Didn't receive BayWa's letter about Sunfish Solar? Here it is.

For your reading pleasure, we're sharing the information BayWa provided in their recent letter responding to concerns expressed by county residents who attended the Sunfish Solar project's January 31 open house.

We've excerpted the concerns and BayWa's responses below, followed by Protect Orange VA's comments intended as food for thought as the application process moves ahead.

A scan of the full letter also is available below.

Last but not least, included at the end of this post are the developer's responses to questions asked by an attendee at the open house.

Yes, it's A LOT, but worth a read.

BayWa

"Some of the major questions received during the public information meeting revolved around topsoil health, removal of active farmland, clear-cutting the land and viewsheds, removal of active farmland, decommissioning, and the components of panels. We've answered these frequent questions below to better communicate what impacts this project may have."

BayWa

"Concern — The Sunfish Solar project will deplete the soil of nutrients and remove

active farmland.

•           The acreage planned to be used by the Sunfish Solar Project, approximately 588 acres, represents just 0.53% of the acres used for farming in Orange County. Our commitment to sustainable practices is one way we raise the bar on what it means to power Virginia sustainably. According to the Virginia Department of Energy, Sunfish Solar is one of the first projects in Virginia to feature a native seed mixture throughout the project site. Long-term growth of native plant species help protect and increase topsoil nutrients of the topsoil during facility operations leaving the site ready to be transitioned into farmland at the end of the project life if desired. Our project vegetation provides undisturbed pollinator habitat for at-risk populations, which in turn supports pollination of neighboring fields. The proposed panels would be driven directly into the soil, minimizing the use of impermeable surfaces onsite.

•           Over the 35-year lifetime of the project, our native planting initiative gives the soil time to rest with minimal disturbance. Soil recovery onsite is aided by native grass and pollinator species which would provide healthy soil for future farming on the site following decommissioning.

•          Sunfish Solar is looking to deploy sheep grazing as a management strategy for the solar facility. Whereas traditional solar facilities have resorted to covering project sites in gravel or partaking in frequent mowing to manage growth under panels, BayWa r.e. is exploring sheep grazing as an alternative. BayWa r.e. currently uses sheep grazing on other projects to manage undergrowth. This strategy allows for continued agricultural use over the lifetime of the project, provides natural fertilizer to aid in soil restoration, and is far cheaper than ongoing mowing."

Protect Orange VA:

-The Sunfish Solar project comprises prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance, which should not be shifted to industrial use. By identifying the percentage of total county agricultural land represented by the project, BayWa is attempting to minimize the impact of hundreds of acres of agricultural land shifting to utility scale solar project acreage. It's as though they are saying, "What's a little bit taken for solar when the county has more?" The bottom line is that there are better places for utility scale solar than active and productive farmland. Every acre matters: no farms, no food, no future, as the American Farmland Trust points out.

-Regarding native seed/native planting initiatives, typically such efforts have been undertaken on smaller solar acreages, not on a project the size of Sunfish Solar. BayWa's Bluebird Solar project in Kentucky promises "a minimum of 2 acres" of a 1163-acre project "will be cultivated" with native, pollinator-friendly vegetation. Note the future tense: promises, not a done deal.

-Regarding the statement about minimizing impervious surfaces onsite, the panels are recognized as impervious surfaces by VA DEQ. The stricter stormwater requirements related to this ruling by VA DEQ will go into effect on December 31, 2024.

-BayWa argues the soil will "rest" during the project's lifetime. However, even if that is true, decommissioning activity is likely to have a significantly negative impact on the soil and native plantings when heavy vehicles come in to remove project fixtures.

-"Looking to deploy sheep" and "exploring sheep grazing" are not the same as doing it or having a plan outlined as part of the Sunfish Solar application. More promises? The jury is still out on whether BayWa will commit to grazing sheep for the life of the project.

BayWa

"Concern — The Sunfish Solar project will clear-cut trees from the land and be detrimental to local wildlife

•           The Sunfish Solar Project is committed to minimizing tree clearing. The majority of the project area is already cleared for its current use in agricultural production. At most, the project will clear 96 acres of trees, preserving over 70% of the project area's currently forested areas. Forested areas along roadways will be preserved to serve as a natural buffer from the project, and in some instances, additional vegetative buffers around the 100’ setbacks surrounding the project site will protect viewsheds. The project site itself will only have wildlife-friendly fencing around the solar arrays, and the project has designed wildlife corridors for local animals, such as deer, to pass through the site undisturbed."

