The Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners unanimously agreed to place a six-month moratorium, or ban, on large scale solar developments in the county at their regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday morning, April 8.
It did not, however, bar existing applications from moving forward in that motion, so JUWI Inc.’s proposed 140-megawatt Canyonland Solar Project will move through the application process normally.
That project will go before Planning and Zoning at its meeting in May.
Before the commissioners voted on the moratorium that morning, they held a public hearing, and nearly 20 community members spoke.
County Attorney Stephen Tarnowski started by giving some background.
“This discussion today is really about the application of the land use code, potential changes to the land use code, the pause that’s being considered in accepting new applications for utility-scale solar development and/or processing the pending application, of which there is the one,” said Tarnowski.
“This is not the place to discuss the exact particulars of that application,” he said, referring to the Canyonland Solar Project. “This is the time to talk about the idea of a moratorium, which is a temporary legislation, essentially.”
Commissioner Jim Candeleria said they’re considering the moratorium “just to pause, to make sure we have better language in land use code.”
As it stands, there’s “nothing specific” to solar in the county code, said Planning and Zoning Director Don Haley.
In fact, according to a 2024 report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Montezuma County is one of eight in the state with “no relevant definitions present” for solar in its land use code.
Candelaria said they’ve already been looking at other counties, namely Mesa County, which adopted new language in its code last year concerning such utility-scale renewable energy development.
In January 2024, Mesa County placed a six-month moratorium on solar; after four months, it was lifted.
“The unanimous adoption of the new code is a victory for all stakeholders involved. It promises to kickstart numerous local solar projects,” a May 19 article in The Daily Sentinel reads.
“As these projects take shape, they will not only bolster our local economy but also contribute significantly to environmental conservation — a win-win for all of Mesa County,” the article reads.
At the meeting, Candelaria said that Mesa County’s edits and additions “addresses all of our concerns,” specifically in regards to solar on ag land and the decommissioning process, a concern Commissioner Gerald Koppenhafer echoed.
“We don’t want to have three commissioners sitting up here 30 years from now – surely they wouldn’t cuss us,” said Koppenhafer, causing some people in the audience to laugh.
“We want to get it right,” he said. “We’re not trying to do away with people’s property rights or anything else, we just want to do it right.”
“We have a lot to learn,” Commissioner Kent Lindsay said.
And with that, public comment opened.
All those who spoke agreed with the temporary moratorium.
As one speaker put it, “No matter your opinion on solar, we need standards to protect our beautiful county.”
One person said they thought the moratorium should be longer than six months, while others urged the commissioners to keep it short and have pointed goals to streamline the process.
“Opportunity does not often knock twice,” and lengthy delays may cause the county to miss out on possible tax revenue and jobs, among other benefits, that solar could bring.
The one-and-only proposed project, Canyonland Solar, said it “will increase the county’s property tax base by nearly $260,000 annually for 35 years, totaling $8.4 million in aggregate over the project life,” according to its website.
A little more than half that revenue would benefit schools, and the 140 megawatts it could generate is enough to power “30,000 average Colorado homes,” its website said.
Speakers on Monday also urged the commissioners to make it so no solar could be developed within a certain radius of national monuments and national and state parks, and to try and minimize impacts to native vegetation and wildlife.
“We need to be thorough, and not just look at the now,” one person said. “We need to know how this will impact us in the future.”
David Kimmett, the manager of planning at JUWI Inc., attended the meeting and spoke.
Kimmett asked the commissioners to not shoot down existing applications, like JUWI Inc.’s Canyonland Solar Project.
“We’ve been through this process with Montezuma County for quite some time,” said Kimmet.
He said the project’s application has been five years in the making, and called the county’s existing land use code “robust.”
It gives “a profound level of scrutiny” to the Planning and Zoning and the board of county commissioners, he said, “but moratoria are allowed.”
Another speaker condemned the board for waiting until an application was submitted to consider a moratorium and to edit the county land use code.
“Rejecting a permit that was developed over the course of years is not only irresponsible, it’s unjust,” that speaker said. “You have already failed to be proactive in your decision-making, but you can still do what’s best for Montezuma County.”
When public comment wrapped up, in response to that comment, Commissioner Lindsay said, “We can’t do due diligence on rumor, myth and gossip. We have to have hard facts in front of us.”
Koppenhafer reiterated what he had said before public comment and spoke in favor of the moratorium “to make sure this county is protected into the future.”
Candelaria called the moratorium “future-looking,” and re-emphasized the board’s desire “to do the best we can for the future of this county.”
“To take a pause right now doesn’t hurt, it just gives us more time to do homework,” he said.
