Natrona County commissioners deny permit for 2K-acre solar farm northwest of Casper

CASPER, Wyo. — After a nearly six-hour public hearing Tuesday, the Natrona County Board of Commissioners denied a permit for a proposed 2,000-acre solar energy development near Casper.

EG Haystack Solar LLC had requested the permit to build a 199-megawatt utility-scale solar energy system and a 100-megawatt battery energy storage system on 2,010 acres northwest of Casper, about 24 miles from the city and 0.4 miles south of U.S. Highway 26.

The commissioners listened to numerous voices both for and against the project before ultimately rejecting the proposal.

Natrona County Planner Shawn Gustafson opened the hearing, confirming all required project materials were submitted. These included landowner signatures and notices, jurisdictional notices, a project scope summary, utility information, a solar facility summary, a socioeconomic report, site plans and various environmental and operational plans.

Specifically, the submission covered drainage, erosion, dust control, grading, vegetation removal, waste management, reclamation, decommissioning, environmental analysis, solar glare analysis, a traffic study, legal access evidence, construction/operation transportation plans and a mineral rights notice.

Gustafson noted county employee comments, including input from the sheriff’s office, Emergency Management, Road & Bridge and the Natrona County Fire District. The Natrona County Planning Commission forwarded a “Do-Pass” recommendation on Nov. 12, 2024.

Initial presentation

Commissioner Dallas Laird began with a question for Gustafson.

“Is this a dangerous project to our people?” he asked.

“I don’t believe so, from what I have researched and from my knowledge of solar facilities today,” Gustafson said. “If we’re talking solar facilities from 15 years ago, possibly. Solar facilities of today, though, are much better designed and thought-out facilities than they were.”

Gustafson credited the solar farm safety to the advances in technology.

Natrona County District Fire Inspector Brian Oliver spoke about some of the concerns of both the fire district and the public. One of the biggest public concerns is the possible wildland fires that a solar facility could spark, and how long it would take for firefighters to arrive onto the site.

Commissioner Dave North asked Oliver about dispatch times if a fire were to occur.

“On dry roads, with our engines, we’re looking at about 25 minutes,” Oliver said.

The inspector said he and his team have worked on a response plan, were a fire to occur, and that even if the county built a fire station near the area where the solar farm would stand, they still wouldn’t have the resources to combat a major fire.

“Even if we’re there, even if we were on scene when the fire started, there’s not going to be much that we can do. We’re still going to have to, basically, let it burn itself out,” Oliver said.

Laird took that statement under heavy advisement, and it would eventually contribute to his final decision regarding the permit.

“As a commissioner, I don’t want to subject my people to danger,” Laird said. “I just don’t, unless we can handle it. And I’m hearing you say we might not be able to handle it.”

Oliver said, were a fire to occur, “It would definitely be a multi-agency response.”

Wildlife impact

Commissioners also heard about the impact a farm would have on the current wildlife that reside on or near the area.

Brandon Werner, wildlife management coordinator for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, said when a project like this is proposed to the Game and Fish Department, it goes immediately to its habitat protection branch.

“I’m here to be a voice for something that cannot speak for itself,” Werner said, “and that’s wildlife.”

After touching on potential pros and cons of a solar farm in the proposed area, Laird asked Werner what his opinion on the matter was.

“Knowing what you know, and it sounds like you’re a pretty good game warden and you lived out in this area, would you want that 2,000-acre farm to be there?” Laird asked.

“If I lived out in the country, I feel like I would want to see wildlife,” Werner said, “and I’m not saying that this would get rid of the wildlife. It will not. But the potential impact to reduce some populations is there.”

“So it’s a negative impact on the wildlife?” Laird asked.

Werner said yes.

“Any time you remove habitat from the landscape, it negatively affects wildlife,” he said.

Pleading their case

Representatives from EG Haystack Solar LLC pleaded their case for building the solar farm.

Dale Harris, a representative of Haystack’s parent company, Enfinity Global, offered a presentation in which he recognized questions, comments and criticisms from the Natrona County Planning and Zoning staff, as well as the general public. He touched on issues like fire and safety; potential hazardous materials that could come from the farm; visual and solar glare; impacts on the water, wildlife, and environment in the surrounding area; and more.

In the presentation, Haystack wrote the solar farm would have a positive economic impact on the community, as well as the state.

“Wyoming will likely gain economic benefits, including temporary and permanent job creation, tax revenues, and expansion of renewable energy generation within the region,” the presentation read. “An estimated $45.1 million would accrue to Natrona County over the life of the project from property taxes, over a 31-year period. An estimated $12.6 million, of which $5.7 million would accrue to Natrona County and municipalities, would be profited from sales taxes.”