Protect Orange VA

There is nothing environmentally friendly about cutting a third of the acreage's forest. Forest provides habitat for birds and mammals and sequesters carbon. The clearing goes against guidance from Virginia's Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR), which recommends "the applicant avoid and minimize impacts to undisturbed forest..." In addition, BayWa says they'll be clearing trees November 15 - March 31. They'd be violating state guidelines: DWR calls for tree removal to be restricted beginning March 15 in order to minimize impact on resident and migratory songbird nesting.

BayWa

"Concern — Fencing around the project

•          Many residents were told the entire project area is surrounded by wildlife-friendly fencing, known as “deer busting fencing." Deer-busting fencing allows smaller mammals to travel through or habit the project area while keeping larger mammals out. That is inconsistent with our site plan and unnecessary. The Project only has fencing to contain the solar arrays, leaving wetlands, forests, and large areas open."

Protect Orange VA

The project application currently calls for each grouping of solar arrays to be surrounded by 6-foot chain link fencing topped by 3 strands of barbed wire for a total of 84" of fence height. This does not follow current DWR guidelines (2/2022) to prevent deer entrapment/entanglement: fencing should be no more than 61" high or should be greater than or equal to 96" high. A second concern: it's not clear from the application whether the wildlife corridors through the array groupings are based on study of wildlife movement in the area or placed in areas that meet the developer's needs.

BayWa

"Concern — Property values of nearby homes

•           During the meeting, we heard a range of misinformation regarding the severity of the impact of the property value adjacent to the site. There is currently little research indicating a decline in housing value on a long-term basis. In September 2020, the University of Rhode Island published a study that found no negative impact on residential home values near solar arrays in rural areas. According to the study, the results suggest that the impacts on home sales in rural areas is effectively zero (a statistically insignificant 0.1%). Locally, real property values increased across neighboring Spotsylvania County, home to the largest solar project east of the Rocky Mountains for 11 straight years."

Protect Orange VA

We would like to cite "Shedding light on large-scale solar impacts: An analysis of property values and proximity to photovoltaics across six U.S. states," March 2023, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (cite). This study of large-scale photovoltaic projects is very pertinent to the Sunfish Solar project. The study indicates: "When separating transactions by the prior land use and the area of the LSPVP to which they are closest, as well as by the urbanicity of the home, we observe statistically significant effects only for transactions in rural areas, and transactions near larger LSPVPs by area. We observe decreases of 3%, 4.2% and 3.1% for homes within 0-.5 mile of LSPVPs on previously agricultural land, in rural areas or near large LSPVPs, respectively." Regarding BayWa's comment about Spotsylvania, appraiser Mary McClinton Clay reports a case study of Spotsylvania County with analysis of 5 vacant single family lots from a section of the Fawn Lake subdivision adjacent to the solar project. These lots sold for 30% less than those that did not adjoin. A pdf of Ms. McClinton Clay's summary of dimunition in property value as a result of proximity to utility scale solar farms is below.

appraiser-report-2021-spotsylvania.pdf

Download PDF • 509KB

BayWa

"Concern — The County will be stuck with the cost of decommissioning at the end of the project

•           Sunfish Solar has a proposed decommissioning plan as part of its Orange County Special Use Permit application and that is available to the public via Orange County's website. When a solar project is decommissioned, the facility's above-ground components are removed and the land undergoes restoration to improve the land to its pre-construction condition. BayWa r.e. intends to rework the site so it is primed for continued agricultural use. As part of the project approval process, BayWa r.e. will work with Orange County to post a decommissioning bond to cover the cost of decommissioning the Sunfish Solar Project. The bond will match the estimated $3.2 million decommissioning cost of the project, including potential re-use of valuable materials such as copper, glass, aluminum, and steel."

Protect Orange VA

The developer refers to removing the "facility's above-ground components." ALL facility components, above and below ground, should be removed as part of decommissioning to return the land to its original state. The bond should cover the decommissioning cost plus a contingency. The recycling value should NOT be included in the bond. ALL facility components must be removed and accounted for.

