Goldfinch Solar meets additional information deadline

AINSWORTH — Representatives involved with the Goldfinch Solar Project in eastern Washington County filed new information with the project’s Iowa Utility Board docket June 20, four days before a deadline set by regulators to clarify facts about the energy facility.

The company uploaded a more detailed map of the project area, which included coordinates of nearby towns and labels of the closest flood plain to the sites. It also clarified information about the project’s bus bar rating, and replied to an IUB request for a company statement about its intentions.

“Goldfinch Solar Project, LLC, is willing to construct, maintain, and operate the facility pursuant to the provisions of the certificate and Iowa Code chapter 476A, subchapter 1,” said a written affidavit signed by Goldfinch Solar Project Vice President Matthew Strangfeld.

The IUB also required that the company make a statement confirming that the facility would remain “consistent with reasonable land use and environmental policies,” from the construction phase onward.

While Goldfinch did not upload a separate affidavit to that effect, a line-by-line response to the IUB order signed by company attorneys said the project was in compliance with the requirement by extension of its adherence to other regulations.

“According to 199 IAC 24.10(2)(b), any adverse impacts of the proposed facility have been reduced to a reasonable level,” the company response said. “The site represents a reasonable choice among available options, and the proposed facility complies with local zoning and other requirements.“

A fact sheet from Goldfinch Solar LLC said the project would cost around $250 million, with a generating capacity of 200 megawatt-hours, which it said was “enough power for up to 33,000 U.S. homes. If approved by state regulators, the company expects its facility to start commercial generation in roughly 2025.

The project does still have its critics, however. Some locals argue that the facility would take valuable farm land out of production, and rely on taxpayer subsidies they don’t support.

While the company has stated plans to apply for an investment tax credit which would offset up to 30% of its costs, but Haskins farmer Dave Skubal said he worried government support would go further.

“I don’t have a problem with solar panels if they’d pay for it themselves,” he said. “It’s just a taxpayer rip-off.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com