News
One could say the Desert Claim project, the state and the county have a "history" in regard to the project.
Back in 2005, county commissioners rejected a 120-turbine version of the project stating it wasn't compatible with the surrounding land-use in the project area in connection with the distance between residences and proposed turbine towers.
Since then, enXco Inc., the French-owned firm proposing the wind farm, took an alternative path for project approval, and in November 2006 filed with the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, or EFSEC, for state approval of a changed project with fewer turbines.
advertisement
The EFSEC process required enXco Inc. to go back to the county to attempt to work out any differences.
The two sides couldn't reach agreement on setbacks between turbines and residences. In May 2007, EFSEC ruled that enXco had made a good-faith effort to work out differences with the county, had fulfilled that part of the EFSEC rules and didn't have to re-file its revised, 90-turbine project with the county for formal review.
EFSEC said the state's wind-farm review process took precedent over the county-government process.
In June 2007 enXco Inc. filed with EFSEC a formal request that the state council consider pre-empting or overruling county government's past rejection of the project and move ahead to consider approving it at the state level.
Now, fast forward to February 2009.
EnXco Inc. officials on Feb. 6 filed with EFSEC a revised plan that calls for 95 turbines in a new configuration that they said significantly reduces, by 75 percent, the number of rural residences located within 2,500 feet of planned wind turbine locations.
Company officials said the 2,500-foot setback was what county government sought as the buffer in talks with enXco in 2007.
| < prev | next > |