BayWa

"Concern — Solar panels can leak toxic materials and pose a safety threat

•           Studies have shown that solar panels cannot leak any toxic materials into solar facility sites.  A common concern with toxicity in solar panels comes with the use of the compound Cadmium Telluride (Cad Tel). The panels utilized by the Sunfish Solar project will not have CadTel in them and will pose no threat to the health and safety of the community. Specific information on hazards associated with solar panels can be found on the EPA website at www.epa.gov"

Protect Orange VA

Solar panels do contain toxic materials such as lead that could be released under certain circumstances. The county should not approve the Sunfish Solar project until BayWa has provided information on the panels that will be utilized.

The full letter is below.

More from the January 31 open house: a neighbor of the proposed Sunfish Solar project shared some of the questions he asked the BayWa representatives and the answers he received.

Q    - I specifically asked what type/technology would be used in the panels they plan to install.  

A    - They said they won't know until about 3 months from beginning the construction and will use the newest technology and panels at that time.  

Q     - I followed up with "So, you want us to approve a solar project, but you can't tell us what kind of panels you are going to install until after we approve it and right before you begin installation?"  

A     - Their reply: Yes, but the panels will be the most efficient ones at that time.

Q    - I asked about the trees they plan to plant to block the view of the field of solar panels.

A    - The answer was red cedar trees.  

Q    - I asked them about the impact to our fruit trees and our neighbors' fruit trees.  They had no idea why you don't plant cedar trees near fruit trees. (Cedar trees can spread cedar apple rust to certain types of fruit trees.)

Q    - I asked them about the Virginia state requirement to have a DCR Certified Nutrient Manager with a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) to conduct the initial soil survey and continue monitoring throughout the life of the project for advice on tending to the soil and maintaining its fertility and, of course, at the end of the project, so we know the soil will be returned to its original condition.  I asked who their Nutrient Manager is.

A    - The person I spoke to had no idea what I was talking about.

             Virginia Nutrient Management Program

             "Those seeking nutrient management certification in Virginia must meet three (3) requirements: education, experience and passing both parts of the nutrient management exam. Planners may become certified in the Agriculture category, the Turf and Landscape category, or both."

Q    - I asked about the impact to migrating birds, such at the woodcock winter migration through the exact area the developer proposes to put panels.

A    - His answer was that the environmental survey completed didn't show any impact to bird migrations. He had no idea what a woodcock was or that anyone hunted them.  

Protect Orange VA: The January 31 open house with BayWa was our fourth such event with a solar developer. We've found that they want to stick to their project storyline (economic and environmental benefits) and don't want to - or can't - dive too deep in response to questions. Our favorite interaction was at Dominion's open house after acquiring Madison Solar in 2020. When quizzed about project fencing preventing wildlife from reaching Mine Run as a water source, the representative's response was, "We open the gates at certain times."

Daily Progress article on Planning Commission review of ESA Solar's Mayhurst Lane solar project

Orange County solar farm may have met its match: The social media influencers next door

dailyprogress.com/news/community/orangenews/orange-county-solar-farm-may-have-met-its-match-the-social-media- influencers-next-door/article_6d7755f2-cc93-11ee-961b-8f7ecbcbd6c4.html

February 19, 2024

A proposed solar farm in Orange County lost a critical vote before the county’s planning commission after the owners of a historic estate-turned-bed and breakfast and wedding venue rallied their strong social media following and other members of the community to voice their opposition.

The Cashells, who own Mayhurst Inn just south of the town of Orange, argue that Maitland, Florida- based ESA Solar’s 35-acre Orange Road Solar Farm poses a direct threat not only to Mayhurst’s business but to Orange County’s burgeoning tourism industry and its agricultural roots.

That’s in spite of the fact that the solar farm is not part of the Mayhurst estate, sits 1,000 feet away from the historic house, cannot be seen from the highest elevation on the property and is no longer suitable for agricultural purposes.

Nevertheless, the Orange County Planning Commission voted 4-1 on Thursday to recommend the county’s board of supervisors deny ESA’s request for a special use permit for the project. While expressing their support for solar projects in general, commissioners cited the project’s proximity to Mayhurst in their final reasoning.

Mayhurst was constructed by Col. John Willis in 1859. Willis was the great-nephew of Founding Father James Madison, whose Montpelier estate is roughly 7 miles from Mayhurst. Willis was also a generous supporter of the Confederacy, who was so penniless after the Civil War he was forced to sell the property.

