
Will County Board rejects solar facilities in near New Lenox, Wilmington
Soltage proposed two 5-megawatt commercial solar energy facilities on about 75 acres southeast of Haven Avenue and Gougar Road. The village of New Lenox abuts the property to the west and north and objected to the plan.
More than 80 residents of the nearby Fieldstone Subdivision signed a petition stating the commercial solar energy facility would negatively impact their property values. They also said the height of the vegetation and the minimal times it would be mowed would be an eyesore and create problems with mosquitoes and rodents.
'This proposed solar farm will be extraordinarily close to our homes,' Sandy Wheeler said. 'I was involved in preparing the signatures in opposition to this proposed solar farm. Not one resident that I asked to sign the petition denied it.'
Ray Stanford said residents in the Fieldstone Subdivision believed it would depreciate their property values, saying he researched the impact of property values next to solar farms in states that have had such facilities long before they became popular in Illinois. He said he learned the value of homes about a half mile from the solar farms go down in value.
That claim was denied by Soltage representatives.
New Lenox is recommending a medium density, single-family residential development as part of its comprehensive plan for that land, said Robin Ellis, the assistant village administrator and community development director.
The village has been very deliberate in its planning and has intentionally kept industrial development west of Gougar Road, Ellis said.
The county could generate more in property taxes from a future residential development than a solar plant, Ellis said in a letter to the county, noting the developer estimated the solar facility would generate about $73,000 annually in property taxes whereas a modest residential development could generate $1.6 million annually.
The land owner last talked to the village about building a residential development in 2008, Ellis said. Since then, the village has taken steps to encourage residential development east of Gougar Road by investing nearly $4.5 million in road improvements. The village is also investing in a new wastewater treatment facility to prep the area for residential development, she said.
Board member Frankie Pretzel, the chair of the County Board's Land Use and Development Committee, said this is the wrong location for a solar project.
'I drive by this property regularly,' Pretzel, a New Lenox Republican, said. 'It's just a matter of time that we see homes.'
He said the site is in a highly desired area in the heart of town.
New Lenox Mayor Tim Baldermann said homes are located to the west and north with Lincoln Way West High School to the south. If a solar facility is built, nearby vacant land would not be developed for homes, and an industrial use would likely be proposed.
'It doesn't fit the area,' Baldermann said. 'We are not anti-solar, it just doesn't make sense on this piece of property.'
Baldermann said he believed the solar project would be a tremendous loss of revenue for the area taxing bodies.
Union School District 81 would receive $660,000 a year in property tax revenue if the land were developed as homes as the village wants, said Baldermann, who is also the district's superintendent. As a solar facility, the district would receive $22,000 a year, he said.
The district is also highly sought after and would welcome more students, Baldermann said.
James Brown, fire marshal for the New Lenox Fire District, said he had concerns due to its proximity to schools and Silver Cross Hospital.
Stephanie Sienkowski, director of development at Soltage, said the project would bring about 60 to 75 union contractor jobs during construction, and the solar facility could provide solar energy to about 2,000 homes, helping meet a growing demand for electricity.
She said the company also planned to offer college scholarships to students and gift the New Lenox Fire District with an ATV. She tried to assuage concerns about fire hazards and said the company has an emergency response plan in place.
Andrew Lines, a real estate appraiser for Soltage, said data shows solar energy facilities don't have issues on property values throughout the country including in coveted and scenic areas of Hawaii, California or Colorado.
Soltage attorney Maria Bries said the property is located in unincorporated Will County, which should supersede New Lenox's planning authority. New Lenox's comprehensive plan is only advisory, she said.
Commercial solar facilities are allowed to be located on agricultural land, and the Soltage project meets the requirements for a special use permit, she said. The company has invested $1.6 million in the project thus far, she said.
Bries said the Will County Board cannot be more restrictive than state law in denying an application.
'Decisions by counties based on local resistance rather than objective standards … are yielding arbitrary outcomes detrimental to ComEd's future power supply and the state of Illinois' pressing energy needs,' she said.
State laws governing solar projects have frustrated many county lawmakers, who feel the state is taking the control over local projects out of their hands.
'I strongly believe that the state legislature got this wrong and shame on them for putting us in this position month after month after month,' Pretzel said, adding he would like to put a halt on solar cases.
