Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

In the end, the projects were split up. One Meherrin solar project was voted on Tuesday night and another was delayed again until June, as the company continues to try and make changes. CEP Solar was on the agenda Tuesday, May 13 for the Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors, asking them to consider approving a Meherrin facility. 

Oak Lane Solar is the one that made it before supervisors for a vote Tuesday and the one they ended up approving by a split vote. The project, which will be built on 194.8 acres, originally planned for 61 acres of solar panels. As of this week, CEP officials say they estimate 50 acres will now be used. It’s located on Route 360, near the intersection with Route 628, roughly 11 miles southeast of Farmville and a half mile from the Lunenburg County line. This will be a 5 megawatt solar energy facility, with 134 acres set aside for buffers, wildlife corridors and setbacks. 

Tyson Utt, the co-founder of CEP Solar, said Tuesday that the company saw from other hearings a lack of visibility from Route 360 was important to residents, so they reduced the amount of space dedicated to panels. In other words, residents didn’t want to see the panels from the road. 

“We know (lack of) visibility from the road is important, so we went ahead and put the panels on the other side of the creek,” Utt said. That’s partly where the decrease in acreage use, from 61 to 50 acres of panels, comes in. He also added that the company has committed to growing timber there, which he argued will also block the view. Another promise included is that the panels would only operate during the day on both sites, so there would be no noise generated at night and no homes will be within two football fields of the panels.

Road damage has been another concern of residents with this and other projects. Under the plan presented Tuesday, Oak Lane will have two entrances. The first would be a construction entrance along Route 360. The second, along Holly Lane, would be for non-construction purposes, like operations and potential emergency use. 

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has weighed in on both entrances and given feedback. Utt said both entrances would be designed based on those requirements from the state. 

Questions for Meherrin solar project 

First, let’s look at what the county could in theory get from this project. When you add up solar revenue sharing, voluntary payments and increased real estate taxes, the current estimate is that the county will get $725,000 rather than $52,000 through the life of the project. And for some residents, that was encouraging to see. 

“These people are going to build something there,” said Anne Bowman. She lives nearby on Mount Pleasant Road. “There’s going to be taxes paid into our county to help our schools be built, it would give the people, the landowners some income. I think there’s a whole lot of things worse than a solar panel. We’re trying to grow, we’re trying to get companies to come in here that are gonna need the power. And we use more power all the time with all of our own gadgets and things.” 

Bowman also argued that when timber gets cut, and companies tear up the roads with their trucks, she hasn’t seen nearly the same amount of outrage when it comes to damage or a destroyed view.  

Lane Gunn argued this was needed, not just for the energy production, but in that it helps local businesses. 

“This type of project sustains your local businesses,” said Gunn, who works with the South Central Virginia Business Alliance. “It’s not just for hotels, and rock quarries and gas stations (during construction). It’s guys like me, it’s companies like mine.”

Other residents pointed out the potential damage. Bryon Zaun explained that Mountain Creek, which runs through the property, flows to the Bush River and then to the Appomattox River. What happens if material leeches from the panels and, through runoff, flows into the river? The Meherrin resident, who lives about a mile and a half from the property, also questioned the company’s ability to block the view from the road. 

“It kinda gives a red flag to the community. We’re supposed to have a rural area but people traveling up and down (Route) 360, all of a sudden they say “oh look at the nice little solar farm,” Zaun said. “I wouldn’t want to look at it.” 

Other residents raised many of the same concerns brought up in the planning commission meetings, concerned about property values decreasing and the environmental impact. 

Questions remain unanswered

Supervisors asked several questions during the hearing as well. Supervisor David Emert pointed out that Utt said the panels were 95% recyclable, but asked if he knew of any recycling facilities for panels on this side of the Mississippi. Utt said he believed there was one in Florida.Utt was also asked about where the panels would be sourced from. He responded by saying the majority of groups in the solar industry produce their panels here in America now, a change that started with the tariffs placed on foreign materials used in the panels back in 2018. Supervisor Llewellyn Gilliam Jr. asked what procedures are in place to handle cleanup in case of a disaster. He pointed to the fact that during nine days last month there was a risk of a tornado somewhere in this country. 

Utt responded by saying he couldn’t speak to how it would be cleaned up. He knew the company had insurance, general liability insurance, and cleanup would be handled through that. 

In the end, the project was approved by a 5-3 vote, with Gilliam, Emert and Harrison Jones in opposition. 

Gilliam pointed out that the county could be hurting itself with this project, especially if materials do escape the property through runoff. 

“If this water is running downhill into Sandry River Reservoir, a project we’re trying to get going, we may be making the biggest mistake we ever made,” Gilliam said, questioning if runoff could get into the water supply. 

He said he also voted no because too many questions that haven’t been answered yet. 

Emert and Jones also had questions, more about solar in general. 

Jones acknowledged that Prince Edward County does and will have tremendous needs for energy. However, Jones said, he believes that should be addressed “with an energy production method that is at least 30% efficient.” 

He and Emert also questioned why, if solar is supposed to lower power bills, is there a clean energy fee attached to some bills now?

Postponing Green Bay 

Now Green Bay Solar was the one that got postponed until June. It’s from the same company, but unlike Oak Lane, it was recommended for denial by the planning commission. It would currently be on 67.8 acres, just off Route 360 near its intersection with Cheatham Road. Just like Oak Lane, it’s on land that’s primarily timber and pasture. 

But unlike the first one, the Green Bay project was flagged due to questions about potential development. Would it bring development to an area currently zoned for agriculture? And more than that, this property is not exactly flat. So what kind of damage might be done to the environment, people questioned in the planning commission hearing, as trees get cut down and the land is reworked to make it fit the project? And what kind of damage could that cause to other properties nearby?

With a number of questions surrounding this project, the planning commission unanimously voted to recommend denial. CEP had gone back to the drawing board, saying they would rework the project and asking for a delay from supervisors. That’s been given and they’ll present this new version of the project at the June meeting.