Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The members of the Buckingham County Planning Commission believe solar decisions should be made by county officials, not someone appointed by the General Assembly. During their Monday, Jan. 27 meeting, the commission unanimously agreed to send a letter to Buckingham supervisors, asking them to draft a resolution opposing multiple state solar bills. 

The main issue stems around HB2126, which was killed in a House subcommittee hearing this week. The bill would have established the Energy Facility Review Board, which would serve as an “appeals court” of sorts for solar projects. First, within a year if it passes, the Board would create a “template” solar ordinance, requiring all counties to revise their own by July 2026 to mirror this one. Then, if a solar project gets rejected, the developer can file an appeal with the circuit court and have the Board review it as well. The Board’s decision would be seen as fact in the circuit court case, able to be used as an expert witness and overrule the city or county’s decision. That didn’t sit well with Buckingham officials. 

“This bill would create a commission that would have financial powers, as well as pretty outstanding powers to override local ordinances of the county,” planning commission chairman John Bickford said. His comments were echoed by planning member Pete Kapuscinski, who had raised the issue. He said the Review Board would have too much power. 

“That board would have the ability to override any decision made by the county,” Kapuscinski said. “There are some significantly negative consequences behind having such a commission.  This is sort of a backdoor way of having state government rule over local government. Some of these people who want to make decisions for Buckingham probably don’t even know how to spell Buckingham.” 

An end to the first bill

But as mentioned, for the second straight session, Del. Richard Sullivan saw his attempt to establish state control of approving solar farms come to an end. On Thursday, Jan. 30, the subcommittee from House Labor and Commerce voted 4-1 to “lay it on the table”, meaning that it would not be considered again during this session. The only no vote came from the bill’s creator, Sullivan.

That doesn’t end the issue, however, as members of the House and Senate have filed multiple bills containing pieces of what HB2126 was intended to do. The only difference is that Sullivan’s bill folded it all together.

Why the rush for new solar? 

Why the rush? Well, there’s been a bit of panic in Richmond, due to some data coming out from the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center. In 2024, for the first time ever, Virginia cities and counties rejected more solar projects than they approved. In fact, the amount of new projects approved in 2024 was the lowest amount in six years. It’s raised concerns both from Assembly members and solar companies, who are urging lawmakers to pass the bill. 

“Over half of Virginia’s counties have signaled to solar energy that they are closed for business,” said Evan Vaughan, Executive Director of MAREC Action, in a statement sent out Tuesday morning to media. “There are 55 counties and cities that have either banned or made it difficult and costly to develop utility-scale solar projects. Others have no ordinances at all to regulate solar projects. We acknowledge localities that have welcomed solar projects, but the current situation makes the development process inconsistent and unpredictable for localities and developers alike at the very time that Virginia needs more clean energy.” 

To clarify, MAREC Action (Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition) is a coalition of more than 50 energy companies, operating in the Mid-Atlantic region. Vaughan further claimed in the statement that good solar projects that Virginia needs are being blocked through a patchwork of local decisions and policies, while Virginia’s energy demand continues to grow. This trend, Vaughan claimed, threatens Virginia’s ability to meet its expanding energy demand and achieve clean energy goals. 

A question of demand 

Vaughan’s statement is very similar to what Virginia State Sen. Scott Surovell said in the Monday, Jan. 6 public hearing for the bill, before it was voted on and moved to the next committee. Surovell said a change was needed to help investors. 

“If we continue to have the completely unfettered free market, whatever you want to call it system, where every locality can do whatever they want right now, we’re gonna continue to have 80% of all solar projects being rejected,” Surovell said during that Jan. 6 hearing. “All kinds of people who want to invest in this state are going to stop investing in this state because the system is so incredibly unpredictable.” 

As far as the claims about not meeting energy demand, that’s been stated quite a bit. Dominion Energy, for example, has predicted a 5.5% annual increase in demand over the next decade and then for energy demand to double by 2039. The State Corporation Commission plans to hold a hearing in April to discuss the forecasts and if they measure up. 

What’s next for solar? 

On the state level, those other bills continue to go through hearings in their respective chambers. As for the Buckingham planning commission’s request, their unanimous vote sends an official letter to the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors. That will be given at their next meeting in February and then it’ll be up to supervisors if they decide to pass a resolution opposing the solar bills or not. We will have an update on the various bills in the next edition of the paper.