These fields east of Arlington are among those that energy firm Invenergy has proposed to lease for installation of solar arrays as part of the High Noon Solar Project being proposed to replace roughly a third of the power generated by the Columbia Energy Center, scheduled to be decommissioned in the coming years.
A map of the area being considered for use in the proposed High Noon Solar Project by renewable energy firm Invenergy, plotted out over an area of 4,300 acres in Columbia County, though the actual siting area is expected to be more in the area of 2,000 acres.
These fields east of Arlington are among those that energy firm Invenergy has proposed to lease for installation of solar arrays as part of the High Noon Solar Project being proposed to replace roughly a third of the power generated by the Columbia Energy Center, scheduled to be decommissioned in the coming years.
A map of the area being considered for use in the proposed High Noon Solar Project by renewable energy firm Invenergy, plotted out over an area of 4,300 acres in Columbia County, though the actual siting area is expected to be more in the area of 2,000 acres.
The Columbia County Planning and Zoning Committee passed two resolutions on Tuesday afternoon directed at state legislators and the Public Service Commission, with support from opponents of the proposed High Noon Solar Project.
At a Dec. 6 meeting, committee members agreed to develop a resolution directed at the state legislature, asking for an amendment of relevant laws and regulations dictating how the PSC proceeds with project siting and approval. The atmosphere of the meeting included jeering and heckling by members of the audience, largely among those in opposition of the High Noon Solar Project.
Among those who had been at the December meeting was Elizabeth Groves, who during her comments, was warned by county attorney Susan Fisher about the potential hazards of making accusations against individuals in a public forum without factual foundation. Groves had seemingly not moderated her position in the March 7 meeting.
“The resolutions that are being proposed today are not ordinances violating state law,” Groves told the committee. “This is simply an ask to the PSC and to the state and if you refuse to do something this simple today, the people of this county will be forced to believe there is nothing other than nefarious intent at play here, which I absolutely don’t doubt is the case with Mr. Hahn as it appears that he has no plan to act in the best interests of his constituents any time soon.”
One of the resolutions, directed toward the Wisconsin PSC, appears to presume limited or no immediate need for new energy development. Alliant Energy, in 2021 announced the Columbia Energy Center in Portage was slated to be decommissioned, then announcing in summer 2022 that the schedule closing would be postponed to June 2026.
The resolution, authored by Committee Chair Denise Brusveen, of Poynette, points to state law giving authority to restrict projects if there is an alternative of comparable cost and efficiency.
“There is already a power plant that utilizes coal to power homes and businesses in Columbia County that has a useful life extending beyond its current slated closure date, which exceeds these standards because it would not incur any additional construction costs; and it is capable of providing more reliable and consistent energy independent of weather conditions, which can sometimes be harsh during Wisconsin winters.”
The resolution goes on to request the the PSC deny the application for the High Noon Solar Project, claiming that it poses a threat to public health, welfare, and safety, in violation of state law. It goes on to request the PSC to create rules requiring solar developers to post documentation confirming financial security through a bond or the cost of decommissioning. It also requests that the PSC add restrictions singling out solar energy as being ineligible for eminent domain due to the scope of land impacted.
Committee member Adam Hahn, of Cambria, brought up the question of who drafted the two resolutions, to which Brusveen said that she drafted both after conferring with members of the public.
“The door has always been open,” said Brusveen, “and it is always possible for anyone who wants to, to have an amendment to any document.”
Hahn expressed his concerns that it had been his understanding after their last meeting that he had wanted for the committee to conduct discussions to address concerns from the public as well as hear from the parties that have show interest in doing business in the county.
“Here we are and we haven’t met and we’re going to have a resolution about something–and again we haven’t asked the questions or addressed the concerns of the people that have spoken,” said Hahn, “so I do have concerns.”
A point of issue among some attendees was the possibility of the county entering a joint development agreement on the topic of solar energy. Attorney Fisher explained that there is no current development agreement and there is a meeting date that is currently being planned for discussion among a broader committee open to all supervisors, such as those with specific interest in highways and road maintenance as it applies.
When asked about a meeting date of March 27, Fisher explained that there was no such meeting scheduled for that date, and she did not know where it had come from, but that there were plans for scheduling a meeting in the future.
Supervisor Harlan Baumgartner of Rio echoed Hahn’s frustration about believing there would be a collaborative effort among the committee members to develop a solution to the variety of issues at hand.
“To me, this is a resolution from [Brusveen], this isn’t a resolution that we’ve sat as a committee and put together,” said Baumgartner, pointing to information from the Association of Towns that highlights the reason the state oversees such development, that any municipality would inevitably deny any proposed energy infrastructure. He went on to say that would be his reason for voting against the resolution and that he wanted to meet with the companies in question, “to see what we can come up with.”
The resolution finally passed three to two, with Brusveen joined by Supervisors Andrew Kolberg, of Poynette, and Douglas Richmond, of Lodi.
The second resolution suggesting edits to the state code regarding local authority in approval of energy projects, including guidelines for rejection of solar projects, which Brusveen described as incomplete, but giving a starting point for discussion was passed unanimously.
