be
yes
the
de
it's
been
we have a screen
or
wishing I played one of my like remote
attendance hey going have new
here
to
we need
more way back yeah
that was the
big
yeah you wanted to
com all right everyone you left the
fridge
open great well we'll go ahead and call
the first meeting of the Virginia solar
energy development and energy storage
authority of 2024 to order uh we have a
couple new members and I know we'll
probably have a few members joining
online so I think it might be we start
briefly with some
introductions um start over here with
our director Will Davis the director of
the uh Department of energy and Recovery
politician and Ken German Department of
energy
Greg be apartment Gentry lock and the
president of gentry
Locka Skyler zunk with energy right I'm
Joan Scott web I'm a land owner who
likes Sol who's done it wants to do
more I'm Jim cber one of the new members
uh currently retired but uh a career
your Submariner 28 years highlight was
uh command of a Fast Tax submarine back
in the late 90s uh most recently I was
Chief of Staff to of
energy past
administration uh Mike Herbert
co-founder and management partner to
waran power we uh Standalone battery
storage developer
operator morning I'm Cather Bond
eny Morning Joe L Virginia Association
of counties here a guest thank
you excellent well thank you all welcome
to Jim
um K do we have any members joining
remotely that we could make a motion to
include them in the discussions well we
don't have a quorum physical Quorum two
six we have seven we need eight rip
thought we had it with seven um there 12
members we're up to
14 all right good and a bad thing um if
we have one more coling joins then we're
good to go then we could make a motion
to include folks joining remotely and I
don't see Harry online there done got it
can the folks on line hear
us yes yes we
can welcome to the many folks joining
online as well um but with that not
having reached a quorum quite yet we
will put a pin in the approval of the
minutes from our most recent meeting um
we'll go ahead and kick things off with
our discussion
with Joe Lurch director of local
government policy at Virginia
Association of counties thank you Joe so
so much for joining us today um we have
uh anxiously awaited this presentation
and discussion with you recognizing how
important uh the county voices are in
this discussion to bring more clean
energy online in Virginia um I think uh
we'll listen into what you have to say
and share and then we could engage in
discussion I think everyone would enjoy
that so thank you and the floor is yours
well yeah so thank you again for having
me and I'm going to make this relatively
informal uh some of you I know known for
years and others I just met now so it's
nice to meet you um you know I thought
what I would do is just kind of felt
kind of a narrative of what um the
counties have seen um really over the
past I would say 10 to 12 years you know
in terms of the energy landscape in
Virginia and then how that fits into
utility scale solar
um and battery storage or other types of
of energy storage so you know prior to
really
2015 um you know the the types of solar
that you know we were seeing um in our
communities were um really big rooftop
arrays things that might get as much as
800 KV uh in
capacity uh and then really the the
first big project we saw was in AAC
which was an 80 megawatt project um and
that really got everybody's attention in
a lot of different ways um you know to
to speak of the context to I mean I'm
sure you're all familiar you know one
megawatt of solar panels it really
depends on the context and situation but
it can take up anywhere from six to 10
acres of land uh you know that's kind of
a rule of thong um by context you know
prior to that kind of first big utility
scale solar when we were looking at
energy projects in our communities and
I'm glad I got the menion here because
they can correct me if I'm wrong with
some of the numbers but I think it's the
Greensville uh gas plant was one of the
more recently permitted ones and I think
that was like 1333 megawatt capacity and
it took up maybe about 56 57 acres and
so in terms of you know how you know
County's kind of view this that's a it's
a different type of of energy right it's
very different so it to compare it is an
energy production but to compare the two
you know you really have to keep that in
mind um in terms of land use though when
you're talking at first we've seen a lot
of 20 megawatt um facilities and that's
you know a couple hundred acres but once
we started getting to 150 megga and
above you're talking starting to talk
about square miles of land um that are
are being changed over to another use
and so the way the counties really view
these things are like any other land use
application which is all right what are
the impacts um first off actually how
does it fit into our comprehensive land
use plans which every locality must
have and then they look at that and
typically what we've
SE is these are are being um applied for
in agricultural zones right and in those
agricultural zones they'll have a
combination of existing land uses it
might be for agriculture roow crops it
might be pasture it might be forested um
there might be nothing going on on the
land um and so you have this change over
and so what the counties are looking at
is okay how does it fit in with our
Landes plants for there um they
typically will um require a special use
permit so the underlying zoning is still
for agriculture and all those uses there
and then typically what the special use
permit does is it looks like okay within
this zoning District we're going to go
ahead and take an application for use
whether it's utility scale solar energy
solaration and we're going to try to see
how we can address those impacts it
usually goes then to the Planning
Commission you know with the staff
report there's a public hearing people
come and show and speak uh in favor or
you know in opposition or some just not
necessarily in favor of opposition
they're trying to figure out you know
what what is going on here and try to
get some impacts um and then that
Planning Commission will then make a
recommendation uh to the County Board um
you know it could be to approve it could
be to deny in some cases they may not
have any
recommendation um because there might be
a tie uh the members present um and then
you would have a public hearing before
the the elected body the local Board of
Supervisors and then they would make
their decision now one of the things
that too I did I didn't mention as a
part of this process there is kind of a
unique thing in state law and it's
called um the 2232 review which some of
you are probably very familiar with if
you're into business and essentially
this is any public utility and by
definition utility scale solar comes
under that definition of public utility
uh in state code it has to um the
Planning Commission has to make the
determination does this fit within um
our comprehensive plan plan and that's
kind of a separate action and once that
decision is made you know it's it's one
of the few inst is where a Planning
Commission that's the only instance I
know where they they have the authority
to make kind of a Lous decision now that
can be appealed to the Board of
Supervisors and sometimes it is and then
the Board of Supervisors could you know
change that decision so within all of
that context um I think what we've seen
and I know that there was a department
of energy report um that was a couple
years ago that talk that looked at all
the applications across the state and
what they were seeing and um you know I
know here in Barry Hill on their staff
director DAV worked with ubaa compiling
a lot of that information and I want to
say that of all the applications that
went fully through the process it was
roughly about 80 to 82% did get approval
now that's a pav some of them pulled out
of the process at a certain point um in
terms of of I think where you know Veo
is in in you know both assisting our
members and advocating on their behalf
you know we quickly saw that there was
um not only the impacts to land use but
there was impacts to revenue um and I'm
going go into the the whole story of it
GRE and I know that story pretty well
but it goes back to a 2014 law that gave
a tax exemption on uh the Machinery tool
for um utility scale solar it it morphed
over the years but I think where we are
now and I'll bring in this other piece
of it I think it was the 2020 U session
there was a post siding agreement La
that really kind of changed the calculus
for localities that made up for that
Bost Revenue um under machinery and Tool
tax the mandated um State
exemption um you know so that piece I
think is working very well and I should
also state that the host siding
agreement goes beyond just um the
revenue aspects it also gives the
locality uh a chance to sit with the
developers and sit with their community
and constituents say what are things
that need to be addressed with Community
for these impacts you know I'll give you
an example of one where I think
localities are are now starting to
figure this out because it was just an
unintended con con
consequence but uh there was one County
uh that bordered um one one another
County where a huge installation went in
and as part of that process of bringing
in all steel and the glass and
everything for that they would come on
the county second roads in the one
County to access them to this County
well a lot of County secondary roads
weren't ready for that traffic the heavy
trucks and and it tore up those roads
and so some of the things that El County
can do is like they can get a traffic
analysis like how many truck trips are
going to be on these roads and they can
consult V and determine how do we you
know make up for the the damage to those
roads that could be a fund that could
help replace and rebuild those roads uh
that's just one example I mean there's
many other that when you when you think
about these storm water is a big issue
that's one that hopefully can be
addressed through a her siding
agreement um so you have that I think
piece moving forward in terms of
educating the members we held a forum
back in 2018 in vwy county and um we had
um a lot of different counties and
engineers and others give presentations
to our members to talk about how they
have um reviewed permitted and
established utility scale solar uh
within their jurisdictions and I think
that was really helpful for a lot of our
members um you know I think moving
forward obviously some of the projects
are even getting bigger you know there's
the 500 megawatt project which had been
the biggest project today in Western
Spotsylvania but there's an 800 megawatt
project uh that got approved in
Charlotte County uh which that now we're
going to see you know maybe even some
bigger ones um we're definitely being um
keed into um The process by which DEQ is
going to um update uh their PBR RS and
permit by rule regs uh for legislation
from a couple years ago called Hospital
206 um we're also starting to see energy
storage um and energy storage not even
necessarily associated with u a utility
scale solar it can be anywhere in the
county because it has value as part of
the grid system um one of the things
that we're really uh thankful for was
the General Assembly not only stepping
up in terms of some of the legislation
I've talked about but also um giving
resources for what's known as the
Virginia energy land Navigator or bin is
anybody here familiar with that um so a
couple years ago and it was actually
under legislation called small modular
reative so you wouldn't think it have
anything to do with this but in the
