SUNFISH SOLAR 

Citizen arguments for denial of Sunfish Solar

​

1. The Sunfish Solar industrial-scale solar project is incompatible with the rural setting and predominantly agricultural zoning. Sunfish Solar will convert productive agricultural land to industrial use with installation of more than 180,000 panels surrounded by barbed wire-topped fencing and an electrical substation for the term of the contract (25-30 years). Such industrial energy facilities should be placed on land zoned for industrial use, on non-productive land such as brownfields, or on buildings, not on agricultural land.

2. Negative environmental impact. Clearing 90 acres of forests, understory shrubs and plants, and removing of ground cover and topsoil through grading will decrease and fragment wildlife habitat, increase stormwater run-off and erosion, and contribute to degradation of the land, making a return to productive agricultural use unlikely.

3. Negative impact on property values. Construction of an industrial-scale solar power plant in an area of rolling hills, pastures, forest, and natural vegetation will negatively impact neighboring residents’ and businesses’ property values. Homes, farms, and an event venue are adjacent to the proposed installation. A March 2023 study reported a clear decline in home values beginning shortly after construction and continuing for many years post construction of a large-scale solar project. Statistically significant effects (3-4.2% decrease in value) are seen for homes up to 0.5 miles from solar installations like Sunfish Solar that are larger in size, on agricultural land, and in rural areas.

4. The economic benefit to the county is very limited. Electricity produced by Sunfish Solar goes into the grid and does not directly benefit homes or businesses in Orange County. Local jobs will be limited; the developer’s proposal indicates no on-site personnel are required for day-to-day operations.

5. Decommissioning – a big question mark. 1) It is not clear that the proposal offered is sufficient to protect county taxpayers. The proposal is based on expected return on salvage at the end of the project when a glut in salvage may occur as many solar installations reach the end of operations. 2) It is also not clear that the developer Baywa has experience with decommissioning. They point to over 25 years as a leading developer in the utility scale solar market while also pointing to the 30-40 year longevity of installations – the math doesn’t work. (During one of the hearings the developer said they have never decommissioned a project.) 3) The decommissioning plan is not a full decommissioning: it does not include the proposed project substation and switchyard. “Any project elements (i.e. the substation and switchyard) owned by Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) will be removed at the sole discretion of VEPCO.” (source: Special Use Permit Application Narrative, 11/2023, p. 24)

6. This project is not in accord with the county’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan’s vision statement is: “To sustain the rural character of Orange County while enhancing and improving the quality of life for all its citizens.” This project will destroy, not sustain, the area’s rural character and quality of life for neighboring residents. Benefits will accrue only to the limited project participants who have chosen to lease their land to the developer.