“It was purchased by a Northern carpetbagger sent by the Federal government to administer the county,” according to the Cashells’ own history of the estate published on the Mayhurst website.

Jason and Casey Cashell, originally from Louisville, Kentucky, purchased Mayhurst in February of 2020. Over the past four years, the couple have transformed the 165-year-old Italianate house at the center of the 37-acre property into an attractive destination for holidays and weddings.

The Cashells’ Instagram account, where they document their experiences renovating the property and raising their children there, has amassed more than 150,000 followers.

Speaking before the planning commission Thursday, Casey Cashell compared that figure to the Instagram followings of other nearby historic landmarks, including Montpelier (roughly 13,000 followers) and fellow Founding Father Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello estate (roughly 45,700 followers).

Cashell also pointed out that Orange County’s own Instagram page has barely 2,000

followers.

“I want you to understand that this dream of ours, here at Mayhurst right in the heart of Orange County, it’s not just ours, it has captured the hearts of millions,” said Casey Cashell at the public hearing. “And that is not an understatement — millions. What we are doing here is far more significant

than any of you might understand.”

The Cashells willingly admitted Thursday that they had wielded the power of their fanbase to influence the vote.

Two days before the planning commission hearing, Casey Cashell took to Instagram and called on locals to show up at the hearing in protest and urged followers to email the “Leaders of Orange County” and express their opposition to the solar farm.

“Mayhurst is in danger,” she says in a Tuesday Instagram Reel while sitting in a room at the house and holding an aerial photo of the estate. “There is an industrial solar company wanting to blanket the rolling countryside of this incredible historic estate. … If you could, please write an email to our board of supervisors and let them know that you don’t wish to see a solar field blanketing the hillsides behind Mayhurst, that you want to see this historical estate preserved and kept as a national treasure.”

At the hearing Thursday, Jason Cashell told The Daily Progress that former Mayhurst guests sent more than 100 messages opposing the project to Orange officials.

“The impact of social media through guests drawing tourism here, which Mayhurst, before we bought it, had zero social media,” Jason Cashell told The Daily Progress. “I don’t think social media had a huge role in who showed up to speak tonight, but I do think it has a huge role in who comes and visits and name recognition for Orange.”

Jason Cashell sits on Orange Town Council, which does not have authority over the solar farm project which sits in the county. The distinction between town and county played a role in Jason Cashell’s election in 2022, when opponents argued he had run “under false pretenses,” listing a small upstairs apartment on Main Street in the town of Orange as his primary residence despite evidence, specifically on Instagram, that he and his family reside at Mayhurst in Orange County.

Jason Cashell told the planning commission on Thursday that he and his wife have invested in Mayhurst, and consequently Orange County, believing that Orange officials would do everything in their power to protect historic landmarks and revenue-generating businesses.

“When we moved here four years ago to take over a struggling business, we did it with the understanding that the county said it would protect National Historical Landmarks like Mayhurst,” he said before the commision. “So we came, invested, worked hard and made something special. Now, that agreement is in jeopardy. If you don’t protect Mayhurst, then by default, don’t you, based on precedent, forfeit the rights to protect any other historical landmarks in Orange?”

Wes Shaffer, entitlement manager at ESA, said in a presentation before the planning commission Thursday that the company would do everything in its power to mitigate the project’s impact. He noted that there had already been conversations with Jason Cashell in which ESA had agreed to rent out the eight guest rooms at Mayhurst during the 10 days that construction on the solar farm would be the

loudest. He also pointed out that the solar farm has been designed to generate enough electricity for roughly 1,000 households and that Mayhurst, and any other county business or resident, would be able to access that power.

In addition, an ESA viewshed analysis found little to no visual impact from the tallest point on the Mayhurst estate. Unlike the aerial photo Casey Cashell held during her Instagram Reel, in which the proposed site of the solar farm could be clearly seen, a photo taken from the cupola atop the house shows most visitors would not be able to see the solar farm clearly or at all.

Shaffer emphasized that ESA’s plans would make the project practically invisible.

“Over the next 30 years, you will not notice this project,” he told the planning commission.

That comment elicited guffaws from the audience, prompting Shaffer to joke, “It is at this moment, I realize I will not be a good stand-up comedian.”

Following Shaffer, 14 Orange County residents, including the Cashells, voiced their opposition to the project.

