Developer proposes scaled-down Oldfield Solar plan, offers pilot payments and local hiring commitments

Representatives of M and A Energy outlined a redesigned proposal for the Oldfield Solar West Virginia project and sought initial feedback from the Hardy County Schools board.

The company’s development manager (speaker 4) said the project has been scaled back from an earlier concept that had as much as 250 megawatts across roughly 3,000 leased acres to a smaller, fractional project in the 25–40 megawatt range that would tap a north–south 138 kV transmission line. The presenter said the team expects to file a POC application in 2026, aims for possible approvals by the end of the year and targets construction activity beginning in 2028.

Why it matters: The developer said the redesign reduces the physical footprint while keeping a similar schedule, and could direct predictable payments to local governments and schools through a pilot (payment-in-lieu-of-taxes) or a specially structured community benefit fund.

What presenters told the board: A consultant working with the project (speaker 7) described the likely economic footprint as an estimated $400 million investment to build the facility, roughly $10 million in property-tax payments over the first 20 years (figures presented as estimates by the speakers), about 300 construction jobs during the build and roughly 9–10 local operations positions afterward. The consultant framed those numbers as preliminary and subject to final design and permitting.

On PILOTs and community funds, the consultant said a 20-year agreement could make revenue streams predictable for the county and school system, or the parties could instead design a community benefit fund to target spending (for example, supporting school solar, EMS services or other local priorities). He said the developer’s preference is to reach a mutually acceptable arrangement that balances project economics and community goals.

On decommissioning and land management: The developer (speaker 4) explained the project would file a decommissioning plan and post financial assurance as required by oversight authorities; the presenters said bond levels are typically reviewed and updated periodically to ensure funds would be available to remove equipment and restore land if the project ceased operation. The team also proposed agricultural compatibility measures — a grazing plan and partnerships with local farmers to manage vegetation — and said they are discussing pollinator plantings and other habitat-friendly measures.

Board questions and outreach: Board members asked clarifying questions about which transmission line would be used and how pilot payments would flow through county and school funding formulas. Finance/staff responses at the meeting noted state school-aid formulas consider local property tax receipts when calculating state aid, which affects how much the district would ultimately net from a PILOT. The developer emphasised continued community outreach, visual simulations and future open houses; Mary Green (introduced at the meeting as an outreach coordinator for the developer) offered to remain after the meeting for individual questions.

What remains unresolved: The exact size and financial terms of any PILOT or community benefit fund remain under negotiation; developers and board members characterized the revenue and job figures as estimates. The board asked the developer to provide updated fact sheets with final transmission-line details, revised footprint and schedule when available.

Next steps: The developer said it will update its public materials and hold additional outreach events; the board and county officials will continue to evaluate PILOT options and the distribution of any tax-equivalent payments. The presentation closed with an invitation for further questions and follow-up materials.