'The only reason they are called solar farms is because we are putting them on farm land,' said Republican Leader Jim Richmond, of Mokena. 'Really, they are solar utility plants, and we are putting them in close proximity to houses not because this board wants them there but because Springfield has pushed this upon us.'
Democrat Sherry Newquist of Steger, who voted against the project, said she was on the fence. She said on one hand it was a textbook case of a municipality using its future planning area to decide how it wants to grow. But she conceded denying the project would ultimately lead to a lawsuit.
'And how well is that serving the taxpayers,' she said.
The County Board also voted 16-5 to reject a commercial solar energy facility proposed by Nexamp Solar LLC that would have been located on about 34 acres on Wilmington-Peotone Road in Wilmington.
County Board Speaker Joe VanDuyne, a Democrat from Wilmington, said the planned location is next to the community's welcome sign and would be a bad location for a solar farm.
The city of Wilmington objected to the request because it was too close to existing residents and could be annexed to the city for a future residential use. City officials said the solar energy facility would be an eyesore and potentially create glare or contamination concerns, county documents said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
7 minutes ago
- UPI
Senate set for final vote on $9B DOGE cuts with necessary votes
Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought speaks to the press after attending the Senate Republican caucus luncheon at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday. He announced the Senate is ready to pass a bill that will codify DOGE cuts of $9 billion. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo July 16 (UPI) -- The U.S. Senate has the votes to pass a bill that would codify congressionally approved appropriations cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency. The bill would cut $9 billion in spending. Two Republican senators fought back on sticking points of AIDS funding and tribal-area public radio stations. The GOP resolved the issues to gain the votes. Three GOP senators voted against the bill: Susan Collins, R-Maine; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. The final number for both earlier votes was 51-50, with Vice President J.D. Vance casting the tie-breaking votes. The Senate will gather this morning to vote on amendments, then will have a final vote this afternoon. The bill will still have to pass the House of Representatives then move to President Donald Trump for final approval. The bill had originally planned to cut $9.4 million in spending, but Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., worked out a deal to redirect Interior Department funds to help about 28 radio stations in 14 states that broadcast to tribal lands. The stations are at risk because of $1.1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They provide vital emergency warnings to those areas. Several other GOP senators held out on the $400 million cut that they believed would hurt the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, created by President George W. Bush. A rescission package was created by Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, to stop cuts to the PEPFAR program. Murkowski said the rescissions package sets a precedent that undermines the authority of Congress. "We're lawmakers. We should be legislating. What we're getting now is a direction from the White House and being told, 'This is the priority. We want you to execute on it. We'll be back with you with another round,'" she said. "I don't accept that. I'm going to be voting no." Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., called the bill a "down payment" on reducing the size of the federal government. "What we're talking about here is one-tenth of 1% of all federal spending," he told reporters.


Newsweek
8 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Donald Trump's Plan to Arm Ukraine Differs From Joe Biden's
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's push for European NATO members to purchase U.S.-made weapons for Ukraine marks a shift from the more direct military support for Kyiv of his predecessor, Joe Biden. But unlike Biden, Trump has been more direct in engaging with Moscow, and both have taken their own approaches to economic measures to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin. Why It Matters The United States is the world's biggest provider of military support for Ukraine, but when Trump took office, there were fears that the Republican president would cut or curb this lifeline. Trump's move in the first half of 2025 to reset economic ties with Moscow also raised concerns about whether Biden-era sanctions aimed at choking revenues for Putin's war machine would be eased. The president's tone has shifted both towards Putin and regarding the continuation of U.S. military support for Ukraine, raising hope in Kyiv that the U.S. commitment to Ukraine may be as significant, albeit delivered differently, as Biden's. Then-President Joe Biden (L) and Donald Trump arrive at Trump's presidential inauguration ceremony on January 20, 2025. Then-President Joe Biden (L) and Donald Trump arrive at Trump's presidential inauguration ceremony on January 20, To Know Putin invaded Ukraine just over 13 months into Biden's White House term. Between February 24, 2022, and January 20, 2025, the U.S. became the world's biggest supplier of weapons and aid for Ukraine's fight, pledging over $175 billion in support. The Democratic president also signed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 and led the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a coalition of about 50 countries coordinating military assistance. "President Biden was able to organize a broad coalition of Western countries that helped transform the Ukrainian military into a formidable force, capable of resisting a much larger and better-funded Russian army supported by Iran and North Korea," Yuriy Boyechko, the CEO of Hope for Ukraine, told Newsweek. But his approach to arming Ukraine was criticized as piecemeal, as the Biden administration took pains to avoid escalation, opposing Kyiv's use of American equipment against military targets within Russia. Volodymyr Zelensky and Joe Biden on the sidelines of the 79th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 25, 2024. Volodymyr Zelensky and Joe Biden on the sidelines of the 79th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 25, 2024. