Virginia offshore wind authority debates code rewrite, narrows list of statutory duties; elects new chair

The Virginia Offshore Wind Development Authority spent most of its virtual meeting reviewing proposed revisions to the authority’s enabling statute and clarified which duties and powers the authority will keep, which should be reassigned to an offshore wind division or other state agencies, and which items to remove as out of scope.

“We've talked the last meeting and even before that about potentially revising the existing code, that deals with our authority. Right?” Will (outgoing chair) said as the group began its item-by-item review of suggested changes. The discussion ran through definitions, organizational language, the authority’s powers and duties, and multiple operational subsections pulled from older energy-authority statutes.

Members agreed to a set of consistent edits intended to modernize language and remove functional duplication with other agencies. The authority voted (by voice) to approve the minutes at the start of the meeting and later elected leadership: Ashley McLeod was selected as chair and Chris (vice chair) was re-elected to remain vice chair.

Why it matters: the authority’s enabling statute directs its formal role in advising the governor and General Assembly on offshore-wind development. Changes to that statute determine which functions the authority must perform (and which functions should be handled by the Department of Energy’s Division of Offshore Wind, the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, the Department of Transportation, or private developers). Members repeatedly emphasized avoiding “scope creep” — leaving workforce programs, large capital projects and operational responsibilities where other agencies or developers already lead them while preserving the authority’s advisory and coordinating role.

What the authority changed or agreed to remove

- Supply chain and project definition: members agreed to broaden the definition of an “offshore wind energy project” to explicitly include associated supply chains and ancillary facilities (for example, manufacturing, ports and other land-side improvements). Kathy suggested and the group accepted wording to add “associated supply chains” to the project definition to ensure the statute covers more than turbines and the lease area.

- Data collection: the authority debated whether it should be written into statute as the body responsible for collecting metocean, environmental and operations data. Staff reminded members that for pilot projects the state or developers had gathered relevant data, but commercial-area data commonly belonged to developers (Dominion was cited as an example). The group agreed to keep the authority’s role permissive: allow gathering or requesting “relevant data” as needed rather than imposing a mandatory state-level data-collection duty that the authority could not practically execute without new resources.

- Workforce development: members removed a suggested requirement making workforce development an explicit statutory duty of the authority. Multiple board members said workforce programs are already led by other state entities and by local workforce partners; placing those duties in the authority’s code would create budget and program obligations beyond the authority’s current capacity.

- Public–private partnerships (PPPs) and detailed PPP lists: the authority struck highly prescriptive PPP language listing specific activities and instead kept a generic statutory allowance that the authority may establish PPPs in support of offshore wind and related research. Members said detailed, project-level PPP descriptions were unnecessary in the statute and could be handled by agencies or contracts when needed.

- Spaceflight and navy appointments: the draft language removing the Commercial Space Flight Authority seat and language creating a Navy ex officio appointment (without a vote) was approved. Members said the Space Flight Authority had expressed it did not want the seat and that an active-duty Navy appointment raised constitutional or appointment concerns; the group recommended freeing that seat for a different appointee.

- Chesapeake Light Tower clause: the meeting flagged a statutory subsection referencing upgrades to metocean and ocean-assessment equipment at Chesapeake Light Tower. Ken reported the tower has transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy; the board placed that subsection on the list for follow-up verification and removal if it no longer applies.

Organizational structure and staffing

Members discussed whether the authority should remain a “political subdivision” in statute or be recast as a “policy board” (advisory board). Some members favored making the change to match the authority’s actual role as recommenders rather than an operational subdivision; others urged consistency across the family of energy authorities to avoid unnecessary legislative questions. The group flagged that item for further research before finalizing the language.

The draft added text describing a Division of Offshore Wind under the Department of Energy. Members agreed the statute should make clear that the division and the authority must coordinate: the division will serve as staff/support and provide updates to the authority. The authority also added language (by consensus) encouraging that, if the Department of Energy hires a dedicated offshore-wind director or deputy director, that staff position be located in the Hampton Roads area to be proximate to ports, facilities and maritime stakeholders. The board preferred recommended (not mandatory) language on location.

Meetings, funding and reporting

Board members agreed to statutory language making quarterly meetings the formal schedule and changing permissive “may” reimbursement language to “shall” (matching other energy-authority statutes) while noting the longstanding caveat that reimbursement depends on funds being appropriated by the General Assembly. The authority also discussed annual reporting timelines and the practical need to deliver useful recommendations early enough to influence the General Assembly budget process; members asked staff to circulate a cleaned-up draft and to propose a plan for an earlier “white paper” or summary so recommendations reach legislators before their summer work on the budget.

Next steps and legislative path

Will and multiple staff members described the process: the authority will finalize recommended language and submit it to the Department of Energy for review; the department can suggest edits and will advise on funding implications. The authority’s leadership and staff will then seek a General Assembly patron (sponsor) to carry the bill; members discussed the practical benefit of sparking both House and Senate sponsors and of securing bipartisan support for what the board framed as technical updates and modernizing clarifications rather than policy reversals.

Quotes from the meeting

“We've talked the last meeting and even before that about potentially revising the existing code, that deals with our authority. Right?” Will said as the review began.

“We don't need to be involved in [workforce]… we can advise,” Will said while urging the group to avoid expanding the authority’s statutory duties into areas already handled by other agencies.

“This is my last meeting as chair. I am stepping down,” Will said later; nominations followed and the authority elected Ashley McLeod chair and re-elected Chris as vice chair.

Votes at a glance

- Approve minutes from previous meeting — voice vote: approved (no roll-call tally provided). - Chair and vice chair election — voice vote: Ashley McLeod elected chair; Chris elected vice chair (voice vote, no roll-call tally provided).

The board asked staff to circulate a tracked-change draft that reflects the agreed edits, to confirm ownership of the Chesapeake Light Tower language, and to return to a final review of the statutory language around the authority’s status (political subdivision vs. policy board) and any remaining items that could raise operational or budget obligations.

Ending

Members set a near-term plan for staff to circulate the edited statute text and to develop a short white paper to ensure recommended changes reach the governor’s office and legislators in time for the next session. Several members said they want to keep the authority’s statute narrowly focused on coordination, recommendations and technical advice while allowing the Department of Energy and other agencies to carry operational or programmatic responsibilities.