enactment cles it gave money and
directed um Virginia Tech and their Geo
um geospatial
information GIS group to work on
creating uh an active GIS labor layers
where a county or others can go on and
say okay where are the forested lands
where are the prime agricultural lands
where are the transmission lines going
through County um and so I think that's
a great resource you know other examples
I'll give of of C's really delving into
this issue we had one member that
decided to consult directly with the
income of utility and say hey where is
the transmission capacity in our
community where do you kind of see that
there's capacity in our community that
would accommodate utility scale solar
and so I think that's some of the
innovative ways that our members are are
starting to look at these proactively at
the land use uh changes uh that they're
seeing in regards uh to this what's
relatively new use
now with that uh you know I didn't bring
any slides or anything uh I I think you
all are pretty familiar with the the
topics and the issues but I any question
you may have you know in engaging and
conversation yeah I just question think
associations typically have varied
interests depending on their members and
if you're representing the counties in
the Commonwealth can you talk a little
bit about do you see differences in
terms of those counties who are
supportive of utilities scale the larger
scale solar projects are those typically
the localities where those projects are
located or do you see like a difference
are they located elsewhere can you just
talk about maybe some of the geographic
or the regional Dynamics and how that
plays into your
members what you hear from your members
for feedb that yeah you know it it um I
think when we first started to see the
utility scale solar it was locating a
lot in Southern Virginia or Eastern
Virginia
um particularly on agricultural um Zone
but agriculturally used lands typically
you a very flat drains well it makes it
easier for for development um and you
know I think another component of that
is land that was probably least for
farming but not owned and operated for
farming um and so what you would see is
is you know families for Generations had
land that you know was under um you know
AG culture and they leasee it to a
farmer and then they would get an
opportunity um and and I understand it
definitely you know from a financial
standpoint to least thly and now for
solar and probably get a lot more money
annually for that um I think in terms of
where we've seen it go since then uh
We've now seen it experience a larger uh
forested tracks in a lot of areas so
you're seeing a lot more conversion
there you're even seeing um what in what
you wouldn't think would be um you know
from a a kind of a a g you know
geography type situation but places like
blase which are relatively mountainous
you're starting to see applications
there um I think with County maybe some
applications so you're starting to see
some interest of other areas of the
state um I think also you know part of
of what we see too is I think in
Northern Virginia um where weing prices
are a lot more and we started to see a
couple projects maybe in Prince William
but I think there's maybe one or two um
but now a lot of land up there is uh
very expensive and becoming more
expensive because it's uh very desirable
for cloud computing centers so you're
starting to see that in those areas in
terms of I think our membership and I
think this is a good point um you know
our members across the board you know
whether you're in Arlington or Hala
County you know they they kind of all
support each other in kind of a land use
decision so in other words you know an
Arlington County which would like to
Source a lot of its energy from
renewable sources they would also like
you know the counties where it's coming
from that to make the best choices for
their for their
constitu that answer your question
think um Joe has Veo made policy
recommendations to individual counties
as they're looking to craft their own
solar ordinance or energy ordinance is
there a set of Standards or
recommendations that they provides
commies there's not a set of of
Standards or recommendations and and
part of that really goes to the fact
that each individual county is different
but not only that each individual
application is different um and I'll
give you an example I talked to with
Joan about uh before we got started you
know there was one County where I talked
to the County Administrator and there
was 150 megawatt project that their
County board approved and it was
recommended for approval by staff and by
Planning Commission I think it was
unanimous and it was an area the county
where made sent he said had transmission
capacity the land was was fow it hadn't
been used for agriculture actively so it
was it seemed like a great change over
in use and they you know addressed all
the
impacts similarly in that county there
was a developer that came forward
and you and what I think you know a lot
of smart developers they go and talk to
County staff or County Administrator
before really making a decision to apply
they say hey look we're interested in
putting a 20 megawatt facility right
next to the entrance to the state park
there you're like all right hold on wait
a second this is a a big resource in our
County seic resource we don't think that
would be the best F there and so there
really is not kind of one set of
standard
kind of recommendations or policies uh
that you know we we would suggest um
what we do offer though is as much
information as we can and we encourage
our members to learn more about it uh
and and to work with Africans work with
the community uh and learning more and I
will say too that uh you know there's
also State resources department of
energy has been providing a lot of
resources to our members and coming out
on request I'll come out um you know
sometimes at the request of boards with
planning commissions I remember one
County in
particular I had a request to come and
it was just me for three hours back and
forth with the Planning Commission and I
did I must have done too good a job
because they asked me back for the board
for another three-hour session and the
funny thing is it was it was a great
conversation because it it it went by
quickly it wasn't boring and I didn't
have any slides or anything it was just
you know learning from them also what
was important to them right um which
kind of helps us sometimes in terms of
our policy at the general assembly
before you go Greg we do actually have
an inperson Quorum so in order to
allow uh is it just Harry joining
remotely call also Harry Paul to and
Mike and Mike to participate virtually
i' entertain a motion to allow them to
do so second all those in favor please
signify by saying I any oppose
all right so the members joining the L
League can participate ask questions
great so Joe let me ask you impossible
to answer for assential question they
we're all dealing with n so um we have a
Virginia clean energy plan that will
that really highlights a transition or
renewable energy we have utilities that
now have mandatory RPS obligations where
they have to hit certain renewable
energy obligations we have land owners
who want to develop their land in a
particular way um we have obviously a
whole industry that's not developed
around renewable energy broadly speaking
and yet as of today the ultimate land
use decision the approval process for
any project is vested with the locality
as it is for almost all other land not
all but almost every other land each
decision so so what do we do I mean
forget about hb26 for a second
everything we're going through there but
we we have a system where the state says
these targets must be hit this is our
goal this is what we want to do
utilities you have to transition
start procuring Renewables but the power
to decide yes or no is delegated to
however many hund and whatever locality
we have in Virginia um and the and as
you know there has been a movement
towards more restrictive at least on a
case-by Case basis decision making at
the local level to the point where we
could run into it becomes impossible to
develop a project at the same time the
state is mandating projects be developed
or directing project be development we
did you know I I think that's a great
question Greg and I would even take it a
step even higher in terms of the energy
landscape in Virginia and we had a great
session on this at our annual conference
and even beyond the Virginia clean
economy act even beyond the RPS
standards in beyond all the federal and
state tax incentives there's a huge
demand for energy production and in
Virginia and I mentioned cloud computing
earlier um uh cloud computing is really
now taking a Forefront in a lot of our
communities in terms of ranging impacts
um and transmission lines changing over
I mean there was a case where there was
a residential uh approved approved
residential development in in one of our
MOA Virginia localities ready to go but
it was so much more valuable for cloud
computing that the developer got enough
money to turn that over after all the
soft costs and Engineering costs to get
that approval so I say that as context
is I think even beyond all that and a
lot of the cloud computing you know
we're going to accommodate that while
reaching um zero greenhouse gas emission
production is going to be really
difficult so even Beyond you know this I
think 16,100 megawatts in the you know
Virginia clean economy act and I don't
know what the most recent uh IRP for
Dominion is in terms of of what they
predict would be needed in terms of
solar it's huge right and you know I can
say you know too that our members want
to retain that authority to make those
land use decisions on a case-by casee
basis they're still out there and
available to work with on making the
best decisions um there's going to
become a point though I think where um
you you could there might not be enough
solar to meet the demand for for
and another factor into it and it kind
of complicates things is you know where
we are on energy storage capacity and
Technology um a few years ago there was
an SEC work group that I participated on
a lot of
stakeholders that was you know looking
at the issue of energy storage and could
we meet um could we use energy
storage um so when the the sun is is
shining brightly the wind is blowing and
we have excess coming into the grid and
we use that to store that energy and
then bring it back to the grid room when
we need it when the sun isn't shining or
the wind isn't blowing and what we found
is and it was a consultant that SEC
hired and in other nations and other
states where they looked at this is when
kind of surface territory or state or
country gotta got above 50% of their uh
energy production from
Renewables that the current energy store
energy storage technology could not make
up that difference because I think it's
about four hours they can be dispersed
and so I I say all that to say is we
could get to 2040
2045 under the Virginia clean economy
act standards and we may not meet 100%
of renewable energy production because
of that that kind of mismatch um and so
I kind of say that all into context is
our members are really well aware of
this and so you know they want to make
sure that even with all these mandates
that they keep hearing about that
they're still making best in use
decisions in the cases and you know some
of the concerns are too um you know I've
seen some of the the projections that to
meet maybe the Virginia clean economy
act you going need to convert maybe 1%
of in in Virginia uh to solar I've seen
some of these numbers but it really
