Minnesota Power representatives provided an update to the Benton County Board on the Regal Solar Project, describing engineering work, minor layout changes and a schedule that anticipates construction in 2026–27 and commercial operation in 2027.

Alex Lewin of Minnesota Power said the project layout and collection routing remain generally the same as the 2023 amendment; the company now plans to combine the substation and switchyard into a single, smaller compound and to put a portion of the collection line underground to reduce visual impacts. Minnesota Power said it expects to donate $20,000 annually for 20 years to the Royalton and Sauk Rapids–Rice school districts for local education funds. The project’s anticipated nameplate capacity is 119.5 megawatts, and Minnesota Power said it is preparing a decommissioning plan and will submit a minor-alteration filing with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission later this year.

County Assessor Brian Fulton answered tax classification questions from the public and commissioners. He said most land used for solar projects today is assessed as agricultural or ag homestead prior to development; a utility-scale solar installation is typically classified as commercial property for tax purposes. Fulton explained that commercial classification entails higher effective class rates than agricultural land: while non-homestead agricultural land is generally taxed at a 1.0% classification rate, commercial property uses the 1.5% class rate on the first $150,000 of value and 2.0% on value above that threshold under current state classification rules. Fulton said solar projects typically increase tax capacity on the property and that the state also collects a production-related tax tied to energy generation that is apportioned to local jurisdictions.

Commissioners and audience members asked about production-tax revenue estimates and decommissioning. A county figure discussed in the meeting — presented by a board member citing earlier project materials — estimated production tax revenue to the county in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually (board members referenced figures near $200,000–$300,000 and, in discussion, some past estimates around $300,000). Minnesota Power representatives declined to provide a firm production-tax estimate at the meeting and said tax details would be part of the final permitting and property-valuation information. The company said it intends to recycle much of the project equipment at the end of its expected ~30-year operational life and will include decommissioning-cost estimates and recycling commitments in its permit filing and decommissioning plan.

County staff said conditional-use permitting for substations and local construction/entrance permits would still be required even though the Public Utilities Commission reviews larger siting and transmission permits. The board requested written confirmation of decommissioning protections and any bonding or surety the company would provide to cover removal costs; staff agreed to follow up with the developer for written assurances.

The presentation was informational; no county permits or votes on the project were taken at this meeting.