OCA declines to recommend more solar project hearings

HASKINS — The Office of Consumer Advocate, part of Iowa’s Department of Justice, said Tuesday it has no issue with Goldfinch Solar Project LLC’s request to skip public hearings before its approval decision from the Iowa Utilities Board.

Company representatives had previously asked the state to skip public hearing proceedings in order to save time and resources that the generating certificate approval process would otherwise entail.

“It is OCA’s opinion that the evidence in the record demonstrates Goldfinch has satisfied the criteria for receiving a (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity,)” said a document filed on the solar project’s IUB docket Tuesday afternoon, signed by Consumer Advocate Lanny Zieman. “OCA does not object to Goldfinch’s requested waiver of the hearing and other procedural requirements.”

The move comes after the close of the public comment period on Sept. 3 for the proposed 200 MW energy project at the eastern edge of Washington County, largely around the unincorporated community of Haskins.

A handful of community members added their input to the docket before that deadline. Washington Economic Development Group Director Mary Audia wrote that the project would “benefit all residents of Washington County,” while critics like Washington Resident Nancy Lovejoy claimed that solar energy was unreliable and that “this $250 million could more wisely be spent on nuclear energy.”

Several previous critics of the project have voiced skepticism about potential tax breaks for the developers.

More recently, labor groups have entered the fray.

The Great Plains’ Laborers’ District Council, sharing a signature line with the Laborers' International Union of North America, filed a petition to intervene on the solar project’s docket Sept. 1. The organization, which says it represents about 4,000 Iowans, argued that its participation in the approval process was much-needed.

“The construction of energy infrastructure, including utility scale solar plants, is a core industry for the union,” that petition said. “Utility scale solar projects have the potential to generate hundreds of family-sustaining jobs for local workers … As one of the core construction unions in Iowa building renewable energy plants, GPLDC’s participation in this proceeding can reasonably be expected to assist in the development of a sound record.”

Richie Schmidt, the director of Iowa LECET — an affiliate of the Laborer’s International Union — said the groups weren’t necessarily requesting a public hearing, but wanted some role in the rest of the utility project’s approval process, whatever that may be.

In an interview Wednesday afternoon, Schmidt said his group had a rocky history with Conifer Power Company, the developer of the Goldfinch project. He cited disagreements with the corporation’s decisions on other Iowa endeavors, including the Salt Creek Wind project in central Tama County, which as of May, was the subject of several lawsuits according to a report from the Tama-Toledo News Chronicle.

“We don’t want to inconvenience the Iowa Utilities Board and we certainly don’t want to inconvenience any land owners,” Schmidt said. “If we could avoid a hearing, we would. We do want a spot at the table just because we’ve had some issues with this developer (and) we don’t want the folks of Washington County to have to endure some of the same things that have happened in other counties when it comes to Conifer Power.”

Schmidt claimed Conifer Power representatives had agreed to at least two meetings with labor representatives this year, but did not show up to either of them or provide an explanation for their absence when asked. He also claimed the company had urged public officials not to speak with LECET spokespeople about the project, but did not specify which officials when asked.

The unions hope to get their questions answered through the intervention process instead. Schmidt doing so was the groups’ “only avenue,” but declined to clarify what their questions were, in an effort to save them for official proceedings.

“We meet with people all the time, just to talk about some of these issues and construction issues and putting local people to work,” he said. “I’ve been doing this for 16 years, and never been treated this way before. I think the answers we’re looking for are probably in the omission … the lack of response that we’ve gotten from the developer doesn’t bode well for the community.”

The companies involved in the Goldfinch Solar Project have until Sept. 10 to file any responses to comments on the docket according to an already-posted timeline from the IUB, which is thereafter expected to announce plans for the rest of the proceedings.

If given the green light by state regulators, the companies expect the Goldfinch Solar Project to start commercial generation in 2025. Older items on the project’s IUB docket say it would take up around 3,200 acres of leased farmland in the area, and require about $250 million of investment to bring online, before accounting for potential tax credits.

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com