comes down to a case-by case
basis if you're in a magisterial
district which is how counties are
broken up and you approve one 200
megawatt project and another 100
megawatt project within that magistral
District you're impacting a lot more
than one to two% of the
land and that's has an impact not only
amongst the you know kind of the view
shed or what people expect but it has
been of a ripple through some of the
local economy I mentioned earlier you
know Farmers that Feast
land and they are part of that local
agricultural economy um they hire
workers they buy feed they buy Grain
they buy Fuel and when land gets
converted over to solar that kind of
mobile production is lost and so that's
some of the things that I think some of
our members are looking at and grappling
with um particularly in high production
areas of
Agriculture I don't know that that
answer your question
yeah I mean I understand what you're
saying it's almost impossible like at at
some point and in in one of our jobs as
an authority at least in the I guess
we'll talk about this some more later
this morning is to make recommendations
for policy decisions the administration
and the general assembly and at some
point those two things can become Us
exclusive where you say the state says
do this but the locality gets to be the
approval by um and that I think we all
know that that that's the ring into L
ofs um second question for you um I'm be
very specific if you can't answer me you
can't answer it has Veo taking a
position as to whether or not it is
legal for localities by ordinance to ban
or limit a particular type of
development within their
jurisdiction what I would say
is under current state
law it's it's pretty clear in 15.2 that
authority to regulate land use and and
what's you know the powers that are
there uh in terms of solar the only
thing it talks about is rooftop or
ground mounted in
residential particularly residential but
residential commercial and even
agricultural areas that a locality has
to permit it as a birght use if it's
serving the load for that use right
that's the only thing that I see
limiting a locality's ability to
determine to make land use decisions
now if it comes to um saying in certain
agricultural areas like um I give an
example one of our members had set a
Target saying all right B uh for our
KY um we are willing to allow the
conversion of x amount of Acres of prime
agricultural land into solar that might
be one thing that they can that's just
an example um and I think it's pretty
clear that you know
they feel comfortable making that
decision I haven't heard of any
challenges to that um on a Case by case
base and so just be
clear too's position it would be legal
for example for pick whatever
jurisdiction to passing ORD that says we
will not accept any applications for
utility development this jurisdiction
well I don't think it's that cut and dry
I think what it is GG is you look at
your zoning ordinance and within the
body of the zoning ordinance in the
various districts you outline what are
the permitted uses and then you may as
an attendant to that outline what are
per uh uses permitted through a special
use permit process which you still have
to go to the
B Joe similar question maybe a different
angle I absolutely agree and like what
you said about preserving local control
as well
as um treating these projects on their
merits Case by case basis you signed the
80% figure from the Virginia solar study
couple years ago um I think a few years
ago we saw more projects being
considered on a case-by casee basis but
increasingly projects are not allowed to
be considered on a case-by casee basis
with counties they will pass these
ordinances or cleverly repeal ordinances
allowing no pathway for for an
application how how how do we how do we
get past that if if the standard is to
consider these projects on a case-by
Case basis and projects cannot even
apply uh cannot get a meeting a prea
meeting with County cannot get even
their first
hearing how how do we square
that well you know I don't know the
specific examples you're talking about
first off um but what I would say is
once again going back to The Zing
ordinance it's it's the decision of that
local governing body what the zoning
ordinance allows work in terms of uses
and solar is just one or energy storage
is just one um and so the answer to that
question is I I think it's having a
conversation you know with each
individual board and you know making
case for you know we think this is a use
that could be beneficial to the county
uh it's the people that live within that
County it's the Planning Commission it
all comes down to the community itself
making um kind of those decisions on
what they
so
position or your legal analysis would be
that Counties have the right to not
allow solar storage development as a
permitted use
they say Carolina county for example had
a great solar ordinance and as a way to
stop development period repealed it so
that there's no pathway board they they
can't do that other counties could
follow that model
too I don't know if it's about a county
following model but I'll go back to my
earlier the only limitation that we know
in relation to solar and Ry Authority is
for
um rooftop mounted
grounded um suring the load of that
use on that's that's the only limit we
have thank I hear from renewable
developers is the difficulty of
navigating 95 or 100 different County
permitting processes and complexity
therein sometimes those counties
are ideologically opposed to the
development to begin
with um but I hear other developers say
look if that's if that's the if that's
the challenge then we need to rise The
Challenge and we need to do a better job
persuading those who are
opposed to that end are there more
education forums being planned I think
you mentioned one in 2018 it's been six
years is there more to come we continue
to educate our members you know through
our annual conferences we'll have
sessions on utility scale solar energy
storage you know um and and I mentioned
it earlier too we kind of do even the
broader landscape of kind of the oil
energy landscape at our last meeting um
our annual conference and C was one of
the presenters along with one of our
members from Norland Virginia and they
talked about you know what are the
energy needs in Virginia where is it
going to come from how do you you know
address those impacts um so yeah we're
continuing to do that are you noticing
that as the as the education level goes
up and people go learning curve are you
noticing a difference in their
acceptance or objections to Solar
Development just as a general
observation no I mean I that's not an
observation that we we NE neily made I
mean we don't necessarily track you know
each individual County I mean there's
not problem right um and there's a lot
of applications out there um but that's
not necessarily one we've seen one way
or
another one of the things I think we've
experienced is for counties that have
seen if you're trying to look for
correlations one of the correlations
just I think as an observation is the
more proposed projects in a county or in
in neighboring or adjacent counties we
tend to see
um I would say a process that is a
little different than maybe for the
first project in the sense that to your
point how many acres or what percentage
of that County may be under either
already permitted or under consideration
for solar that tends to drive a lot of
the conversations kind of in a different
direction like how much you know at what
point do we say no do we close the gates
um and what's what's the right balance
so we start to see those questions come
in and you start to see two three four
five large projects in a single locality
depending on the depending on the
locality SI the locality but that's just
that's just our observation no I think I
think that's you know fair fair
observation I I think it goes back to
just some of the things that and this
goes back to the conversation we had at
our conference is the demand for energy
production in Virginia uh and a lot of
our counties um they see the change in
Orlando land going over in particularly
certain areas manial districts into
Katherine's point they say okay how much
more can we actually take on in terms of
this lates conversion within our within
our
bounds Joe is there anything that you
hear from counties that the industry or
developers could improve
on you know
I don't think I've heard uh anything in
particular um I think I just go back to
to reiterating you know the sooner you
can get in and have a conversation with
um you know County staff learn about the
comprehensive plans within that
jurisdiction learn about the process get
to know the people in the community
that's always a good
thing if Veo had a magic wand to fix the
the rubs that we're talking about and
help make the development process easier
for certainly your county constituencies
what would you do with that magic
one well good hypothetical question um I
think what we're
seeing is things that we are very
appreciative of the state stepping up I
talked about the siding agreement I
think that's made a huge difference
in giving localities the ability and the
developers the ability to sit down and
say what is it that we want to
achieve I think also I mentioned the
Virginia land and energy Navigator even
more resources along those lines are
great um you know the assistance that
Doe gives our members is great those are
all things that I think help our members
um be more informed um for the decision
that they
make so more more State resources more
State guidance could be helpful to well
I think what we've gotten so far has
been great um could there be more and
more targeted um I think part of what
we're going to see and Greg and I served
on which work group uh the house 206 you
know there's going to be some decisions
made there on addressing impacts to
Agriculture and Forestry
uh for those projects that go through
the permanent by rule process and as a
part of that I think the state's
probably going to need to step up some
resources in certain areas to help make
those decisions I don't great you would
agree on
that a a whole other set of problems and
or
opportunities surprised that's an
opportunity but I mean the the state now
essentially taking a land use in
interest in um having state requirements
based on impacts to local
land that don't supplant the locality's
rights to take an interest in that land
which is going to I mean I can't imagine
any scenario where it makes the
development easier it may not affect the
development but in all likelihood it's
going to lead to it locality certain
demands and expectations for a project
get developed and then the state having
additional ones and how those are going
to interplay now um well I I think you
rais a valid i b concern I think part of
maybe what the state can do is helped to
provide those resources and have those
conversations between the state and and
the locality and with the developer you
know a good example is you know we sat
down in the first uh the larger board
group that was even outside of the DQ
process um I was part of a smaller subw
work group and actually we met here In
This Very Library a couple years ago and
one of the things that we discovered was
you know the sooner you can come to a
locality prior to even doing your notice
of intent on your PBR to have a
discussion with what that locality on
hey here's the piece of land we're
looking at um you know what is it that
we should know um and one of the
examples is one of the members on that
work group um was representing a county
and the other was representing a
developer that had worked in that county