“These solar viruses are butt ugly,” said Orange County resident John Murray.

A majority of those in opposition emphasized the negative impact the solar farm would have on the county’s tourism and agriculture sectors.

The tourism industry supports a fraction of the total jobs in Orange County, just 485, according to the Virginia Tourism Corporation. Most of the county’s workforce is employed in the manufacturing and retail sectors, 1,266 and 1,309 people, respectively, according to the county’s 2023 Comprehensive Plan.

ESA has defended itself against criticism that the land should be returned to some sort of agricultural use by pointing out that the property has not been farmed for several years and that the company’s soil studies have shown the land could not even sustain traditional farming.

ESA’s arguments, however, were not enough to sway the votes of planning commissioners Thursday. In the end, it came down to one figure: 1,000 feet.

Commissioners Teri Vickery and Donald Brooks, who presented the motion to recommend denial, said 1,000 feet was not a sufficient buffer between the proposed solar panels and the historic estate.

“Brooks just couldn’t bring his mind around to the location,” said Brooks, referring to himself in the third person.

The planning commission vote is not the final say on whether a special use permit will be granted for ESA’s Orange Road Solar Farm. The final decision will be determined by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, which has its next regular meeting at 5 p.m. on Feb. 27, when the board is expected to decide on a date to make its final determination.

Emily Hemphill (540) 855-0362

ehemphill@dailyprogress.com

A look at Shared Solar in Virginia

Our county representatives should do their due diligence on applications and follow a line of questioning to the end, not simply accept what is offered or presented by the developers. This occurred recently with the ESA Solar application and the discussion related to the project's participation in "community solar."

In July 2023 Florida-based ESA Solar submitted an application in Orange County for a special use permit to construct a 5 MW solar energy project with up to 35 acres under panels. The full property is 70.85 acres in size and designated as Agricultural (A-2) Future Land use and Agricultural (A) zoning. On February 15 the Planning Commission denied the application, which will now go to the Board of Supervisors. (Update: The application was scheduled to go before the BOS at their April 9 meeting. The developer pulled the application before the BOS meeting.)

This project was proposed as "community solar." During the January 18 meeting of the Planning Commission, the developer talked about community solar and answered questions from the commissioners, but did not fully explain the program.

The developer's points:

-There would be savings of 10-20% for up to 1000 households each year (10-15% was the range shown on his presentation slide).

-The program would be open to anyone who is a Dominion customer (ie, those 1000 participanting households are not just Orange County residents).

-The developer would run a campaign to draw in low income customers by partnering with United Way and social services.

And that was that. No context for the program or how the nuts and bolts of the program come together. It is irritating when solar developers, who typically have been sitting on a project for years, cannot/do not fully explain important aspects of a project. In the second review meeting they did discuss a bit more how the project would support community solar but it should have been done at the outset of the review process.

We did our own digging.

ESA Solar's proposed project would be part of the Shared Solar program (not Community Solar as originally stated), established by Virginia's General Assembly in 2020. This post includes:

1. A description of the Shared Solar program;

2. How the Shared Solar program works for subscribers;

3. The cost to subscribers; and

4. How such a project might play out locally using the ESA Solar example.
   

Shared Solar Program description

From Dominion’s Shared Solar page on dominionenergy.com:

• The Shared Solar Program gives Dominion Energy customers the opportunity to subscribe to participate in shared solar projects through a subscription that earns credits on their electric bill.

• The program’s statewide maximum capacity is 150 MW.

• 30% or 45 MW must serve low income subscribers. Once that benchmark is met, the program can be expanded by 50 MW.

• Individual solar projects cannot exceed 5 MW and must be located on a single parcel of land.

• The first project acceptance into the program occurred in 2021.

• In mid-February 2024, the Dominion Shared Solar page showed 41 projects subscribed and 10 projects on the waiting list. (The legislature is currently considering an expansion of the program to 200 MW.)

How Shared Solar works for customers

From the Virginia Department of Energy’s page on shared solar on energy.virginia.gov:

• Enabled by the Code of Virginia (§ 56-594.3.), the Shared Solar Program allows customers to purchase subscriptions for electricity directly from a shared solar facility that is owned, operated and managed by a private entity.

