By Taylor Boyd
The Patrick County Board of Supervisors will consider a draft solar ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission at its Monday, Feb. 9 meeting. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. in the third-floor courtroom of the Patrick County Administration Building.
The ordinance was sent to the board more than four months ago, on Sept. 16. Kurt Bozenmayer, then chairman of the commission, asked the board to take action on the proposed solar ordinance at the Nov. 17 meeting.
Andrew Overby, chairman of the board and of the Dan River District, said the supervisors haven’t felt the need to have an actual solar ordinance up until this point since it’s not considered to be an approved land use in the county, according to the county’s Comprehensive Plan.
“We’re looking to maybe solidify something, I don’t know yet. We’re going to talk about it and see,” he said.
While two draft solar ordinances were created – one by the Berkley Group and the other by commission member Ed Pool – Overby said the board will only look at Pool’s proposed ordinance “because that was what was approved by the Planning Commission.
Overby also plans to have commission members speak about and explain the ordinance to the board at the February meeting.
“Then, us just talk about it, and then if we decide we want to move forward, then we’ll set up a public hearing,” he said, adding he believes the board will schedule a public hearing for a future board meeting.
The ordinance under review by the board was unanimously approved by the commission. In addition to increasing initial permitting and other fees for a project, it includes a risk assessment that front-loads, or allocates, costs at the beginning of the project by requiring a letter of credit to limit the county’s exposure to liability.
The solar industry “puts all of the liabilities on the back end of the project” with bonds intended to cover decommissioning costs, hazardous materials issues, and similar expenses, Pool explained.
Under the proposed ordinance, the company would be required to “go to a bank and put up the cash to secure a letter of credit,” Pool said.
For example, if a project costs $50 million, the company would be required to secure a letter of credit for that amount, Pool said. The county would hold the letter, and the funds could be used to pay for decommissioning the project and related costs.
A letter of credit would protect the county even if the company files for bankruptcy, with all funds secured by the letter available to be drawn down within 72 hours, he said.
While he’s neither anti nor pro-solar, Overby said he is considering whether a plan would be beneficial to the county in terms of minimizing risks.
“That may be something we want to consider. But I don’t want us doing anything that’s going to be detrimental to the county,” he said.
While he believes solar is a good option in some places, Jonathan Wood, of the Peters Creek District, said he doesn’t think the county is the place to expand solar on a utility scale.
“I believe that there are better, suitable places on land that cannot be used for other things, whether it’s agriculture, whether it’s for recreation, whether it’s for tourism, such as mine reclamation sites.
“Land that would be brownfields, rooftops, parking structures, those are much better options for solar in my opinion,” he said.
Vice Chairman Clayton Kendrick, of the Mayo River District, said he is opposed to solar farms locating to the county.
“If somebody wants a dish on their roof or out in the yard or something, that’s fine, but I don’t want to see large-scale solar. I think it’d be detrimental to the county,” he said.
Steve Marshall, of the Blue Ridge District, and Rick Swink, of the Smith River District, did not respond to requests for comments.