and one of the things that they had
discovered is like look we're really
interested in this puffer along this
road let's have that discussion up front
before we even go through the
application process and I think some of
that can happen with hpit
206 I do see that there's
opportunities uh and particularly some
of the resources that were provided for
uh Virginia Tech from the subject matter
experts Dr Dr Lee Daniels on how do you
when you you go and look at a
site think about future land use
potentially when it's going to be forced
at or agriculture after the life of a
solar operation how do you work in a way
to impact those soils the least amount
so that it could be turned back over to
agricultural production I think those
are some of the great resources that the
state could help provide in some of
those instances and I think a lot of
that can help address a lot of concerns
for Loc ities at the end of the life of
a project when it comes to
decommissioning or maybe returning the
project back to a previous shoes so and
and there are better people in this room
to speak to this than myself because we
have actual developers here in the room
but as you know we represent you know
dozens of developers around the state
and the combination of projects being
rejected at the local level good
projects well-designed Pro objec 11 um
uh
ordinances that either literally or um
either literally prevent an application
from coming forward or set a message
that sort of the Count's not open for
development and then things like hb26
and other things what we're seeing more
and more from our developer clients is
just looking elsewhere outside of
Virginia and we're just seeing more and
more who say the landscape of Virginia
is so narrowing where I can have a
viable project especially if you're
looking out far enough out the future
that hb26 and whatever obligations c
will apply to your project obviously a
universe of Grandfather projects um I I
think the biggest problem we have right
now are not the projects that we know
that went forward and couldn't get
approval is the project that we'll never
even know some contemplated because they
just never came forward with the project
and when our when Katherine's
obligations to procure renewable energy
aren't going away the demands on
generation are spiking for all the
reasons you talked about and the pool of
developable land is shrinking so rapidly
um I think we have a real problem coming
where the status quo of State mandate
certain obligation Dominion has to
fulfill it locality has to approve it I
don't see how it works long term um and
so that's why you and I get to hang out
so much and have so much fun together
that wasn't a question it was just a
state I think reaction I mean I think
you know that it is part of the larger
energy landscape in Cath on this but you
know my understanding of the Virginia
clean economy Act is it's not just solar
and wind there's other options there's
um for non- greenhouse gas emitting
production such as Next Generation
nuclear um you know that's a whole
another discussion um but there's also
the provision I think in the law that
says when we get to those cut off dates
the income utilities if they need to
meet demand and they can't get it all
from nonre greenhouse gas emitting you
know production they can apply to the
SEC at that point and say hey look we we
have to provide saing reliable service
there's an enactment clause in the
Virgin economy act that basically says
nothing here so be ability to provide
reliable and
secure electricity virgin's customers so
it doesn't explicitly say yeah if for
land constraint reasons you can't meet
it through solar you can do these but at
the end of the day we've got an
obligation to keep the lights on um 24x7
365 so to your point we're harnessing
the power of the wind or harnessing
power of the sun you mentioned 4our
storage which is customary or more
traditional but we're also piloting some
of the longer duration discharge
batteries one of them is slated to
hopefully provide a discharge that could
be as long as 100 hours over a longer
period of time um but again that
technology sort of is being deployed
piloted on a smaller scale and our
planning Horizons are um when we file
our Integra resource plan we're looking
15 to 25 years out and the other issue
we're facing is just the longer lead
time I'm permitting construction and
supply chain in general is increasing
the L amount of time it takes any of us
to get any types of projects permitted
and online so predicting our customers
in need in the future harnessing
technology that's proven is really
critical integrating things like small
modular reactors will be critical going
forward as well but um yeah I it doesn't
explicitly say doesn't explicitly say it
but yeah at the end of the day it
doesn't change Our obligation and and I
think another thing too that that I
sometimes think about is we're not in
isolated island we're part of a larger
grid and you know where is energy coming
from the larger grid and I think that's
some of your IRP is that you're going to
have to get potentially energy
generation from outside of Virginia to
meet those demands we do on a very
regular basis but part of that we are
connected to pjm yeah and each year with
the state Corporation Commission School
proceeding we have to demonstrate that
we have at all times selected the
resources that are in the best economic
interest of our of our customers as well
as waiting those um clean energy goals
um so we have to prove that and it um
but it also in that sense we are then
holding to the policy decisions in other
states yeah that may be either
constructing or retiring those resources
about 90 over 98% of the resources that
have been retired in the region are
dispatchable resources and more than 80%
of the roughly 80% of those that are
proposed for new construction are
non-dispatchable or don't have a company
energy storage with them so again when
customers energy needs are growing
there's certainly that Gap that we work
Dr I'm s or you stand up oh Harry please
sorry was good Harry no um thanks for
the opportunity can folks hear me yes
yes great Joe and I may have missed this
my internet uh failed there at near the
bottom of the hour interested for you to
app for a minute on the degree to which
in the you are hearing questions and
concerns around the sighting for
Standalone storage in your counties
separating that out from this solar
question you may well have spoken to
that I may just have missed it but going
back to that I think it's a slightly
different
issue you know I har that's a great
question um I think initially when
Standalone storage facilities um were
being plot for in counties um heard
heard some concerns because this is
something new um they were concerns
about things that they had read or seen
about um I I forget what the the effect
is are when one of these might catch
fire um and you know it burns out but I
recently have not heard many concerns
about all of that um I I mean I you all
in particularly might have more
expertise on that but from what I can
tell you know some of the initial kind
of runaway fires that have happened at
some of these
facilities um I think have been
addressed with maybe on-site monitoring
you know remotely they could help
address those so I haven't heard too
many concerns uh from from our members
recently about that does that answer
your question Harry it does just a quick
followup on that one because so much of
this question is sort of about the the
Anchorage and land use issue
fundamentally have you heard concerns
about land use I would anticipate not
given the footprint but you may say
otherwise yeah I haven't necessarily
heard about concerns about land use I
mean you know it is interesting you know
I mentioned that at least for utility
scale solar it's seems to be you know
locating particularly in rural areas and
outside of Northern Virginia but I I do
I think I know one project up in the
northern Virginia locality where it's
maybe a 100 megawatt storage facility
basically in a building uh with multiple
stories that kind of fits in with the
landscape so that's kind of a different
uh different kind of use
there fine yeah I this is kind of a
general question Skyler Greg you guys
might have
opinion on it but do we do we
know kind of the extent to which local
kind of political opposition is creating
a constraint of preventing kind of the
development of these resources to
achieve the objectives of the BCA State
energy plan Etc because it feels like
there's a need to quantify that and if
you can quantify that and it says
there's just not enough development
potential left in the state to achieve
the objectives that were set out you
know a few years ago then there's
probably a need to address that through
policy or otherwise so I I I don't know
if there's a good way to do that but
certainly looking at you know the
counties across the state and figuring
out you know where folks feel like they
can do business and where they feel like
they can't would be a
start yeah I'm not sure how I think it'
be great to be able to quantify not sure
how you quantify there's so many factors
at play and PR viable it's not just the
literal land and you mentioned like
there might be land available the county
that somebody want love that so long but
you know you could never do a project
there um we our firm is actually
compiling a list has compiled a list of
localities for example that we think
have ordinances that either act as
moratoriums explicitly caps explicitly
or sort of implicit development barriers
that are embedded in their local
ordinances
um and and
it's how I don't know the problem is
it's it's happening in the places where
people want to take solver which is why
it's happening there you know so for the
history of Solar Development Virginia
localities have largely been introduced
to solar on a project basis not on like
a broad conversation basis and so
localities react to so someone says this
a great your for solar let's go do a
project we're first here C aren't making
any money because those first prizes are
tax exempt maybe some of the design
components weren't as desirable as they
are now County reacts negatively says
we're going to take a step by ordinance
and and what should be a great County
for development that becomes sort of
hostile to them I don't know how to
quantify it we we're sort of working on
trying to visualize it you know by
saying these count these count these
countes um and and I think Joe and I
would disagree to the as to the extent
localities have the authority to pass
some of those moratoriums and caps other
things and whether not that therefore
needs to be clarified a question I
wonder I'm not advocating for this it's
really just a question as to whether or
not the conversation has taken place so
if we're talking about the percentage of
like land use within it is there any
contemplation that after a certain
amount of land is used or set aside for
those purposes that you would
have incentives for B County in the form
of relieving you
tax like is there are there any
incentives for the counties to continue
to approve projects yeah through the for
in the form of like the tax exemptions
applying to projects that are you early
in the county but if a County's got five
to 10 or more percent of their land
already set aside the solar yeah what
incentiv I guess my question is like
what incentivized the county to continue
to approve proct that was supposed to be
deciding legislation and that has been
the way these projects have been brought
forward
um but but a lot of counties say no we
pay a threshold we don't want to do it
and and the problem that and again I'm
