Swift County adopts new renewable energy ordinance – West Central Tribune

Report on Swift County’s Renewable Energy Ordinance and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Local Governance for Sustainable Energy

On October 21, the Swift County Board of Commissioners adopted a new renewable energy ordinance by a 4-1 vote. This policy instrument is designed to govern the local development of renewable energy infrastructure, directly engaging with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

2.0 Ordinance Scope and Contribution to SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy)

The ordinance establishes a regulatory framework aimed at facilitating the growth of clean energy while managing its local impact. This directly supports the objectives of SDG 7 by creating clear pathways for renewable energy deployment.

• Jurisdiction: The ordinance applies to wind energy projects between 5 and 25 megawatts and solar or battery storage projects of 100 kilowatts or larger.
• Exclusions: Large-scale wind projects of 25 megawatts or more, such as the proposed Junegrass Wind Project, remain under the authority of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
• Objective: The policy seeks to balance the expansion of clean energy sources with community and environmental considerations, a core tenet of sustainable development.

3.0 Stakeholder Perspectives and Community Engagement (SDG 11 & SDG 16)

The development of the ordinance involved a significant public debate, reflecting the principles of inclusive and participatory governance central to SDG 11 and SDG 16. A committee appointed by the board drafted the ordinance, which was then subject to public hearings attended by over 100 people.

3.1 Concerns from Small-Scale Energy Proponents

Advocates for on-farm and community-based renewable projects argued that the ordinance could hinder progress toward decentralized clean energy, citing several restrictive elements.

1. Regulatory Burden: The ordinance was described as “overkill” and a “stumbling block” for small-scale developers.
2. Landowner Liability: A key concern was a provision making landowners co-liable for civil or criminal violations by developers.
3. Arbitrary Thresholds: The 100-kilowatt threshold for solar projects was criticized as being too low and not reflective of emerging technology needs.
4. Lack of Representation: Concerns were raised that the drafting committee did not include members who currently operate small-scale renewable energy systems.

3.2 Board of Commissioners’ Deliberations

The Board’s decision-making process illustrates the challenge of building effective and accountable institutions (SDG 16) that can mediate diverse interests.

• Dissenting View: Commissioner Pete Peterson, who cast the sole dissenting vote, argued for adhering to the state ordinance to avoid local political pressure.
• Committee Composition: Board Chair Ed Rudningen noted the committee included members both for and against renewable development to ensure a balanced perspective.
• Acknowledged Imperfections: Commissioner Gary Hendrickx, who moved for approval, acknowledged concerns that the ordinance might be too restrictive but emphasized the need to “move forward” with a formal policy.

4.0 Policy Revisions and Inter-County Collaboration (SDG 17)

In response to public feedback, the Board made several amendments to the draft ordinance, demonstrating a responsive governance model. Furthermore, the process benefited from partnerships and knowledge sharing, aligning with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

• Key Amendments:
  • Noncommercial projects were exempted from advanced decommissioning requirements.
  • Setback requirements for small-scale projects were reduced.
• Collaborative Development: Commissioner Larry Mahoney stated that the committee utilized existing ordinances from neighboring Stevens, Traverse, and Chippewa counties, leveraging regional expertise and established best practices.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on Swift County’s new renewable energy ordinance addresses several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by focusing on local governance, clean energy development, and community participation.

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy: The core subject of the article is the regulation of renewable energy sources, specifically wind and solar power. The entire debate revolves around how to facilitate or restrict the development of clean energy infrastructure within the county.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The article discusses local land use planning and management through the creation of a county ordinance. It highlights the process of creating sustainable community policies that balance economic development (renewable energy projects) with the concerns of local residents and landowners.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: Although not explicitly mentioned, the promotion and regulation of renewable energy are fundamental strategies for climate change mitigation. By establishing rules for wind and solar projects, the county is taking local action that contributes to broader climate goals.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article details the functioning of a local governing body (Swift County Board of Commissioners) in creating and adopting legislation. It describes a participatory and sometimes contentious process, involving public hearings, committee work, and a formal vote, which are all elements of building effective and accountable institutions at the local level.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
   • The article directly relates to this target by discussing the policies that govern the development of renewable energy. The ordinance sets requirements for “wind projects between 5 and 25 megawatts and solar and battery storage projects of 100 kilowatts or larger,” and mentions the proposed “Junegrass Wind Project that could include 88 large turbines.” These projects are designed to increase the share of renewable energy.
2. Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.
   • The process described in the article is a clear example of local-level participatory planning. The county created a committee, held a public hearing attended by “more than 100 people,” and considered public comments, which led to changes in the ordinance. This reflects an effort to manage local development in a participatory manner.
3. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
   • The Swift County ordinance is a local-level policy that integrates climate change measures (promoting renewable energy) into its development planning. By creating a legal framework for wind and solar projects, the county is embedding climate action into its governance structure.
4. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • The article provides a detailed account of the decision-making process. It mentions the formation of a “renewable energy committee” with members “for and against renewable development,” public hearings, and a final 4-1 vote by the elected commissioners. The fact that the board “made some changes to the ordinance in response to public comments” demonstrates a responsive process, while the concerns raised by citizens like Jim Falk and the dissenting vote from Commissioner Pete Peterson show the inclusive and representative nature of the debate.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article implies several qualitative and quantitative indicators that could be used to measure progress:

• Indicator for Target 7.2: The article provides specific measurements of renewable energy capacity. It mentions project sizes in megawatts (MW) and kilowatts (kW), such as “wind projects between 5 and 25 megawatts” and “solar and battery storage projects of 100 kilowatts or larger.” The number and capacity of approved renewable energy projects under the new ordinance would be a direct indicator of progress.
• Indicator for Target 11.3: The existence of a participatory structure for planning is an indicator. The article confirms this by describing the “committee appointed by the board,” the “hearing on the ordinance on Aug. 19” with over 100 attendees, and the “citizen comment period.” The number of public hearings held and the volume of public comments received could serve as metrics.
• Indicator for Target 13.2: The primary indicator is the existence of the policy itself. The article states that the Swift County Board of Commissioners “adopted a new ordinance to govern renewable energy development.” The formal adoption of this ordinance is a measurable action of integrating climate-related policy into local planning.
• Indicator for Target 16.7: The article provides qualitative evidence of an inclusive decision-making process. The composition of the committee (“members for and against renewable development”), the documented public opposition (“small wind and solar proponents consider it too restrictive”), and the recorded vote (“adopted… by a 4-1 vote”) are all indicators of a representative and participatory process. While not a formal metric, these details describe the health and inclusivity of local governance.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wctrib.com