See the other article in this package: “Solar farms respect private property and the environment.”
Like many Virginians, I cheered the passage of the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA).Clean and renewable energy is a worthy goal.Soon we would see solar panels on the roofs of homes, schools and shopping centers and over parking lots, former strip mines and closed landfills.
However, the VCEA is not working out as I expected.Some rooftop and brownfield solar is underway, but most solar projects are located on undeveloped acreage in rural areas, especially in Southside where I live. “Undeveloped” may mean “vacant” or “idle” to solar developers, but not all rural residents see forests or farms in that way.
Typically, a solar project requires a conditional use permit (CUP) from the local government. This means elected supervisors decide where projects will be located and establish the conditions for their approval.
What guidelines do local governments use to make these decisions?Where do they go for advice?
Long before solar developers submit a CUP application, they first obtain options from landowners and begin conversations with local officials.The “talking points” used to convince landowners to sign options are basically the same used to persuade local officials to approve the CUP: solar projects generate income with minimal risk or harm.
Often local officials, eager for increased revenue, are already “on board” before the public hears of a proposed project.The project’s “pros” have been discussed at length prior to the first public hearing; the “cons” received little attention.
Developers may select a “good” location.The topography and hydrology are such that the site could be developed for a solar project of reasonable size with minimal adverse impacts.But some proposed solar locations are simply not good sites.
How do local governments know the difference? It seems reasonable to assume solar developers and landowners will champion their own site as a good one.
Solar developers and landowners may downplay or not mention potential adverse impacts. Their goal is to convince local government to approve their application. It’s not their job to point out reasons to reject their application.
It’s up to local officials to figure out the important facts that project proponents may not have mentioned. It’s also local government’s responsibility to evaluate project proponents’ upbeat claims and promises.As Ronald Reagan famously said, “Trust, but verify.”
Even on “good” sites, large-scale clearing and grading for solar projects can lead to significant, long-lasting adverse impacts for soil, water and wildlife. If supervisors intend to impose the conditions that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts, they must first identify and acknowledge those impacts.
A starting point for county staff and supervisors should be outreach to Virginia’s natural resource agencies.Each agency is prepared to explain the impact of solar projects on the resource that agency was established to protect and promote.Wouldn’t local government officials want this information?What would be a local official’s reason for not wanting to hear it?
Furthermore, agency staff can provide specific guidance for the design of projects that can help to avoid or minimize adverse impacts.Isn’t this the purpose of the local government’s conditional use permit – to anticipate the bad stuff and prevent it from happening?
For example, the Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) can explain the reasons for their recommendations regarding the shape and size of protected wildlife corridors within solar projects: the maximum acreage of fenced solar panel enclosures and their relative placement to one another, the need for and necessary width of vegetated riparian buffers along creeks and wetlands, the height and type of fencing around solar panel enclosures to minimize wildlife carnage, etc.
Shouldn’t local government officials hear this directly from DWR staff?Or, phrased another way, why would local officials choose to be ignorant of this advice?
The Division of Natural Heritage within the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) can offer advice for establishing pollinator-friendly vegetation management on solar sites.Solar developers – or Dominion Energy, which is purchasing many of these solar projects – may reject this advice, stating “We have our own plan.”
Shouldn’t local officials want to know the difference between these plans?
The DWR and the DCR are just two examples. Local officials should also seek out information – and advice – from the Departments of Forestry (DOF), Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Historic Resources (DHR).
Some solar developers and landowner applicants will argue that Virginia’s natural resource agency recommendations are “excessive” or “unnecessary.”
Perhaps complying with these recommendations could decrease the amount of acreage within a project that would be cleared, graded and placed under solar panels. This might reduce the project owner’s profitability and the landowners’ lease income.
What is local government’s responsibility? To maximize the project owner’s profits and the landowners’ lease income for 20-30 years?Or to ensure long-term protection of the county’s natural resources?
Solar in rural Virginia is not an “either for it or against it” issue.Solar siting agreements can bring welcome income for local governments. Project developers, local governments, and landowners can work together to make sure that projects are kept to a reasonable size and permitted in a manner that will avoid and minimize adverse impacts.
Sadly, many local governments are not reaching out to these agencies for information.Even counties that retain third-party reviewers may ignore their advice.
As Charlotte County officials considered a CUP application for the 800-megawatt (MW) Randolph Solar project, the county’s third-party reviewer advised denial, citing “project size, inability to mitigate impacts and uncertainties regarding the concept plan.” The developer had secured options on more than 21,000 acres.
On a 6-3 vote, planning commissioners recommended approval. At the supervisors’ public hearing, the reviewer again advised denial for the same reasons. Supervisors voted 4-2 to approve the siting agreement and the CUP on 21,000 acres.
To date, Charlotte supervisors have approved conditional-use permits for solar that total more than one gigawatt: 15 MW Twitty’s Creek Solar, 167 MW Courthouse Solar, 800 MW Randolph Solar, 240 MW Tall Pines Solar and 150 MW CPV County Line Solar.
All five of these utility scale solar projects are located within the Roanoke Creek watershed. In a little over 25 miles, this stream corridor includes four stops on the Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail, the new Charlotte State Forest and Staunton River Battlefield State Park.Few Virginia creeks reflect this level of investment by the commonwealth.
Roanoke Creek, designated as a threatened and endangered species water, bisects the 1,300+ forested, wetland-rich acres of Courthouse Solar. The project adjoins 1,500 acres under conservation easem*nt, part of a two-decade effort by conservation organizations and private landowners to protect this unique resource.
It seems odd that a solar developer would select such an obviously inappropriatesite, and that Dominion Energy would choose to acquire it.Courthouse Solar was included in Dominion Energy’s 2022 Renewable Energy Performance Standard (RPS), which received approval from the State Corporation Commission in April 2023.(Disclosure: Dominion is one of our donors but donors have no say in news decisions; see our policy.)
Two questions to consider for those who, like me, support the shift to renewable energy:
- Does any state or federal agency have authority to review and assess the combined impact upon a single watershed from clearing and grading for multiple solar projects?
- Is the fate of the Roanoke Creek corridor consistent with the goals of the Virginia Clean Economy Act?
P.K. (Pamela Kent) Pettus lives in Charlotte County. She can be reached at pkpettus@hotmail.com.
