The Lancaster County Board of Commissioners unanimously voted (5-0) Tuesday to approve a controversial solar panel facility just east of the village of Hallam.
The “solar-farm” facility, dubbed the Panama Energy Center, will be run by the Florida-based NextEra Energy Resources — the world’s largest operator of wind and solar projects. The project will stretch more than 2,400 acres. According to NextEra, the project could bring up to $42 million into Lancaster County and create more than 200 jobs during construction.
Commissioners delayed last week’s vote, originally scheduled for Jan. 14, after dozens of residents near the project site came to the meeting to speak in opposition to the project. Many of the objections to the project centered around potential negative effects on property values, proximity of the panels to homes, skepticism around solar energy, and an apparent conflict of interest from Commissioners who received political campaign funding from NextEra.
However, several groups did testify in support of the project. This included local worker unions who would supported the creation of jobs that could be done by members living in the community, as well as climate advocacy groups who are concerned about the destructive effect of fossil fuels. Of course, legal representation for NextEra also voiced their support.
Commissioner Sean Flowerday noted that none of the opposition from the community for this project contested that NextEra’s application for the permit failed to meet the related-requirements. Commissioner Christa Yoakum echoed Flowerday’s comment.
Prior to today’s vote, the Board’s loan Republican Commissioner Matt Schulte failed a motion to deny the special permit due to a lack of a “second” from another commissioner on that motion.
“Seeing as there’s no interest in denying the permit, I want to make this project the best possible for the people in the neighborhood,” said Schulte after his motion failed.
A Schulte amendment that did, however, make it into the final proposal will push solar farms further away from homes and prevent the developer from using parts manufactured by entities identified by Chinese military companies operating in the United States.
Commissioner Chelsea Johnson added an amendment to better address the facilities effects of erosion and vegetation in the area, as well as compel NextEra to consult with the Lancaster County Weed Super Intendent. This passed unanimously.
Commission Chair Rick Vest proposed an amendment which encourages Next Era to “demonstrate they want to be a good neighbor” and use local labor for the construction of the project and that 50% of those workers should be union members. This non-binding “encouragement” passed 4-1, with Schulte voting no.
Vest, perhaps trying to mend the divide, introduced an amendment which would require compensation for landowners who may be surrounded by the project on three or more sides. Vest specifically named the landowners who testified in opposition that he believed would qualify. In a divided vote, this amendment failed 3-2, with Flowerday, Yoakum, and Johnson voting no.
“It feels like we’re picking winners and losers here,” Flowerday said to Vest. “I’m just not with you on this one.”
“I have extreme skepticism about solar. I don’t particularly like the location of this being installed in someone’s backyard. The people that came to oppose this all live in the area,” said Schulte. “The only people who came in support of it live in Lincoln and Omaha, and to those people, I would say ‘Put a solar panel in your backyard.’ If solar is so beneficial I would encourage Lincoln and Omaha people to fight to get it in your neighborhood rather than installing it in someone else’s neighborhood.”
Ultimately, when the vote came, Schulte sided with the rest of the board.
“I want you to know I heard you, I fought for you,” said Schulte, talking to residents who opposed the project. “I am going to vote for this because I think this is the best we can do without denying the permit today.”
The board voted 5-0 to approve the permit with the approved amendments.