CRAWFORD COUNTY, Kan. — In an unexpected turn of events, Shasta Power has decided to pull the plug on its solar project in Crawford County.

In an email sent to the Crawford County Commission and to The Morning Sun, Shasta President John Copyak wrote, “Following an extensive evaluation and engagement with local stakeholders, Shasta Power has decided to discontinue the development of its proposed solar project in Crawford County, Kansas.”

Copyak goes on to lay out the benefits the county, local communities, and stakeholders would have received had the project been completed. According to Copyak, the project represented an anticipated investment of approximately $500 million, with county taxes estimated at $77 million and an additional $20 million offered to project neighbors, the fire department, and the City of Mulberry over the project’s 30-year life.

“The project would have generated substantial economic benefits for the workforce, local businesses, schools, and the community at large,” Copyak wrote.

Copyak said Shasta Power has worked in good faith to address community questions, provide project information, and incorporate stakeholder feedback over the past four years, but cites actions and positions taken by the Crawford County Commission and the Zoning Board created a regulatory environment that has blocked a reasonable or predictable path forward for the project.

“Despite significant efforts to advance a responsible energy project and respond to local concerns, the County Commission and Zoning Board's ongoing lack of support ultimately prevented the project from moving forward,” Copyak said. “As a result, Shasta Power has determined that continued investment of time and resources in the project is not justified.”

Copyak says that he and Shasta Power are disappointed that Crawford County residents will not realize the economic benefits associated with this investment, they will respect the authority of local elected officials to determine the future of development within their jurisdiction.

“We remain grateful to the landowners, residents, and community members who supported the solar-energy-plus-battery-storage project and participated constructively throughout the process,” Copyak concluded.

Upon receiving this email, The Morning Sun immediately reached out to all three county commissioners for their reaction to this surprise development.

“There are several aspects of the email we received that I find relevant,” responded Commissioner Bruce Blair. “First, I feel that the county, along with several residents, dedicated a lot of time and energy discussing the project.”

Blair continued, pointing out that the commission and zoning board worked to encourage input from both sides of the issue from the very beginning, and that during these sessions, the commission used surveys, forums, and countless meeting hours to allow all the stakeholders an opportunity to respond to the project.

“I would like for the people to remember that this project was in the zoned area of the county and zoning and land use is used to see how projects like this fit within an area,” Blair concluded, adding, “Likewise, our current zoning didn’t cover projects of this scope. I can’t help but read the ‘blame’ within this email, but everyone needs to realize we are doing our best to figure out these issues in a reasonable and responsible way.”

Commissioner Tom Moody said he hates that it turned out the way it did, but there is a protocol to follow when making these kinds of decisions.

“I’m not for or against alternative energy, or any new business that comes into Crawford County; I’m open to hear any case,” Moody said, “but when deciding where that business should go, there is a right fit and a wrong fit.”

Commissioner Carl Wood added, “The withdrawal of Shasta Solar from Crawford County is not surprising. Like the claims in Mr. Copyak’s letter of withdrawal, from the beginning outlandish and inconsistent financial claims were made but were never put into binding agreements. The claims of hundreds of millions of dollars of investment ignored the fact that this number would have been the full project cost with solar panels, electronic items and hardware which would not be purchased from businesses in Crawford County or, most likely, even in Kansas.

“Because Kansas statutes exempt solar plants from most property taxes, the primary revenue for schools, surrounding cities and the county would be voluntary payments. A refusal to put even these promises of voluntary payments into binding agreements before proceeding called into question the developer’s intent to carry through with those payments. The effort to change a zoned agriculture area to industrial use against the wishes of the majority of nearby residents who would be affected was not acceptable. Attempting an end run around the clear will of residents with an island annexation was a demonstration of a refusal to abide by the clear wishes of the residents of Crawford County.

“As a Crawford County commissioner, I represent the residents of Crawford County’s 3rd District. While Crawford County is open to all kinds of business development, it must be done in a way which protects our quality of life and property rights. Businesses should also be expected to pay their share of the county tax load to reduce the burden on residents. Getting a free ride in exchange for empty promises is not how anyone should do business.”

This reporting is made possible, in part, by the Support Local Journalism Project Fund. Learn more at: southeastkansas.org/Localnews