Regulators ask for more info on Goldfinch Solar Project

AINSWORTH — Companies planning a solar energy facility around Haskins in Washington County submitted a formal request for a generating certificate earlier in early May, but was met with delay last week by an order from the Iowa Utility Board to provide more information by June 24. The certificate is required before construction can begin under state law.

The application documents totaled over 800 pages between all 16 exhibits, but lacked a few items required by state code according to the regulatory board. Those items included a sufficiently detailed map, information on the facility’s busbar rating and statements confirming the company’s commitment to operation of the facility and adherence to land use laws.

Another filing from the Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate said Goldfinch Solar lacked “an analysis of the project’s impact on the transmission system,” also required by state law, since that analysis was not yet completed by another party. The OCA recommended that utility board members “require Goldfinch to update its application at the time such studies are completed.”

Otherwise, the application contains a wealth of information about the proposed project that would add 200 megawatts to Iowa’s solar energy capacity, almost a 50% increase from the status quo of 423.71 MW estimated by the Solar Energy Industries Association in 2021.

Solar facility not expected to impact property values

A third party market analysis company concluded that the solar installation would have little to know impact on the area’s sight lines or property values, according to their report included in the application materials.

The item was a big question for community members. While submitted data about property ownership was redacted for landowners’ privacy, the submitted application shows 96 distinct properties within 1,000 feet of the project boundary.

“The Project’s solar panels and equipment are low profile, similar in height to that of full-grown corn when at maximum tilt,” the Application for Generating Certificate said. “Solar facilities do not produce dust or emissions and do not emit excessive sound perceptible outside of participating parcels. In addition, the structures are designed to be removed when decommissioned and the Project’s land agreements and permits require removal and restoration at the cessation of operations.”

  Buy Photo

If the project goes through, panels would be installed on around 1,600 acres of leased agricultural land, around 90% of the which is currently in use growing row crops according to the packet.

While that will take the soil out of production for at least the length of Goldfinch’s 40-year service expectancy, developers said it could have long-term benefits for the farmers who own it, both as a source of revenue and a restoration of the local biosphere.

Applicants compared the environmental effects to those of a prairie for area pollinators and microorganisms, and said the land could even be used for animal grazing after panels were installed and cover vegetation planted.

“The Project will implement a ground cover strategy that will help restore land, using deep-rooted and nutrient-retaining plant species that condition the soil,” the packet said. “The use of such species as part of the vegetative mix for the Project will help to improve and maintain soil health, including significantly reduced topsoil loss through erosion, an increase in organic carbon levels, improved soil fertility through increased organic matter, and improved soil moisture and drought resilience.”

While some public comment-makers at meetings about the project worried about glare from the solar panels, a lengthy study labeled “Exhibit O” in the application materials concluded that glare would not be a concern for any of the 47 buildings — mostly residences — within 10 miles of the area, based on specialized computer models.

It reached the same conclusion for vehicles traveling nearby.

“Glare from the Project is not predicted to impact pilots landing at … Washington Municipal Airport and the Washington County Hospital and Clinics Helipad,” the exhibit said. “Results of the ForgeSolar analysis determined no glare from the Project is predicted to occur for drivers of vehicles on nine road segments adjacent to the Project.”

Ecological concerns also minimal

Broadly, applicants said solar energy would benefit “non-participating individuals” through the environmental effects of decreased air and water transmissions.

A sizable chunk of the application stems from “Exhibit L,” a 159-page environmental report prepared by Stantec Consulting Services LLC, operating out of Independence, Iowa, got more granular.

In a section evaluating any risk to endangered species, the document showed that some parts of the area, “Provide suitable summer habitat for the federally and state-endangered Indiana bat and federally threatened northern long-eared bat,” but that “, very few suitable maternity roost trees for either species were observed during the site visit.”

Download: GoldfinchSolarProjectMap.pdf

Most other threatened species known to exist in Washington County — including the Higgins eye pearlymussel and several prairie plants — had no suitable habitat in the study area or, in the case of monarch butterflies and barn owls, had more suitable alternatives outside of the construction zone.

A total of 18 wetlands were identified within the study limits during the field investigation, totaling about 14.67 acres. The area also contains three ponds and 24 waterways, only two of which — North Fork Long Creek and Whiskey Run — are named.

