The Marshall County Commissioners received information on the proposed Tamarack Solar project as presented by Ethan Sternberg from Invenergy.
Sternberg explained that Invenergy has 53 solar projects and 21 solar storage projects around the country, among other clean energy projects including wind, offshore wind, transmission, clean hydrogen, clean water and natural gas. They have projects in Clinton County and Sullivan County in Indiana with future projects planned in Indiana – one in the Burr Oak area in Marshall County in the Tamarack Solar project.
He said the Burr Oak location makes an ideal spot for their proposed project as electrical grids intersect east and west.
“These projects ultimately sell electricity onto the wholesale electric market and would not be possible unless they could ultimately connect onto the grid,” said Sternberg. “We also have a consistent solar resource here in Northern Indiana. I do understand it’s not the sunniest place in the world, but the key is that it’s consistent and it’s predictable. We’ve actually had a solar panel out gathering data for the past several years so we know exactly what type of energy production we can expect during the project’s operation.”
He said this project helps meet the growing demand of electricity and it meets the need of utility partners to cut production costs as it pertains to coal-fired operations.
The Tamarack Solar project has been in the planning stages since 2020. It will be a 150MW project which will power 29,000 homes and it interconnects to the Burr Oak substation. Sternberg said voluntary lease agreements have been signed between Invenergy and 12 farm families which would allow 1,435 acres for this project within the fence.
“There is more ground that has been leased, but because of different constraints, whether that be wetlands, flood plains, setbacks that we’re going to comply with based on the county’s ordinance, there is more leased ground. We have made a significant investment, roughly $1.5 million to date, in landowner payments, environmental studies, engineering studies, transmission study deposits, and we’ve made that investment based on your county ordinance. We continue to follow that county ordinance and are looking forward to providing more details on the project in the near future.”
The project is expected to create 175 construction jobs at peak construction, offer support in education, 4-H opportunities, and environmental stewardship. A $250 million capital investment would contribute over $40 million in property tax payments and $60 million in payments to participating landowners.
He stated if there are questions or concerns that citizens could reach him at esternberg@inveneregy.com. A permit for the proposed project has been submitted to the county.
Additionally, Rick Hall from Barnes and Thornberg told the commissioners Tuesday morning that he is working with county entities to finalize a decommissioning agreement and road use agreement that would go in concert with other solar project agreements, including an economic development agreement. These documents would need to be approved prior to the approval of any upcoming proposed projects. Those documents will be presented to the commissioners in a future meeting.
A decommissioning agreement would require a solar company to remove all equipment to restore the ground to original condition within a year of the cessation of production. A bond would also be issued if the project goes dormant. A road use agreement would require the solar company to restore the roads to their original condition following the construction of a project.
County Council President Jesse Bohannon and County Council Attorney Marcel Lebbin commented that a letter of credit in the place of a decommissioning bond would be preferred when considering a decommissioning agreement. Bill Githens also made the same comments. Bohannon also asked that the council be provided details of the document when prepared.
Several farmland lessees commented on the support of this project to the commissioners and to protect the rights of farmers making these future plans for their private property and for the future of their families. Opponents also commented that the rights of neighboring property owners to such a project should also be protected.
There were no decisions made during Tuesday’s meeting. The commissioners were provided with information only.