The presentation noted other forms of economic benefit, and Harris spoke about project safety.

“It is extremely important for us, as a company, to make sure that everything that we are doing is going to be safe and not harm the community in which we are trying to build relationships with,” Harris said. “We have met with local agencies to review our emergency management plan. We have already incorporated some of their recommendations. We have provided multiple training sessions to the local agencies, and we have brought in some of the industry-leading experts in fire and battery safety.”

After Harris finished his near-45-minute presentation, including comments from Haystack’s attorney, the commissioners called for a 10-minute break before opening the hearing up to public comment.

More than 15 residents spoke out against the proposed solar energy farm, citing safety, visuals, wildlife, decommissioning costs and more.

Sheila Kilts, the property owner of the land where the proposed farm would be constructed, also spoke at the hearing.

“We support the Haystack Solar Project,” she said. “As landowners, we believe in and support property rights. So long as we’re not breaking the law or causing harm to others, we believe we should be able to do with our property as we see fit.”

The problem, many of the speakers argued, was that the solar project could harm others.

“Residents, myself included, [could see a] reduction of property value of at least 25%,” Michelle Sleep wrote in a comment. “I do not want my property value to go down; not for myself or for my future heirs.”

After close to two hours of public comment, commissioners allowed Harris the chance to offer a rebuttal to some of the voiced concerns. Laird then spoke up again, asking Harris a question that had been weighing on his mind since Oliver discussed fire response to the area.

“Specifically, if some tragedy occurs and it’s in the millions of dollars hurting these people, and their homes are devalued, who’s gonna pay them for that?”

“That is the purpose of insurance,” Harris responded.

“Did you bring an insurance policy with you?” Laird asked.

“We did not bring an insurance policy because we have not constructed the site,” Harris said, “but we will have an insurance policy that we will be happy to meet your requirements.”

“We’ve got to see that stuff before we give you a permit,” Laird said.

Harris asked Laird if insurance policies for other potential developments have been submitted before.

“In any other time you’ve reviewed businesses that were asking for permits, have you seen an insurance policy?” Harris asked.

Laird said he always looks into the insurance policies.

“Courts here make you give it to me,” he said. “These are things that people need to understand because you scared all these people about what could happen to their property, their animals, everything else. And I’m not hearing anything specific.”

Harris said the company would not begin construction on the project until their title insurance company signs off on it and underwrites a mineral estate.

“Here’s what I want to ask you,” Laird said. “Do you believe that you can just do this project and you don’t have to pay for damages that you may cause?”

Harris said no, he did not believe that.

“Well, how are you going to pay it if it’s in the millions of dollars and you have an LLC that has no liability to anybody?” Laird asked. “That’s why I want to know the parent company will insure the whole project.”

Harris said the LLC would be responsible for holding the insurance; not only the title insurance that ensures they have the right to build the project, but liability insurance as well.

“What insurance are they required to have that you understand?” Laird asked.

“If there’s a specific requirement you would like for us to meet, I’m sure we would be happy to meet that requirement,” Harris replied.

“Well,” Laird said, “the requirement is if you erect something and it’s a nuisance and it hurts people, they can sue you. Now, if they do that and they’re suing an LLC that has no money and no assets, it means nothing. That’s my whole issue here in protecting these people, if there should be some tragedy.”

Harris said the LLC has a $300 million asset, adding the project would have insurance to protect that asset, up to a point, if there are damages.

“The objective of the LLC, just like any other corporation there is or any other energy development company, is to be able to protect the larger company,” Harris said. “Of course, the asset itself is not valuable. This is a large investment for us and it does hold value. It will be the one responsible for the bond. It will be the one who owns the panels, the batteries, the substation, and we’re talking in recyclable material alone, tens of millions of dollars.”

“That doesn’t mean that the LLC has any liability to sell and pay for damages,” Laird said. “An LLC isn’t like any other corporation. You’re just making statements up, man. You’re not a lawyer and you’re not really explaining it properly. Is there a financial statement available? Do you have a financial statement you can show us?”

Harris said if the commission wanted additional financial details, the company would be happy to provide them.

“Good. I’d like them,” Laird said. “When can you get them to me? Tomorrow? Quick enough? You can have them email them, right?”

“Maybe,” Harris replied, “but the LLC owns the project. Is that not clear? That that is an asset?”

“I don’t know whether that’s true or not,” Laird said.

Final discussion

Following that exchange, the commissioners had their final discussion regarding the project before offering their motion.

Commissioner Jim Milne said the applicant hadn’t met 100% of the application requirements, especially in regards to points about drainage. However, he said, they met all other requirements when it came to Natrona County zoning.

