photo by: Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission screenshot

Members of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission take part in discussion during their meeting on Monday, Dec. 18, 2023.

After a meeting that extended into the early hours of Tuesday morning, the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission was divided on whether to recommend approval of a permit for the first commercial-scale solar energy facility in Douglas County.

The Planning Commission ended up in a split 4-4 vote on the conditional use permit for the Kansas Sky Energy Center project, a 1,105-acre solar energy facility proposed to be constructed on land just north of Lawrence and west of Lawrence Regional Airport. The project is a collaboration between Evergy and Kansas City energy firm Savion.

“I, personally, have never been more torn on anything that we have done than this project,” Planning Commissioner Charlie Thomas said as the meeting finally neared adjournment after 2:30 a.m. “I hope there is something in here or in what I have not seen that would tip my scale to say ‘Let’s do this project.’ I do not know that there is — that is my question. I don’t know what I don’t know.”

Thomas was ultimately one of the four commissioners who voted against approving the permit, along with Jane Eldredge, Chelsi Hayden and Mike Kelso.

A tie at the Planning Commission level functions in effectively the same way as a recommendation for denial of a permit once it continues from that body to the Douglas County Commission for final approval. That means when the County Commission eventually considers the Kansas Sky Energy Center’s conditional use permit, it won’t be approved unless all three members of the group vote in favor of it, rather than just a simple majority.

As has been typical of recent Planning Commission meetings concerning large-scale renewable energy projects and regulations, a significant number of people showed up at City Hall for Monday’s meeting. About 45 of them spoke during the two-hour public comment portion of the meeting; the majority of them said they were either against the project outright or had serious concerns about it.

As the Journal-World has reported, opponents of the project have said they’re most concerned with where it’s been proposed to be located, and that was again a message Monday night from commenters, including Steve Crane, the president of the Douglas County Farm Bureau Board of Directors.

“… The real issue here is the use of the very best farmland in the entire county, 75% to 80% of which is owned by absentee landlords and an entirely inappropriate place to site solar plants,” Crane said. “The very best soils, and by far the most productive agricultural land that exists in Douglas County. There are thousands of acres of marginal land available in Douglas County.”

photo by: Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission screenshot

Members of the public line up to speak during the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission meeting on Monday, Dec. 18, 2023.

One group of commenters referred to themselves as “Save Our Soils,” in another example of the focus on prime farmland.

One of the planning commissioners who was in favor of approving the permit, Sharon Ashworth, later said she saw the project as an “opportunity to do some really creative things.” Planning Commission Chair Gary Rexroad was another member who voted in favor of approving the project permit, and he said the county’s rules for solar projects were designed to protect soil for future use.

“This isn’t about the soil going away — it’s not going to disappear, it’s not going to go away from underneath where that is, and every single thing about how we designed this was to ensure that it didn’t diminish,” Rexroad said. “… I feel really good about the idea that that soil is, in fact, protected. I cannot find a reason to deny this at this point.”

Public commenters who voiced support for the project included Sierra Club lobbyist Zack Pistora, who said he was impressed with the level of transparency from Savion and Evergy as the companies have communicated with neighbors about the project.

“Overall, we think the (Kansas Sky Energy Center) will provide more ecological benefits than costs, and that’s why we support it,” Pistora said. “Early in September, we had over 100 people outside City Hall demonstrate their support for climate action and clean energy and retiring coal combustion at the Lawrence Energy Center. This is our opportunity.”

A ninth member of the Planning Commission who could have prevented the tie vote, Steve Munch, had recused himself from consideration of the project near the beginning of the meeting, and Planning Commissioner Pedro Borroto was absent.