The Sunny Side of Community Engagement

Last week, I attended the Champaign County Board Meeting, where members were voting on a special use permit to allow a farmer in Mahomet to lease their land to Summit Ridge Energy for a 5-MegaWatt, 36-acre solar facility. This proposal had sparked debate at the previous board meeting, causing the board to table the vote to allow more time to gather information and for the solar company to conduct community outreach.

A friend from graduate school encouraged me to speak in support of the project from an air quality perspective, knowing my background in science-policy, solar energy in Illinois, and air quality research. I was also motivated by themes from the book Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, which my book club is currently reading. The authors argue that many environmental legal protections, though well-intentioned, are now used to block projects that would actually help the environment. They write “progress is more about implementation than invention,” explaining we already have the technologies to produce clean energy and reduce emissions, and we just need to implement them. This message was on my mind as I listened to residents describe the proposed facility as an “industrial power plant,” and echo familiar NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) concerns.

The Scene

The meeting was on Thursday, October 23 at 6:30pm and drew a large crowd. Residents from the Spring Lake subdivision, located close to the proposed site, wore red in solidarity to oppose the project. After a few administrative items, the board opened for public comment on two main issues:

1. the Mahomet solar project, and

2. funding for the Champaign County African Descent Reparations Commission.

The Debate

Opponents of the solar facility spoke first. Their comments centered on the lack of early community engagement by the company, and the sense that their concerns had not been taken seriously. Many had moved to the countryside for peace and quiet, and feared that inverter noise would disrupt that. Others worried about sediment runoff into nearby Spring Lake during construction, which had recently been dredged to improve water quality, or about increased runoff and flooding from impervious surfaces once the project was operational. Several speakers expressed concern about the Mahomet Aquifer beneath the site and questioned what would happen at the end of the project’s life—would the land simply be abandoned? Several speakers stressed they were not against solar power itself, but were opposed to the siting of a large-scale solar project in agriculturally zoned land, and felt that marketing as “harvesting the sun” blurred the distinction between farming and industrial activity.

A representative from Summit Ridge Energy Company clarified misconceptions about the project and summarized how the company had updated plans following a community meeting. Despite this, many residents felt these changes were too little too late. The solar facility, located near a railroad and highway, was not expected to generate audible noise over existing background levels, yet the company added fencing to its plans as a goodwill gesture to help buffer sound. They explained that the project will have no concrete foundations, instead being supported by metal posts driven 10-15ft in the ground, far above the aquifer’s depth of 100ft. Native prairie grasses would be planted to reduce stormwater runoff and improve water quality. Drain tiles damaged during construction would be replaced as required by Illinois law. Trees would no longer be removed as part of the construction, and additional trees would be planted along the perimeter. The company also committed to decommissioning and restoring the project site at the end of its life.

Next the pro-solar community members were invited to speak. One speaker noted that at night, the inverters would not be running (because of the absence of sunlight), so residents would still be able to enjoy the countryside’s quiet. Others pointed out that giving the land a break from agriculture can give the soil time to rebuild nutrients, potentially making it more productive later. They pointed out that native prairie and pollinator plantings improve biodiversity and water quality by reducing fertilizer runoff. One person observed that using land for solar energy is more efficient than dedicating it to biofuel crops, while another shared how signing up for community solar had reduced their energy bills.

When it was my turn to speak, I focused on the project’s air quality benefits. Replacing fossil-fuel power with clean, local solar generation can improve public health. I emphasized that clean energy is one of the most direct ways to reduce air pollution, which has well-documented impacts on respiratory and cardiovascular health. I have included my full remarks below.

Board Deliberation

After public comment closed, the Board began its discussion. Members from more rural areas, including Mahomet, said they would reflect community sentiment and vote against the project. Others pointed out that solar installations in Savoy and Urbana have caused no noise problems and have not reduced property values. Several members stressed landowner rights and the economic benefit for local farmers at a time when yields and profit margins are declining, in part due to climate change. Allowing renewable energy development is one way to both diversify farm income and address the underlying cause of those changing conditions. Others countered that zoning rules exist for a reason.

