St Croix County Board delays decisions on Ten Mile Creek Solar project
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By LeAnn R. Ralph
HUDSON — The St. Croix County Board has postponed making decisions on discontinuing negotiations with Xcel Energy for the Ten Mile Creek Solar project and preparing to become an intervenor with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
The county board voted nine to eight to delay the decisions until the October 7 meeting at the St. Croix County Board’s August 5 meeting following about 45 minutes of discussion.
Bob Long, chair of the St. Croix County Board, said the two items could possibly be placed on the agenda for the September meeting if the county board is able to have discussions with the residents and town boards in the townships affected by the project and can gather additional information to answer questions posed by the county board members.
At issue is discontinuing negotiations on a joint development agreement between Xcel Energy and St. Croix County and whether the county should prepare to become an intervenor once Xcel Energy’s application has been submitted to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
At the beginning of the meeting, the county board listened to an hour of public comments.
Long established rules for the public comments that included a two-minute time limit on each comment, that the board would listen to no more than an hour of public comments all together and that only current residents of St. Croix County could make public comments on the subject.
In 2019, Xcel Energy announced plans to retire by 2028 the 600 megawatt King power plant at Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, on the St. Croix River.
Closing the Allen S. King Power Plant is part of Xcel Energy’s effort to close coal-fired generators and to work toward generating carbon-free electricity.
Phase I of the Ten Mile Creek Solar project would produce 350 megawatts on 2,500 acres, and all phases of project would produce up to 650 megawatts of electricity on 5,000 acres.
Some of the public comments urged the county board to continue negotiating on the joint development agreement with Xcel Energy, and some of the public comments urged the county board to stop negotiations.
Some of the public comments were from residents in the Town of Erin Prairie and the Town of Baldwin who expressed concern about the loss of prime farmland to the solar arrays.
Other public comments expressed concern about the cost of decommissioning the solar project at the end of its useful life.
A number of public comments focused on the karst topography in St. Croix County and whether the installation of the solar panels would introduce more contaminants into the groundwater.
Some of the comments urged the county board to move forward with St. Croix County becoming an intervenor when Xcel Energy’s application is submitted to the PSC.
Preparation
Prior to the county board’s discussion, Long noted that the process on the Ten Mile Solar Creek project had started in January of this year and that the St. Croix County Community Development Committee had done a significant amount of work on the two agenda items.
One of Long’s concerns is that St. Croix County consider how best to position the county before becoming an intervenor before the PSC.
The county must “bolster credibility” and “do homework and due diligence,” as well as gather feedback from the townships that are affected, Long said.
If the PSC asks if St. Croix County talked to the townships and gathered the concerns of residents and town board members, and the county says “no,” the county will lose credibility, he said.
If the PSC asks whether St. Croix County talked with Xcel Energy about the concerns of county board members, residents and town boards, and the county says “no,” the county will lose credibility, Long said.
County board members must ask themselves how much value they place on input from the townships, how much value they place on becoming educated about presenting concerns to the PSC and how much time is necessary to complete “due diligence,” he said.
Delay
Kerry Reis, county board supervisor representing District 5, made a motion to postpone decisions on discontinuing negotiations with Xcel Energy on the joint development agreement and preparing to become an intervenor before the PSC until the October 7 St. Croix County Board meeting.
Bob Fiedler, vice-chair of the county board and supervisor for District 9, seconded the motion.
More education is required on St. Croix County’s role since St. Croix County has no jurisdiction over the PSC, Reis said.
What are the costs and benefits of a joint development agreement? What are costs of being an intervenor? Reis asked.
St. Croix County has limited options on ways to stop the Ten Mile Creek Solar project, she said.
Ryan Sherley, county board supervisor representing District 13, said county officials had already talked with Xcel Energy five or six times about the joint development agreement, and the county “will not get something better”with more discussion.
Paul Berning, county board supervisor representing District 13, said if the motion was approved to postpone the decisions, then the county board should meet in closed session to discuss negotiating strategies.
Greg Tellijohn, county board supervisor representing District 14, said he did not like the draft joint development agreement, but that the county should keep negotiating before becoming an intervenor with the PSC.
Closed session
Heather Amos, St. Croix County corporation counsel, and Ken Witt, county administrator, advised against discussing the joint development agreement in closed session.
Wisconsin state statute 19.85 lists the exemptions for closed session, Amos said.
The county board can discuss negotiating strategies for the purchase of public property or investing public funds, can discuss conducting other specified public business or can discuss in closed session when competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session, she said.
The county board also can confer with legal counsel on strategies for litigation, and if St. Croix County becomes a litigant before the PSC, then a closed session might be warranted, Amos said.
But there is case law establishing a violation of the state’s Open Meetings Law for discussing a joint development agreement in closed session, Amos said.
The case law establishes that the joint development agreement should be discussed in open session so that the general public knows what the county board is negotiating on behalf of the residents of the county, Witt said.
Close vote
On a vote of nine “yes” to eight “no,” the St. Croix County Board approved the motion to postpone decisions on discontinuing negotiations with Xcel Energy on the joint development agreement and preparing to become an intervenor before the PSC until the October 7 St. Croix County Board meeting.
Voting in favor of the motion were Bob Swanepoel (District 17), Scott Counter (District 11), Daniel Hansen (District 12), Greg Tellijohn (District 14), Bob Long (District 3), Cathy Leaf (District 4), Kerry Reis (District 5), Paul Adams (District 6), and Bob Fiedler (District 9).
Voting against the motion were Mark Carlson (District 15), Mike Barcalow (District 16), Jerry Van Someren (District 18), Ryan Sherley (District 13), Paul Berning (District 7), Lisa Lind (District 1), Shawn Anderson (District 2), and Kristine McCarthy (District 8.)
Absent from the meeting were Tim Ramberg (District 19) and Dave Ostness (District 10).
One county board member asked “who does what next?”
St. Croix County Board members can all work on this, Long said.
The St. Croix County Board, together, can meet with the townships, and the St. Croix County Board, together, can discuss the merits of a joint development agreement and, together, can work out the details on how to go forward, Long said.