The consultant said any work around those areas may require approval from the Army Corps of Engineers.

“Prior to beginning work at this site or disturbing or altering wetlands, waterways, or adjacent lands in any way, Stantec recommends that the owner obtain the necessary permits or other agency regulatory review and concurrence with regard to the proposed work to comply with applicable regulations,” the document said.

Project may enable tax break, but would generate local dollars

Advocates for the Goldfinch Solar Project have pitched it as a source of sizable real estate tax dollars that can help fund schools and infrastructure, without the string attached of residents to use those public services.

In its application, the company said the solar farm would likely generate over $10 million in property taxes over 40 years, split more or less evenly between the county and nearby school districts.

An additional “replacement tax“ applies to the renewable energy site, according to applicants. The packet said Goldfinch would be subject to the state’s general power generation tax of ”six hundredths of a cent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated within this state during the tax year,“ given the lack of solar-specific tax mandates.

Chad Little, Conifer Power’s vice president of development, said in January that the companies involved could seek an investment tax credit to account for up to 30% of the cost of labor, development, equipment and construction for the solar facility.

“Because the IRS considers the amount invested to determine the amount credited against the taxes an investor would otherwise pay, developers do not receive any money from any state or federally funded sources, including grants,” he said in an email. “There is also no subsidy available after construction is complete.”

  Buy Photo

Plenty of other numbers are available in an economic analysis completed by Strategic Economic Resources LLC and filed on the project’s docket.

The facility is expected to cost a cool $266 million from its investors, and to generate $1.3 million in long-term local output per year. Numbers are bigger in the construction phase, during which Goldfinch Solar expects to generate 228 short-term local jobs in Washington County and over 430 across the state.

“Solar projects are economic engines for local economies,” said Conifer Power Vice President of Development Tom Swierczewski in an interview last summer. Conifer is the project’s developer, its owner is the Bechtel Corporation. “This project is going to pay millions of dollars in rent to our land owners, it’s going to create hundreds of construction jobs.”

Public opinion appears mixed

The IUB’s public docket for the Goldfinch Solar Project — labeled Docket Number GCU-2022-0002 — stretches back as far as July of last year, and is brimming with written public comments.

Most are letters of support, many of which were verbatim copies of about 10 different boilerplate comments.

“I believe that Goldfinch Solar is the perfect way for us to transition to a cleaner future,” read one letter of support. “Goldfinch Solar will bring new energy production in Washington County. Beyond that, they will also be bringing in new jobs that will help boost our local economy. Let's help bring Washington County into the future!”

That letter was attributed to Washington resident Don Kline, but identical to at least three others filed from January to March of 2023.

In a phone interview, Kline said he agreed with the project but had not submitted the letter himself. He and another area resident cited in a different word-for-word repeated statement of support said they were visited by someone on a door-knocking campaign about the project, who collected their email addresses.

“I’m assuming they did it on my behalf,” Kline said. “Somebody came to my door and said they were with some group and asked me if I was in favor, and I said, ‘Yes.’”

The owners of 12 other email accounts cited in repeated written remarks did not reply to requests for comments.

Most public remarks made at an in-person informational meeting in Ainsworth last September were critical of the proposed solar facility.

  Buy Photo

Some locals oppose the project’s potential for a tax break, whether in the form of a tax credit or sales tax exemption or any other method.

“You talked about a $250 million investment, I want to know if any of that is subsidized by grants, or tax credits, or offsets, state or federal,” Washington County Supervisor Jack Seward Jr. said at the meeting. “Are you actually putting $250 million into it? Or is that money coming from the government, which is our tax money?”

Others worry about a potential trade-off with food production. While the company’s application materials pitch the project scope as only “0.63% of Washington County’s 310,445 acres of farmland,” skeptics said they still found it wasteful.

“Not more than 2.5 miles north there is hundreds of acres of (Conservation Reserve Program land) that hasn't been farmed for years … it wouldn't take good ground out of production (and) it wouldn't take opportunity away from younger farmers,” wrote Washington resident Jon Litwiller in one comment, who said he farmed on leased land included in the project area. “I am not against renewables, what I am against is destroying prime farmland, which is a finite resource, to do it.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com