Pittsylvania presentation warns PJM interconnection costs, queue delays are slowing utility-scale solar projects

A presenter to the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors said rising grid interconnection costs and long delays at PJM Interconnection are a major reason many proposed utility-scale solar projects in Pittsylvania County are being delayed or withdrawn.

The presentation, delivered during the March 18 work session, summarized PJM interconnection fees, capacity factors for different generation types, and local project status, and urged supervisors to consider how long and how much it will cost for local facilities to connect to the regional grid. The speaker also highlighted that prior assumptions about tax revenue from solar have not yet materialized for the county.

The presenter told the board that Pittsylvania County currently has about 20 permitted solar projects covering roughly 18,049 acres and some 2,200 parcels, but that many projects have requested extensions or been delayed. He cited one local project he identified as “Shaco,” a 908‑acre, 60‑megawatt facility that received a special‑use permit in July 2020 and faces construction‑start deadlines tied to that permit. He said developers have requested amendments and extensions because they cannot secure timely interconnection agreements with PJM.

Explaining PJM’s role, the presenter said PJM is the regional transmission organization that coordinates wholesale electricity movement across parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia and that interconnection charges have risen sharply as thousands of smaller renewable projects enter PJM’s queue. He gave comparative interconnection cost figures from presentation slides: about $253 per kilowatt for solar, $335 per kilowatt for energy storage, and roughly $24 per kilowatt for new natural‑gas connections. Using those figures, he calculated an example interconnection cost of about $15.18 million for a 60‑megawatt solar site.

The presenter also reviewed generation and capacity statistics he attributed to PJM and other public sources: nuclear (about a 92% capacity factor), solar photovoltaic (about 23.4% capacity factor), and the rapid growth of solar generation in PJM (a cited increase of roughly 369% in four years, but still a small share of total generation). He said these technical differences—especially solar’s variability—contribute to PJM’s operational concerns about integrating large volumes of distributed renewables.

Board members asked clarifying questions. Supervisor Dalton asked what the presenter’s solution would be; the presenter replied he favored repealing the Virginia Clean Economy Act, saying that state mandates and penalties were driving demand without accounting for the realities of interconnection. Supervisor Bowman asked whether real estate tax assessments have increased for completed projects, and the presenter said at least one local project (the Whitehorn project at Gretna) appears to have higher real‑estate assessments compared with prior farm assessments, suggesting additional tax revenue could be possible but that revenue sharing or profit arrangements were “not specified.”

The presentation included references to proposed transmission upgrades: the presenter said PJM identified a potential need for a new 230‑kV line to serve four Charlotte County projects, with an estimated cost of about $325 million and a 42–48 month build timeline; he said developers have withdrawn some queue requests in response.

The presenter closed by urging the board to consider the multi‑year timelines and large costs for interconnection and to keep those constraints in mind when evaluating local solar permits and expected revenue.

Board members did not take formal action on the presentation during the work session; the discussion remained advisory and informational.