Clark County Residents Challenge Solar Developers on Farmland, Finances, and Future

A public hearing on two proposed solar energy projects became a forum for resident anxieties on Tuesday, June 10, as citizens pressed developers about the long-term impact on prime farmland, property values, and the financial stability of the multi-million-dollar initiatives. The June 10 meeting, convened by the Clark County Board, provided the first public vetting for EDP’s Moonshine Solar Park and Suncode Energy’s Summit Project under the county’s new solar siting ordinance.

Chairman Rex Goble opened the hearing by noting the ordinance was the reason for this level of public review, which was absent for previous projects like Darwin Ferry and County Run Solar.

The first proposal, EDP’s Moonshine Solar Park, is a $250 million utility-scale project planned for Johnson Township. Jack Dinnie, Development Project Manager for EDP, said the company has 1,665 acres under contract with 20 landowners. The project is expected to generate $23 million in tax revenue over its 35-year lifespan. Construction is slated to begin after the 2025 harvest, with the facility becoming operational by 2027.

Public questioning quickly turned critical. Max Burkybile, a landowner near the existing County Run Solar project, expressed concern that Clark County is becoming “over-saturated with solar projects.” He challenged EDP’s decommissioning plan, which involves replacing topsoil at the end of the project’s life. “Any agronomist will say that it is impossible for the land to be the same as before the project,” Burkybile stated.

EDP representative Thomas Loturco countered that their process involves careful grading to minimize disturbance and ensures topsoil is never mixed between landowners. He added that the panels are sourced from First Solar in Ohio and QCells in Georgia.

Concerns about transparency and property rights were also prominent. Ed Talbert, a Johnson Township resident whose home is in the center of the Moonshine project, questioned how a project could be considered for approval when crucial studies, like a water runoff assessment, are still underway. “If EDP has been in the area for two years, why is he just now hearing about the solar farm?” Talbert asked, noting he does not use social media where the township may have posted information previously.

Dusty Hickox, another neighbor to the Moonshine project, disputed EDP’s claims that the development would not impact his home’s value. His wife, Jennifer Hickox, raised questions about emergency response plans for a potential large-scale fire.

Financial liability was a key issue for Richard Talbott, whose home will be surrounded by the solar farm. He asked who would be responsible for cleanup if EDP went bankrupt. Loturco explained that as a publicly traded company, EDP’s financials are public. He outlined multiple layers of protection, including rights for financing banks like JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America to take over obligations, and a decommissioning bond held in favor of the township that is revisited every five years.

The integrity of the farmland itself remained a central theme. Steve Graham pointed to the nearby County Run Solar project, where he said “thousands of tons of clay was hauled in and laid on top of black dirt.” Jesse Eick of EDP assured residents that the state’s Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA) provides strict guidelines to protect soil and requires inspections by the Illinois Department of Agriculture throughout the project’s lifecycle.

Resident Tom Wernz argued the projects were only viable due to subsidies and were converting irreplaceable prime farmland. “His brother lives by the solar farm in Darwin and feels that it has devalued his home and land,” the minutes noted. “He is urging everyone to call their congressmen.”

The hearing also included a presentation on Suncode Energy’s separate community solar project, but the bulk of the public comment period was dominated by concerns applicable to both large-scale developments.