Editing Openai/68743fec-f760-8005-96f0-36db79274265 (section)

=== Assistant: Excellent approach. ===
Excellent approach. You're right to split the recommendations between:
* County-level (zoning, land use, property tax, visual/environmental impacts)
* Utility-level (grid strain, peak demand, emissions, cost recovery structure)

This framework reflects real-world regulatory boundaries and ensures that local concerns are addressed directly and proportionally.

==== 🏛️ A. County Zoning & Land Use: Options to Offset Local Impact ====

===== 💰 1. Earmark Property Tax Increases for Local Benefit Projects =====

While South Dakota has no corporate income tax, property tax increases from new infrastructure can fund:

| Offset Project Type               | Purpose                                     | Notes                                    |
| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- |
| Rural road upgrades               | Handles construction traffic, future access | Gravel-to-paved, culverts, snow clearing |
| Volunteer fire & EMS support      | Improves response near industrial site      | Equipment, personnel, station upgrades   |
| School or workforce grants        | Connects project revenue to local students  | STEM/coding programs; local scholarships |
| Ag or conservation district funds | Compensates for lost farmland or habitat    | Buffer plantings, pollinator zones       |
| Broadband or power reliability    | Returns benefit to residents                | Microgrid pilots, new poles/substations  |

Structure: The county could require a PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) agreement or earmark a percentage of property tax delta (e.g., 30–50%) for specific projects.

===== 📜 2. Local Development Agreement or Conditional Use Permit Conditions =====

The County Planning Commission can require:
* Annual data reporting (e.g., jobs, energy use, complaints, emissions)
* Landscape buffers, light/noise control
* View corridors or fencing types to mitigate rural impact
* Public transparency on water and energy systems
* Optional: require rooftop solar or on-site BESS as conditions for approval

==== ⚡ B. Utility Commission: Energy & Grid Impact Recommendations ====

In South Dakota, oversight of grid matters and utility rates (even municipal/co-op power) often falls to state regulators (PUC), though local influence matters through public input and franchise agreements.

===== 📈 1. Higher Peak Demand Charges for Large Loads =====

| Goal                        | Effect                                                          |
| --------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Reflect actual strain costs | Disincentivizes poorly timed use                                |
| Reward dispatchable load    | Encourages load-shifting or throttling                          |
| Revenue equity              | Prevents residential ratepayers from subsidizing hyperscale use |

Mechanism:
* Time-of-use pricing
* Tiered rates (e.g., >10 MW gets premium charge during 3–8 pm)

===== 🔥 2. Limit Peaker Plant Emissions or Usage =====
* Cap hours of operation during non-emergencies
* Require clean fuel sourcing or emissions offsets
* Require coordinated dispatch with wind/solar (i.e., peaker must only run when wind is low and no battery reserve is available)

===== 💸 3. Utility Revenue Sharing with Local Community =====

If Toronto’s power comes from a municipal or regional utility (like MRES), revenue from demand charges or infrastructure upgrades could:
* Be earmarked for Toronto/Deuel County projects
* Fund community energy programs, microgrids, or insulation upgrades

Structure:
* County negotiates a Community Impact Energy Agreement
* State PUC may need to approve or facilitate this revenue allocation

==== ✅ Summary of Options (Structured Table) ====

| Authority            | Tool                                | Purpose                                 | Example                                     |
| -------------------- | ----------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |
| County (Zoning)      | PILT / Tax Earmarks                 | Offset infrastructure & visual impact   | Roads, EMS, schools, ag mitigation          |
| County (Zoning)      | Development Agreement               | Tie approvals to local benefits         | Rooftop solar, buffers, public reporting    |
| County/State Utility | Peak Demand Charges                 | Discourage grid strain                  | Higher cost during high-load hours          |
| State Utility / MRES | Usage Caps or Emissions Limits      | Protect air quality / reduce peaker use | Dispatch rules for Toronto plant            |
| Utility / County     | Community Revenue-Sharing Agreement | Ensure local benefit from energy infra  | Annual % of revenue to town/county projects |

Would you like me to help format this into two sets of formal policy recommendations — one for county planning and one for utility/public power representatives — with suggested language and example motions?