The 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act, which mandates Dominion Energy transition to 100% carbon-free energy sources by 2045, requires at least 16,100 megawatts, or just under two-thirds, of the state’s electricity to come from solar or offshore wind farms by the end of 2035.

With rural Virginia localities increasingly saying no to covering their farmland with solar panels, two state lawmakers are proposing twin bills that would redirect at least 600 megawatts, or 3%, of the 2035 total to “previously developed” sites such as parking lots or brownfields that have been contaminated with hazardous waste. But one of the bills’ sponsors says Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s proposed amendments amount to a “poison pill.”

House Bill 1883, sponsored by Del. Katrina Callsen, D-Charlottesville, and the identical Senate Bill 1040, sponsored by state Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg, D-Richmond, include a schedule of annual benchmarks detailing what percentage of Dominion’s electricity generation portfolio is to come from renewable sources to reach the 2045 goal, and stipulate that it “is the policy of the commonwealth to encourage” energy projects on previously developed sites “to reduce the land use impacts of solar development.”

A provision of the Clean Economy Act required utilities to, from 2021 through 2024, procure renewable energy credits, or RECs, from renewable energy sources located within Virginia or the 13-state PJM regional transmission organization in which Virginia participates. 

A renewable energy credit, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, refers to the property rights to one megawatt-hour of electricity generated and delivered to the grid from a renewable source. It’s a method of documenting compliance with a state renewable energy portfolio standard, or RPS, like that found in the Clean Economy Act.

Youngkin returned both bills with recommended amendments after they each passed the House and Senate in February. His amendment would repeal this requirement through 2028, stating no utility “shall be required to procure and retire RECs for RPS compliance from 2024 through 2027.” It would change from 2025 to 2028 the date when utilities “may only use RECs from RPS eligible sources for compliance.”

“To meet our energy needs, we cannot, and should not, depend on rural Virginia and this bill would have ensured that solar went in the suburban and urban areas where everyone agrees it belongs,” VanValkenburg said in a joint March 28 news release with Callsen. “By putting a poison pill amendment on this bill, the Governor is putting more pressure on rural localities, costing us jobs and entrepreneurial potential, and ensuring the ratepayer has to shoulder more responsibility for energy production.”

The news release states both senators plan to vote to reject Youngkin’s amendments.

“We sent Governor Youngkin legislation that protects ratepayers, creates jobs, and expands production while directing development away from pristine landscapes,” Callsen said in the news release. “If he had signed the bill, he would have avoided impacts to approximately 8,000 acres of important natural resources.”

 

How local legislators voted

The Senate-amended version of HB 1883 that was sent to Youngkin passed that chamber 23-17 and was agreed to by the House in a 58-39 vote. A House-amended version of SB 1040 passed that chamber 97-0 and also passed the Senate 23-17.

State Sen. Laschrecse Aird, D-Petersburg, whose district includes Surry County, and Del. Nadarius Clark, D-Suffolk, who represents a portion of Isle of Wight County, were among the twin bills’ supporters. Del. Otto Wachsmann, R-Sussex, who also represents a portion of Isle of Wight, was among the “nay” House votes on SB 1040.

Two Senate Republicans sided with Democrats to pass the bills. State Sen. Emily Jordan, R-Isle of Wight, was among the “nay” votes.

Isle of Wight and Surry counties each have enacted solar acreage caps. Isle of Wight supervisors in 2023 set the limit at 2% of the county’s prime farm soils, or a maximum of 2,446 acres, roughly 2,200 of which are already spoken for. Surry last month set its limit at 7% of the county’s developable land, or 10,695 acres. County officials estimate Surry’s three existing solar farms already account for 6% of the county’s developable acreage.

The General Assembly will reconvene on April 2 to consider whether to override Youngkin’s veto.

Three other solar-related bills that would have standardized the criteria localities use when evaluating solar farm applications, established a state review board for energy projects and required localities to issue a written explanation for denying approval of a solar farm the review board had endorsed each died before reaching Youngkin.