Farmland is seen with solar panels in rural Maryland in this 2022 photo.
Reporter (Intern)
Farmland is seen with solar panels in rural Maryland in this 2022 photo.
CHUBBUCK — Bannock County’s Planning and Development Council voted 5-0 Thursday to recommend approval of the county’s land use rewrite, with conditions attached to its most debated section.
That section, Chapter 7, would lift the county’s ban on large-scale solar and wind projects. The council asked for size limits on those projects and for more information on battery storage in the ordinance.
The vote came at the end of a meeting at Chubbuck City Hall that ran until 11:05 p.m. More than two dozen people testified, most of them about Chapter 7.
County commissioners banned large-scale solar and wind projects in 2024 after a temporary moratorium expired. The current ordinance also bars large nuclear projects.
Chapter 7 would replace that ban with a permit process. Developers could apply for a conditional use permit for wind, solar or nuclear projects. Each permit would require an emergency plan, a fire protection plan, wildlife studies, setbacks and a decommissioning plan, among other conditions.
Wind and solar could be considered in agricultural, commercial general, industrial and light industrial zones. Nuclear would be limited to the commercial and industrial zones.
The council kept Chapter 7 in its recommendation but added two conditions. The first calls for size limits on alternative energy projects based on agricultural zoning and land use. Members said they don’t yet have the data to set a specific maximum.
The second asks the county to explain why the draft bans standalone battery storage systems in every zone while allowing battery storage paired with solar in some zones. It also asks for more information on battery storage to be added to the ordinance.
Council members reminded the crowd several times that no specific project was before the board.
Opponents, many from the Downey area, urged the county to slow down. Debbie Jackson of Downey, who has a small solar panel of her own, said existing rules already allow personal panels like hers. She said the new chapter is about industrial arrays with thousands of panels.
Kirk Jackson pointed to a meeting about two years ago at Marsh Valley High School, where he said nearly 70 residents testified against solar.
“We shouldn’t have people in Chubbuck telling people what they have to live next to,” Kirk Jackson said.
Barbie Anderson said the energy chapter conflicts with the county’s comprehensive plan and asked the council to pause.
Several speakers said volunteer fire departments have limited water to fight battery fires. John Potter raised concerns about hail damaging panels and about battery fires that have to burn themselves out.
“Even in the most optimistic scenario, you are never going to be able to bring the land back to its original condition. I urge you to reject Chapter 7 in its entirety,” Potter said.
Supporters framed the chapter around property rights and income for farm families. Pam Ward, speaking for 63 local members of her organization, said solar leases give farmers reliable income.
Linda Engle, a former Idaho State University mathematics faculty member who serves on the advisory council of Idaho Energy Freedom, an energy advocacy organization that describes itself as representing business, said a group with 450 local supporters backs the energy rules because projects would bring tax revenue for roads and emergency services.
“Landowners deserve the right to decide how their property is used to support their families and communities,” Engle said.
Jacob Miller of Boise, who is listed as a contact for Idaho Energy Freedom and as director of operations at the law firm Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, pointed to decommissioning bonds and fire safety rules as safeguards in the chapter.
“I think that there’s a lot of good work that went into this ordinance, especially around property rights and some very common-sense safeguards. There are things such as setbacks, which I think deal with a lot of local concerns,” Miller said.
Steve Criddle, a fourth-generation farmer, said he has switched his operation over to cattle.
“Most of us small people are getting squeezed down. Our kids can’t afford to get into it. I understand the neighbors don’t want something. I think there’s a give and take on this. I should have the opportunity to do what I want,” Criddle said.
Once testimony closed, battery storage became the council’s main sticking point. Members said the chapter has no setbacks, decommissioning requirements or other standards for battery systems. Fire officials have also asked to help draft any battery rules, members said.
One member questioned why a standalone battery system would be banned outright when the same equipment paired with solar panels could be approved.
Members also weighed limits on how much land energy projects could cover, including per-project caps, a countywide total and a limit on prime farmland. One member raised the possibility of 10,000 or 20,000 acres of south county land ending up under panels if no limits are set.
The council ultimately agreed that picking a number without studies to back it up could be seen as arbitrary. That’s why the recommendation calls for limits without naming one.
Another member cautioned against shelving the chapter. He said some landowners can no longer physically farm or make enough from their ground to get by, and most south county farmers already hold second jobs.
The council’s vote is only a recommendation. Before the vote, a representative of the Bannock County Attorney’s Office said the council could recommend passing the ordinance as written, passing it with changes or holding back Chapter 7 entirely.
Beyond the energy chapter, the rewrite would merge eight existing county ordinances into one document. It would also drop the current rule requiring property owners to keep half their land as open space.
The recommendation now goes to the Bannock County Commission, which can adopt the ordinance, change it or deny it. Any material change would require another public hearing.
Commissioners have tentatively scheduled their hearing for 11 a.m. Nov. 19 in Room 119 of the Bannock County Courthouse, 624 E. Center St. in Pocatello. Written comments must reach commission@bannockcounty.gov by 5 p.m. Nov. 17.
Reporter (Intern)
{{description}}
Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.
The Idaho State Journal invites you to take part in the community conversation. But those who don’t play nice may be uninvited.
Comments that are:
will be deleted. Repeat offenders will lose commenting privileges.
Comments are opinions of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions or views of Idaho State Journal.
Your comment has been submitted.
Reported
There was a problem reporting this.
Log In
To view our latest e-Edition, click the image on the left.
Sign up today, or manage your subscriptions, to one of our great newsletters:
- Special Offers
- Daily Headlines
- and much more!
Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks.
We recommend switching to one of the following browsers:
