top of page
farm panorma_edited.jpg

BLOG 

Search

Interesting reads

    A running list of media coverage on utility scale solar and renewable energy issues that has caught our attention. Post publish date is date of most recent article included in the chronology.


    Podcast

    Virginia Association of Counties, 2024: https://www.vaco.org/publications-resources/vaco-county-pulse-podcast/ Look for the "Energy Landscape of Virginia Series" with podcasts on data centers and utility scale solar


    Articles





    WTKR3, 4/1/25: Neighbors noise complaints over Suffolk solar farm persist (complaints related to tranformer/inverter noise first covered in story in January 2025)








    (SB 1190/Deeds)

    lis.virginia.gov: YEAS--Bagby, Boysko, Carroll Foy, Deeds, Ebbin, Favola, Hashmi, Locke, Lucas, Marsden, McPike, Pekarsky, Roem, Rouse, Salim, Srinivasan, Surovell, VanValkenburg, Williams Graves--19

    NAYS--Cifers, Craig, DeSteph, Diggs, Durant, French, Hackworth, Head, Jordan, McDougle, Mulchi, Obenshain, Peake, Perry, Pillion, Reeves, Stanley, Stuart, Sturtevant, Suetterlein--20

    RULE 36--0

    NOT VOTING--Aird--1

    Senator Aird stated that she was recorded as not voting on the question of the passage of S.B. 1190, whereas she intended to vote nay.


    The Farmville Herald, 1/24/25: Is a solar takeover really needed in Virginia? (letter to the editor)


    The Farmville Herald, 1/23/25: Solar bill would put counties on clock with 2026 deadline for work A good overview of the HB2126 which proposes creation of a State Energy Review Board that would strengthen the state's role in management of the solar project review process at the expense of local involvement.


    Emporia Independent Messenger, 1/21/25: MAREC Action support Virginiia legislative efforts to standardize solar ordinances MAREC = Mid Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition of clean energy businesses lobbying legislators.


    Oxford American, 1/17/25: How Data Center Alley is Changing Northern Virginia. Orange County mention: "This past spring, the National Trust for Historic Preservation declared Wilderness Battlefield in Orange County, Virginia, as one of America’s Eleven Most Endangered Historic Places because of a proposed data center development."









    A commentary from the president and CEO of the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy.


    Power for the People VA, 11/27/24: Under pressure from the SCC, Dominion reveals the true cost of data centers. Filing shows electricity demand would be flat without the industry.


    Virginia Mercury, 11/19/24: Energy policymakers convene for Virginia Clean Economy Act summit. Efforts that could affect local permitting approval are still being discussed prior to the beginning of the legislative session.


    Article also discusses trends identified via the database. Direct link: solar project aggregation database by UVA Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service


    Virginia Mercury, 11/12/24: The clean energy revolution will continue


    on 11/18/24. Not open to the public; neither will papers related to the summit be available through FOIA: "The summit will be the culmination of discussions involving Marsden’s office that he said would be exempt from Freedom of Information Act laws under a working papers exception, in order to allow for more candid conceptual discussions."

    Data Center Dynamics, 11/7/24: Outreach with the opposition: A conversation with the Piedmont Environmental Council. Another good overview of the challenges currently facing Virginia related to data centers and Piedmont Environmental Council's efforts to promote smarter growth for the industry.


    Data Center Dynamics, 11/4/24: The future of Virginia post-Loudoun. Comprehensive overview of the spread of data centers in Virginia and related challenges.


    This article mentions MAREC, the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition representing 47 renewable energy developers, which is pushing for siting reform. See also Virginia Siting Reform on the MAREC website.


    The new nonprofit is Greenlight America




    Chesapeake Bay Journal, October 2024: Solar industry electrifies pushback in rural areas






    Disappointed in Cardinal News that it was not made clear at beginning of this "article" that the author, Chloe Hodges, is the exernal affairs director for Energy Right, a Virginia-based nonprofit organization that provides education to rural Virginia on clean energy from a conservative perspective. This is stated at the end of this ER advertorial for renewable energy.

    The Virginia Public Access Project site lists three solar developers who have given money to Energy Right.


    Sometimes Protect Orange VA editors read or hear about a solar project and think, "This one seems ok." But, we've learned that unless we've read the actual proposal and participated in the review process, Don't Weigh In. It's fair and prudent to assume that one article is not covering all layers and angles on a project.


    News 29 (Charlottesville/Central VA), 9/11/2024: https://www.29news.com/2024/09/11/dominion-energy-using-hundreds-thousands-bees-part-new-initiative/ Note url and story title reference to "hundreds of thousands" of bees. Apparently because saying "four hives" was not attention grabbing enough. That reference is in the article itself. Project location Buckingham County, VA.







     

    An update on utility scale solar in Louisa County

      The following is from Engage Louisa (2/24/25), which is described as "a nonpartisan newsletter that keeps folks informed about Louisa County government".

      Board adopts stringent new rules aimed at shutting down utility-scale solar development

      The board of supervisors voted unanimously to adopt stringent new rules for utility-scale solar project siting agreements, aimed at shutting down large-scale solar development in Louisa County.

      The new rules, now formally part of the county’s solar ordinance, apply to any utility-scale solar facility not yet permitted by the board. The rules require solar developers to make annual payments to Louisa County equal to between .075 percent and .125 percent of the county’s operating budget, which currently sits at about $156 million, for every megawatt of power produced by their projects. They also mandate that solar facilities begin generating electricity within five years of approval and recommend that project owners provide adjoining landowners with $500 in annual compensation for electric bill or property tax abatement.

      The amendments, which were twice tweaked during the public approval process and initially directed 25 percent of siting agreement revenue to affordable housing initiatives, drew pushback from representatives of the solar industry. Developers said the sizable per-megawatt payments would effectively wipe out profits for project owners and suggested the provision could shut the door on solar development in Louisa.

      Still, Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon repeatedly insisted that the provisions were designed to benefit the community and solar developers by providing a consistent framework to help mitigate the impacts of solar projects and meet community needs.

      And when the board adopted an initial version of the proposal as a policy at its November 18 meeting—essentially allowing it to take effect immediately so it would apply to solar projects working their way through the public approval process—Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes and Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones claimed the board was, as Jones put it, “showing a commitment” to addressing the community’s affordable housing needs.

      But supervisors pushed aside those pretenses at Tuesday’s meeting and made clear that their intentions weren’t to generate money for any of the county’s capital needs or mitigate the impact of solar development, as solar siting agreements are designed to do under state code. Instead, they aimed to close the door on large-scale solar amid fears that lawmakers in Richmond would usurp local control over the siting of solar generation facilities as the state faces a burgeoning demand for power and strives to meet its clean energy goals.

      “We’ve had enough. We’re done. If this kills it, if this does it, I’m all in. It may not hold up in court. We may get sued. But, you know what? We won’t know until we go to court,” Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams said.

      In approving the amendments, the board axed the provision that would’ve set aside 25 percent of the revenue the county would theoretically receive from siting agreements. They also set aside a draft memo from Coon suggesting the county could use siting agreement revenue to fund several other initiatives including Harmful Algal Bloom mitigation at Lake Anna, a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program aimed at preserving farmland and stream restoration efforts.

      “It seems like [this] could grow government rather than lessen it. I think a lot of us want to lessen government influence,” Cuckoo District Supervisor Chris McCotter said of Coon’s draft revenue framework.

      The adopted amendments state that revenue would be allocated to a “fund balance.”

      The board’s solar committee initially recommended implementing siting agreement standards. The committee, which includes Barnes and Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams, previously led successful efforts to toughen the county’s solar ordinance and cap at two percent, or 6,343 acres, the amount of land that can be used for large-scale solar generation.

      Once generally supportive of utility-scale solar, Barnes and Adams have since soured on the use as the political winds in rural Virginia have shifted—especially among Adams’ Republican base—and in the wake of problems at Dominion Energy’s Belcher Solar Facility off Waldrop Church Road in Barnes’ district. At Belcher, neighboring farmers say that runoff from the sprawling 1,300-acre facility has caused severe flooding and erosion on their property.

      Since 2015, the board has approved seven utility-scale solar projects, covering almost 5,200 acres, but only four have been constructed. Supervisors haven’t approved a large-scale solar facility since early 2022.

      A couple supervisors suggested that the problems at Belcher were, at least in part, the impetus for their action. Williams expressed disgust with how the project has been handled.

      “If I was the developer of…the Belcher Solar Facility, the [Department of Environmental Quality] would’ve had me in prison, sir. I would’ve been in prison, and I would be broke and bankrupt, and they would have everything I own. But it wasn’t me. It was Dominion Energy,” Williams said, noting that Dominion only received a $50,000 fine for damage it caused to a creek running through the property.

      Others insisted that the county does plenty to produce energy for the state and would continue to do its part with the potential development of small modular reactors (SMR) at Dominion’s North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Dominion has said it hopes to bring a commercial SMR online by the early 2030s. To date, the technology hasn’t been deployed for commercial power generation in the western hemisphere.

      “Louisa County is one of the top producing energy counties of the state. When is another county going to step up? How much more do you want to take off of our backs and take off of our homeowners and landowners here in our community? How much more do you want to take away? And we are still moving forward with power. We still have small modular reactors coming. We still have solar that’s already in the works,” Jones said.