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images By July 2022, the U.S. had supplied HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System), and on July 6, 2023, Biden approved cluster munitions to Ukraine. However, deliveries of long-range ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles were delayed and eventually allowed, provided they would never be used to hit targets within Russia. Ukraine had been requesting U.S.-made F-16 fighters since 2022, but only started receiving them in July 2024 through third countries. Other weapons systems that were blocked or held up included Patriot surface-to-air missiles, M1 Abrams tanks, and Gray Eagle drones—delays which Kyiv said have added to battlefield losses among its forces. Sanctions Not Talks Rather than focusing on direct talks with Moscow, Biden's actions towards Putin centered on sanctions. As a parting shot, his administration imposed another round of measures, bringing the total to over 3,500, according to Statista, which are still in place today. "The Biden administration's approach did not really include direct negotiations with the Russians," George Beebe, former director of the CIA's Russia analysis and director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Newsweek. "They approached this by saying 'we're going to put enough economic and military pressure on Russia and isolate Russia internationally and diplomatically turn Russia into a persona non grata,'" Beebe said. The aim was to force the Russians to recalculate the costs and benefits of the invasion and capitulate, he said, "and that didn't work." Trump's Approach NATO chief Mark Rutte and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have welcomed Trump's proposal for the U.S. to provide new weapons to Ukraine. The NATO-coordinated arms plan for Kyiv was unveiled as a novel approach to the direct aid from Biden, which is touted as ensuring the continued flow of American arms to Ukraine, paid for by Europe. Trump has repeatedly stated that the U.S. had spent $350 billion on helping Ukraine, although the actual amount was significantly less. But a deal in which NATO and European Union states purchase U.S.-made weapons systems, deliver some to Ukraine, and replace them through agreements with Washington could satisfy Trump's MAGA base, who do not want to see American taxpayers footing the bill. "Clearly a situation where the Europeans are paying for this is a better deal for the United States than providing aid directly to Ukraine that probably will never be paid back," said Beebe, "that certainly was one of the considerations that President Trump bore in mind." Rutte said the deal included missiles, ammunition, and air defense, while Trump announced that Patriot missiles—critical to defend against Russia's drone and missile bombardment on civilian structures—were "already being shipped," to Ukraine. U.S. President Donald Trump (L) and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on February 28, 2025. U.S. President Donald Trump (L) and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on February 28, Tariffs The prospect of weapons shipments follows Trump's issuing an ultimatum to Moscow of "severe" tariffs unless Russia agrees to a peace deal within 50 days to end its war in Ukraine. He has since teased a shorter time frame. These would be, according to Trump, 100 percent secondary tariffs, in which any country doing business with Russia would face a significant levy on selling their products to the U.S. Demanding Russian action within a deadline is a tactic that differs from Biden's approach, although there are questions about its effectiveness. Beebe said the Biden administration likely considered such a move but concluded it would rebound against the U.S. in terms of inflation and the prospect of higher global oil prices. However, Russia realizes that imposing these tariffs on Europe, as well as its major trading partners, Turkey and China, "would go very poorly for the United States," he added, with potential impacts on inflation and global oil prices. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump on July 14 at the White House: "We're gonna be doing very severe tariffs if we don't have a deal in 50 days." U.S.-based Nova Ukraine said in a statement to Newsweek regarding the 50-day deadline and delivery of U.S weapons: "We have long advocated for decisive U.S. leadership to help Ukraine defend itself and deter further Russian aggression." Brian Taylor, a political science professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, told Newsweek: "The good news for Ukraine is has finally figured out that Putin is the main obstacle to peace." George Beebe, the director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Newsweek: "We have to focus on a geopolitical compromise that the West concedes that Ukraine won't be in NATO and NATO forces won't be in Ukraine, and Russia, in turn, concedes that it will not block Ukrainian accession to the European Union. So far, neither Biden nor Trump has focused on pursuing that compromise." What Happens Next Boycheko, whose group provides support to Ukrainian communities on the frontline, said Trump's approach to aiding Ukraine is so far mostly just promises and statements. If Trump follows through on promises like secondary sanctions and the deployment of the most advanced military capabilities to Ukraine, "then we will be able to compare what was done by the current administration vs the previous administration," he said. Meanwhile, Taylor said that by deferring these proposed sanctions for 50 days, "Trump left himself plenty of time to change his mind again, while Putin keeps bombing Ukrainian cities nightly and his army remains on the offensive."


