Jonathan Wood floated the idea of a solar moratorium at the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on June 18.
Wood, of the Peters Creek District, said he wanted the moratorium until the county had an opportunity to figure out related issues and its solar ordinance.
“I think it will go a long way. I’m not saying that I would never, ever consider doing it, I’m just saying we need time to stop and think. We really do because there’s more information in this packet than we’ve seen in a long time. I would really like to have some time to think about it, talk to more people in our districts,” Wood said.
Doug Perry, interim chairman, and of the Smith River District, said he supports the idea of the solar moratorium, but for different reasons than most of the other board members.
“I feel that AEP (Appalachian Power) is behind on things to include our broadband, and if they’re not able to support or build any project, then why do we need to move forward and approve projects that AEP can’t handle,” he asked.
Perry said a moratorium would give the electric provider ample time to get caught up on projects that have already been approved.
“If they’re already behind and we keep slapping more stuff on top of them, they just get further behind. So, if we can just pump the brakes and put other projects on pause, that gives AEP time to react, get the infrastructure in place that’s needed, so that we can successfully move forward instead of keep piling stuff on top of them,” Perry said.
Although some people would prefer a permanent moratorium on solar projects, Perry said that would be a political issue.
“Whatever politics are floating around is how well that would work. We have to plan for the worst and hope for the best,” he said.
Perry noted he liked the point the Berkeley Group made during the meeting while exploring reasons that the county would produce electricity for someone else.
“So, how much electricity does Patrick County use and how much collectively is Patrick County producing,” Perry said. “Are we doing our fair share? Are we putting into the grid what we’re taking out of the grid?”
Regarding the solar ordinance that group is working on, Perry said he would like to see a cap, requiring the county to not put more into the grid than it’s using.
Perry also noted there’s a time and place for everything, including solar.
“Not every site is good for solar. What we’ve approved is out of the way. There’s no visual vantage point, so people aren’t’ going to see it. That’s a good balance. We certainly don’t want to look like fields and fields and fields of solar panels, but at the same time we’re doing our share that solar will complement other energy sources,” he said.
Clayton Kendrick, of the Mayo River District, said he believes a moratorium on solar would be a good idea.
“The thing started rolling too fast, and I don’t think quite enough stuff has been studied on it or come up with to protect us,” he said.
While the board hasn’t discussed a potential length of time for a moratorium, Kendrick said he hopes the board can talk about it at the next meeting.
“It’s going to take time. I’m going to say it’d need to be at least six months, or a year, or maybe even longer. Nothing moves fast when you get to fooling with lawyers and study groups,” Kendrick said, adding that he knows there could potentially be lawsuits against the county as a result of a potential solar moratorium.
“We aren’t flat saying to start with that they can’t have them. We’d” just use the “moratorium to study it more and see if we want to change our ordinances and all that. If it does come to a lawsuit, you know that’s what we pay the county attorney for,” he said.
Jane Fulk, of the Dan River District, said her concern with the idea of a solar moratorium is how long it would be in force. At the June 18 meeting, Fulk said she asked Wood several times how long he wanted the moratorium to be in place.
“He didn’t answer, which maybe he didn’t have a number. I agree with him somewhat that we don’t know enough about what’s going on yet. The other one (solar project) went through so fast, that I thought sure we had everything that we wanted in place,” she said.
Fulk said she also wants clarification on some issues and more information added into the county’s solar ordinance before another solar company comes into the county.
“So as far as a moratorium, to me means we’re not going to do it for a while, that’s why I kept asking about how long we wanted to put it out. Because if Berkley’s working on it, I want to see what they come up with, and look at it, and see how it will affect Patrick County,” she said.
From reading about solar companies, Fulk said she knows whatever energy is generated in Patrick County will not stay here.
“It will go to where there’s greater need, and if we don’t have the greatest need, then it’s not going to be us. So, we’re going to have solar farms to feed people far from us, or we might get some of it if we have the greater need,” she said.
While she is generally against solar, Fulk said she wants to know a timeline before casting her vote on a potential moratorium.
“I just want to know how long we’re looking at. I understood where he (Wood) was coming from, and it sounded like something maybe we should do,” she said.
Fulk said she also doesn’t know enough about solar farms and would like to have more information.
“I’ve done a little research on the panels, but I know there are different panels out there we could use. Nobody seems to want to say anything about those,” she said.
Fulk also believes there’s more information that needs to be brought up that she doesn’t think the board has yet.
“I know the planning commission tried to get all that they could get, and when I was on the planning commission, we really didn’t have enough, but we could not sit still and let one of the bureaucratic agencies, or federal or state agencies, tell us what to do. We had to do something,” she said.
Steve Marshall, of the Blue Ridge District, said he believes imposing a solar moratorium denies the board the opportunity to consider solar projects on a case-by-case basis.
“This is not balanced governance. One project might be unfavorable while another might be perfectly appropriate to allow. Denying reasonable projects will cost the county revenue and could very well expose us to litigation by property owners and solar companies. We run the additional risk of forcing adverse regulation by the General Assembly,” Marshall said, adding that he believes a moratorium would deny property owners the opportunity to bring their land use intentions regarding solar at least to a vote by the board.
“Landowners should be afforded the right to hear why their project is being denied rather than public officials hiding behind an outright ban. The practice represents selective zoning, which I am not in favor of,” he said.
Marshall said moratoriums likely are not legal owing to “Virginia being a Dillon Rule state and the fact that state legislation provides for and requires renewable energy under the Virginia Clean Economy Act.”
He believes it is likely that should enough counties decide to impose moratoriums on solar that the state will be forced to remove siting decisions from county boards of supervisors.
“This would naturally have to happen in order to reach the state RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standards) goals. I do not know where the tipping point is on this, but I don’t believe Patrick County should have a part in removing decisions making from counties,” he said.
Wood said he brought up the moratorium idea at the joint meeting because he believes the county needs a chance to step back and see where it wants to go, or even if it wants to go with solar in the county.
“You’re looking at a 40-year investment minimum, you know,” he said. “We want to make sure we have everything so that it benefits the county and the county residents, and not just a few people.”
As for the length of time of a moratorium, Wood is unsure.
“I think we need to do at least six months or a year to start with, to see what we can come up with as far as a solar ordinance that makes Patrick County a better place to live, or still a good place to live and raise a family,” he said.
Regarding potential lawsuits resulting from an enacted moratorium, Wood said he believes county residents, including himself, don’t mind if the county has to fight to do what’s best in the long run.