• Subscribers of a shared solar facility do not have to be directly connected to the facility to participate in the program. This provides opportunities for utility customers that may rent, occupy buildings with shaded or poor roof conditions or cannot purchase their own solar panels to participate in a solar energy program.

• Customers pay for subscriptions that result in credits on their monthly electric bill. Those credits are based on the amount of solar energy a shared solar facility generates. Additionally, customers will pay a minimum bill to the utility to cover the costs of the infrastructure and distribution services. For an average residential customer with 1,000 kWh in monthly usage, the minimum bill would be equal to $55.10.

Low-income customers are exempt from the minimum bill charges. (underlining by VA DOE)

Shared Solar’s cost to subscribers

Dominion's Schedule SS - Shared Solar explains billing for retail customers who purchase subscriptions. A synopsis:

Shared Solar subscribers who are not low-income are paying a premium to be part of the program:

-This latter group of subscribers to Shared Solar pay a Principal Tariff, the rate used to calculate electricity distribution cost.

-They also pay a monthly minimum bill, which increased in 2023 from $55.10 to about $62 to reflect increased service costs. At the outset, this was the highest shared solar subscription fee in the country (cite: Virginia Mercury March 15, 2022). The minimum bill includes the Principal Tariff's monthly Basic Customer Charge, a monthly administrative fee and a subscription-related charge.

-Added to the monthly minimum bill is their household’s actual solar electricity cost (minus credits).

-AND, if the subscriber's subscriber orgaization requests Dominion to bill and collect subscription fees, there will be a Net Crediting Fee and Subscription Fee.

The Piedmont Environmental Council points out that the cost barrier makes shared slar unattainable to most. (cite: PEC, "Expanding access to community solar," August 18, 2023)

As previously noted, low-income participants do not pay the minimum monthly bill. It appears they would pay their actual solar electricty cost (minus credits) and the fees associated with subscription.

What would a Shared Solar project bring to Orange County?

As an example of how a Shared Solar program might be initiated in Orange County, we can look at the “Subscribe” section of the ESA Solar project website. The section explains: “ESA intends to prioritize subscribing Orange County residents to this project, however, there is a limited timeframe that can be set aside for Orange County residents before this project is opened up to all Dominion Energy customers in Virginia.”

It's not at all clear how many Orange County residents might be served.

Returning to the savings that subscribers may receive: The "Subscribe" section of thte ESA Solar project website wraps up with: “…and in the end you save up to 10% on your electric bill!” What happened to saving 10-20%?

If the legislature approves expansion of the Shared Solar program during the current session, Orange County may see more of these proposals. Considerations:

• Despite their small size, Shared Solar projects present the same siting considerations as large utility scale projects. Proposals may present stormwater issues, threats to agricultural land and rural character, loss of habitat, and negative impacts on surrounding properties. Careful review is needed.

• It's not clear from this particular proposal how many Orange County residents might benefit. Potentially only a small percentage of the 1000 households might come from Orange County. Perhaps the county needs to discuss how these projects can best serve the community before any new project proposals are submitted.
  

We are not sold on Shared Solar.

3/26/24 update: Additional research identified that ESA has 6 shared solar projects pending in Virginia at the time their proposal in Orange County was under consideration. All 6 of those projects had similar wording regarding shared solar availability: "Limited subscription availability to <county> residents and business owners."

From a March 26, 2024 article on shared solar on virginiamercury.com (links to full article):

"The program was created for Dominion Energy customers in 2022 to give property owners whose roofs are unsuitable to hold panels, or who reside on lots that don't garner enough sunlight to produce electricity, the option of using renewable energy.

But the program was limited to just 150 megawatts of electricity and required a minimum bill charge to cover the costs for distribution and transmission services; low income subscribers were exempt from paying. As a result, two years since the program was created, only low-income subscribers have signed up for the program." The article also points out that the program reached capacity in May 2023.

Seems shared solar projects have been queueing up for a wait list. A bill to expand the program is on the governor's desk and the possibility of lowering minimum bill to $55.10 is under discussion. A LOT of questions about this program still.

For a look at distributed solar's status, trends, projections and more read Assessing the benefits of distributed solar in Virgina: 2024 update and status report (VCU Institute for Sustainable Energy and Environment, VCU L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs). This report defines distributed solar as "decentralized solar PV systems, including residential scale, commercial scale and shared or community solar, located in close proximity to the site of energy consumption."