not I hesitate speak to the developers
while speaking to Developers for a
minute the problem that they're running
into is it's not that they get to the
county they go through the full
political process they go to the public
they present their proposal and then
they're denied through the ordinary
application of local land use Authority
it's they're told we've already hit our
threshold we're not accepting an
application and that's the part of it is
we'll never know how many projects
therefore don't ever even come forward
that but I mean the yes the idea is the
Sting with J may be a different thought
that the sting agreement legislation was
supposed to create incentive for
localities yeah I mean I think that's
true I could incentive for both
localities and the developers yeah work
together I N question
um is the reasoning behind counties
passing ordinances or revoking
ordinances that prevent the development
of solar based in the fact that they're
concerned about the transition of land
use from agriculture to
solar there's a concern about the way it
looks or is it economic that they're
actually using a tax base because they
somehow get more tax revenue through the
use of land for agriculture than they do
for
solar yeah I don't think that there's
kind of one answer any of that it once
again goes to each individual
locality um looking at you know their
land use
plans um competing land use you know
land uses uh you know for that land and
then making those decisions so I think
some of those may be part of that um but
really once again it comes up to
individual locality I mean I know one
locality that thought about it in terms
of okay they went to the income utility
and said what's our demand on an annual
basis for this locality how much energy
do we need to serve you need to serve
our you know from megawatt capacity
basis and they said okay I you know and
with the caveat that it wasn't a hard
and fast cap that they could always
revisit it they put in their
comprehensive plan at this point we're
willing to accept x amount of megawatts
or acres to help meet
our do they do the same thing for this
is how much food we need as a county and
this is the amount of agricultural land
we need to supply that food I would say
no yeah I mean it's an interesting it's
interesting like parallel then right
because why would you make that you're
spending electricity to different places
in your it depends on what your export
economy is and I think in the case of
solar at least for now they've said you
know we don't necessarily want this to
be our major export economy currently
their major export economy in this one
County is agriculture and they very want
to preserve that so so it is an interest
in preserving a current use of the land
yeah which is zon for that which is
sorry zone for that AG it's Zone
yeah do you think their interest would
change if the economics were were more
attractive to bring on more solar just
hypothetically um I couldn't speak
necessarily for that count but I think
part of what they're thinking about is
their whole economy and their Workforce
and their production is currently within
that agricultural realm are you saying
like not just the land but if there's
like production facilities that refine
something or what have you that is
associated with it that there's other
jobs Associated not just a value added
product like it's grain for example they
have a Grainery or a me
whatever meat
process yeah I want to comment about
I've gone to a number of of ratings as
far as Sol in in our L counties and I do
find it interesting that I see a lot of
just this death you know we're all going
to die we're going to be sick just
almost ridiculous comments from made but
they get people stirred up I mean people
sent they had people fers sent out to
people about where the people need to
office land owners were going to live
and think pictures of our home it's was
a really very very invasive but I think
it's for some reason I think it's also
maybe some jealousy which maybe sounds
silly some of you but just there's this
you know these people can do this we
can't do this you know it's um and all
the talk about getting sick and dying
and everybody people had cancer because
of it you know there's no soul with me
just it was it's been really ridiculous
in nway County they have they've had a
couple ordinances have been torn up you
haven't passed them I don't have a
project there we project been cited but
I haven't I'm not even considering it
now there's no ordinance has been passed
there uh their county is really in
pretty dire needs
financially um they need income um but
the people it becomes a very these
people that protested and I've been to
in s again it becomes an emotional
situation and maybe it's just a lack of
Education maybe it's just a um a lack of
um you know a new thing but it comes
they're very personal about this they
attack you personally I mean it's been
you know you know people are have people
signing have having signs put up all
over the county put it in the newspaper
about this it's it's very personal and
how do you get past those kind of
issues you're asking
me I'm saying it's become you know I've
seen it in more than one County that's
why I asked my question earlier about
education well you know we've had people
I would say in in one of our projects
the first developer um and early on it
took year have to get it passed um that
the developer did not he was not prepay
he was not pray contact was very poly
but people came from all over the people
from other counties even Che
to conversation they were people who own
land that live that to of County there
was just um oh theyve done all this
research about how the the fires just
just it went on and on there a multitude
of bre and S was off
it so I just you know I'm just asking
you know for maybe some comments on that
how do you bridge that thing I think
education is important but some people
don't want to hear the education
I don't want to believe
it Jo to make it even more difficult if
folks are relying on misinformation
showing up to a county meeting with your
pitchforks supervisors are often in a
very difficult position where they don't
want to politically deny what is
obviously nonsense but have to take
these votes and are incentivized to get
reelected absolutely absolutely and I
would say that at least in ailia I think
everybody there believes in private
property rights most people in rural
areas do believe they value their
properties very much but I would say
when it comes to solar that may be an
exception
yeah um to put a point in uh what Robert
and and Colleen raised you know
economically that the the larger Farm
economy or act economy that Joe's
talking about is brought up very very
frequently but on a dollar per acre
basis so worth paying 10 or 20 times
more tax revenue than an operation might
the only thing that can beat that would
be a warehouse or a data center in terms
of passes per acre taxes per square foot
and and frequently the the the placement
of solar on existing agriculture land
allows the agricultural activities to
continue on land that otherwise would
termine with residential development or
something else we seen that a lot with
the shared Sol of products that world
work lot ey they're often times popped
right in the middle of someone's Farm
and that tax revenue or that Revenue
allows the the pr the farm
exist I you know one thing I will
observe that I think though is you
mentioned residential I think in a lot
of these areas there's not a demand for
residential going on that same property
so is there any comment about Prim
Farmland this has been brought at me and
I do think I understand I understand
that that I'm farmland and I can see
that you know the exclusion of that
absolutely but is that really well
understood what P Farmland is I think
for a lot of our members yes it is and
they work a lot with Virginia coopertive
Extension you know I mentioned earlier
uh Virginia land and energy Navigator
that's another resource where you can
map these out on a county level uh and
put these things into
your Joe uh want to be respectful of
your time I one last question for you
and if anybody has any more important
questions cue them up in your mind now
um there some supervisors have taken me
aside and said that they really don't
like to consider this issue they're
solar fatigue they're tired of it some
have compared it to the cell tower issue
which predates me but it used to be a a
very controversial Topic at the local
level where folks were relying on
misinformation and acting viscerally
against cell towers that we now see
everywhere and recognize their
importance and that power was uh
redistributed away from localities uh
with the support of a lot of these
localities don't want to be deciding
these controversial topics at every
monthly Board of supervisor meeting some
supervisors have said that quietly I
don't want to deal with this anymore let
it be somebody else's problem I get it
but I'm not going to make a tough vote
that's going to cost me my reelection on
a solar project you all heard that
behind closed doors from
supervisors not that sentiment at all I
mean you do bring up the interesting
about the the cell towers and I was a
young planner back in the 90s working in
in a rural suburban locality and I I
remember those battles U one thing to
note though is localities still have the
authority to make decisions over Towers
above 50 feet in height so they still
retain that our members still want to
keep that uh and I think it's the same
thing for
Sol excellent any closing thoughts
questions
well je thank you uh we've invited many
folks from different counties supervisor
planning staff level and all of them
pointed us towards you so very nice to
have you join us today answering our
several questions and plotting the path
forward so really appreciate your time
yeah thank thank you all so nice to meet
some of you for the first time uh and
some of you hav't been for a while and
keep the conversation
going Greg I'll see you probably a
couple days couple
minutes just take a quick break my
laptop's about to run out
and over here yeah we'll lose the
meeting I
just
there's four ports in the floor
there all right on the
road all right folks we will continue on
I know some folks need to head out for
different meetings around
noon
retired I do get some
off it's always pretty much all right
folks we uh let's go ahead and move
forward with a consideration of the
minutes from the October meeting um then
we'll get into the discussion of our
2023 report um I saw one highlight at
the end I believe that was um my right
hand woman Miss web who has seconded the
motion thank you at the
adjournment last meeting are there any
edits or suggested changes to these
minutes from October
4 I'd entertain a motion to approve liit
not excellent moved and seconded all
those in favor please signify by saying
I all oppos all right minutes are
approved um folks should have received a
couple copies of the 2023 report uh
apologies for the radio silence on uh on
our end having not gotten final approval
to post these um
um our our 2023 report let me do my best
to summarize and then can
our anyone wants I just gr out the time
to know gotcha um are those the redline
versions yes yeah that would be really
helpful can and while you passed those
out let me just say we um did what
thought was the impossible and got this
report to um the energy department and
the administration on time this year in
the abbreviated uh version that the uh
Department asked for um submitted this
to um the governor's policy office or it
made its way up to the governor's policy
office and was returned to us with a
