Solar Power Sparks Concerns at Planning Commission Meeting

After taking a short break after discussing the proposed Subdivision Control Ordinance, the Washington County Planning Commission reconvened on the evening of Tuesday, October 7, to continue its ongoing discussions regarding a future solar ordinance that could determine how and where large-scale solar energy projects are permitted in the county. The conversation focused heavily on environmental impacts, land use, supply chains, and financial safeguards.

Planning Commission President and 2nd District Commissioner Todd Ewen at a previous meeting. Photo by Nathan Smith.

Commission President and 2nd District Commissioner Todd Ewen opened the meeting by introducing the Miami County Solar Ordinance as a potential model for Washington County to adopt.

“I hope everyone has had a chance to review the Miami County Solar Ordinance,” Ewen said. “It seems to be a fairly good fit for our county… we want to make sure, once again, that it’s fair to those who don’t want to look at solar fields and it’s fair to those who own the property and are wanting to lease to the solar companies.”

Ewen noted that the county’s current moratorium on solar farms cannot be lifted until an ordinance is adopted. He emphasized the need to balance property rights with land-use concerns, particularly related to potential abandonment or decommissioning issues if the industry’s technology changes over time.

Following Ewen’s introduction, recently appointed commission member Lucy Brenton raised a procedural matter before discussion of the ordinance began.

“I think the first thing we should start with is Indiana Code 36-7-4-223, to make sure that none of our commission members have a conflict of interest,” Brenton said. She then asked each member to declare any financial relationships or lease agreements that could present a conflict. All board members stated that they had none. “Very good,” Brenton said. “Then it looks like we can all discuss it.”

“Typically, we would sign a conflict of interest form if this would ever come up,” said Ewen, “but I'm glad we verbally stated that individually here.”

“Yeah, I think it’s super important for people to be able to trust us,” Brenton replied.

Dust, Maintenance, and Material Origins

Board member David Lyles began the evening’s first technical discussion by asking about maintenance and dust accumulation on solar panels during harvest season.

“This time of year, everybody’s combining,” Lyles said. “How will that affect solar panels and how will they be maintained?”

Ewen deferred the question to Owen Speth, Assistant Development Manager for Ranger Power, a Chicago-based renewable energy company that has been in communication with the county for several months.

“Mother Nature does usually take care of it in our experience,” Speth said. “If it did [become a problem], the panels, or the rows of panels, are wide enough for a truck to drive through. In deserts, you just drive through and spray them off.”

Lyles then asked about the panels’ country of origin.

“We can’t say right now because we haven’t built the projects,” Speth said. “But I can say that they will not come from China.”

Brenton followed up with questions about whether panels might be manufactured indirectly through other countries.

“Will they come from India, by way of China?” she asked. “Because people are really playing around with the tariffs right now.”

Speth said he could not speak to the entire supply chain, but added, “Our company policy these days is we don’t want them to come from China.”

Brenton replied, “That’s a good policy to have given the tariffs. So let’s make a note that we don’t want our panels coming from China in any way, shape, or form.”

“Do we want them American made?” asked Lyles.

“Yes, we definitely want American jobs,” Brenton said. “We want them American made. Is that feasible, Owen?”

“I’m not sure we can do that,” Ewen interjected.

“I mean,” Brenton continued, “each of these projects represent thousands of acres and thousands upon thousands of panels, wiring, batteries, switches, electronic equipment. I think it should be a goal that as much as possible, American dollars stay in America.”

Owen Speth, Assistant Development Manager of Ranger Power.

Land Use and Wildlife Concerns

Lyles raised additional concerns about the amount of farmland being converted for solar projects.

“My concern also is the amount of acreage that is going to take up good farm ground,” he said. “If they were being put on top of the courthouse or something, you know, wouldn’t bother me, but to take a couple thousand acres out of the loop...”

Speth responded that solar developers generally lease marginal land rather than high-yield acreage. “When you’re not getting at least 200 bushels of corn out of their land, they know they need to make money on it a different way.”

Lyles noted that marginal land often serves as wildlife habitat. Speth replied that fencing and land management practices can allow wildlife to adapt.

“We use wildlife fences at our projects,” Speth said. “They don’t block migration… we’ve seen more nesting of foxes and deer in those areas, because you can’t hunt and also you can’t put immense amount of pesticides down in a solar area.”

Brenton asked about setbacks from ponds and wetlands.

