Second Energy Company Working County’s Former Wind Footprint, Board Told

Article Summary: Development & Personnel Committee Chairman Chad Ruppert told the Montgomery County Board on Tuesday that Atwell land agents are working in the county’s former UKA Wind footprint representing Terra-Gen, and that a land agent registry has also been filed with the county clerk. Ruppert separately voiced disappointment that no action has been taken on a required “do not contact” list, and said revised wind and solar ordinances drafted by a contracted attorney will come back to the committee next month.

Renewable Energy Oversight Key Points:

Pattern Energy’s list of land agents was filed in the County Clerk’s Office on June 25, 2026.

Ruppert said no action has been taken on a required “do not contact” list; the minutes do not identify what imposes that requirement.

Land agents for a second company, Terra-Gen, are now working the former UKA Wind footprint, represented by the firm Atwell.

Draft wind and solar ordinances from attorney Andrew Keyt would add building permit requirements and more up-front information; the committee asked for three additions and no vote was taken.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY — The Montgomery County Board on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, received its most detailed public accounting yet of how many renewable energy developers are courting landowners in the county — and heard a committee chairman say a required safeguard for landowners still has not been put in place.

Development & Personnel Committee Chairman Chad Ruppert pointed the board to the list of Pattern Energy land agents filed in the County Clerk’s Office on June 25, 2026, and said he was disappointed that no action has been taken on a required “do not contact” list. The minutes do not identify what requires that list, and this newsroom has not obtained the county resolution said to establish it.

Ruppert also told the board that the committee read a letter from county resident and landowner John Rundquist, who expressed frustration with what the minutes describe as misinformation that he had signed a lease with Pattern.

A Second Developer in a Former Wind Footprint

The newest development in the county’s energy file concerns a footprint that has been dormant in the public record for months.

Ruppert said Atwell land agents are presently working in the former UKA Wind footprint representing Terra-Gen, and that a land agent registry has also been filed with the County Clerk’s Office. The minutes do not make clear which of the two companies filed that registry, and they do not describe the relationship between Atwell and Terra-Gen beyond saying Atwell’s agents represent Terra-Gen.

UKA has appeared in county financial discussions this year chiefly as a hole in the budget: a wind farm application permit fee reported as county revenue and never filed. The county’s treasurer has identified that shortfall as a driver of an anticipated General Fund deficit. What became of the project footprint itself had not previously been established in the public record.

Tuesday’s report does not say where the footprint is located, how large it is, how many landowners are being contacted, or whether Terra-Gen has filed any permit application with the county.

Ordinance Rewrite Heads Back to Committee

Ruppert also highlighted proposed new wind and solar ordinances suggested by attorney Andrew Keyt, who he said is now under contract with the county board.

Ruppert told the board the proposed ordinances are consistent with state and federal statutes, would add building permit requirements, would require applicants to supply more information up front, and appear to give the county board more decision-making criteria during the public hearing process.

The committee asked for three additions to the drafts: language requiring leases to be recorded, language requiring drainage district agreements, and language requiring setbacks recommended by equipment operating manuals. Ruppert said new versions containing the added language will be reviewed next month.

No motion was taken on the ordinances, and none is contemplated until the revised drafts return to committee.

An engagement agreement included in the county’s committee materials, dated May 18, 2026, describes the terms of Keyt’s work. The letter is addressed to Montgomery County State’s Attorney Brian Shaw by the firm Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C., and describes the scope as representing the county “regarding renewable energy projects, including assisting with establishing policies and procedures for handling such projects, as assigned by the State’s Attorney.” The letter names Keyt, a partner, as handling the matter primarily, with senior associate Alex Rives and paralegal Brian Tuck. Billing rates are listed at $400 an hour for partners and of-counsel attorneys, $350 for senior associates, $300 for associates and $200 for paralegals, with no retainer and bills submitted every 30 days.

That framing — an engagement running through the state’s attorney’s office — is worded differently from Ruppert’s description of an attorney under contract with the county board. The distinction matters for who directs the work, and it is flagged below for confirmation.

What Comes Next

None of the renewable energy items on Tuesday’s agenda carried a motion. All four appeared under the county’s standard “Update/Approval” heading, and all four were received as reports.

The board did approve the five committee reports and minutes as a block later in the meeting, on a motion by Mark Hughes seconded by Chris Daniels. That vote endorsed the reports as filed; it did not enact the ordinance changes, which the committee has said will be reviewed again in August.