      Though community members have taken to social media to decry large-scale solar development and occasionally expressed opposition at public meetings when a project was proposed near their home, no one from Louisa County weighed in during the public hearing for or against the amendments. One community member suggested that the board use money from siting agreements to hire a county engineer.

      Two people with ties to the solar industry spoke in opposition.

      Telly Manos, a senior development manager with the solar developer, Urban Grid, said the per-megawatt payment requirement would ensure that solar project owners wouldn’t get any return on their investment. Under the amendments, project owners would be required to pay the county as much as $195,000 per megawatt per year.

      “A solar facility makes about $120,000 to $140,000 per megawatt per year in Virginia. So, the proposed dollar value is more than the facility even makes in revenue, and that’s before taxes and operational expenses are taken out,” Manos said.

      Skyer Zunk, representing Energy Right, a conservative group that supports large-scale solar, said that he feared Louisa’s decision to impose exorbitantly high taxes on solar facilities could set a bad precedent and compel the General Assembly to wrest control over the siting of clean energy generation facilities from localities.

      “As a small-government, conservative organization, we absolutely respect local control. But that arrangement absolutely requires that localities work in good faith with folks trying to bring new energy to the grid,” Zunk said.

      But board members brushed off that concern.

      “The reason I am going to support these changes [is because] it sends exactly the message I want to send about solar in Louisa County,” Adams said, adding “I think we are going to see the heavy hand of the state government trying to come into play and override local zoning ordinances, anyway. At least, we have something in place that, when that happens, we can point to the ordinance that we have in place.”

      Zunk countered that, if the state usurps local control, it could cap how much localities can tax solar projects.

       

      Weigh in to prevent continued "by right" loss of rural land - part 2

        Helping to spread the word by sharing the following message we received.

        The Orange County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on October 3 at 6:00 pm in the Public Safety Building (next to the Orange Airport) at 11282 Government Center Drive in Orange.  The hearing concerns the Commission’s new initiative to limit subdivisions of land in the Agricultural (A-1) zoning district to 4 lots of 2 or more acres for every 10 years of ownership.  See https://orangecountyva.gov/1143/ZTA-24-02-Agricultural-district-division for detailed information.  It is imperative that people show up and sign up to speak in favor of the initiative to limit by-right subdivisions.  A simple, 2-sentence statement is enough.  A vote might occur that evening, so it’s now or never.

         

        Background

        Under current law, landowners can chop agricultural land into lots of 2 (or more) acres as a matter of right.  So, if a developer acquires 100 acres, it might build up to 50 homes on it.  This result defeats the “vision statement” of the Comprehensive Plan:  “To sustain the rural character of Orange County while enhancing and improving the quality of life for all its citizens.”  By way of background, some 500 residential building permits issued in Orange County this year, of which 30% or more were by-right—and none of the 500 had proffers attached.  Orange is being nibbled to death by haphazard zoning, and more development always means higher taxes.

         

        The notion of 2-acre, by-right subdivision originally intended just to allow farm owners to establish family homesteads or sell outlying parcels to support their livelihoods.  Nobody intended, however, that developers would twist this “exception” to become the “rule”—and turn farms into subdivisions.  Indeed, Orange County stands alone—among Albemarle, Culpeper, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Spotsylvania and others—as the only county without limits on by-right developments.

         

        Some might defend unlimited subdivisions as inherent to “property rights.”  Developers, of course, belie their economic self-interest with this viewpoint.  But, ironically, many just-plain-citizens defend developers’ interests—even though taxpayers suffer the quality-of-life fallout and runaway tax increases to support the schools, infrastructure, and services attendant to unbridled growth.  Most people choose to live in Orange rather than (say) Loudoun County because we want “this” instead of “that.”  Subdivision limits can ensure “the quality of life for all [Orange County] citizens” over the profits of a few absentee developers. 

         

        Call to Action

        Please show up and sign up to speak and voice your support for keeping Orange County rural.  At the risk of redundancy, pass this message along to others in your network and ask them to come to the meeting. 


         
        farm panorma_edited.jpg
        Sunfish Solar project

        Read the developer's application to learn about the scope of this industrial scale solar project in northern Orange County. (Project proposal denied August 2024)

        farm panorma_edited.jpg
        Resources

        Check out resources from Orange County, VA state agencies & environmental & conservation non profit organizations that can help inform opposition to industrial solar.

        farm panorma_edited.jpg
        Get involved

        Learn how you can help support the fight against industrial solar on rural land.

        farm panorma_edited.jpg
        Contact us

        We welcome your inquiry - please send us an email.

        CONTACT US:

        E-mail: info@protectorangeva.org

        ​

        Facebook: Protect Orange VA (Separate editor; private, request invite)

        PROTECT ORANGE VA supports protection of farmland from utility scale solar

        © 2024 Protect Orange VA
        Powered and secured by Wix

        bottom of page