“There are five of us up here that, through life experience, occupation, experience, whatever, have our own different thoughts, different viewpoints, and different beliefs,” Milne said. “One of my primary beliefs, and it’s bit me in the past, but I believe in private property rights, first and foremost.”

Milne said, with that in mind, he was voting in favor of the applicant.

Commissioner Peter Nicolaysen mentioned the commission had heard from a lot of people that night. He appreciated each comment and saw many of the points that were made throughout the discussions.

“Our sole determination tonight is to look out for the public interest,” Nicolaysen said. “But it’s also to apply the facts to the law, and our laws in section 5.09. And I think that they have complied, or substantially complied, with all of it. And to the extent that they haven’t, they’ve agreed to perform in a manner that would comply.”

Nicolaysen said the company “had their stuff more together” than a lot of other applicants he had seen.

“I believe the applicant’s attorney when he said, ‘Hey, if we would’ve known you guys wanted more information on insurance, we wish you would have let us know.’ I think there’s a point there. We are going to see economic benefits from this in the community. It’s not going to be all rosy and I think a lot of people in this room are going to be affected. And I’m sorry but, at the end of the day, for all of those reasons, I have to vote in favor of the private property rights.”

Laird said the commission was required by law to hold a public hearing. And, he said, at that public hearing, everybody has to be heard and their words should be taken into account.

“I serve the people here in Natrona County,” Laird said, “and I’ve heard them loud and clear. … I do think that [the solar farm] is going to harm. This is a substantial harm to the people of this county … and I’m gonna vote no for this. I’d vote no five times if I could.”

Commissioner Casey Coates said he had a lot of thoughts on the issue.

“First, is the continued citation of the ISA or follow on processes by staff appears to me to be an excuse for inadequate work,” Coates said. “The submittal is and was for the benefit of Natrona County and the people herein. I was talked to specifically on this as to what a complete application is.”

Coates said there is a difference between “complete” and “sufficiently complete.”

“Sufficiently complete” means that something is finished to the level that it’s adequate for its intended purpose, even if it’s not completely finished. The application, Coates said, was sufficiently complete. Which means it was not complete.

“This was a two-year project and we’ve heard that around 60 engineers work on it,” Coates said, “so the simple thought of, ‘Oh, hey, we missed this one piece’ — It doesn’t seem like a big deal, but it is a big deal because I can read. I would expect 60 engineers to be able to read. I expect our staff to be able to read. But it appears there’s quite a few people that need to go back and get some phonics training. In my world, complete means, simply, that all the boxes are checked.”

Coates cited a number of application questions and requirements that were not, in his mind, sufficiently completed. That included information on the issues of drainage erosion, dust control grading, vegetation removal and more.

“Most importantly, the applicant fails to address the components of the disposal and decommissioning program, and that a host of possibilities are provided without a commitment to any particular avenue,” Coates said. “We heard tonight that technology may improve, may change. That’s all well and good, but we have to worry about today, five years from now, and 30 years from now. So some commitment would have been amazing here.”

Coates said that without confirmation from the regional landfill that it would accept component waste, that section of the application was not complete.

“The county will not be burdened by status of that waste,” he said. “In regards to our staff planning and zoning and the comments from the applicant’s attorney, that certainly puts us in an interesting place. But I don’t feel that I can support voting yes on this at this point in time, strictly because of those deficiencies. Like I said, many people that looked at this over a period of time before this was submitted. So that’s where I’m at.”

Commissioner Dave North was of that mindset as well.

“I guess this whole thing comes back to, I’m disappointed in the process that has led us up to this point,” North said. “I believe the ball has been dropped. A lot of these items, in my opinion, should have been brought up in the planning and zoning.”

North said Coates identified many of the same areas of concern that he had himself.

“I understand that there’s been a lot of time that’s gone into this,” North said, “but I also understand that there’s a lot of people that are very concerned about their welfare and the safety in this county, whether downstream or next door, or even people that live here in town. I don’t believe that all of the necessary questions were addressed.”

North said he believed there were still some stones left unturned.

“As a result of that, I don’t feel, in good faith, that I can move forward because it does say ‘You shall do these things’ and they weren’t completed,” North said. “Whether [you got] the direction you needed, or you didn’t get the direction you needed, I���m not sure. But the fact is, we have a statute that we have to go by that basically says, ‘You shall do these things,’ and they weren’t completed adequately.”

North, who serves as the chairman of the Natrona County Board of Commissioners, called for a motion on the matter. Coates made the motion to deny the Haystack Solar Project permit application. Laird seconded it. The motion passed on a 3–2 vote.

“Motion carried, so we have denied this permit,” North said.

The crowd of people, many of whom sat in their seats for more than six hours in order to voice their concerns about the project, erupted into a round of applause.