Daviess County Fiscal Court spent more than three hours on Wednesday questioning NextEra Energy Resources representatives about the company’s proposal for a 150-megawatt solar project, with officials saying several key questions still need clearer answers.
The Work Session, led by Judge-Executive Charlie Castlen, centered on dozens of previously submitted questions. Senior Project Manager Lester Morales represented NextEra, reiterating early on that the company cannot move forward without meeting all local and state requirements.
He pointed to the Kentucky State Siting Board’s role in requiring construction certificates and third-party studies, as well as local Planning & Zoning regulations that govern setbacks and other conditions. Morales said NextEra would comply with whatever rules are ultimately adopted, but he acknowledged the company would not proceed if the county maintains its current 1,000-foot setback.
Fiscal Court members said they were disappointed by the lack of detail in NextEra’s responses. The company received the questions June 3 and had nearly 90 days to prepare, according to Castlen.
“I think they had time for all their answers,” Castlen said. “I think they made the decision that they were going to give non-answers to some things.”
Commissioner Janie Marksberry echoed the sentiment, saying she was “surprised that they did not have answers to most of the questions.” She added, “They brought four or five people with them, and they just seemed ill-prepared to answer any questions. There’s no excuse for why they didn’t answer them.”
Commissioner Larry Conder said many responses were little more than stock phrases.
“The answers that were given were pretty much, ‘We will do whatever the law says,’” he said. “When you do that for over half your questions, then why are we sitting there? The education part of it was lacking significantly.”
Commissioner Chris Castlen agreed, saying the company missed opportunities to reassure the community.
“I’d like to see this succeed. I was hopeful going into it,” he said. “But I am no closer to feeling good and positive about this than I was before this meeting. Actually, I have more concerns, because the things that I thought would be wins for the company, they didn’t capitalize on.”
The question of property values was among the most heavily discussed. Morales cited peer-reviewed studies that he said show utility-scale solar farms do not harm, and in some cases modestly increase, surrounding home values. He promised to provide the studies by email.
But Fiscal Court members said those assurances fell flat. Judge-Executive Castlen noted that local trends matter more than national averages.
“While you may not technically lose value, your appreciation may have been hampered by proximity to a solar farm,” he said.
Marksberry, who is a retired real property appraiser and licensed real estate broker, was even more direct.
“My belief is there has not been enough time or evidence of how these large solar farms affect property values of neighboring property,” she said. “I find it hard to believe that it will not affect the neighboring property owners’ resale value.”
The related issue of setbacks remains the single most decisive factor. Morales told the court plainly that NextEra will not move forward with the Owensboro Solar project if the 1,000-foot buffer is left in place. While Planning & Zoning had earlier approved smaller setbacks ranging from 75 to 500 feet depending on the site, Fiscal Court extended the distance to 1,000 feet across the board as part of its moratorium on new solar projects.
Marksberry said she personally visited potential sites to visualize the distance.
“Once you see that with your own eyes, when you actually go out and look and say, ‘Okay, that’s where they would be,’ that’s what changed my mind or made me feel more strongly that we need a minimum of 1,000 feet,” she said. “I’m not even sure that’s enough.”
Conder has a different view on the setback.
“If Fiscal Court doesn’t compromise on the set backs to the state’s level of 350 linear feet, we may as well put up ‘Closed for Business’ signs at all our entries to our County,” he said. “New business will think twice about locating here because of setback rules being applied differently depending on the legal business model.”
Conder warned that unless the setback issue is directly addressed, everything else is secondary.
“If you don’t address that issue head on, then everything else you want to talk about is just air,” he said.
Commissioners also voiced frustration over transparency. Morales declined to comment on whether NextEra has ever faced claims against construction bonds, saying he was “not in a position to comment on any litigation.” To Charlie Castlen, that was evasive.
“If you’ve been in 30 lawsuits, the answer is 30,” he said. “That doesn’t tell us whether you won or lost, just how many times it happened.”
Marksberry also pressed the issue, saying she restated the bond question directly to the company’s legal counsel and still did not receive an answer.
Hiring and economic impact were another sticking point. Morales explained that NextEra contracts with outside engineering and construction firms, which are responsible for staffing projects. He said the company encourages those firms to prioritize local labor but does not track statistics.
That answer did little to ease concerns.
“Given the timeframe we’ve given them to have these questions, it would appear to me it’s something they could at least give us a couple of different work sites where something has been tracked,” Chris Castlen said. “The fact that they have no statistics on it says to me that it might not be something positive.”
Despite the frustrations, officials said they are willing to review the additional materials NextEra promised to send by email before deciding whether to revisit the setback distance or leave it unchanged.
