Sponsored By
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
VIOLA and HAVERHILL TOWNSHIPS, Minn. — Last week’s decision by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to approve the site permit for the 180-megawatt Lemon Hill Solar Project means the project has cleared one of its biggest hurdles.
But there are still more steps before any dirt is moved and solar panels start sprouting up on the roughly 1,700 acres in Haverhill and Viola townships in northeastern Olmsted County.
ADVERTISEMENT
For Ranger Power, the Chicago-based developer behind the project, the next steps include getting construction permits from responsible government units, including Olmsted County.
In a statement after the PUC decision, Sergio Trevino, vice president at Ranger Power, said the permit represents “a significant milestone in the project’s development.”
Touting the investment in the county and potential of $33 million in property tax benefits over the life of the project, he added it was developed in partnership with private landowners.
A statement from PUC after Thursday’s decision said construction on the project is planned for 2027. The utility-scale solar project would then be operational in 2028.
“Lemon Hill Solar is poised to make a meaningful contribution to Minnesota’s clean energy goals while delivering substantial economic benefits to the surrounding community,” Trevino said. “Once operational, the project will generate clean, low-cost electricity with the capacity to power tens of thousands of Minnesota homes.”
But not all landowners are part of the Ranger Power deal, and many in the area are unhappy with PUC’s decision, especially as it disregarded the ruling from administrative law judge Ann C. O’Reilly, who recommended on Sept. 8, 2026, that PUC should deny the permit application or, if not denying the application, should require more environmental review.
O’Reilly added that further environmental review should focus on the project’s impact on human settlement — specifically paying attention to aesthetics, cultural values/character and property values — land use conflicts, loss of agricultural resources and groundwater risks associated with the karst terrain and the project’s location.
ADVERTISEMENT
While several landowners in the area who oppose the project were contacted by the Post Bulletin, all declined to comment at this point until a next step could be determined.
Still, their willingness to continue to fight the project is apparent on the group’s “Save Viola — Protect Viola’s Groundwater” Facebook page. Members of the group called out PUC Commissioner John Tuma and his comments in favor of the project during Thursday’s PUC hearing.
While he would not comment since the PUC decision, Clint Mulholland, a landowner whose 5-acre property is in the middle of the project, said in 2025 that he will “be surrounded on all four sides.”
Mulholland believes his property values will plummet, but more importantly, the land on which he built his dream home will become like living in the middle of an industrial site.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
