photo by: Shutterstock

Solar panels are shown in this photo from Shutterstock.

UPDATED 7:05 P.M. DEC. 12

A dispute between Douglas County and Grant Township is growing as county commissioners prepare to take a key vote next week on a controversial solar farm that would be located in the township.

Grant Township — which encompasses the rural portions of Douglas County north of the Kansas River — sent a letter asking the County Commission to cancel its planned vote on Dec. 18 on a stormwater plan and an agrivoltaics plan for the Kansas Sky Energy Center, a solar farm that would build about 8 million square feet of solar panels on farmland north of North Lawrence.

Grant Township Trustee Paulette Schwerdt told commissioners in the letter that Grant Township believes it is critical that an engineer hired by the township review both the stormwater and agrivoltaics plans to determine whether the project will have an impact on township roads, ditches, culverts and other such infrastructure.

Schwerdt said the township’s engineer hasn’t yet begun that work, in part because the township believes the developer of the solar farm is required to pay for the engineer’s work. Now, with county commissioners scheduled to decide the fate of the key plans next week, Schwerdt said Grant Township is being denied a chance to provide meaningful feedback.

“This has created an artificial time pressure and would require the (County) Commission to vote before Grant Township has even engaged its engineer, much less received any advice back,” Schwerdt said in the letter.

County Administrator Sarah Plinsky told the Journal-World via email that the vote will remain scheduled for Dec. 18, despite objections from the township. She said questions raised by the township will be discussed at that meeting. County commissioners will hold hearings on both the stormwater plan and the agrivoltaics plan at their 5:30 p.m. meeting on Wednesday at the Public Works/Zoning and Codes Building, 3755 E. 25th St.

This is far from the first time that Grant Township and the county have been at odds over the solar project, which has attracted both strong opponents and supporters throughout the community.

The township is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit that includes more than 20 businesses and residents in northern Douglas County. That lawsuit contends the county is violating its own regulations and rushing the green energy project through the approval process. Douglas County has denied all such allegations.

In this week’s letter, Schwerdt said the county’s decision to hold the hearings on Dec. 18 — its final meeting of 2024 and before the commission expands by two commissioners in January — is evidence that the county is ramrodding the project.

“A rush now, on the last meeting of the calendar year, immediately before the holidays and the expansion of the commission, seems consistent with the pending litigation’s theory that this CUP was predetermined by the county and infected with undisclosed conflicts of interest,” Schwerdt said in the letter.

A December hearing for the two key plans, however, was not unexpected. County officials in late October told the Journal-World that they expected the plans would be ready for a hearing before the end of the year.

The announcement came during the middle of County Commission campaign season, as two of the three incumbent commissioners were up for reelection and there were active races to fill two new seats that were created by the previous decision of voters to expand the County Commission to five members.

While some members of the public have expressed opposition to the County Commission voting on the solar project before the two new seats are added to the commission in January, existing county commissioners have supported the timeline, saying that the project should proceed as normal, which means the plans should be considered when staff and the developers deem they are ready to be presented.

The two candidates who ultimately won seats on the County Commission — Democrats Erica Anderson and Gene Dorsey — both told the Journal-World in October that they believed the County Commission should delay decisions on the solar project until the full five-member commission is seated.

In addition to the two plans up for approval on Dec. 18, at least one more vote will be required of the County Commission, Plinsky said. Via email, Plinsky said that a road use and maintenance agreement will require County Commission approval. That agreement will govern how roads in and near the site of the solar project — it is near the Midland Junction area north of North Lawrence — can be used by construction crews.

It is unclear when that vote may happen, but depending on the timing, that may be an issue the newly seated commissioners will be asked to vote upon. Terms for the two new commissioners begin Jan. 13.

Grant Township officials more specifically argue that the project can’t move forward unless Grant Township and the solar farm operator — the solar farm is being built for Evergy, the state’s largest electric utility — specifically agree on a road maintenance agreement regarding township roads.

An attorney representing Grant Township told the Journal-World on Thursday that no such agreement — which is anticipated to include a payment the operator will provide to the township to cover wear and tear on township roads during construction — has been reached. Lawrence attorney William Skepnek said an agreement between the parties is not close.

The township also contends that Douglas County or the proposed operator of the solar plant should pay the township’s expenses for hiring an engineer to review the stormwater and agrivoltaics plans. A provision in the conditions approved by the County Commission in May states that “the operator shall enter into a contract with the Board of County Commissioners to finance any required third-party reviews or inspections required by these conditions.”

The county document, however, doesn’t make clear whether Grant Township’s review meets the definition of a required third-party review. Skepnek, however, argues that it surely must.

“Who is more directly impacted by this than Grant Township?” Skepnek said.

In its letter, Grant Township said it has selected an engineer to do a review of the two plans; however, work has not begun because the township does not know who would pay for the reviews. Schwerdt said in the letter that the township is “not in a position to front these expenses and seek reimbursement at a later date.”

The township’s letter also raised one other issue regarding the solar project. The township contends developers of the project are actively seeking bids for a 94-acre facility that would house lithium batteries, or other such technology, to store energy produced by the solar farm.

Such a facility hasn’t been included as part of the county’s approval process, and Schwerdt said it would be “deeply, deeply troubling” if such a battery facility were to be located in Grant Township.

However, the project’s developer, Savion, told the Journal-World on Thursday that the company absolutely is not going out for bid for a battery storage facility. Brianna Baca, a development manager for Savion, said that if the project were to ever include a battery storage facility, that facility would have to go through an entirely new conditional use permit process with the county. However, she said there are no plans to have such a battery facility.

Baca acknowledged there were plans for such a battery facility early on in the project. She said that is likely a source of confusion currently. She said the documents that township officials believe are bid documents actually are a listing in an online database used by the construction industry to anticipate future projects that will go to bid.

“There are definitely no bid documents out” for the project, Baca said.

Baca said the online database operators likely got their information about the Kansas Sky Energy Center project from an early filing the developer made with the Southwest Power Pool, a regional energy distribution system. That early filing did include details about a battery storage facility, but the facility was eliminated from the plans after further feasibility studies.

Baca speculated that the online database operators, which are private companies unaffiliated with the project, simply have never updated the project’s information.