Commissioners continue Fairway solar decommissioning review after questions about parent guarantee and inflation

The Utah County Board of Commissioners continued consideration of the Fairway solar developmentdecommissioning plan on Aug. 23 after staff and legal advisors raised questions about the form and durability of the financial assurances.

Greg Robinson of the countys community development office reviewed the project history: the Fairway solar conditional use permit was approved in stages (2020 and 2022) covering roughly 6,800 acres with a proposed development boundary of about 5,200 acres and an estimated generating capacity near 682 megawatts. Robinson said the developer submitted a decommissioning estimate of about $18,851,778 to remove structures and restore soil and vegetation after the facilitys useful life.

A county attorneys office representative told commissioners the developer proposed a parent guarantee from Excelsior Renewable Energy Intermediate Fund No. 1 (a Delaware limited partnership with roughly $460 million in assets). The attorney cautioned that while parent guarantees are used in the industry, limited partnerships can be volatile and the conditional use permit does not specify bonds or escrow. The attorney recommended the commission decide which forms of financial assurance (bond, escrow, parent guarantee or other) it will accept before permitting construction.

Industry representative Dustin Thompson, who identified himself as with Clean Air, said solar projects are not hazardous in ordinary operation, that panels are largely steel and glass and that panels degrade slowly. He said there is salvage and secondary-market value in modules and steel infrastructure and that federal funding supports module recycling efforts.

Commissioners asked whether the decommissioning estimate accounts for inflation and whether the county should require a bond or escrow rather than accept a parent guarantee. Robinson said the estimate does not include an explicit inflation adjustment but noted lease and CUP conditions would obligate removal; the county attorneys office said those contractual provisions help but do not replace a specific financial assurance mechanism.

Motion and next steps: Commissioner (speaker S4) moved to continue the item for one week so staff can refine language and gather examples of approaches from other jurisdictions; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote (recorded as 3-0). The developer asked commissioners to limit any delay because of contractual construction schedules; staff agreed to seek comparable examples and return at the continued hearing.