it will definitely stunt any sort of growth Maize has continued to see really since 2010.”
Leroy Bosch lives in the unincorporated area of Sedgwick County, close to Colwich and next to the proposed Chisholm Trail solar farm. He said he doesn’t think the county’s rules are strict enough.
“In a nutshell, the proposed regulations that MAPC has forwarded to the county commission are woefully inadequate for what’s going on in Sedgwick County,” Bosch said.