multitude of edits um many of the
recommendations were um were taken out
and uh many of
the the more summarizing aspects of of
our past meetings in 2023
changed um I did not feel comfortable uh
as chair to accept these changes without
bringing it back to the authority and of
course the authority voted unanimously
to approve these at our October 4th
meeting which was uh the result of a
very deliberative session so wanted to
bring this back up for everyone's
discussion and consideration today um
after
convers our point of contact at the the
um at the Attorney General's office who
helps us answer these questions as they
arise um spoke to him yesterday and has
not gotten back with a formal answer on
if we can submit our report to the
governor and to the leaders assembly
with or without the government policy
offices approval so
um I'd like to open it up as a
discussion here um
director Davis is there anything I'm
missing or any more color that you would
add yeah I mean I maybe just give a
little bit of an overview and uh first
Administration is very appreciative of
this body and the delivered work it does
um I gu to mention the first note on
there it's been practic and I was
talking to Al yesterday it's been
practic as far back as at least Tim K uh
that this that authorities and
commissions um the reports that come out
of them go up through the administration
for review by the governor's policy
office whoever that Governor happens to
be uh and it's going to be made and then
it comes back down uh this Authority is
under the department of energy which is
an executive branch it's not the
executive branch which then means that
all the work we do goes up I get
reviewed and then comes back down so the
the administration do believe that has
look at these the help make
recommendations to it um uh the Attorney
General's office I I think you may the
reason why you may not that call as far
as my understanding from a a
conversation I had last month um with
them formal opinions are taking three to
six months at this point uh obviously
they get backl a lot of a lot of
legislators ask about formal opinions
all the time um the concern about this
report there's just a couple concerns
that policy tried to edit in here um the
first is that um the we want the reports
as much as possible to be limited in
scope and not just in some cases the
regurgitation of the minutes um a lot of
parts here are uh are very detailed
they're in Prior minutes the purpose of
this hopefully is to make sure that they
get to the appropriate parties in the
general assembly who then read them and
are able to pull from them very quickly
what they I need to pull um and kind of
limit that in scope secondly we want to
appear that we're not picking winners
and losers to as much as possible not uh
isolate this to companies uh rather to
products initiatives uh technology but
not uh not um isolated to uh promote a
company or to disparage a different
company um we want to make sure that
when it comes to recommendations that
all sides are being heard before
recommendation uh I can tell you so
having the general simple experience I
can tell you how these reports are being
how they get used um in many cases
legislation is drafted from a report uh
that legislation one of 2500 pieces of
legislation six over 60 days that the
legislature will consider comes in front
of the committee someone will stand up
and say that this legislation was
recommended by ex commission um that
comes with a lot of perception uh the
first perception that things were vetted
out in other words all sides are being
heard the Govern not based on whether
the governor agrees or disagrees I think
any conversations that you have had with
policy you know that it's a very
open-minded uh position that the
Administration has on a lot of things
being discussed here but we want to make
sure that if a recommendation comes out
that it's truly been vetted by those
sides uh for example and here there's
some recommendations about local
governance um obviously a big concern
for everyone on this commission as well
as policy as well as other legislators
legislators um however prior to the
recommendations being made there was not
a chance for local government to be able
to come and present their side and and
the recommendations out of this body as
well as other bodies carry sometimes
significant weight on
um legislation introduced in the general
assembly so we want to make sure that
there's a time and a chance for all that
discussion to be had before making that
recommendation uh additionally um when a
couple of things uh I know that this was
done in a manner to get this in preface
very quickly and I appreciate that
obviously there's deadlines and we like
to make things as quick as possible I
understand in some of the minutes that
it was mentioned about 24 hours that it
just came out in front of and as some U
members had U raised the concern that
they hadn't had that long to look over
it um and we want to make sure that
everyone and the people around this
position some of them they're not
individuals that are members but their
companies are members and so we want to
make sure that when it's um that when we
look at a vote or we look at a body that
we assume that it's been deliberative
that everyone has had time to have that
conversation within their uh within the
respective bodies respective
organizations so so that's kind of a
number of reasons that we really kind of
wanted to go back through edit some of
this uh to make a little bit more
concise uh and also still kind of hold
the structure uh and I think a lot of
the um large uh Concepts that this body
had put forward I think that's what
policiy that have
done thank director
[Music]
um
what what do folks want to do it's
um a statutory question just like I I I
guess I don't understand
our um obligation to acceptance thats
that's my question too because it kind
of gutted all the recommendations I
don't see it in our enabling
legislation to accept the edits so the
the standard practice and tradition has
been that uh it has reports come out
here I think it's been referenced in
your October minutes that it references
that the report should be uh submitted
internally then externally by review and
then once external then it goes public
after approved externally uh by the
administration so do you have to allot
to accept this that may not be the case
uh however the the position of the
administration and inition has been that
the administration policy team does work
in collaboration uh for something before
it is
released appreciate that that's the
exact
question uh this R line is what the
administration policy team has suggest
and IT addresses a lot of the time steps
that I mentioned a little a few minut
ago this is the exact question that we
put to the Attorney General's office I
based on the conversation with our rep
Mr Lancing yesterday he did not expect
for to take a few months um he said that
he could have an answer very quickly but
the point for on it was out of town this
week
so um they they plan to just way in here
and based on my conversation with the
policy office they were completely fine
his recommendation to get get some
clarity from the from the Attorney
General on what this Ena legislation
does and where that final call lies um
you know I do want to say that our
Report Draft was very
deliberative um you we spent at least
two meetings going over it
and had quorums at both of those
meetings to do so and I will say also
that you know the authorities unique in
that companies are not represented here
these are individuals so if you leave
your job your seat on this Authority
remains um I I and I can respect that
except that I would say that the
majority of people here are here because
of their position the company and the
expertise they have inside that company
additionally I would not expect that
anyone sitting in this body would act
contrary to The Entity they personally
work for so exactly I completely agree
so when folks made this step forward to
V in the affirmative to pass this I
think that they did so in the
understanding that they perhaps had the
blessing of the organizations that they
represent
um I welcome to other folks thoughts but
I might entertain a couple different
options um we could we could vote to
accept the changes of the policy office
and submit this report which give the
energy Department the ability to post it
uh online we could do nothing and um
wait and see what the Attorney General's
office says and
um follow that recommendation when it's
made um
those are two potential steps forward
I'm open to any other thoughts from from
I guess another question I have is that
honor enabling legislation and addition
to sharing the report with the governor
it says the chairman of the house
committee on Appropriations the senate
committee on financing Appropriations
the house committee on labor and
commerce and the senate committee on
Commerce and labor and so what I'm
wondering is should we also share it
with those have we already have we
traditionally they're on the they're
addressed here on the but have have they
seen it no no and traditionally they do
not see until it's gone up the chains of
the
administration it's been standard
practice and tradition so it's possibly
another option to send our um agreed
upon report to them as
well maybe a third option I mean I truly
don't want to be antagonistic here I
just L of the work that the authority
put
together I think these could be very
helpful recommendations and honestly I
don't from the legislative perspective
you may find it differently but I don't
see you know that this report as it
currently stands would necessarily come
across as endorsed by the governor's
office because there are appointees here
from Democrats Republicans speakers
leaders in the Senate different
Governors so I so having sat in the
legis I can I can say that there's this
assumption and we all know that there
are different administrations that
appointed people on this body um and
maybe a lot of the more senior members
recognize that when they're sitting
commissions typically it's assumed that
when a board or commission endorses
something um that is that Governor's
border of commission that Governor
appoints as members now we all know that
there's T number differences that's not
espe some the newer members uh that's
not the thought I know and uh and Greg
this as well but um from time to time
you'll get a representative for lobbyist
who will come forward with the
commission as endorsed uh and the
perception that has been endorsed by
that Governor's Administration which is
not the case so sometimes there's a
little bit of a
misunderstanding uh and I think that is
maybe why tradition has been to send
this up through the administration um
one other option I know Mr chairman you
mentioned to uh third may be more of a
kind of a discussion quick discussion uh
at the appropriate time um you know a
couple people went off to discuss the
items of which ones you may have
concerned with I think we discussed that
there are some that makes sense um you
know we we we don't want to call out
entities uh and the spirit entities we
don't want to make broad sweeping
assumptions uh you know I know here you
know Virginians expect or what was it um
something about Virginia want and and
you don't want to make those broad
sweeping uh assumptions in there right
um when we talked about locality
barriers we know that there may be some
localities but we don't want it to the
statements to fill that in it comes as
all localities but at the same time you
you'd hate to put out something that
says this locality is not a good actor
and so it's those types of things that