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
GOP Budget Could Increase Energy Bills for Millions of Americans
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Fewer clean energy projects will be commissioned or reach completion as a result of the Republican tax bill pushed through Congress, potentially raising energy bills for millions, according to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "This bill will raise energy prices for all Americans," said Harry Godfrey, the managing director and head of federal engagement at Advanced Energy United, an industry association representing renewable power companies in the U.S. "No two ways about it," he added. "This bill will kill clean energy projects, particularly wind and solar projects, in active development." Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment outside regular office hours. President Donald Trump, joined by Republican lawmakers, signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law during an Independence Day military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on... President Donald Trump, joined by Republican lawmakers, signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law during an Independence Day military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 4. MoreThe final version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4, contains signification revisions and rescissions to clean energy grant programs enacted as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This act, widely considered the centerpiece of Joe Biden's presidency, directed more than $300 billion in funds toward supporting renewable energy projects, primarily in the form of tax credits and grants aimed at expediting private investment. About $160 billion in clean energy investments have been announced since its passage, according to the Clean Economy Tracker, a partnership between Utah State University and the research firm Atlas Public Policy. "The main benefit of the IRA was putting a floor on the amount of renewables that would be built, reducing future uncertainty in electricity prices and emissions," said James Bushnell, a co-director of the Energy Economics Program at the University of California, Davis. "Maybe a lot of these renewables would have been built anyway, but the IRA eliminated scenarios where they might not have been," he told Newsweek. "Those scenarios are now back on the table." The White House has said the new tax bill will "drive down energy costs" through expanded oil, gas and coal production. However, it significantly shortens the window for wind and solar projects to qualify for tax credits, phasing these in over the coming years. To qualify, such projects must either be finished by the end of 2027 or begin construction within the next year. "The most likely projects to be impacted will be those in development that cannot move to construction in the next six to 12 months," Godfrey said. "Some financiers won't wait around to see if the projects meet the new cutoff," he continued. "So very real projects that would have come online at the tail end of this decade—creating thousands of jobs, millions in tax revenue for local communities, representing billions in private investment—they'll go up in smoke." According to Godfrey, as the bill has been debated and revised since Trump assumed office, many energy companies have gotten "cold feet," scaling back renewables projects given the anticipated effects. According to Dan O'Brien, a senior analyst at the climate policy think tank Energy Innovation, individual cases of firms reneging on their renewables investments have become commonplace. He referenced a solar company that announced plans last summer to establish a cell manufacturing plant in Minnesota. However, as the plan to cut tax credits came closer to becoming a reality, it paused construction on the plant and held off on purchasing equipment. While these big-picture effects are significant, Godfrey said the consumer-side effects are "even more worrisome." He added that the bill also terminated the 30 percent tax credit previously available to cut the up-front costs of installing solar panel systems at the end of 2025. "While solar leasing will endure for the near-term, 'mom and pop' solar installers whose businesses are built on solar sales face a bleak picture," he said. A view of solar panels atop the roof of a home in Pasadena, California, on February 25. A view of solar panels atop the roof of a home in Pasadena, California, on February Energy Innovation's research found that the bill would "raise energy prices for all Americans," O'Brien told Newsweek that it would "vary by state." Particular effects, he said, would be felt in the South and Midwest, given the regions' enormous solar and wind potential but the lack of state government support for such projects. "As a result, these states see the highest energy cost increases, to the tune of over $600 increases annually for households in Missouri, Kentucky, and South Carolina," he said, giving the think tank's inflation-adjusted estimates for 2035. "Oklahoman, Texan, and North Carolinian families will also see steep increases of $480 to $540." Nationally, Energy Innovation has found that the bill will result in a 10 to 18 percent increase in energy bills for residential, commercial and industrial consumers by 2035. This is in addition to the effects of the national economic slowdown the think tank expects the bill to cause: $980 billion in lost gross domestic product during the 2025-2034 budget period, alongside 760,000 lost jobs by the end of the decade.