Loading...
7. Hogle comments on Solar SurveyPlanning Commission Agenda Item #7) Discussion on Solar Farm Moratorium and Study From Planning Commission Chair Jan Hogle via email on October 3, 2022 _______________________________________________________________________ RE: Solar Survey The open ended questions are worth reviewing, not only for the suggestions but also with regard to misinformation and the apparent need for public education about how solar panels work (and how they don’t work). It is possible that Council member(s) may also hold these misinformed ideas. The concern about the upcoming King plant closing should definitely be discussed/explored/considered. The low response rate does limit conclusions. Best we can say is that there is at least a small group of residents who are very much opposed, and a small group who are very much in favor of, solar farms. This is supported, at least to a degree, by the very narrowly commented posts on social media (NextDoor and Facebook). I find it interesting that the majority of nonresidents who responded were strongly in favor, but again, this is a very small number in total and cannot be generalized to any nonresident who might travel through our community. It may be valid to make generalizations regarding the small number of folks who felt strongly enough to complete the survey esp with regard to whether their support (or nonsupport) would be impacted given certain actions, but the response rate is far too low to extrapolate to the general community (the vast majority of whom did not offer a response). One of the reasons for low survey response rate is lack of awareness or access. Another common reason could be lack of motivation to complete the survey; in other words, that the majority of residents may not hold a strong opinion for or against and may not care strongly enough about the issue to voice an opinion. This, too, however, cannot be stated conclusively, but is a possibility to consider. ------------ Thanks, Jan October 4, 2022 Further thoughts. This refers to some survey comments but also to personal conversations with folks who disapprove of the solar farms. It seems to me that the disapproval, and to some level a sense of distrust, comes from not only disinformation but a sense they are being taken advantage of. That the solar projects benefit someone who is thought to be outside the community. That it comes at a cost to the community and to the disapproving resident without any benefits being returned to the community, nor to the disapproving resident. Screening and other measures are not seen as being enforced and little benefit is seen as being returned. This needs to be addressed in some way...by identifying not only accountability by the City (enforcement of conditions) but also how these projects give back to the individual and to the community. Enforcement of conditions addresses the possible cost to our viewsheds, but can it be demonstrated that solar farms do not cost residents extra taxes or fees? Or that these projects reduce the shared cost of building new power plants, and thus keep individual utility bills at a lower cost than without them? Or that they reduce power brownouts or blackouts? Etc. The discussion needs to be couched in more specific, personal, localized terms than just a vague reference to "offering an alternative energy source at a time of global climate crisis." (Especially for folks who do not accept that there is a global climate crisis.) It needs to be part of our report if these assertions are, in fact, the case...or if they are not.