Oct. 24—BENSON — The S

adopted a new ordinance to govern renewable energy development in the county by a 4-1 vote on Tuesday, Oct. 21.

A committee appointed by the board developed the ordinance. It has been the subject of much debate: More than 100 people attended a hearing on the ordinance on Aug. 19. Small wind and solar proponents consider it too restrictive. Those opposed to large wind turbines wanted the county to impose stricter restrictions.

“I think if this ordinance is passed, it is going to come back and haunt us many times,” said commissioner Pete Peterson, who cast the lone no vote at the Oct. 21 meeting. “I think the way to take some of the local pressure off is to stay with the state ordinance. Let it be on the state’s back, not ours.”

Commissioners Gary Hendrickx, Ed Rudningen, Edward Pederson and Larry Mahoney voted for the ordinance.

The commissioners made some changes to the ordinance in response to public comments at the August and subsequent hearings. Most notably, they exempted noncommercial projects from the advanced decommissioning requirements that apply to large-scale wind or solar projects. They also reduced some of the setback requirements for small projects.

The county ordinance will not govern large-scale wind projects that are 25 megawatts or larger. They are under the authority of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Pederson said the public’s concerns about wind power were largely aimed at large projects over which the county has no say.

Apex Wind Energy has been acquiring leases in the western portion of the county for its proposed

that could include 88 large turbines. It is proposed with expectations that a large transmission line will be built from Big Stone, South Dakota, to Alexandria, Minnesota.

The approved ordinance establishes setback and other requirements for wind projects between 5 and 25 megawatts and solar and battery storage projects of 100 kilowatts or larger. At the commissioner’s meeting on Tuesday, proponents of small-scale projects voiced their concerns during a citizen comment period.

Jim Falk of Murdock, who currently has small-scale wind and solar power systems on his farm, told the commissioners that the new ordinance will hamper efforts by those advancing small, on-farm and community-based renewable energy projects. “A boatload of stuff here that is really a stumbling block, a burden. It is overkill in my opinion,” he said.

A chief concern he cited was wording that makes landowners liable alongside developers for any civil or criminal violations. He pointed out that landowners could unknowingly be at risk, and used this analogy: It would be as if an applicator for a large dairy over-applied manure on rental land, and the landowner is penalized for it.

Brian Wojtalewicz of Appleton said he was concerned that no one who has a solar or wind system was on the committee that developed the ordinance. Pete Kennedy of Murdock told the commissioners that the 100-kilowatt threshold for making solar systems subject to the ordinance is arbitrary and too small. Battery systems for electric pickup trucks are that size, although they are exempt from the ordinance.

Board chair Rudningen said the renewable energy committee included members for and against renewable development, and was often split by 4-3 votes on various portions of the ordinance. Two members of the committee had signed agreements with developers for renewable energy systems, so there was definitely the perspective of those in favor of renewable energy projects, he explained.

The chair said it was challenging to recruit and keep members for the committee. They were concerned that their work would be for naught and that they would be subject to the anger of their neighbors for what they did. Rudningen said he assured the members the county board would act on an ordinance they developed.

Mahoney, who also worked with the committee, said they took advantage of the work done by Stevens, Traverse and Chippewa counties in developing renewable energy ordinances. Stevens County tapped the expertise of University of Minnesota staff to develop its ordinance, he said.

The commissioners expressed their own concerns about the ordinance. Hendricx, who authored the motion for approval, said he shared concerns that it was too restrictive and that it would take away landowner rights. “This is a tough one,” he said. After making the motion to approve the ordinance and receiving a second by Mahoney, the commissioner said, “We have to move forward at some point here.”

The draft ordinance is available on the

.