Stellar attorney Harrod–and court documents–say parties involved are working on a resolution
The Henderson County Fiscal Court and other government officials met in a closed session for nearly 90 minutes Tuesday to discuss litigation regarding the Henderson County Solar project.
When the fiscal court reconvened in the open session, there were no public comments or vote regarding the lawsuit filed against county government and several employees. The suit was filed June 22 by Stellar Renewable Power, which is the owner of the Henderson County Solar project.
Henderson County Solar is a planned 421-acre solar farm to be located near Ky. 425. The energy it captures will be transmitted to Henderson Municipal Power & Light, and officials with HMP&L say it will provide 20% of its customers’ energy needs in a year.
Though there was no update of the lawsuit in Tuesday’s fiscal court meeting, documents in the federal case file show that attorneys are discussing a resolution.
A July 2 status report jointly filed by attorneys representing the different entities in the case says that all parties have continued to work towards an agreement and defendants had scheduled a meeting the week of July 6 “to discuss and potentially approve a resolution of this matter based on the ongoing discussions.”
Also, the most recent court filing says that the parties agree to file another joint status report on or before July 15.
Tuesday afternoon, the Hendersonian contacted Stellar’s lead attorney, Tiffany Harrod, who when asked if a resolution might occur by July 15 said that she was unsure of the discussions occurring among the defendants named in the suit.
“I’m waiting,” said Harrod, who is an attorney with Peckar & Abramson, PC, out of Austin, Texas.
Stellar named as defendants Henderson County (which more precisely is county government); Henderson County Fiscal Court; the Henderson City-County Planning Commission; the Henderson County Codes Department; the Henderson County Board of (Zoning) Adjustment; as well as individuals Judge-Executive Brad Schneider; County Attorney Steve Gold; County Codes Administrator Randy Tasa; and County Engineer Nick Stallings.
Harrod also told the Hendersonian that a demand of $16,000 per day for each day that a building permit is not issued is still on the table. “It’s still in place,” she said.
But that could go away depending on what is negotiated, she said.
“It really just depends on what we’re able to work out,” she said, adding that though Stellar is losing money from the delay, she’s hoping to work things out “so we can move forward.”
Meanwhile, the attorney who the fiscal court hired to assist in renewable energy issues and who is negotiating with the plaintiffs, Mac Johns, was contacted by the Hendersonian. Johns, with English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, declined comment, saying it would be inappropriate to comment with ongoing litigation occurring.
After Tuesday’s fiscal court meeting, both Schneider and Gold also declined to comment.
In another bit of news tied to the case, the Henderson City-County Planning Commission agreed with a request from Stellar to extend a deadline for a site plan for the project that was approved in July 2025. The site plan approval from July 2025 was for one year. The planning commission agreed that the approval shall extend through the time of the litigation.
At the heart of the lawsuit is a building permit for the project. On May 29 of this year, the project’s contractor, WHC out of Texas, submitted an online application for a building permit. The issuance of the building permit has not yet happened.
With the May 29 building permit application, county ordinance states that Tasa, the county codes administrator, must issue a building permit in two weeks or inform the fiscal court in writing why he hasn’t.
It is unclear exactly why the building permit has not yet been issued. County officials have not said, and Harrod on Tuesday said she did not know for certain, either.
Tasa, in a June 12 letter to fiscal court, indicated he could not act because the building permit was being reviewed by Gold and outside counsel, Johns. He wrote that the installation appears to be the subject of a solar energy systems moratorium that the fiscal court adopted in February 2025, adding that … “I have been advised that it will require significant legal research and that a final determination will not be possible within the two week period…”
Stellar contends that the project was “grandfathered” in because site plan approvals had been granted before the moratorium was in place. In Stellar’s complaint, the plaintiffs said officials with the county had said that the moratorium “should not apply retroactively to already approved, grandfathered projects.”
Additionally, the site plan extension granted in July 2025 was also approved by the planning commission because that body believes the site plan was grandfathered in, said Stellar’s complaint.
Now, the next piece of information may come from the joint status report due by July 15.
“Hopefully we’ll have something on file sooner rather than later with a resolution,” said Harrod.