One member expressed that “we don’t know the long-term side effects” of solar development. This comment frustrated me because long-term consequences of agricultural runoff, fossil-fuel dependence, and air pollution are well documented. Fear-based objections like this risk undermining public trust in legitimate environmental developments. A few members warned that rejecting a project that meets all statutory requirements would expose the county to a costly lawsuit, and the solar company had made it clear it would sue if the permit were denied. Some were upset by that threat, viewing it as corporate intimidation, while others pointed out that it was the company’s legal right to defend a compliant project. A lawyer on the board noted that such a lawsuit would likely only delay the inevitable approval while costing everyone far more money.  

I left around 9:45 pm while the debate was still underway. Later, I was delighted to hear the board narrowly approved (11-10) the special use permit for the proposed solar facility, and also voted to fund the Reparations Commission.

Reflection

The outcome is a reminder that good projects can fail if community engagement comes too late.

The Spring Lake residents raised valid concerns. The company, however, made a critical mistake in waiting until pressure mounted before engaging directly with the public. Early and genuine outreach could have built trust and reduced resistance from the start.  

My partner discussed how in his home country, Ireland, it’s common for engineering firms to engage communities early and often. This may take the form of formal public meetings or just getting lunch or tea with concerned community members to listen and find compromises. The solutions to the concerns raised could be as simple as painting facilities in colors that blend into the surrounding landscape, or more complex like adjusting the construction schedules to avoid disrupting local events or school exams. It is not always straightforward from an engineering perspective—engineers are trained in utility and efficiency rather than social buy-in—but this method is how projects earn legitimacy and lasting public trust.   

Takeaway

I left the meeting encouraged, and glad I participated in the community discussion. I supported the solar project, but also respected those who opposed it. The discussion was passionate but civil—exactly what political discourse should look like. It stood in stark contrast to the combative, performative style of politics too often seen at the federal level, especially by the members of the current Trump administration who routinely abandon honesty and decency in favor of insults, misinformation, and division.

What I witnessed instead was democracy functioning as it should: neighbors showing up, speaking their minds, and listening to one another — even when they disagree.

Ultimately, the sunny side of community engagement is that it works best when everyone participates. Developers should engage the public early and often, local government must listen to the concerns of its constituents with empathy and fairness, and residents need to speak up about issues they care about. Progress happens when all three come together—and when truth, respect, and accountability remain at the center of how we govern.

Full Public Comment:  

"Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Tessa Clarizio and I am a PhD candidate in environmental engineering at the U of I studying air quality; which I’ll focus on tonight. I wanted to speak today to express my support for the Mahomet Community Solar Project, because it will improve air quality, reduce energy costs, and benefit our community’s health and environment. 

Community solar is a practical, local solution that provides affordable, reliable electricity without the emissions associated with traditional fossil fuel power. It’s also most efficient when we need it most– during the summer when air conditioners are running and electricity bills climb, as many of us experienced this year. 

Solar energy reduces our dependence on fossil fuels and in doing so, improves local air quality. The World Health Organization recognizes outdoor air pollution as the leading environmental cause of premature death worldwide. Poor air quality contributes not only to short-term symptoms such as coughing and asthma attacks, but also to long-term risks including respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Emerging evidence even links air pollution to adverse birth outcomes and neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimers. 

Air pollution also harms agriculture. Polluted air damages plant cells, reduces photosynthesis, and limits crops’ ability to exchange gases through their leaves, leading to stress and lower crop yields. Clean air, therefore, helps protect both public health and agricultural productivity. 

While U.S. air quality has generally improved over the past several decades thanks to environmental regulations, this progress has begun to stall or even reverse in recent years as wildfires out West become more frequent and intense. Many of us here in Champaign County have experienced the effects firsthand–the smell of smoke in the air, the irritation in our throats, and the yellowish-brown haze blanketing the sky. These events highlight how important it is to reduce local sources of air pollution wherever possible so that we are not adding to the problem when wildfire smoke impacts our air.  

While no energy development is perfect, we should pursue solutions that minimize environmental harm while maximizing community benefit. Best practices in construction can limit dust, sediment runoff, and other short-term impacts, and the developer has already included these protections in their plans. Once operational, solar arrays produce zero air pollutant emissions, and locating them close to the community makes energy transmission more efficient.

In a time when wildfires are increasingly affecting our local air quality, clean local energy production is one of the most direct ways we can lower energy costs while protecting the health of our community.

Thank you."