A solar panel project that will be located on the mountain in Duvall Valley, and has been in the works since last fall, apparently has a lot of local opposition, as displayed during the most recent meeting of the Clinton County Fiscal Court.
Over 50 people, in a standing room only setting, filled the upstairs courtroom of the courthouse last Thursday evening–most of them in opposition to the planned solar panel system project
Energix Renewables, based in Arlington, Virginia, plans on installing solar panels on 833 acres owned by local businessman Tony Sloan, who was also at the meeting and addressed those in opposition to the project.
A “town hall” type meeting was held earlier in the month to inform the public of the project and how the process to install the solar panels works.
However, that gathering apparently did not satisfy questions and concerns of many residents, especially those who live in or nearby the area.
Several residents spoke pertaining to the project, voicing concerns and asking questions, and a representative of Energix also addressed the contingency, and he and other company officials fielded several questions from persons opposing the project.
Although most in attendance asked questions from the audience, Joyce Irwin first addressed the crowd, reading from a prepared statement, which she also supplied to each fiscal court member and news media.
Irwin, in the statement, asked the court that the Solar Energy Systems Ordinance, which was passed on October 24, 2023, “be amended to state that no solar company be allowed to install any solar panels in our county which contains the toxic metal Cadmium Telluride, which is defined by the EPA and OSHA as a toxic metal.”
Although noting she could not tell any landowner what they could do with their own land, she said, “in an effort to keep our county as safe as possible, I am asking you to make this change in our local solar ordinances.”
The statement cited studies from OSHA and Vanderbilt University detailing the dangers of Cadmium Telluride (CdTe), noting in the statement there are two major solar panels used in industrial solar projects, one of them containing CdTe.
The statement said, “Only 5 percent of the companies use these panels (with toxic metal). The panels which contain the toxic metal are the cheapest…made. The amount of this metal in each panel varies due to the size of the panel. However, when you are talking about thousands and thousands of solar panels in one county, the risk of this metal being disturbed inside the panels is much greater and a risk we should not be willing to take.”
The statement said counties have banned the panels which contain the CdTe, and even though adults can withstand some environmental exposure, children can’t. “This is a legitimate concern, this toxic metal could leak into our water, air and soil.”
“Again, I’m not telling any land owner what they can do or what they can’t do with their property. Nor am I telling industrial solar companies that they can’t come to Clinton County. However, if they do come, they should be required to use the safest solar panels available which does not contain the toxic metal.
“Please don’t let this plea to keep Clinton County safe fall on deaf ears. We deserve more than 5 percent. It’s a fact that our children will reap in the future what we sow today.”
Irwin again asked the court to research and consider amending the ordinance to state that no solar panels be installed in the county which contain the toxic metal.
In a rebuttal to Irwin’s claims, an Energix representative said that one item listed had never had any adverse affects reported, and said “scare tactics” were being used.
He went on to say that even the Sierra Club (a highly recognized pro-environmental organization), had endorsed solar panels used by the company.
Judge Craig then told the audience that the ordinance would be again reviewed, but no action would be taken at that night’s meeting. However, the questions and concerns expressed had only begun by those in the audience.
Randall Curry asked, “What good (will the solar panel project) do for Clinton County?” with one representative answering the economic impact.
Curry also questioned where would the panels be going, with some from the audience saying “north.”
Curry continued by saying the company would be taking “acres and acres of land, leaving nothing but rock and solar panels.”
One Energix representative said the county would receive taxes from hundreds of people, but Curry continued, “Don’t let outsiders come in and destroy beautiful Clinton County.”
Another person asked how far back the panels would be from the forestry line, being concerned about possible fire hazards. He also questioned how close the panels would be from other people’s property and what type chemicals would be used to keep undergrowth away.
Another resident of 22 years, who formerly resided in the US Virgin Islands, said the area served as a water shed and asked what would be the result of all the forest being removed that produces oxygen, and changes in the heat. He said “We are destroyed the environment incrementally.”
Another area resident said she had been told that if a fire came from the solar panels, there would not be enough firefighters, locally or in the area, to put it out.
Energix officials had also shown a huge book of documents they said proved the solar panel project was safe, and had to be approved thoroughly by various state and federal agencies.
The resident asked the representatives if they could supply her a copy of “proof” that the project was safe, which they replied they could.
Although the vast majority of those present last week seemed opposed to the project, at least as currently written, there were a few who favored the project, including one person who said he had leased his property.
That person said that some farmers were elderly and could not make as much money farming as opposed to leasing to a solar energy company.
He noted he also had a young son but was not afraid of any safety issues involved with solar panels, saying, “We all have a right to our opinion,” adding, “I feel like it’s a good deal…better than some old oil tanks sitting around.”
Irwin then said there was some fourth generation farmers who had leased to solar energy companies and were now living in a nightmare. She also added a lot of people have children and want to leave their family farms to them.
Tony Sloan said his family owned the property in question. “I have done research,” he said, “and it’s not going to harm the county.”
He also addressed the topic of toxicity, saying, “Everything about a car is toxic.”
Sloan, who also owns major marinas on both adjoining lakes, inferred all boats are made up of parts that contain chemicals of some type, adding, “Think about all the boats on the water.”
He continued the solar panel project would also be a great tax base and increase employment.
Sloan questioned those against the project, inferring there was propaganda against it. However, they are wonderful people.”
He continued by saying he had let one person hunt on the property for 30 years, then invoked the name of (District Judge) Scarlett Latham, when he said he had heard she opposed the project because it would constrict her view of the mountain.
Latham, who was also present, responded, “That is not my concern.”
She said the process is regulated by state and federal agencies, and said she attended the recent town hall meeting with an “open mind.”
Latham continued that she knows how the federal government operates, inferring companies go off and seek (federal funding) for such environmental projects. “This may be a totally reputable company,” she said, “but I have the First Amendment right to state my opinion.”
Attorney David Cross, who apparently represents Sloan, said there were good questions asked that need to be answered and the lease reviewed.
He continued, however, that the project was going to be held to extremely high environmental standards. He said the project was being brought into Clinton County to help everyone.
When asked if the solar panels could be seen by everyone, the answer was no.
Another person simply stated, with others agreeing, “the only thing that drives me is Jesus Christ!”
An Energix representative added the application to the PSA (Public Service Commission) included many guidelines, including glare, environmental, etc., and noted the people’s concerns were real and reasonable. All the concerns expressed have appropriate guardrails, he said.
Another person asked the representatives, “If you followed the guidelines, why were you fined $350,000 (for apparent violations) in Virginia?”
A representative said it was due to contractors, who they have since stopped doing business with. He said they were also working with the state of Virginia to correct those violations.
He continued those would also be reviewed by the Kentucky State Board, adding, “to a degree, we disclose everything to the public.”
Carter Maupin also asked who was responsible for the $350,000 violation cost.
Judge Craig had announced a couple of times only another question or two would be taken prior to the Q and A session being ended and when another person began to ask a question, at that point in the meeting, the judge ceased any further comments or questions.
No official action on the request for an amendment to the ordinance was taken, but it was stated earlier in the meeting the documents will apparently be reviewed by the fiscal court.
(Details on other actions taken by the court last week can be found in a separate article this week.)