Wasco County opts out of new state solar-siting rule; board cites complexity and unresolved data needs
August 06, 2025 | Wasco County, Oregon
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Wasco County commissioners on Aug. 6 voted unanimously to opt out of the new Oregon Administrative Rules pathway for siting utility-scale solar in eastern Oregon, giving staff more time to analyze data needs, transmission constraints and the long-term impacts of large commercial energy projects.
Kelly Halsey Glover, Wasco County Community Development managing director, told the board that a recent Oregon Supreme Court decision (the Nolan Wind Project / Umatilla County case) clarifies that the Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC/FSEC) can waive local property-development standards where the rules show no direct nexus to statewide planning goals. Kelly said the decision and recent rulemaking on solar siting create conflicts and ambiguities the county cannot resolve quickly.
Among the issues staff flagged were: lack of authoritative statewide wildlife-mitigation corridor data and the county's inability to access that dataset yet; the need for a detailed slope analysis (wetlands and areas with <15% slope) across Wasco County; new requirements to calculate an annual solar utility-scale capacity factor (methodology unclear); and limited remaining transmission-line access in parts of the county. Kelly recommended opting out of the new OAR pathway to avoid automatic enrollment on Jan. 1 and to allow staff to develop a local approach with public input.
"The rules are about as clear as mud," Kelly told the board, noting staff and other eastern Oregon planning directors had repeatedly sought clarifications during rulemaking. She urged the board to approve a resolution opting out so the county may proceed with a careful public process rather than rush to adopt rules that could be unused or legally vulnerable.
Action: The board approved Resolution 205-16 to decline to consider photovoltaic solar facilities under the specified OAR pathway (new solar siting standards). The vote was unanimous.
Why it matters: The onus of additional technical analyses — wildlife corridors, slope mapping, capacity-factor calculations and potential agricultural mitigation methodologies — would have placed heavy demands on county staff and GIS resources. Opting out preserves the county's ability to use existing review processes and to return later with an informed local alternative.
What’s next: Staff will use the opt-out window to gather data, consult attorneys and other counties, and return with proposed ordinance or comprehensive-plan amendments and a public outreach process if the board directs further work.
Kelly Halsey Glover, Wasco County Community Development managing director, told the board that a recent Oregon Supreme Court decision (the Nolan Wind Project / Umatilla County case) clarifies that the Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC/FSEC) can waive local property-development standards where the rules show no direct nexus to statewide planning goals. Kelly said the decision and recent rulemaking on solar siting create conflicts and ambiguities the county cannot resolve quickly.
Among the issues staff flagged were: lack of authoritative statewide wildlife-mitigation corridor data and the county's inability to access that dataset yet; the need for a detailed slope analysis (wetlands and areas with <15% slope) across Wasco County; new requirements to calculate an annual solar utility-scale capacity factor (methodology unclear); and limited remaining transmission-line access in parts of the county. Kelly recommended opting out of the new OAR pathway to avoid automatic enrollment on Jan. 1 and to allow staff to develop a local approach with public input.
"The rules are about as clear as mud," Kelly told the board, noting staff and other eastern Oregon planning directors had repeatedly sought clarifications during rulemaking. She urged the board to approve a resolution opting out so the county may proceed with a careful public process rather than rush to adopt rules that could be unused or legally vulnerable.
Action: The board approved Resolution 205-16 to decline to consider photovoltaic solar facilities under the specified OAR pathway (new solar siting standards). The vote was unanimous.
Why it matters: The onus of additional technical analyses — wildlife corridors, slope mapping, capacity-factor calculations and potential agricultural mitigation methodologies — would have placed heavy demands on county staff and GIS resources. Opting out preserves the county's ability to use existing review processes and to return later with an informed local alternative.
What’s next: Staff will use the opt-out window to gather data, consult attorneys and other counties, and return with proposed ordinance or comprehensive-plan amendments and a public outreach process if the board directs further work.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