at the detail level maybe don't belong
in here but at the 30,000 foot view we
recognize uh that this is a challenge
and may need to be addressed is that
type of wording that I think the policy
team is looking for uh as opposed to
more of the detail level that c that
certainties and I'm very minable to that
so A couple of the points that were
raised originally would be removing the
name of energy Department staff who make
presentations totally makes sense
removing the names of counties and
specific examples totally makes sense
but you know it also goes a step further
and takes away the recommendations that
those
those that the authority made that were
you know brought to light by some of
these different presentations so in
terms of changing the gram or changing
you know those references completely on
board um there have been other
reports issued by various
agencies that uh pulled forward
recommendations not of the authority not
representing the Administration but you
could say like you could say something
like presenters recommended or certain
presenters recommended the following I
don't know if that would be acceptable
or not but I what I hear you saying is
that there are recommendations that
aren't reflected that were made and they
may or may not have the concurrence of
everybody you know here or the
administration if it's a and those
you're saying are in the minutes right
um but there so there have been others
that have handled it as a so the stat
remind me of the statutory obligation is
the statutory obligation of the
authority to issue a report or um the
department and Harry had his hand up
when we get a break for him I mean I so
my thoughts kind of all over place on
this and I and I'm sympathetic to the
administration's um interest in this
document um you know I I can't help but
put my legislator hat on just like read
the code um which which the way I would
read it would not necessarily be in line
what we've seen come back Administration
so for example we aren't a state agency
we're not an executive branch agency
we're not an executive branch Authority
we're actually public we're actually a
political subdivision which is a which
is by definition an independent body
that is staffed by an executive branch
agency or Department Department enaging
um we don't don't report to the governor
we report to the administration the
Committees the the energy committees the
regulatory committees the finance
committees um I'm I'm actually surprised
at the that that the Administration has
any AC car in this di they the to me it
exists to be in in a stakeholder
document to make recommendations which
any one of the recipients of that can
put whatever weight behind it they would
like to and so that I'm very sympathetic
to is that there's been this course of
history where it has been treated more
like an Administration document that's
going to come forward with some kind of
stamp from the administration I do think
it's different so so I was on a Cod
Commission for years I'm cing you're on
housing commissioner whichever one you
were on and C commmission Housing
Commission um crime commission those
things are actually legislative
commissions that come forward with
actual bills we're not going fill just
going through we're just making some
recommendations conceptually and so I
think it's a little different than the
when someone stands up says this is a
crime commission bill for example but I
understand especially when we have 100%
of the general assembly apparently turns
over every year that not anybody in the
room sort of understands that Nuance um
and so I so just reg speaking I don't
feel like we have an
obligation to report back to the
administration what the administration
wants us to report back with I don't
think that's our job I do think we have
to take into account the
administration's feedback and um for it
to be as impactful as possible
ultimately if we want our
recommendations to to lead to something
we need all stakeholders including the
most important stakeholder which is the
administration um to have some um buy
into what we're recommended I think
process wise I actually think we went
through a very healthy process here I
realized that that some people did
review the proposed final version long
before the last meeting but we actually
went line by line through and edited
remember um several people in year had
some concerns um and that they TR I
think actually process wise did a really
good job I think we've done with our
statutory mandate is um I think the
Administration has made it clear that
they agreed and I actually don't care
about the sumary enforcement the
document that the stuff that says what
we did I don't care if that whole thing
went way of in fact that were
statutorily supposed to do it I don't
care about that and we just said look at
the minutes as far as I'm concerned
that's enough for that portion the real
question to me is do we make independent
do we make independent uh
recommendations that care nothing about
the administration do we make
recommendations that care only about the
administration or do we say you know
what the administration is a stakeholder
in this process we've now gotten
feedback from them let's reevaluate the
recommendations and give them whatever
way we choose to give them um
um I think legislatively you would have
every right to say thanks but no thanks
but legisl have that right I'm not sure
that's a good idea I think the concern
that I have at this point is we are
required by certain deadline by Statute
to have provided this not just the
administration which we had our deadline
but we were required to give this to
committee chairs and oober we haven't
done that so we are in violation of our
stat Mand and Rel litigating redrafting
this whole document is only going to put
further in violation that statutory
mandate and is going to make it
impossible for anything we do to be
relevant in this General sentage um and
so whatever we do I want to get done
like the next five minutes um and I
gotta
go sorry s sorry to back up but real
quick I'm new to the group and I was out
of the room when we did introductions
are
you
so I guess I want I hear you say there's
a pending question before the attorney
general who was signed to the group sure
what is the question that was posed to
them could you remind us of that very
simply I gave him the background but
very simply it's does the authority have
the right to create its own reports or
does the authority have the right to
create reports only of their govern's
policy office and that's what he's
looking into um
I don't think that's a hard question to
answer whe they the time to me it's not
a question when we have the authority to
do an independent one it's whether it's
to me the government the administration
a very important stakeholder how much
weight do we get the administration's
feedback and evalua what is the
appropriate I say some of it is a
credibility of commission not just
commission the whole when a
recommendation comes out um the
perception is that both sides are have
been consulted and that both sides have
been taken into account I think a number
of you all have had conversations with
myself or policy uh you know that they
are very open-minded to a number of of
ideas that uh many of you all have
talked about um but when a
recommendation comes out uh and I'll go
back to local government for example um
of how do we solve a problem but local
government hasn't been there toine until
today um you know it it kind of PS the
cart before the horse on the
recommendation either a it calls him The
credibility the recommendation uh or
undermines it uh and as whereas the
recommendation if you expect the
recommendation before that both sides
have been brought in front of the entity
to share both their concerns and then a
recommendation comes forward and that's
kind of some of the concern I know as
well I will say Joe was invited to the
meetings in September as well wasn't
able wasn't committed to come until
today well and I think
Dr inter
point one I don't think this at the both
sides issue I don't think there's a we
are one side and somebody else is some
other side I think there's a big group
of stakeholders the the code actually
anticipates those stakeholders it
directs that the membership may include
representative solar businesses solar
customers rable energy financing State
Lo government solar customers intu your
higher education have experience in
energy technology and solar research
academ it's not of list it's a list of
who may be on there I think it's a valid
policy question of should be legislation
may be clear local government should
have SE that this table um they're not
prevented doing so today but they aren't
the general assembly I was gone you
voted on the bill I was gone and I think
there was a very clear reason why local
government was not put
on I
was I was gone but but that's an
interesting policy question but as of
today they're not and and they're not by
Statute and they're not by appointment
and so all the people who could have
appointed local government this have
chosen not to do so again I not in the
camp I'm in the camp of we have the
illegal authority to disregard every
recommendation from the governor's
office and I'm in the camp that that is
a dumb thing to do because it's not it's
not helping for the authority and it's
not advancing the ball and it's not
acknowledging important stakehold let's
try to reach some consensus here I think
we could all agree that removing names
of Department staff and specific
counties is
acceptable um
that did that exist in the like the
summary of what we did section that
wasn't in the recommendations was it
just
sum
um and then is there consensus on
whether we want
to wait for the Attorney General opinion
or prove the the version of the edits
what are is that your PL Mr Christopher
there is a both option
perhaps The Authority recognizing some
of the comments that Greg just made
about whether or not the law allows it
to go forward with that going through
the review of the policy
office
um how effective is that going to be
compared to proving
it as requested with the Amendments or
something close to that so that the
administration could embrace
it and then regardless of the opinion
whatever whichever way that
goes work with what is work with the
Department of energy as liaison to
policy our
director obviously is tied in very
closely to policy um on anything that's
not in there that you still feel is an
important policy goal that you want to
get
across and in my discussion with the
policy it's not necessarily that they
disagree with this some of these
recommendations it's not this
year um or not the
form I think I think it's probably not
the form I I think is probably the
clarification I mean I'll give you an
example I think PA even left it on here
um about the new position in Department
of energy I mean I can I can tell we
just restructured the department of
energy um there although I will have
someone ever Seas storage I do not have
a position uh nor desire to have someone
who solely oversees that entity they
play into a much bigger role um I don't
know if Al or Ken were asked about how
we handle this but to have the
recommendation that department of energy
does this without asking what does
depart how does the department of energy
expect to handle this type of scenario
and that's where I think it becomes
bending things out I can tell you having
been a chairman for a couple years on
the committee
um these reports are only used by one
entity you will never see a legislator
get up and wave a commission or a
committee or report you won't see a
