Mentions of utility-scale solar and wind energy projects were prevalent across all five sessions, including in response to questions that did not explicitly ask about these projects. Concerns about potential community impacts from utility-scale development were top of mind for participants, especially against the backdrop of state law that limits local control of the permitting process. Participant sentiments about state law were primarily negative. 

There was concern that a lack of local control casts county board members in a negative light, creates questions around not being able to represent constituents’ wishes, and creates feelings of just “rubber-stamping” projects during public hearings for permits:

“I will say [state law is] a barrier to the public perception of [renewable energy] because we've had at the board, several people come and say, ‘This doesn't seem right.’ And we say, ‘Yep, sorry.’ And so it's, it's not only perception of clean energy, but perception of the board, perception of local agencies and anyone that could help with some of this organization and individual initiative. It all just looks like it's completely being neglected, which, partly, because we have to.”—Northwest County Board Member

“Every time we would do an ordinance, it seemed like the state would pass something to handcuff us in another way, and we'd have to change our ordinance again, so it's been a struggle for us.”—Southern County Board Member

The Chicagoland session offered additional details for how participants felt a lack of local control is impacting populous areas of the state. Participants in that session were concerned about utility-scale projects impacting future land use plans and decisions, particularly cooperative planning efforts with municipalities: 

“[...] we have areas, you know, within that mile and a half extraterritorial jurisdiction where municipalities are planning for their growth, they're planning big infrastructure projects, and we're seeing, you know, these sustainable developments, mainly solar, coming in, looking at areas where the municipalities see as big residential subdivisions in the next 20, 30 years, and they're going to be tied up with the renewable energy facility instead, and that’s really complicating relationships with the regional planning areas and everything.”—Chicagoland Planning Official

Participants in all sessions relayed concerns about losing prime farmland, often framing the loss in terms of the heritage of rural communities:

“I think a lot of folks see the unincorporated parts of the counties, with agriculture being the predominant use, as something to be proud about, and this is, like, our heritage going back for over 100-plus years, especially in cases of people owning family farms of multiple generations, so to see that turn to something else, I think doesn't always—is not looked favorably [upon] by everyone. And so, I think that comes to the point of if you can show the benefits of changing from corn or soybean production to just harvesting something different in energy and power, then sometimes that helps appease those concerns.” —West Central Planning Official

Participants in northwest Illinois appeared less concerned with farmland impacts overall, however. This session had the only instance of a participant putting the number of acres of farmland being converted into solar production into the context of the total number of acres in their county: 

“I went through all of ours. If we added up all the crop land that would have been used—and it's a very, very, very minuscule amount of crop land that's being taken out. People just see this huge facility and they assume it's so many acres [...]”—Northwest Planning Official

We found this notable since northwest Illinois, when compared to central Illinois and portions of southern Illinois, has fewer areas classified as “prime farmland” according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As described by another participant in the northwest session, there’s “a misconception that any field you see is good farmland. And I think any farmer in this room knows that you have good fields and bad fields. And you plant both of them.” 

Affordability of electricity was nearly universally mentioned as a top energy concern for participants’ communities. The only session where cost or affordability was not mentioned explicitly as an energy concern was in our West Central session. However, when discussing distributed energy systems, participants in that session voiced concerns about the high cost of residential solar systems and the discontinuation of tax credits for these installations. 

The issue of affordability is of course not something that Illinois Extension can address directly, but given its prevalence as a topic in our listening sessions, we are highlighting passages here that will inform our educational resources so that residents can gain an understanding of how the vast system of electricity generation affects them right at home.

Participants discussed utility-scale solar and wind projects in terms of how it would affect ratepayers in the host communities, with one participant highlighting community solar as a potential option for lowering utility bills: 

“They want our area to receive benefits for having the solar facilities in their immediate vicinity, or in the entire county. They think that the county rates should be lower, which they don't understand that we can't lower the rates. But you can subscribe to the [community] solar as well. And I've told several people now—[and they say] “Oh, that's too much to do.” And it's not.” —Northwest Planning Official 

The topic of energy efficiency only came up during the Chicagoland session in the context of municipal planning and the adoption of stricter energy codes. A participant in that session highlighted a debate around whether adopting higher standards would save residents money in the long run: 

“[...] because there are two different perspectives on what the perceived additional cost to build to the stretch [energy] code would be over the base code. As you might imagine, the folks who are pushing for the stretch code think that the added cost is on the lower end, in that it would pay—that the cost savings and efficiencies and retrofits avoided, would actually net out over the 30-year life of a home, whereas the development community has very different numbers that they've come in and proposed or presented.” —Chicagoland Planning Official

The listening sessions included one question that specifically asked what participants wished they understood more about clean energy or the energy system. When reviewing the transcripts, we noticed that throughout the discussion participants also highlighted what they wished the public understood more.

Participants noted knowledge gaps on multiple topics. Of primary concern were: 

• The grid system: how it works; how much renewable energy can offset closures of fossil-fuel power plants; how much the grid limits new renewable energy projects.
• Environmental impacts: how environmentally friendly is renewable energy; how can facts be presented during public hearings. 
• Decommissioning: the unknowns of the decommissioning process for utility-scale renewable energy projects; the status of the recycling industry for solar and wind turbine materials.  

Questions about the electric grid were numerous, and the listening sessions underscored the amount that the public is now contemplating the electric grid, possibly in ways they never have before. One participant described the role the utility companies play in renewable energy distribution as being “in the shadows,” while others highlighted confusion around what happens to electricity that is generated locally: 

“I think a major concern from the residents [...] when the wind farm came in was whether that energy would benefit the actual local community and lower costs like you guys are talking about. I don't have a very good understanding of, you know, we create all this energy. Where does it go? Does it stay in Illinois? Does it stay [local]? Does it stay in central Illinois?" —East Central County Official

Participants noted that it would be helpful for Illinois Extension to provide resources explaining any potential environmental impacts, separating fact from fiction. 

“I would like more information to give the adjacent landowners. [...] a lot of them think [solar panels] leach toxins into the ground. If the panels are broke, they're going to contaminate everything around them. Their wells are going to be contaminated, storm water systems and things like that. I would like more education on that portion of it.”—Northwest Planning Official

“[I] oftentimes get questions or claims from members of the public of [...] whether it be, like, noise pollution or, like, bird strikes of wind turbines, so just being able to have answers when people have questions, or if they're making claims in a public hearing and saying, oh, this solar panel's going to do XYZ, you can say whether that's true or not.”—West Central Planning Official

Finally, many participants wanted to know more about decommissioning utility-scale solar and wind projects, asking, “when it’s no longer a functioning system, or is having problems, what’s going to happen to that land?” (Southern County Board Member):

“Something I hear people ask a lot about is just the life cycle of a project. So, both like how are these materials made? How are the solar panels made? What goes into them in the wind turbines? And then all the way through to the other end of like when this project is over, how are, how is the site cleaned up? How are these things recycled? What's the status of the recycling industry? Where is it headed? So, just kind of a life cycle analysis of the actual working components of these facilities I think is something that I hear rural communities talk a lot about, too, of their interest and learning about that.”—East Central Energy Advocate