According to NextEra Energy, the Grant County Solar project is an innovative solar project in Grant County, Wisconsin. It is being built by a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources and is owned by Alliant Energy. Once the project is operational, it is expected to generate up to 200 megawatts of clean, renewable, American-made energy; enough electricity to power more than 50,000 Wisconsin homes. NextEra Energy claims that this project “represents a significant capital investment in the Town of Potosi and Grant County.” The project is creating hundreds of jobs during construction. Once operational, they say that “the community and county will receive a combined, estimated $800,000 in annual shared revenues for the next 30 years”, which will be “used as determined by local communities and government officials.” The project is using approximately 2,000 acres of land and was set to be completed by late 2023. NextEra Energy says that the Grant County Solar project will create local employment opportunities, including up to 350 jobs to construct the project. They also say that the project provides approximately $26 million in additional revenue for Grant County. NextEra Energy has posted on its website that the project investment is $300 million.
Residents of Grant County and the Town of Potosi are actively expressing concerns that the project will create economic adversity by not providing jobs for Wisconsin and local residents. Alliant Energy’s Senior Communications Partner Tony Palese said, “We strive to use only American and locally made products.” He also explained that some of their solar panel suppliers include the companies Trina Solar and First Solar. Trina Solar is headquartered in Changzhou, Jiangsu, China, but has regional headquarters in several places, including Fremont, California, as well as manufacturing bases in America, Thailand, and Vietnam. First Solar is headquartered in Tempe, Arizona, and has manufacturing facilities in Perrysburg, Ohio; Kulim, Malaysia; Saigon, Vietnam; and Chennai, India. Both companies publicly prioritize sustainability throughout the entirety of their projects, with First Solar claiming, “their company has a long history of establishing benchmarks in recycling, responsible supply chain management, transparency, and the carbon and water footprint of its technology,” and Trina Solar stating, “we strive to drive down the cost of photovoltaic (PV) power generation through constant technological innovation.”
Two local families voiced concerns about the durability and longevity of the project and panels. Another concern mentioned by the community is the restoration and upkeep costs to maintain the panels during their contracted time, as well as the clean-up process at the end of the project. Alliant’s Tony Palese responded to this concern by confirming that Alliant Energy is responsible for the decommissioning as stated in each site's decommissioning plan. He said, “At the end of the project’s life, we will take the panels off and pull the steel piles out of the ground, [then] they will get recycled. However, land that we purchase – such as the substation – we will own and operate.”
Palese also specified that Alliant has a plan in place to help restore the land to its original form after the contracted period is up if the landowner so chooses. As far as upkeep costs, the Alliant Energy website explains that the project will feature grass and seed mixes surrounding and throughout the solar arrays that will help build nutrients back into the soil, as well as create a pollinator-friendly environment. Palese clarified this information by stating, “The grass we plant is designed to be a low-growth mix so that the primary feature is to avoid having grass and weeds growing up past the panels and blocking the sunlight. This mix also helps lower on-grounds operation and maintenance costs because we don’t have to mow as frequently.”
Another concern amongst the townspeople is the lack of township benefit from the panels and project; families that spoke out about their concerns emphasized that they want to see this help improve the town through extra revenue brought in and power bills brought down. Per the Alliant Energy website, “The Grant County Solar Project will be a significant source of new local tax revenue, providing approximately 800,000 dollars in annual shared revenue for the Town of Potosi and Grant County.” However, Tony Palese clarified this by explaining that, “Those are not tax dollars; they are payments that Alliant Energy makes to the state. It comes from the state’s utility shared aid formula, which is something that we pay into and the state distributes,” he added. “These are new dollars coming into the community to offset; because we as a utility company, don’t pay property taxes.” According to the Alliant Energy website, “In Wisconsin, the state administers a shared revenue program that provides semiannual payments to municipalities and counties with electric generation facilities,” which means that the state is allowed to distribute the funds, which utility companies pay into all year long, to communities and counties that meet the criteria; in this case, having a solar project.
As far as the electricity produced helping the community, Palese explained it as “the energy going on to the grid.” He divulged this by stating, “As the energy is needed at your home, business or school, that the energy can be used.” To summarize the rest of the explanation, when the energy is put onto the grid, it gets mixed with the other various types of energy produced, such as natural gas, wind, or fossil fuels, but when the energy becomes needed, it can be used by any local outlet. When asked if the project will help lower power bills within the area, Palese said, “The benefit for customers is really avoiding more long-term costs that they might receive.”
Although the landowners didn’t express any direct concerns, they did explain some of their reasons for leasing into the project, along with the process of their decisions. Both local resident Richard (Dick) Keene Jr. and Platteville resident Mike North agreed that their decisions primarily stemmed from a business move by wanting to diversify their assets and income. They both mentioned that after the contract is up, it will most likely revert back into farmland, but in 30 years it will most likely be passed on to the next generation. Both landowners agreed that they think the project is benefiting the community. Keene thinks, “It is because they are shutting down coal plants, while still producing electricity.” North liked how, “it impacts jobs, roadways, water quality and treatments among other benefits.” After asking both Keene and North if they have faced any “backlash” from the community, they both came up with the consensus that change brings controversy. North explained that the controversy and the big change were a “big reason why we spent as much time as we did going through all of the details of how this would be executed, how the land would be cared for, and how this would impact the community.” Keene looks at the project “as an asset to your business.” He also said, “For us, it was a good fit. It’s not a good fit for everyone, and I understand and respect that.”
After compiling many perspectives, it is apparent that not everyone will agree with the reasons or technology, but the project appears to be here to stay for the next 30 years.