chairman do it you'll see a lobbyist Do
It um that's why it's so important to
have these right says that things have
been Ved they been vetted these I mean
chairman so I forgot I probably got 30
reports the before session started when
I shared education um I had to go
through them quickly I been out what I
needed they were great informational
things very crispy to the point of many
things but they were never brought up by
me or any of my members on my committee
they were only brought up by lobbyists
to support what they wanted to push
forward and in many cases that's very
helpful but the expectation is is that
the the commission the authority has
been able to truly V out something
amongst all the stakeholders that us as
legislators have the time to do uh which
is really why we have so many
commissions and authorities is to really
take that deep dive into an issue that
legislators can't do during the 60-day
session with 2500 bills and they have a
hard time doing it over the summer as
well because they all have jobs and so
that's why it's very important what you
all do but it's also very important that
there's a deep dive
into I think all of us have a you go get
down too and Har said end up for quite a
time now so you know here is yeah I
think we're going to lose our we lose
our we got to be
down um before we lose our quum does
anybody have a
motion coup people on line can just take
one or two on
line yeah very quickly hearing the the
concerns of um director Davis in regards
to the perception of what the authority
is and I think Greg's comments and
clarifying in fact what the particular
role that the authority plays that is my
perception having been appointed from a
Le by the legislature and not the
governor's office to this body that it
is a advisory body for all branches of
government and thus having one branch of
government necessarily window that
strikes me as difficult from a
precedential standpoint should we then
send a an should we send the original
version of the report to chairs and have
them vet it as well I mean this is this
just seems
problematic from a standpoint but it
might be helpful to include in The
Upfront language of this just simple
language that says this is the you know
these are the recommendations this is
the report of the commission it is not
representative necessarily of the
legislature or the governor's office in
that regard and thus to address that
point about the perception issue that I
think uh director Davis has raised very
reasonably is that a way that we can
begin to cut through this
knot paer Michael do you have anything
before we lose our
quum well I agree with what Harry just
said and I also
agree what Greg said so I'm I'm on board
that I do think we're a little bit
broader and I do have a concern with um
the edits that has posted so just want
to make sure that's right
registered so I'm just looking for some
direction here from The Authority before
we lose Greg
um is there a motion to do anything or
to not do anything what what are we to
do if we take no action where are we I
think we're in the hands of the Attorney
General if we take no action we have a
report that's been sent on to one of the
recipients of it but we going to send it
to the other ones
or s to the other ones with the caveat
that this was the authorities opinions
not those of the governors and the other
um bodies that that we report
to implementing that would probably
require the Department's approval of the
stat to send it or would you send it
to chair we all work for
somebody as of this mement it would
until there's either um policy comes out
and request to be sent or the ogag comes
out um it won't be S as
is iate and we'll uh wait to see what
the off the Attorney General says and I
think we have consensus is that you know
we'll remove those staff names and
County names that are problematic and
whatever if we either accept the version
that policy gave us or if oag says that
we can create armor reports we still do
that just out a respect and uh and good
presedent and we'll see where things go
but at least the governor's office read
this very thoughtfully and I really
appreciate your attendance at a couple
of these meetings and thank you going
through our reports that's have to
battle and um I don't think all this was
in vain so thank you I appreciate it you
yeah
um thank youg you know when we'll hear
back from the attorney general I've been
refreshing my email because he said he
could take care of it last night um the
are our Assistant Attorney General so
hopefully soon um I I expected it by the
start of the meeting
but
um folks I do want to mention in our
October 4th meeting we brainstormed
quite a few future presenters beo being
this priority data center Coalition
being a um someone we want to hear from
actually just hired a new Virginia
executive director um who may be able to
come and speak to us we have a lot of
ideas here in this October 4th um that
different folks brought up um one I want
to follow up with each of you who made
these recommendations for potential
speakers uh Robert you mentioned um
somebody talk about EVS Paul mentioned a
few other folks to include some EV
voices uh data
centers Greg offered that maybe someone
fromion could come to talk about that
long-term storage pilot lots of
different ideas are there any more ideas
that Authority members have now for our
next three quarterly meetings uh
otherwise we'll follow up with these and
ask everybody to do their part to you
know invite connections invite folks to
come
speak new
ideas what about someone who understands
the issues regarding pjm interconnection
with
form I could I can make some
recommendations for who to ask there
that' be a great place again
update
um yeah some from pjm or someone from
pjm
yeah was question may answer for you
sorry not a question just we wanted to
have someone from pjm give us an update
on interconnection reform that great
contact we have something for you
yeah does the authority ever do field
trips I think we have support for a
field trip sitting right next to you um
because the PGM I mean they they will
they would entertain a group like this
and it be would love to go to PGM again
yeah yeah it's cool I didn't a thr trip
there
on
withc no they
Pennsylvania couple hours West of DC not
the same distance yeah get you
track certainly open to it um
I mean likewise uh you know
interconnection perspective from
Dominion or one of the other utilities
uh would also be helpful um we are
facing interconnection challenges at
both federal and state level in Virginia
and uh I think you know we're kind of
actively talking to dominions especially
about uh a number of our projects that
sit in their que and some of the
challenges associated with storage and
some of the um potential changes that
they are contemplating both for their um
competitive solicitation that they run
on an annual basis uh and also just how
they study projects in general so
um that one's probably a little close
vow for a lot of us and more
concentrated State perspective but uh
pjm is is obviously important too and I
I think that that kind of like plays
nicely with the issue of land
constraints as well
because um you know you can have all
kinds of friendly localities and
friendly land owners but if there's no
interconnection service there then it
doesn't matter right so to me like land
and interconnection are the biggest
constraints that are going to kill a
project um and you got to have both and
kind of figuring out like where
those where those sort of um ideal kind
of development um regions fall within
the state is important to figuring out
like whether um the conditions actually
exist to meet the goals under the G
economy act
so so on the topic of
interconnection and Ken help me
recollect
this we discussed the interconnection
issues in April of last year but that
was just for
small distributed projects distribution
yeah okay so what Michael's proposing is
maybe just a larger discussion on
interconnection is there an office
within Dominion that we could reach out
to discuss do you have a contact we
certainly do let me chat with
our development director who's a forer
dominum employee and I bet he could
probably propose some some names and
provide some contact
information um and it might even be
helpful to do a little bit of a a panel
because there is you know an interface
between Dominion level interconnection
in pjm as well um there's this wholesale
Market participation agreement process
for distribution connected
projects and even you know there's even
projects that haven't gone through that
process say there is uh often uh a need
for Dominion to do effective system
studies or um also kind of request you
know outages on the transmission system
to enable distribution L inter
connection so I think uh getting all
those folks on a panel or something like
that would actually be quite helpful
okay well yeah please explore those
contacts yeah
sounds great' got a lot of folks to
reach out to we do have our meeting set
for the remainder of the year um
tentatively the following meetings have
space reserved in funer Assembly
Building um they were not able to
accommodate us today given session
begins tomorrow but we do have that ask
in for their new
facilities um not to say we couldn't
make a vote and change the location of a
Authority meeting or entertain a field
trip but that's kind of what we have on
on deck at the moment is it worth
considering an ad hoc meeting to revisit
the report after the AG weighs in uh we
can do that you can do that virtually
use one of your virtual meetings if you
want I think that'd be wise
um would
we it's a question for the authority if
we would need to take another vote
depending on that but let's keep that in
mind as an option I think that's a good
idea
yeah
um stay tuned on that we'll I'll let you
know as soon as we get a response
back is is there anything I mean to to
make forward progress I know we've lost
quum but um on finalization of the
report so that it actually can be
considered in this legislative session I
mean that the clock is um literally
ticking uh
should we take the administration's
edits and comments into consideration
and start generating revised version
with those that that it put in mind um
and then bring that to uh whatever ad
hoc meeting we may have subsequently
discuss it or
um or should we wait to hear from the
attorney general and then decide whether
we want to do that or not uh I don't
want spin wheels if it's not not
necessary but uh I think there's some
for recommendations in there and uh you
know the report is quite literally like
the only thing that this organization
does
yeah I I don't think the I think that
admin if they're going to accept any
changes they going to want to see the
exact ones they made that's what I read
me didn't sound like there was any
negotiation I think it
had policy office had it gotten all the
way up to the chief of staff to the
governor so I don't think that they're
going to want to do that again I think
they'll either want to see their
version take place and if the O say
that's what should happen fine I think
our hands are tied otherwise we've got
the report we've voted on
um was just my read of it but could be
wrong okay
I mean if there's a middle ground to
play nice I'm okay with that making
changes but yeah well I I do I do want
to say I think either way we remove the
names of staff and County names like
they reest did okay those
references cool
um I'll entertain a motion without a
quum to adjourn make that motion all
those in favor please say I can
oppos thank you all for making it out
today despite the rain really happy to
have the for I was going to be very
upset
love
you
be