Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning official warns proposed state energy bill could strip local solar siting authority
Summary
Tazewell County planning staff told supervisors that a proposed bill before the Virginia General Assembly could move permitting of large solar projects to the state Energy Facility Review Board and preempt local ordinances, potentially affecting two projects already under review in the county.
A county planning official warned the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 7 that a recently authorized draft bill could remove local authority over siting certain solar projects and shift review to the Virginia Energy Facility Review Board.
Staff said the Virginia Commission on Electric Utility Regulation voted to authorize filing a bill that would move review of utility‑scale solar facilities (projects over 20 megawatts, or over 2 megawatts on previously disturbed land) to the state Energy Facility Review Board. The planning presentation cited two local solar projects—one described as roughly 10 megawatts (HERA) and another described as 20 megawatts (Demeter)—and noted that a siting agreement already approved for one project may preempt elements of the county ordinance.
County staff said the proposed statute and accompanying state model ordinance could effectively nullify local solar siting rules for qualifying projects and asked the board to consider asking the planning commission for a recommendation and to consider a possible resolution opposing the bill after the board has the proposed language.
Supervisors asked staff to consult the planning commission on adding a modest information requirement—safety data sheets—to the county’s planning submittal checklist and to return with the commission’s recommendation. Staff also said the Virginia Commission on Electric Utility Regulation’s model ordinance work could further limit local discretion and that county attorneys across the state were actively reviewing the development.
Ending: The board asked staff to request the planning commission’s view on modest disclosure changes and to provide the board with the proposed state bill text when available; staff suggested the board may consider a resolution opposing state preemption once the language is published.