“We are required to set back from those water sources,” Speth said. “We delineate wetlands, we delineate flood plains… if there’s a pond, we’re not allowed to build on it.”

Excavation, Soil, and Property Protections

Brenton brought up concerns she had heard from other counties about excavation and topsoil removal. “It’s common for solar companies to come in and to excavate, to take off the good topsoil that we’ve developed over hundreds of years, and then to take that and sell it,” she said. “How does your company handle excavation?”

Speth replied, “We are required to keep all of the topsoil we grade on that property. And our decommissioning requirement requires us to reapply it at the end of our lease.”

Commission Vice President Kevin Baird asked whether that was required by law. “No, that’s just our standard lease,” Speth said.

“So we should make sure that’s in there,” Brenton said, “because there are going to be other companies that aren’t as forthcoming as Ranger has been.”

Brenton then shifted to broader concerns about protecting landowners and cited examples from other Indiana counties with more restrictive ordinances. She read excerpts from several other Indiana county codes, each of which imposes limits on project size, acreage, or location.

She also discussed potential fines for violations, noting that one county could impose a $2,500/day fine on landowners in the event of such a violation. She went on to explain that the Miami County ordinance had an indemnity clause that protected the county and its officials, but did not protect the landowners.

Panel Lifespan and Toxic Materials

Lyles asked about the long-term efficiency of solar panels. “In 25 years, what will be the efficiency of those panels?” he asked. “Everything I read points to 25 to 30 percent of the efficiency will be lost.”

Speth agreed, saying, “That sounds about right… that’s usually when we decommission the project.”

He added that even after decommissioning, panels may still have resale value. “There’s gonna be a huge resell market for these things in 20 years,” he said.

Brenton asked about toxic materials. Speth responded that the panels do not contain mercury, cadmium, or PFAS, only “cadmium telluride,” which he described as inert. “We do not use those [old-style] panels… we’re more than happy to be held to a standard of that.”

Board Member Lucy Brenton at a previous government meeting. Photo by Nathan Smith.

Noise, Data Centers, and Decommissioning

Brenton then raised questions about sound and potential future developments. “What kind of noise or frequency, vibration, can we expect to affect the adjoining landowners?” she asked.

Speth said the only noise source comes from inverter fans. “If you place them well enough, no one will hear them except for the landowner that might walk through the parcel,” he said.

Brenton continued with concerns about data centers potentially following solar projects into the county. “One of the things that concerns me,” she said, “is that we have the real privilege of living in Washington County, where we have a lot of caves... I looked at the wells that my neighbors have drilled in about a mile around me, and they're finding water at 25 gallons per minute at depths of 110 feet or 125 feet. I mean, that is such a privilege compared to, you know, a thousand that they might have to do in Arizona. And one of the things that I'm concerned about, is that the solar might be the camel's nose under the tent... that we have this captive power source that's solar, [and] it would be natural to bring in a data center after that. The data centers are notorious for running wells dry.”

“You want to keep this conversation on solar,” Speth replied, adding that a data center would require further approval from local governing boards. “I’m not here to build a data center, I’m here to build a solar project.”

The discussion eventually turned to financial assurances for decommissioning projects.

“It would depend on the amount of the bond that you would want us to pay,” Speth said. “It could be the value of the project plus 25%... or the cost of an engineer’s estimate.”

Brenton asked whether other counties had ever required cash to be posted locally instead of a bond.

“I would say that it’s a possibility,” Speth replied, “but it’s very expensive… if you require a company to post a cash bond to build something, I mean, is that a free market anymore?”

Debate Over the Miami County Model

Todd Ewen then steered discussion back toward the Miami County ordinance itself.

Brenton asked why Miami County had been chosen as a model. “There are 92 counties,” she said. “A number of them have solar ordinances that are much more restrictive and protective of the property owners and the adjoining property owners.”

Ewen responded, “This was one that is very current. It’s one of the most recent ones.”

“It just seems to have... inadequate protection,” Brenton said.

Board member Danielle Walker added that the Miami County ordinance was intended only as a starting point. “It’s just an example that we were trying to figure out where our comfort levels were,” she said. “We’re trying to find ones that are successful and build those off of that.”

Brenton concluded by offering to share her research. “I have a document with links that’s in Google Doc,” she said. “I’ll make it publicly shareable, and I’ll share it with all the members of the board.”

No formal vote was taken on the ordinance. The discussion is expected to continue at future Planning Commission meetings.