The Virginia Supreme Court heard oral argument in an appeal by the West Virginia and Appalachian Laborers District Council challenging the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s decision to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) to Sycamore Cross Solar LLC without imposing a condition that the project prioritize local hiring.

The case centers on whether the commission fulfilled obligations under the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) and the Commonwealth Clean Energy Policy (CCEP) to “consider” whether, and if so how, a project would benefit specified groups — including veterans and workers from coalfield regions — and whether the orders explaining the commission’s exercise of discretion are supported by the record. Scott Strauss, counsel for the West Virginia and Appalachian Laborers District Council, told the court, “The commission did not meet its obligation under the Clean Economy Act to consider the project's impact on certain populations and communities.”

Strauss argued that the commission failed in two ways: it did not provide evidence-based findings about veterans and coalfield workers because “there is no evidence in the record on either of those subjects,” and it offered no cogent explanation for declining to include any hiring‑related condition even where the record contained evidence supporting local hiring. He pointed to testimony and an economic assessment (the Mangum report) forecasting roughly 197 construction jobs and seven operational positions, and to the hearing examiner’s recommended minimum condition — a requirement that Sycamore notify the laborers when hiring commenced — which the commission rejected. Strauss said the commission “essentially said, we're not required to, so we won't,” and asked the court to reverse and remand so the commission could obtain or consider the missing evidence and explain its reasoning.

Representing the Virginia State Corporation Commission, Lisonbee Plaber (deputy solicitor and legal adviser to the commission) told the court that the commission “acted lawfully when it exercised its discretion not to impose a local hiring condition.” Plaber said the remedy sought by the laborers — effectively a mandatory local‑hiring requirement — is not prescribed in enactment clause 7 of the VCEA and thus is by statute left to the commission’s discretion. She emphasized that the commission’s final order and its order on reconsideration addressed the evidence and explained the commission’s reasoning, including reliance on the Mangum report and testimony that Sycamore could not commit to a specific hiring percentage more than a year in advance.

Brian Greene, counsel for Sycamore Cross Solar LLC, argued that the commission satisfied the statutory requirement to “consider” the enumerated groups and that the agency rationally exercised its discretion. Greene said the plain meaning of the word consider is “to reflect on or to take into account,” and the commission’s orders and reconsideration explained why a mandatory hiring condition was unnecessary. He urged the court to uphold the commission’s factual determinations and discretionary judgment.

During argument, several justices pressed the parties on the statutory distinction between a mandate to “consider” an issue and statutes that require specific findings or mandatory conditions. Justice Kelsey asked why the court should not read the VCEA’s language as discretionary when the legislature used more prescriptive language in other provisions of the same act (for example, statutes addressing offshore wind, cited by counsel). Counsel for the laborers replied that the VCEA’s direction to consider two specific items carries a distinct obligation and that, at minimum, the commission should have placed any geographic or relevance reasoning on the record.

The transcript shows disagreement about the sufficiency and placement of evidence in the administrative record. Counsel for the commission and Sycamore pointed to testimony in the joint appendix (cited at JA 72–73 and elsewhere) summarizing the Mangum report’s projected job numbers and other economic benefits, and to the hearing examiner’s detailed summary of the economic assessment. The laborers’ counsel countered that those parts of the record did not address veterans and coalfield workers or did not produce a clear plan or enforceable commitment by Sycamore to achieve local hiring, noting that company witnesses testified only to “best efforts” rather than to binding contract provisions.

No decision was issued at argument. The laborers asked the court to reverse and vacate the commission’s orders and remand for further proceedings so the commission can develop or consider additional evidence and explain any exercise of discretion. The commission and Sycamore asked the court to affirm the orders. The court reserved decision pending its deliberation.

Votes at a glance: none — this proceeding is an appeal; the court heard oral argument and did not vote from the bench at the hearing.