Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Decommissioning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Charles City supervisors to require surety bonds for solar decommissioning
Summary
Public commenters urged the board to enforce decommissioning surety bonds for large solar farms, citing SUPs and siting agreements that, they said, require financial assurance payable to Charles City County. The board asked staff and counsel to research historical agreements and follow up with AES.
Several residents used the Oct. 30 public-comment period to press the Board of Supervisors to require financial surety from solar developers to cover decommissioning costs.
William Coda, speaking as a resident and former interim county administrator, cited the SUP Phase 1 (03/26/2019) between Charles City County and S Power Development Company LLC (merged with AES) and SUP Phase 2 with Cadet Solar Center LLC. He said the SUPs and the siting agreement include language requiring surety bonds to cover costs such as final grading and decommissioning and that bonds should be made payable to Charles City County. “A surety bond is an insurance policy that is taken out by the applicant and made payable to you,” Coda said, arguing that relying on salvage value of panels is insufficient protection for taxpayers.
Coda asked the board to obtain “the necessary surety bonds that will protect not only the landowners but will protect every citizen of Charles City County from increased taxes to cover the decommissioning of these solar farms,” and noted that phase 1 alone includes hundreds of thousands of panels.
Other commenters raised related concerns: Lloyd Carter noted provisions that may allow some buried materials to remain in place and asked why state deadlines and obligations (referenced in SCC filings) had not resulted in remediation or payments. During board comments, supervisors asked the county attorney and staff to review the historical siting agreements, SUPs and counsel records (Sands Anderson was referenced in the meeting) to confirm what financial assurances were required and whether developers had complied.
No formal action to change policy or require new bonds was taken at the meeting; the board directed staff and counsel to research the agreements and to report back with factual findings and recommendations.
Why it matters: If surety is absent or inadequate, taxpayers could face costs if developers default or if salvage values fall short of decommissioning expenses. The board’s follow-up will determine whether contractual enforcement or new requirements are necessary.
