COLUSA COUNTY, CA (MPG) – The Colusa County Board of Supervisors last week blocked a controversial solar project from going forward on the grounds it did not comply with the “intent” of the county’s General Plan, which recognizes that agricultural land is the county’s “greatest natural asset” and recommends taking all appropriate measures to restrict the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses
The decision was not unanimous and did not follow the recommendation of county staff, who prepared the environmental analysis and opined the 1,000-acre commercial solar generation project was allowed.
Board Chairman Gary Evans, whose signature is affixed to the 2030 General Plan, which was prepared by a consultant in 2012, agreed that the plan, to some degree, has conflicting language when it came to “off-site” commercial production of wind or solar energy, but that no one had anticipated a project so large as to have 197,000 solar panels and a battery storage system covering land typically used for grazing cattle.
“We never envisioned that size of solar system to be hooked up to the grid,” Evans said. “Yeah, it (says) commercial wind and solar…but this was Mayberry in 2012.”
Evans said he did not want to harpoon commercial solar generation in Colusa County, because it will eventually be required. In fact, the Colusa Groundwater Authority, of which Evans is a director, plans to include incentivizing land use changes from agriculture to renewable energy as a mitigation measure in their Groundwater Sustainability Plan to prevent groundwater depletion and land subsidence. The revised plan goes back to the Department of Water Resources in April.
The Janus Solar Project, which would have been constructed 6.5 miles southwest of Williams, has been in the works since 2020. RWE applied for the permit to construct, operate, and maintain the large photovoltaic facility with a battery storage system about 1.6 miles south of Spring Valley Road.
While the project was met with opposition from neighboring property owners, it was largely supported by Colusa County residents because of the $42 million in total economic benefits that would come to the region over the 35-year lifespan of the project.
But Evans, along with Supervisors Janis Bell and Daurice Kalfsbeek Smith, agreed that the county’s General Plan and zoning ordinance does not address battery storage, which is the most controversial aspect of the project, and located on lands designated as high risk for wildland fires.
Evans said he even called the consultant, who agreed that when it came to off-site energy production, the county envisioned 3-to-5-acre commercial projects “here and there,” and that battery storage of any kind was never contemplated.
“We just never envisioned 800 acres of solid solar panels…” he said. “It may not be 10,000 acres but it’s big for Colusa County.”
Supervisor Merced Corona, who was the lone dissent, said he was comfortable with Williams Fire Protection District’s assessment that the fire concerns had been satisfactorily mitigated and with Community Development Director Greg Plucker’s analysis that the project is compliant with the county’s policies.
Corona said there was not a better location for the project and that renewable energy production in Colusa County needs to happen.
“It is our future and I feel like it’s now or probably never,” Corona said. “Because Janus Solar is going to find Glenn County, who will say come on over here, or Butte County, or some of these other counties…We can speculate all we want, but sometimes you have to look at risk versus reward, and I think, in this case, the reward is a lot greater than the risks. Lastly, I go back to my promise to my constituents when I came on board, and that was to bring businesses to Colusa County. If we can’t bring this kind of business to the county, then we probably are not going to bring very many businesses to our county because they are going to find out we could not make a decision on this, and they will go elsewhere.”
Smith said her denial was based on the Agricultural Element of the General Plan, which states that farming and related agricultural industries are not only the backbone of the local economy but play a central role in the way of life of county residents and help define the character of the county.
“I’m still struggling to find that use should not be detrimental to the rural character of the county or the area, and that conversion should not be detrimental to the existing agricultural operations of the area,” Smith said.
Smith said she hates to tell landowners what they can or cannot do with their property, but the county for 20 years opposed a commercial landfill in that same area for the same reason.
The county denied the project on a 4-1-1 vote, with Supervisors Kent Boes absent.
Boes was on county business out of state, but would have recused himself, based on the FPC’s opinion that he has a remote interest in the Williams Fire Protection Authority, whom he serves as a volunteer.
The board agreed that their denial did not indicate their lack of support for renewable energy, but that staff needed to first look at the inconsistency issues within the General Plan and have the county’s zoning policies updated to reflect newer renewable energy technology, such as battery storage, which was never envisioned when the General Plan was adopted.